No, it’s like you don’t understand the difference between claims by a plaintiff and the actual wording of the law.

Well, yeah. That really is about all this amounts to, since there’s no likelihood they’ll achieve their desired result.

Which is one of the prime reasons these troll cases don’t succeed.

For starters, genius, the Missouri abortion laws don’t “promote religions beliefs.”

Actually, no, there’s not, but your confusion is typical of people who don’t understand the Constitution and/or have no fundamental respect for its provisions.

If a woman wants to terminate a pregnancy at 20, 26, 30, or dare I say it 39+ weeks that’s her business

A whole new generation of women and girls are talking about equality — equal pay, equal protection from sexual assault, equal rights.

Oh. You’re one of those.

Which part of that is giving you trouble?

Citizens United wasn’t about “access to representatives.”

It was about a group that wanted to air a documentary that was critical of Hillary Clinton.

One of the practical upshots of the decision was the very real recognition that the government can’t regulate people’s political activity.

And yes- the use of one’s money…

They’re trolling. There’s really nothing more to it than that.

What possible complaint do you have against the Citizens United decision? A group or individual doesn’t forfeit their/his/her First Amendment rights simply because they have money and you disagree with them.

Just because you don’t like it, it doesn’t make it untrue.

“It basically means they filled out their paperwork properly and they are now a registered business,” she says.

The ACLU declined to assist them because their arguments have no basis in law.

So this is what happened when Twitter trolls move offline.

So... a bunch of women who’ve accused him of rape- while offering nothing in the way of proof- feel he’s defaming them.

That’s pretty fucking stupid.

Your weird sexual issues are your own business.

If you’re going to troll, try to be more clever, ‘k?