ext_79277 (
lafinjack.livejournal.com) wrote in
politicartoons2014-06-27 09:18 am
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
I said, a flip flop the flippie the flippie to the flip flip flop, you don't stop.
Oh hey look, it's the Supreme Court, AND ITS APPARENTLY 100% CONSTITUTIONAL BUFFER ZONE. pic.twitter.com/cDhsdxdGXq — ClinicEscort (@ClinicEscort) June 26, 2014
1981: fixed buffer zones not constitutional.
1983: fixed buffer zones constitutional.
1997: floating buffer zones (around patients and staff) unconstitutional, fixed buffer zones constitutional.
2000: floating buffer zones now constitutional too.
2004: more fixed buffer zones constitutional.
2009: fixed buffer zones still constitutional.
2012: really big fixed buffers now legal
2013: fixed buffer zones remain constitutional.
2014: selective fixed buffer zones now unconstitutional.
no subject
no subject
Using my Honorary Right Wing Troll Card...
no subject
Swells
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
Never mind, it's your turn in the barrel tomorrow.
no subject
I've been screaming about this since Thursday. It's the "unanimous" part that really gets me. ALL of them? REALLY? Sonja, Elena, and Ruth--I am VERY disappoint. I expect this kind of crap out of some of your colleagues, but et tu? You girls should all be ashamed of yourselves.
And while I'm here, here's another view of the SCOTUS buffer zone, compared to the one they just struck down:
no subject
Of course, this does not make up for their Thursday shenanigans. BAD justices!