Inevitable: Kagan confirmed, 63-37; Video: Sessions’s floor speech added
posted at 4:25 pm on August 5, 2010 by Allahpundit
Let’s see which Republicans are getting primaried!
Five Republicans – Maine Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, South Carolina’s Lindsey Graham, retiring Sen. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, and Indiana’s Richard Lugar – have broken with their party to back Kagan. They’ve argued that partisanship should play no role in debates over the Supreme Court and have called Obama’s nominee qualified.
Still, it was clear that unlike in past decades – when high court nominees enjoyed the support of large majorities on both sides – party politics was driving the debate and vote on Kagan, much as it did last year when the Senate considered Obama’s first pick, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, and former President George W. Bush’s two nominees, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito.
Lugar and Snowe are both up in 2012. So is Ben Nelson, the lone Democratic no vote, who’s so desperate to undo the political damage from the Cornhusker Kickback that he might as well go ahead and switch parties already. Truth be told, though, the final margin here was kabuki in the same way that the final votes on ObamaCare were kabuki: Once the margin needed for passage was secured, everyone else was free to vote however they needed to in order to protect themselves at the polls. The GOP clearly didn’t want to risk a filibuster on someone as bland as Kagan, preferring to preserve the novelty of the nuclear option for maximum effect in case The One nominates a bombthrower next time, so people like Scott Brown got to vote no today even though I bet he would have been a yes had Reid really needed him. Speaking of which, why did Scotty B. vote no? Looks like he’s more worried about a tea-party primary challenge at this point than he is about pissing off centrist Massachusetts Dems in the general. Eeenteresting.
With Stevens gone, the oldest justice on the Court now is Ginsburg at 77. Which means it might be awhile yet before we get a truly atomic confirmation hearing involving The One trying to replace a Republican appointee. Apres Ruth, le deluge.
Update: Here’s Sessions’s last stand. He’s … not a Kagan fan.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
99% of the time it has nothing to do with the US Constitution. What it has to do with is applying existing case law and statutes to the particular case. Activist judges disregard or overrule existing case law.
Jimbo3 on August 5, 2010 at 4:57 PM
The last time Lugar ran for reelection he got 87% of the vote here in Indiana.
Terrye on August 5, 2010 at 4:57 PM
The leadership in the republican party is spineless! If they had any cohones at all the would have filibustered her and Sotomayor as well.
MCGIRV on August 5, 2010 at 4:57 PM
X eleventybazillion!!1!!11!!!
NY Conservative on August 5, 2010 at 4:57 PM
At least we can now cover up that eye sore with a big black robe.
tommylotto on August 5, 2010 at 4:58 PM
*BZZZZZZT*
I’m sorry, but that’s an incorrect answer, thanks for playing.
“Both sides” do not do that “a lot”. “One side” (hint: the side that argues that the Constitution is a ‘living breathing document’, that occassionally references foreign law, etc.) does it routinely, and if/when the other does, it’s quite rare comparitively.
Have any other feeble responses?
Midas on August 5, 2010 at 4:58 PM
Bush appointees: Roberts and Alito–intellectual heavyweights.
Obama appointees: Sotomayor and Kagan–intellectual lightweights, but happen to be the right identity and ideology for far left Obama.
My thanks to swing voters who voted for Obama. Enjoy the consequences of his election.
BuckeyeSam on August 5, 2010 at 4:58 PM
Why didn’t the Republicans find someone to claim Kagan was sexually harassing them and talking about pubic hairs on their Coke cans?
darwin on August 5, 2010 at 4:58 PM
And it looks like her first case will be the Prop 8 appeal.
Coincidence? I think not!
rockmom on August 5, 2010 at 4:59 PM
canopfor on August 5, 2010 at 4:53 PM
=======================
No, it is not right. Republicans do not control the committees.
Terrye on August 5, 2010 at 4:55 PM
Terrye: Yes,you’ve got a point there,okay,Elections have
consquences then!!:)
canopfor on August 5, 2010 at 4:59 PM
A travesty
Viper1 on August 5, 2010 at 4:59 PM
Yeah, they do. If you want a recent example, check out Scalia’s heartwarming embrace of substantive due process in order to apply the 2nd amendment to the states.
crr6 on August 5, 2010 at 5:00 PM
Excellent. If you hear it on the radio email Ed and ask for my contact info.
Akzed on August 5, 2010 at 5:00 PM
He should have just quoted the same portion of the Constitution that provides the right to kill fetuses wantonly, eh Che?
Akzed on August 5, 2010 at 5:01 PM
Damn she’s hot…
wait, this is still the Eva Mendes thread right?
KeepOhioRed on August 5, 2010 at 5:02 PM
Applying case law is generally the problem. If the case law upon which the ruling is based was unconstitutional to begin with, it makes no difference wether they’re following it – it’s still wrong. If a case gets all the way to the supreme court it shouldn’t be simply applying case law, it should be applying the constitution. Activist judges are the judges that consider anything but the constitutionality of the law. Making up rights and fitting their sensibility to the law rather than considering the law reasonably and logically in strict context of the constitution is judicial activism – whether I like the result or not.
WashingtonsWake on August 5, 2010 at 5:02 PM
You should try reading a law book sometime. or hell, even just the Constitution.
Guardian on August 5, 2010 at 5:04 PM
Pete Stark has pretty much summed up the constitutional philosophy of the left. I’m pretty Kagen and Stark are twins.
WashingtonsWake on August 5, 2010 at 5:05 PM
Gee, you get awfully quiet when someone calls you on your sham-career. How do you sleep at night, liar?
crr6 on August 5, 2010 at 5:06 PM
LMAO. You mean….substantive due proces?
lololololololol
crr6 on August 5, 2010 at 5:06 PM
The only true question they could have asked her at the hearings is ‘Would you put on a black robe now for the audience so they can see how you will look as Justice Kagan?’
That is how preordained this decision was.
GnuBreed on August 5, 2010 at 4:34 PM
Exactly.
cynccook on August 5, 2010 at 5:07 PM
Bwahahahaha!
Major pwnage on you Chuckie Cheese. Do they still make you wear the rat costume? Lol.
Guardian on August 5, 2010 at 5:07 PM
Think TNA will save her pic’s?
chickasaw42 on August 5, 2010 at 5:08 PM
Hey,
Don’t stop there. Why don’t you thank the primary voters that decided a joke candidate would be fun to run instead of one that had a chance of winning? John McCain was an ‘f… you’ candidate. No crossover appeal, no charisma, and despised by people in his own party. Yeah, great idea, let’s play the towel boy in the electoral Super Bowl. You’re right, elections do have consequences. Try to keep that in mind next time you decide to run some hack that hates his own party instead of a figure that can inspire and lead. Enjoy the bed that Captain Amnesty made for you.
austinnelly on August 5, 2010 at 5:09 PM
Wrong. An activist judge is one who casts about for legal justifications for previously-held political opinions, like Susan Bolton.
ddrintn on August 5, 2010 at 5:09 PM
And it looks like her first case will be the Prop 8 appeal.
Coincidence? I think not!
rockmom on August 5, 2010 at 4:59 PM
rockmom:Bingo!!!!!!!:)
canopfor on August 5, 2010 at 5:10 PM
Another dream destroyed…story of my life.
Skandia Recluse on August 5, 2010 at 5:10 PM
Unfortunately for you, that book was absolutely correct, and was the only book on that case that was objective.
The 2000 Florida Supreme Court’s first “decision” trying to steal the election for Gore was kicked back to them by a 9-0 SCOTUS vote. SCOTUS asked them to try again.
When they “re-wrote” it, their own Chief Justice dissented, correctly predicting that his colleague’s Judicial Activism would again be rejected by SCOTUS. It was, 7-2.
Another Activist Judge ignored the will of the voters of Massachusetts and legalized gay marriage.
You’re dismissed.
Del Dolemonte on August 5, 2010 at 5:11 PM
So how did he win? Because none of the others were compelling either.
ddrintn on August 5, 2010 at 5:11 PM
Looks like I touched a nerve.
Has Guardian told anyone else about his sham career? In case you guys have missed it, he once admitted that he puts an engineering degree on his resume, even though he never received one. It’s the only way he can get work.
What a guy!
crr6 on August 5, 2010 at 5:11 PM
99.9% of the time the question of whether a law violates the US Consitution is not even an issue.
Jimbo3 on August 5, 2010 at 5:12 PM
CR66 is dissed all the time but never missed.
Guardian on August 5, 2010 at 5:12 PM
Dude, I explicitly said don’t ramble about some 200 election boo you’ve read. Epic reading comp fail, Del.
crr6 on August 5, 2010 at 5:12 PM
Such is the way with oppressive-Democrat politics.
Colbyjack on August 5, 2010 at 5:13 PM
Silly rethuglican, the Constitution isn’t a picture book.
;D
Laura in Maryland on August 5, 2010 at 5:14 PM
Damn she’s hot…
wait, this is still the Eva Mendes thread right?
KeepOhioRed on August 5, 2010 at 5:02 PM
KeepOhioRed: About as hot as a Ford 427 Shotgun,
or a 429 Super Cobra engine!!
canopfor on August 5, 2010 at 5:14 PM
It’s a useful idiot, best to treat it as such.
darwin on August 5, 2010 at 5:14 PM
Nothing like having a perjurer on the SCOTUS. Perhaps she’ll be able to give further insight to ‘social justice’ laws.
GarandFan on August 5, 2010 at 5:15 PM
How about everyone look into the new Miranda rights and what the wise Latina said about changing it.
Kagan will be 10 times worse.
upinak on August 5, 2010 at 5:15 PM
Awwwww! Is that what has your panties in a bunch? Poor little feller. If you think that was bad you should see how much I get paid to sit here and antagonize you.
Guardian on August 5, 2010 at 5:16 PM
Well, if that’s the case, I guess both of you bullet heads should prepare for an ‘activist’ election in a couple of months.
BigWyo on August 5, 2010 at 5:16 PM
But only Your Side has used activist Justices who tried re-writing settled Florida election laws after the election had already taken place in order to affect the outcome of a Presidential Election in favor of the candidate from their own political party.
That’s not something I would want to be proud of. Why are you?
Del Dolemonte on August 5, 2010 at 5:16 PM
No, you mention that enough for all of us.
ddrintn on August 5, 2010 at 5:16 PM
Silly rethuglican, the Constitution isn’t a picture book.
;D
Laura in Maryland on August 5, 2010 at 5:14 PM
Laura in Maryland: Me thinks,crr6 be finger painting!!:)
canopfor on August 5, 2010 at 5:18 PM
How to Dethrone the Imperial Judiciary
A Role for the People in Judicial Selection:
Rae on August 5, 2010 at 5:18 PM
^^^
Uh … speaking of “sham” careers … crr6 is a progressive who wants to be a lawyer. Now everyone who can add two and two knows that progressives and law don’t mix.
It’s the biggest sham career out there. Pretending you’re a lawyer when in reality all they are is legal muscle men for the people with the brains.
darwin on August 5, 2010 at 5:19 PM
1. Working as an associate with a law firm does not a Supreme Court Justice make – although good luck with the interview; summer? try more than one firm.
2. Friendly (stress friendly) advice. You might not want to advertise to the world where you’re interviewing. Your trail of legal incompetence on these threads could eventually come back to haunt you.
Firefly_76 on August 5, 2010 at 5:19 PM
Insulting me shows you lost the argument.
Sorry, Dear, but I did read and comprehend your simple request. The fact you made it is proof that you are afraid to admit that I am right about those Activists Justices on the Florida Supreme Court, all of whom were Democrats.
If you can find me a similar example with a Supreme Court at the State or Federal level comprised of all members of the Republican Party trying to do the same thing, I will stop laughing at you.
Del Dolemonte on August 5, 2010 at 5:19 PM
As much as I dislike Kagan, this is really a non-issue. Obama’s leftist pics are replacing leftists so its neutral in the balance of the courts. If anything, the liberal side will be weaker because neither Sotomeyer or Kagan will have much influence. This appointment was not worth fighting and expending political capital for no gain. Instead, we should hope that by the time Kennedy retires, 0bama is out of office. If not, then that would be the time to fight.
Wolftech on August 5, 2010 at 5:19 PM
Projection?
Chip on August 5, 2010 at 5:19 PM
Wow, you seem downright proud of your scuminess! Why not out yourself? I’d LOVE to let some local businesses in your area know who they’ve been dealing with.
crr6 on August 5, 2010 at 5:20 PM
When John Roberts went before the committee the democrats bashed him- when Samuel Alito went before the committee they bashed him so bad that his wife left the hearing room in tears, they beat up and still do at every chance-Clarence Thomas, which Joe Biden was Chairman at that time, they still bash Antonin Scalia and we all remember what Ted (the drunk) Kennedy did to Judge Bork. It was so bad that the term Bork bashing became a saying. Two unqualified women before the committee, the democrats and wantbe democrat Graham fell over themselves and gave them both a pass. No tough questions at all. The 5 Republicans who voted for this women should be run out of the GOP. All five have voted against their party many times. The most unqualified President nominates two unqualified women.
flintstone on August 5, 2010 at 5:20 PM
And if you weren’t such a libtard with his cranium firmly inserted in his rectum, you would realize that maybe that is a problem.
The fact that not all laws are checked against the Constitution is why our republic is dying.
Wolftech on August 5, 2010 at 5:22 PM
I can’t wait for the ‘Law of Unintended Consequences’ for this one…
… Should be a hoot!
Seven Percent Solution on August 5, 2010 at 5:22 PM
Williams and Connelly (sic) or Wilmer Cutler and Pickering? I’m assuming the former.
Jimbo3 on August 5, 2010 at 5:22 PM
You’re a progressive. There is no scum lower than that … and come to think of it, you seem quite proud of it.
darwin on August 5, 2010 at 5:22 PM
I hear Scott Brown voted against her citing the case of Goose V. Gander
Dave_d on August 5, 2010 at 5:22 PM
That’s pretty good, coming from a putative lib law student.
ddrintn on August 5, 2010 at 5:23 PM
@ crr6 on August 5, 2010 at 5:12 PM
You can babbble on about ‘substantive due process’ all you like, but it is far from settled doctrine. Let’s wait and see what happens when the Prop 8 appeal makes its way to the USSC…Judges like Vaughn Walker (his own vested — sequined and see-through mesh, no doubt — interests in this case )will do nothing other than to further raise the issue of an activist judiciary openly usurping the role of the legislative. Go and read some of the comments here. See what I mean? Seems like there’s about 7 or so million people in California who don’t seem to appreciate an ‘activist’ judge overruling their votes! LOL. All we need is one more justice like Thomas or Scalia, and ‘substantive due process’ will be nothing more than a quaint footnote in a Con Law textbook.
cynccook on August 5, 2010 at 5:23 PM
State laws have no reason to be checked against the US Constitution except in the weirdest situations. Most court cases involve state laws.
Jimbo3 on August 5, 2010 at 5:24 PM
Thanks. Yeah, I bid for a position as a 2L SA. Anyway, my school does OCI through a blind lottery system. You bid for a bunch of firms, ranked by preference, the school takes everyones bids together and runs a lottery, and then you’re assigned a schedule of interviews. Don’t worry, I’m interviewing with many firms.
Yeah, saying for months that the AZ law is preempted by federal law could REALLY come back to bite me.
; )
crr6 on August 5, 2010 at 5:24 PM
Thanks again, 52 percenters.
For the next 2 decades or so, this will be reminded on your heads every day.
Sir Napsalot on August 5, 2010 at 5:25 PM
Williams and Connolly. Not Wilmer Cutler, and not White and Case (I’d never bid on them after all the layoffs).
crr6 on August 5, 2010 at 5:25 PM
Well, in CRR6′s defense, it is an online law school, so you cant expect much in the way of redeeming social value.
Oh. Wait. That applies to most all lawyers.
And Progressives.
And Liberals.
And Journalist (and I have a degree in Journalism. Went into IT after I realized how far left it was… and that was 17 years ago)
And Hollywood…
Wolftech on August 5, 2010 at 5:27 PM
Even state laws should be checked against the State and US Constitution.
Wolftech on August 5, 2010 at 5:28 PM
Substantive due process is a settled doctrine. What’s not settled is how it is to be applied in all cases. And by my count you’d need two more judges like Thomas or Scalia, even assuming that Roberts in on your side.
Jimbo3 on August 5, 2010 at 5:29 PM
If it’s an intellectual fight, Alito would cream her. If it’s a fist fight, Kagan might take him. She looks… sturdy.
Monica on August 5, 2010 at 5:30 PM
Substantive due process is a settled doctrine. What’s not settled is how it is to be applied in all cases. And by my count you’d need two more judges like Thomas or Scalia, even assuming that Roberts in on your side.
Jimbo3 on August 5, 2010 at 5:29 PM
Really? We’ll see how settled — and by settled, I mean binding — it is if the Court gains a conservative majority.
cynccook on August 5, 2010 at 5:31 PM
From my mind to his lips. Stay on ‘em Jeff!
AUINSC on August 5, 2010 at 5:31 PM
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WARNING !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
———————————————————-
There appears to be some scuttlebutt onboard the USS Hot Air
be advised that there are SCUMMY TROLLS,covered in SCUM,talk
ing about SCUMMINESS,
YOU INDIVIDUALS KNOW WHO YOU ARE,
do not talk,or deal with the SCUM,
toss’em over da side,and ask questions later!
===============================================
That is all,resume back to your Battle Commenting Stations!
canopfor on August 5, 2010 at 5:32 PM
crr6 on August 5, 2010 at 5:24 PM
I meant summer at more than one firm – if you can.
Virginia – Count it! Besides, you never know if an interviewer or hiring partner is a *gasp* closet conservative :-)
Firefly_76 on August 5, 2010 at 5:33 PM
Kagan has practiced law for just three years…she will be planning our lives for decades to come. Wow!
d1carter on August 5, 2010 at 5:35 PM
So you’re saying Obama should have ignored Arizona?
darwin on August 5, 2010 at 5:36 PM
heh :)
cmsinaz on August 5, 2010 at 5:41 PM
There’s one and only one reason this woman was put on the Supreme Court, and that was to convince Anthony Kennedy to find a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. Obama gets what he really wants and delivers for one of his major voting blocs, without having his fingerprints on it at all and without losing his other major voting bloc, traditional black voters.
rockmom on August 5, 2010 at 5:42 PM
Next up…Obama hires the dean of the Harvard Business School to run General Motors! What could go wrong?
rockmom on August 5, 2010 at 5:44 PM
This.
dakine on August 5, 2010 at 5:45 PM
Virginia – Count it! Besides, you never know if an interviewer or hiring partner is a *gasp* closet conservative :-)
Firefly_76 on August 5, 2010 at 5:33 PM
Here’s a little update for our would-be barrister (cur6)….law profs may all be liberal, law partners at successful firms are not. If you do (somehow) get a job at a large firm, you’d better start preparing to suck up to lots and lots of conservative Republicans, because guess what? In the real world, they’re the ones with the money to hire the big firms. But cheer up, the public defender’s office is usually hiring, if you really want to walk the walk and not just talk the talk. With all your liberal convictions, I am sure you’d much rather go forth and defend the little guy. You tell ‘the man’ where to stick his 6 figure offer!
cynccook on August 5, 2010 at 5:46 PM
Does that useless creature have any other kind? Yes, that was rhetorical!
Bizarro No. 1 on August 5, 2010 at 5:47 PM
Oh yeah, you’re right on the cusp of that SCOTUS nomination. Ahahaha.
Yeah, the Yankees called me to DH, but I turned them down; too much on my plate right now.
Good Solid B-Plus on August 5, 2010 at 5:55 PM
crr6, I know Kagan’s nomination makes it seem like one only need be an ugly lesbian to get on the SCOTUS, but it’s a bit more complicated.
Good Solid B-Plus on August 5, 2010 at 5:57 PM
Why not do the same? We can print out some choice posts of yours and send them to all those firms you’re interviewing with. Right after you tell us which “Federal Judge” you clerked for, no doubt.
But you’d never do any of that because you’re an anonymous scumbag bomb tosser. :)
Good Solid B-Plus on August 5, 2010 at 6:01 PM
Actually, that seems to be a new trend for SCOTUS and many positions in the administration as well.
Monica on August 5, 2010 at 6:02 PM
That’s where I see the silver lining in all of this. The person Barry selected would be obviously vote the liberal line just as Stephens would have. So no difference there. The only differentiating factor between candidates is how often they could convince other justices to their side of the fence. Given she has little experience with it and no history of being a judge I really doubt Kennedy will listen much to her arguments. (Since as far as he’s concerned she’s a novice.) Imagine what would happen if Barry found a liberal slanted jurist that knew what they were doing and could lean on years of judicial experience to add weight to their convictions?
Dave_d on August 5, 2010 at 6:03 PM
Graham must go.
maverick muse on August 5, 2010 at 6:05 PM
This is another sad day in US history.
No matter what normal, fair mihded US citizens wish they are stabbed in the back by the powers that be, in this case, judges.
The Intolerant, selfish, radical, militant homosexuals and their enablers have once again stuck their thumb in the eye of the citizenry and continue to push their sodomy and sexual deviancy on the nation.
Now we see an unqualified leftist ethnoecntric, sex-centric raadical being given the keys to the kingdom. Her position in the Supreme Court will further deteriorate the fabric of our nation, its freedoms, its values, its strength, its mores, and its exceptionalism.
We will be a weaker, more out-of-order nation now as a result of this.
William2006 on August 5, 2010 at 6:06 PM
True enough. If BHO were in power forever, I’d actually give pretty good odds on crr getting some sort of position in the administration. She’s enough of an ideological shill that she’ll fit right in with the other soulless monsters.
Good Solid B-Plus on August 5, 2010 at 6:07 PM
Air born contagion.
maverick muse on August 5, 2010 at 6:09 PM
Some one posted that the Father Bush appointed Judge Walker to the bench,which he did. He also nominated and he was confirmed was Judge David Souter. Souter turned out to be one of the biggest liberals on the Court. He sure knew how to pick them.
flintstone on August 5, 2010 at 6:10 PM
Chickenshit post. Lame and intellectually lazy.
dakine on August 5, 2010 at 6:10 PM
How’s his popularity these days, uninhibited?
maverick muse on August 5, 2010 at 6:11 PM
flintstone on August 5, 2010 at 6:10 PM
REAGAN nominated Judge Walker, and George H.W. Bush had her confirmed.
This isn’t the only liberal female judge that Reagan nominated. He placed Sandra Day OConner into the SCOTUS.
Think twice about the full meaning of “Reagan Conservative”. Yes, he was a wonderfully personable American statesman. But when he made errors, they were gigantic. For instance, after his assassination attempt, he did NOTHING to protect gun rights, rather the opposite.
maverick muse on August 5, 2010 at 6:14 PM
So I’m assuming you have a nice intellectually engaging post on the merits of crr6′s nomination to the SCOTUS?
Please, I’m all ears.
Good Solid B-Plus on August 5, 2010 at 6:15 PM
Once again, thanks to the 33% of Americans who stayed home from the polls in November of 2008, many of them to “teach the Republicans and John McCain a lesson”.
Idiots, one and all. Almost as stupid at the record 70% of high school dropouts who voted for O’bama.
Del Dolemonte on August 5, 2010 at 4:34 PM
I did not stay home; however, McCain with his past record of voting would not have been the leader that you obviously have been led to believe.
mobydutch on August 5, 2010 at 6:17 PM
Oh, yeah I haven’t really thought about that. I know some firms let you split your summer, but I think they generally only allow you to do that if the other half is a public interest or governmental position (like DOJ SLIP or something). Frankly, I’m just focused on getting a market rate SA now. The rest would just be icing on the cake.
Heh. Yeah, no interviews in VA. Our CSO did tell us to stay away from politics in interviews though, and for good reason.
Most of those are still liberal. In fact, a lot of law profs were previously partners at big firms.
crr6 on August 5, 2010 at 6:20 PM
Reagan was very pro-gay. He came from Hollywood, remember. He had dozens of gays in his Administration, and did even when he was Governor of California back in the 1970s. There is actually an informal associaton of gay former Reagan appointees. So nobody should be surprised that some of the judges he appointed are gay.
Schwarzenegger has a lot of gays in his Administration, too, as did Pete Wilson and even George Deukmejian. You all have no idea how many gay Republicans there are. especially in California. That’s a big reason why Arnold didn’t want to defend Prop. 8.
rockmom on August 5, 2010 at 6:21 PM
OH NO!!!!!
BigWyo on August 5, 2010 at 6:23 PM
Please define a lot.
BuckeyeSam on August 5, 2010 at 6:23 PM
Don’t be a tool B Plus…you know exactly what you were doing.
dakine on August 5, 2010 at 6:24 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »