When the Supreme Court makes a ruling unpopular with liberals, liberals denounce the ruling, blaming conservative judges for allegedly being corrupt.
Like Hillary Clinton, the lady who wants to be President.
So, if Hillary can imply corruption on the part of a conservative judge, then it's ok to do so to judges who are considered as being of the same ideological bent as she, in other words, radically extreme leftwing.
Roe vs. Wade, which Hillary mentions, was clearly a corrupt leftwing decision, in the opinion of many, yet Hillary cites it as if it was the Word of God Himself and therefore beyond question. Right after saying, naming specifically just two of the SCOC Judges: "It is precisely this erosion of our constitutional rights that I warned against when I opposed the nominations of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito".
Well, Hillary, honeybunch, I'd say that Democrat-nominated judges have eroded Americans' constitutional rights while creating new exclusive rights for special interest groups, so Americans needn't take any lectures from you, nor bother casting a vote for you or any Democrat, for that matter.
I recommend you start talking about matters that matter to all Americans and stop speaking almost exclusively as to the wishes of the various radically extreme special interests of the ultra-far left and the neoMarxist international socialists.
Besides, it would seem that when folks like the moonbat Hillary speak arrogantly of a "woman's right to choose", they neglect to mention that they essentially believe in this supposed "right to choose" only with respect to the commission of infanticide. All other rights are subject to the momentary whims of leftists like Hillary and are frequently eroded or even taken away completely by leftists like Hillary.
And this radically extreme leftist named Hillary Clinton wants to be President to erode whatever rights she deems need eroding while creating new ones for the very few whose votes she believes she can get a lock on by simply using her iron fists to grant them whatever they want while tyrannizing and oppressing those who don't support her.
Hillary Clinton would be good for very few and bad for most.
Just like any contemporary Democrat.
Don't vote Hillary for President.
This just in:
As recently as February, Clinton had a favorable rating of 58 percent. But in the new poll completed April 15, her favorable rating stood at just 45 percent, while 52 percent of respondents said they have an unfavorable view of Clinton.
"The recent decline in her image appears to be broad-based, as it is evident among most key subgroups,” Gallup noted.
She's now worse off than the mysterious, unknown Obama fellow and the fart-headed $400-a-haircut, narcississtic poofter sissyboy Edwards:
Democratic rivals Barack Obama and John Edwards both had favorable ratings of 52 percent and unfavorable ratings of only 30 percent, according to the poll results reported in Editor & Publisher.
Hmm... these numbers really don't do anything for the hope of the Demmies, unless they choose to pretend that Americans actually think they're a legitimate, serious political party rather than a puppet of uberleftwing multibillionaire Christianophobe George Soros and of both national and international extremist interests.
Look, all Americans need to do is choose a good, truly-conservative, unimpeachably patriotic Republican, such as my current favorite, Fred Thompson, or Tom Tancredo or Duncan Hunter, for Presidential Candidate and make sure we get out the mainstream (that means "conservative") vote to elect him and Republican Representatives to ensure that the likes of Speaker Nasty Nancy Pelosi cannot continue to erode Americans' rights with gleeful impunity and to ensure that America will defend herself against all enemies, both foreign and domestic.
If Canada can (finally) have a real conservative prime minister who stands up for his country, stands up to the left and stands up to evil no matter what the backlash, so can Americans have a real conservative president.