Video: Will two big losses at the Supreme Court damage Obama?

posted at 3:21 pm on April 30, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

The Obama administration awaits two key rulings from the Supreme Court, which will almost certainly come at the end of their term in June.  The White House played defense on their key legislative victory, ObamaCare, and went on offense against Arizona’s immigration-enforcement law.  Neither set of oral arguments went well for Team Obama, and the White House is expected to lose at least some ground on both.  Will that become a political liability in the fall for Barack Obama’s re-election efforts — or a boon?  Brit Hume told the Fox News Sunday roundtable that two losses would damage Obama, and that it’s folly to argue otherwise:

“And I think — I don’t think there is some pre-cushioned bank shot where people argue, ‘Well, it would take the issue off of the table and that would be good for him,’ and so forth. I don’t buy that. I think that the Arizona law may be in even more trouble with the court than the health care law. I don’t think it is as important, or is as essential as the health care law. But I don’t think it would help him either to have his position in the enforcement of the immigration laws resisted by the Supreme Court. It is embarrassing, and it also gives that Arizona law a kind of a boost in the public’s imagination.”

While some analysts have said a ruling against Obama on health care could give Obama a fresh start for the upcoming presidential campaign, Hume isn’t buying that. He cited the much higher approval rating of the Supreme Court than the executive or legislative branches.

“The Supreme Court now enjoys, in the public’s imagination, higher ratings than any other branch of government. Now the Supreme Court is more controversial than perhaps it once was … but it has positive approval ratings which in Washington is remarkable,” he said. “I don’t think this president comes out well if he is in a pitched battle of some kind, or picks one with one institution in town that people mostly respect — particularly after it struck down couple of positions that he has taken that are central to his outlook.”

Actually, I think that just the mere existence of these two cases help the GOP.  If Obama loses both cases, Republicans can use it to paint Obama and his agenda as extreme and at odds with the Constitution.  If Obama wins both cases, he gains a little, but Republicans can then argue that nothing short of removing Obama from office, as well as many of his Democratic colleagues, will stop his unpopular agenda from going forward.  Either way, Mitt Romney has a perfect opportunity to remind everyone of the power to appoint Supreme Court justices in the next four years as a means to incentivize still-reluctant conservatives to rally to his campaign.

Or, as I like to put it on my show, consider these frightening five words when insisting that voting for Romney makes no change: Supreme Court Justice Eric Holder.  Feel free to replace Holder with Kathleen Sebelius or any other Obama administration figure one prefers.  There will be two or three openings in the next four years, and the person in the White House gets to make those decisions.  That’s the real power of these cases, and to some extent the eventual decisions aren’t entirely relevant to its strength.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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

..anyone following Britt Hume’s recent commentary on the various FN panels will see/hear some pretty interesting dissection of Obama’s attempt at re-election. He has regularly taken down some of the other panel members’ over-exuberance at the prospect of the LightBringer getting a re-up.

The War Planner on April 30, 2012 at 3:25 PM

You don’t really think that negative rulings by the Supremes would have any effect on the cattle who would vote for Stalin or Hitler, as long as either was nurturing them – do you?

OhEssYouCowboys on April 30, 2012 at 3:26 PM

Correction: 3-cushion bank shot. Think pool.

axshon on April 30, 2012 at 3:27 PM

Or, as I like to put it on my show, consider these frightening five words when insisting that voting for Romney makes no change: Supreme Court Justice Eric Holder.

Yikes!!

Bitter Clinger on April 30, 2012 at 3:28 PM

I think a lot depends on how Romney exploits the issue, whatever the SCOTUS’ designs are (G-d help us). In any case, he should be arguing day and night about the unmitigated disaster Obama and company have wrought on America the past 3.5 years. That is the key issue and what the public sees and feels on a daily basis. He seems to be doing that so all I can say is keep it up, Mitt.

Rixon on April 30, 2012 at 3:28 PM

Transcript should read “three-cushion bank shot”. He’s talking about a low-percentage billiards ploy.

A440Hz on April 30, 2012 at 3:29 PM

I hate auto correct; Designs should be decides.

Sheesh.

Rixon on April 30, 2012 at 3:29 PM

Speaking of courts, it seems a fed court has blocked our TX pp law to keep funds from them? bho/team/courts hates the daylights out of TX and they prove it daily?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/30/federal-judge-blocks-texas-from-cutting-off-planned-parenthood/
L

letget on April 30, 2012 at 3:29 PM

Common sense should dictate it would hurt Obama, however, his followers lack ‘common sense’

Redford on April 30, 2012 at 3:31 PM

I hate auto correct; Designs should be decides.

Sheesh.

Rixon on April 30, 2012 at 3:29 PM

I had a smart phone with an auto correct that drove me absolutely nuts. I turn that feature off wherever I encounter it.

Bitter Clinger on April 30, 2012 at 3:32 PM

Maybe today’s gallup poll already has SCOTUS pain “priced in”……. What say you angriest of eds ?

FlaMurph on April 30, 2012 at 3:33 PM

“— I don’t think there is some pre-cushioned ”

I think he says “there is some three-cushioned bank shot where people argue” and that he doesn’t buy it. The reference being to a pool trick shot, meaning a complicated argument that if this then if that then this other thing.

crosspatch on April 30, 2012 at 3:34 PM

Chris Wallace needs to get the story straight. Obama was never a constitutional scholar. He has no written articles that indicate his positon on any consitutional issues except those that he mouths from the podium. He was never a law professor but rather a lecturer. And he was not liked because of the job was given to him thru some political payback or payoff. Please stop making this stuff up. The guy is a boofon. He still has no records for his occidental college days that are filled with Marsist associations. And all his school was paid for by Bill Ayers father. A blatent lie exposed that he only knew the terrorist because thyre kids went to school together.

nicknack60 on April 30, 2012 at 3:36 PM

POTUS is one goal, but if we don’t hold the House and win the Senate, then we just might have another 4 more years of the statue quo.

How are local elections going?

Kini on April 30, 2012 at 3:36 PM

While some analysts have said a ruling against Obama on health care could give Obama a fresh start for the upcoming presidential campaign, Hume isn’t buying that.

In what sane universe could a President have his biggest legislative achievement shot down as unconstitutional and have that be some kind of positive?

Bitter Clinger on April 30, 2012 at 3:37 PM

Or, as I like to put it on my show, consider these frightening five words when insisting that voting for Romney makes no change: Supreme Court Justice Eric Holder.

From my standpoint, the possibility of giving Obama two or three more nominations to the Supreme Court is the single most frightening aspect of a second Obama term. Particularly so, given the tendency of Senate RINOs to vote to confirm whatever leftist jackasses Obama nominates, out of so called “deference” to the President’s authority. (Causing the Democrats no end of mirth, since they abandoned any such “deference” to Republican Presidents long ago.)

Another good reason to return Dick Lugar to the Senate. No doubt he would vote to confirm Eric Holder again.

novaculus on April 30, 2012 at 3:37 PM

Or, as I like to put it on my show, consider these frightening five words when insisting that voting for Romney makes no change: Supreme Court Justice Eric Holder. Feel free to replace Holder with Kathleen Sebelius or any other Obama administration figure one prefers. There will be two or three openings in the next four years, and the person in the White House gets to make those decisions. That’s the real power of these cases, and to some extent the eventual decisions aren’t entirely relevant to its strength.

So, you are saying President Romney will not nominate Eric Holder to the bench? But I thought there is no difference between the 2 men and Romney is an evil progressive, who is secretly masking his socialist tendencies from conservatives.

I am so confused.

Back to reality though, and you are 100% correct. If you give Obama another 4 years, his judicial choices will be scary. Granted, they wont get through the Senate, but without the prospect of another election, he will not care. And it will be one thing if 2 liberal justices retire. What if something happens to Scalia, who is no spring chicken? And what if something happens to Kennedy or he decides to retire. A 5th liberal vote in the SCOTUS and this country is in serious trouble.

If for no other reason than the SCOTUS picks, Mitt Romney must be the President come January.

milcus on April 30, 2012 at 3:38 PM

NY Times: Big Losses are Good for Obama Re-election Chances

The Rogue Tomato on April 30, 2012 at 3:39 PM

Supreme Court Justice Eric Holder

Bumper sticker campaign signage material there. Stick it right in front of the driver’s side on your liberal friends car because that would be one blind justice.

DanMan on April 30, 2012 at 3:39 PM

Brit Hume told the Fox News Sunday roundtable that two losses would damage Obama, and that it’s folly to argue otherwise:

Riiiiiiight! (…what’s he smoking!)
The media will spin nothing but positives for those ears!

KOOLAID2 on April 30, 2012 at 3:39 PM

Or, as I like to put it on my show, consider these frightening five words when insisting that voting for Romney makes no change: Supreme Court Justice Eric Holder.

Yikes!!

Bitter Clinger on April 30, 2012 at 3:28 PM

You can bet Grahamnesty would vote to confirm.

swinia sutki on April 30, 2012 at 3:40 PM

Bitter Clinger on April 30, 2012 at 3:37 PM

BC, it won’t be a negative, to the glorified Holsteins who will vote for him … period.

There is nothing that would keep them from mooing for Obamuh – other than an austerity program that would remove their lips from the taxpayer teat – and Obamuh ain’t doin’ that.

OhEssYouCowboys on April 30, 2012 at 3:41 PM

I think the SCOTUS decisions are likely to fire up each party’s respective base, depending on how they go down. If ObamaCare is declared unconstitutional, I can see Dems getting more motivated to participate….upheld, and I think the GOP gets riled up for a shot at repealing it legislatively.

changer1701 on April 30, 2012 at 3:41 PM

I’ll settle for just one big loss for Barry in November, 2012.

galtani on April 30, 2012 at 3:41 PM

Or, as I like to put it on my show, consider these frightening five words when insisting that voting for Romney makes no change: Supreme Court Justice Eric Holder.

Yawn.

So fear is the motivator to vote for Romney?

Sorry, but regardless of the the validity of that tactic, it has FAIL written all over it.

If you want Romney to win, make the POSITIVE conservative case FOR his candidacy. If that doesn’t exist, he is likely toast.

Norwegian on April 30, 2012 at 3:41 PM

Does farting in an outhouse leave a bad smell?

BobMbx on April 30, 2012 at 3:43 PM

What say you angriest of eds ?

FlaMurph on April 30, 2012 at 3:33 PM

Is it still around? I took the weekend off and haven’t seen it all day today. I was kinda, sorta hoping the hammer had come down?

Trafalgar on April 30, 2012 at 3:44 PM

As governor, Mittens appointed 35 judges. Of those, 26 were Democrats. If you think Romney will appoint Scalias and Thomases you’re on crack.

angryed on April 30, 2012 at 3:45 PM

In what sane universe could a President have his biggest legislative achievement shot down as unconstitutional and have that be some kind of positive?

Bitter Clinger on April 30, 2012 at 3:37 PM

And a President who is also a “constitutional law professor” at that. If only this were a sane universe. Sigh.

talkingpoints on April 30, 2012 at 3:46 PM

FlaMurph on April 30, 2012 at 3:33 PM

Is it still around? I took the weekend off and haven’t seen it all day today. I was kinda, sorta hoping the hammer had come down?

Trafalgar on April 30, 2012 at 3:44 PM

Banned for disagreeing with you? How North Korea of you.

angryed on April 30, 2012 at 3:46 PM

Is it still around? I took the weekend off and haven’t seen it all day today. I was kinda, sorta hoping the hammer had come down?

Trafalgar on April 30, 2012 at 3:44 PM

You spoke to soon. ^^^^

JPeterman on April 30, 2012 at 3:47 PM

Y’all just had to bring it up.

Please iggy.

OhEssYouCowboys on April 30, 2012 at 3:47 PM

As governor, Mittens appointed 35 judges. Of those, 26 were Democrats. If you think Romney will appoint Scalias and Thomases you’re on crack.

angryed on April 30, 2012 at 3:45 PM

I would be happy if he appointed Alitos and Robertses.

aunursa on April 30, 2012 at 4:00 PM

You spoke to soon.

JPeterman on April 30, 2012 at 3:47 PM

Sure did! It was probably busy ice golfing or whatever it claims to do with its free time away from its real estate empire.

Apologies for talking it up.

Trafalgar on April 30, 2012 at 4:01 PM

As governor, Mittens appointed 35 judges. Of those, 26 were Democrats. If you think Romney will appoint Scalias and Thomases you’re on crack.

angryed on April 30, 2012 at 3:45 PM

George H.W. Bush was a moderate Republican from the Northeast and he appointed Clarence Thomas. Why couldn’t Romney do likewise?

[exhales crackpipe]

Doughboy on April 30, 2012 at 4:01 PM

As governor, Mittens appointed 35 judges. Of those, 26 were Democrats. If you think Romney will appoint Scalias and Thomases you’re on crack.

angryed on April 30, 2012 at 3:45 PM

Okay, I’ll bite… We know you hate Romney so who do you like?

sandee on April 30, 2012 at 4:02 PM

pre-cushioned bank shot

Well, it’s three-cushioned bank shot and one that I think has possibilities.

If the Court strikes down the healthcare legislation the White House will claim that the “corporate right wing Court took away your health care.”

Bank on it.

Will is sell? In a close election it might just be enough to win a state or two and tip the electoral college in his favor.

SteveMG on April 30, 2012 at 4:05 PM

Or, as I like to put it on my show, consider these frightening five words when insisting that voting for Romney makes no change: Supreme Court Justice Eric Holder. Feel free to replace Holder with Kathleen Sebelius or any other Obama administration figure one prefers.

*Shudder*

sage0925 on April 30, 2012 at 4:05 PM

As governor, Mittens appointed 35 judges. Of those, 26 were Democrats. If you think Romney will appoint Scalias and Thomases you’re on crack.

Well, his picks will certainly be better than Obama’s.

And that’s the standard we have to use.

Is it perfect? No but the perfect isn’t a choice this year.

SteveMG on April 30, 2012 at 4:06 PM

Okay, I’ll bite… We know you hate Romney so who do you like?

sandee on April 30, 2012 at 4:02 PM

He is an Obama’s “big stick” licker.

Gunlock Bill on April 30, 2012 at 4:08 PM

Okay, I’ll bite… We know you hate Romney so who do you like?

sandee on April 30, 2012 at 4:02 PM

Obama.

I’ve said repeatedly I want Obama to win. Not in any type of closet.

angryed on April 16, 2012 at 4:49 PM

JPeterman on April 30, 2012 at 4:09 PM

I’ve said repeatedly I want Obama to win. Not in any type of closet.

angryed on April 16, 2012 at 4:49 PM

I figured as much. I thought I remembered that he was backing Gingrich. My mistake…

sandee on April 30, 2012 at 4:11 PM

Most people just want their welfare checks, their unemployment benefits… they don’t care about anything else. America has been socialized.

To help fix the problem, we need a law that says you don’t vote while you are on any kind of public assistance.

Axion on April 30, 2012 at 4:14 PM

In what sane universe could a President have his biggest legislative achievement shot down as unconstitutional and have that be some kind of positive?

Bitter Clinger on April 30, 2012 at 3:37 PM

For a couple cays after the SCOTUS hearings, some leading dems floated this flimsy construct.

Losing one or both rulings will hurt him and because he believes he has superior knowledge of the law, he will go right out and demonstrate it.

dogsoldier on April 30, 2012 at 4:17 PM

“cays” should read days.

dogsoldier on April 30, 2012 at 4:18 PM

As governor, Mittens appointed 35 judges. Of those, 26 were Democrats. If you think Romney will appoint Scalias and Thomases you’re on crack.

Did they have to get confirmed by the Massachusetts Senate? If so, you might wish to consider that only North Korea and China are further to the left than Massachusetts on the “one-party rule” scale. I don’t believe that Massachusetts has had less than 85% Democrats in the Senate in the last decade or two. Currently, the Senate is 90% Democratic…but they still blame the 4 measly Republicans when things go bad and there is NO filibuster (not that it would matter with their numbers).

Resist We Much on April 30, 2012 at 4:19 PM

Supreme Court Justice Eric Holder.

I am waiting for something a bit different in our Federal Judiciary..

The United States v. Eric Holder, et al.

coldwarrior on April 30, 2012 at 4:22 PM

Supreme court Justices:
Moochelle Obama
and Hillary Clintoon!

Vote early and often and scour the nursing home for absentee ballots. Its WAR! I tells ya!

ConcealedKerry on April 30, 2012 at 4:27 PM

He may lose the SC decisions , but did ya’ll
Hear? He got Osama again!

MrMoe on April 30, 2012 at 4:28 PM

The United States v. Eric Holder, et al.

coldwarrior on April 30, 2012 at 4:22 PM

…a court case that ended when Holder submitted a presidential pardon from former President Obama

BobMbx on April 30, 2012 at 4:29 PM

Justice. Hilary. Clinton.

SWLiP on April 30, 2012 at 4:30 PM

As if the first two picks for the SC weren’t bad enough, now you have to give us nightmares with Holder.

Kissmygrits on April 30, 2012 at 4:34 PM

BobMbx on April 30, 2012 at 4:29 PM

If the federal indictment were returned after 21 January 2013…

A pre-emptive Presidential pardon is simply not gonna fly…charges first, an indictment first, a conviction first…then a pardon. Pretty much how it works.

Unless. of course, more than half the voters in America decide to stay stupid, or Team Obama unleashes the SEIU, NBPP, and all those other thugs to make sure that there are few votes counted for any non-pro-Obama slate.

Then, if we still have a Republic remaining, we’ll have to wait until January 2017.

coldwarrior on April 30, 2012 at 4:36 PM

Supreme Court Justice Eric Holder.

Ugh. That’s a real wienie shrinker, right there.

beatcanvas on April 30, 2012 at 4:38 PM

Losing in the Supreme Court could work out very well for Obama, if he just accepts the loss and moves on to things the average voter actually cares about. Then Mitt Romney would be left running against a law that’s not longer on the books.
But if the court overturns healthcare, and Obama sticks to his current strategy of using the case to rally his base, it won’t go so well. He’ll look like a looser to his base and an extremist to everyone else.

Mahna Mahna on April 30, 2012 at 4:43 PM

Supreme Court Justice Cass Sunstein

Resist We Much on April 30, 2012 at 4:59 PM

Let’s say Ruthie hangs it up.
Let’s say 55 R senators.
Just go with 8 justices. No Holder or the like.
Help me with this thought.

crash72 on April 30, 2012 at 6:02 PM

I have my doubts anything can fatally damage Obama.

First, the MSM is protecting Obama and they will spin everything his way, hoping to plant doubt in the minds of independents and the mushy middle.

Second, Obama is running as a celebrity and pop figurehead, the cool and hip First Black President — not even Europe can brag about having one of those.

Third, he is running as the Great Protector of the People, protecting them from the Republicans and conservatives who cannot be trusted. Obama will make the case that some check must be placed on a Republican Congress. While people seem to like their own Congressman and Senators, they dislike Congress in general.

Fourth, there is little evidence to indicate the electorate is smart enough to see through the propaganda and lies. In a reasonably intelligent country, given the state of the nation and his extremely divisive rhetoric and policies, Obama’s approval ratings should be at best be in the mid to low 30s and he should be trailing by double digits in general election polling among registered voters.

It will be a close election, which says more about the electorate than it does about Obama. There’s a reason why throughout history democracies never survive and have been the exception rather than the rule.

farsighted on April 30, 2012 at 6:17 PM

Or, as I like to put it on my show, consider these frightening five words when insisting that voting for Romney makes no change: Supreme Court Justice Eric Holder.

Yikes!!

Bitter Clinger on April 30, 2012 at 3:28 PM

that … add Hillery and Moochell and we are toast ….

I am still voting against Obama …
I am voting for future SC justices …
I do not believe that Romney will pick
WORSE then BHO …

conservative tarheel on April 30, 2012 at 6:40 PM

I think it depends on the margins of the votes. If it’s 5-4 on health care and 5-3 on the Arizona Immigration Law, Obama will claim a partisan court and claim he needs 4 more years so he can balance the court in the liberals favor. However, if Chief Justice Roberts can get one of the liberals to vote with the majority and make it 6-3 and 6-2, Obama will really look foolish.

I’m not sure how the justices will vote, on either case. The immigration case looked much worse than the health care case, for Obama, but there is little doubt Obama is a radical with little or no understanding of the United States or his office.

bflat879 on April 30, 2012 at 6:42 PM

What it should do is damage the liberal education this President received..but it won’t.

These are more reminders that education has to be reformed.

Speakup on April 30, 2012 at 6:45 PM

In what sane universe could a President have his biggest legislative achievement shot down as unconstitutional and have that be some kind of positive?

Bitter Clinger on April 30, 2012 at 3:37 PM


Unfortunately we aren’t talking about your average sane universe, we are talking about the one we are in now. And you can beat dollars to donuts that if/when Obama loses there will be a steady stream of MSM articles explaining that it really is a positive. This way he doesn’t have to worry about any upcoming negatives, like increased taxes in 2014 and decreased coverage, and he no longer is responsible for defending every phrase of a 2,700 page document, plus he will get points for the old college try. After all, he got further than any other Democratic president including Truman and FDR, as far as universal healthcare coverage goes, so how bad could he be?

Fred 2 on April 30, 2012 at 6:48 PM

crash72 on April 30, 2012 at 6:02 PM

Sotomeyer: 68-32 to confirm
Kegan: 63-37 to confirm

Both confirmations required that Republicans vote for the winner. What makes you believe that the Republicans in the Senate will have enough intestinal fortitude to pull a Bork on a Democratic nominee?

chemman on April 30, 2012 at 7:02 PM

Poor little angryed just like Lester it has a poor pathetic lonely life.

CW on April 30, 2012 at 7:33 PM

You don’t really think that negative rulings by the Supremes would have any effect on the cattle who would vote for Stalin or Hitler, as long as either was nurturing them – do you?

OhEssYouCowboys on April 30, 2012 at 3:26 PM

Anyone who doesn’t understand the rulings (against Hussein) will only energize the OWS/give me everything for free/Latino crowds needs a serious reality check. Class warfare will only get worse in the near future.

riddick on April 30, 2012 at 7:39 PM

If he loses all or parts of either case (AZ or ObamaCare), I expect Obama will ratchet up the denigration and attacks on the court as a bunch of right wingers who take their orders from Fox Rush and ExxonMobil.

He will also message his base to do the same thing: “Attack the court. these are the same knuickle draggers who stole Florida in 2000 from you in 2000 and we’re not going to let that happen again.”

Or words to that effect. whatever it sounds like, Obama’s strategy will be to tear down the esteem in which the court is held.

Remember, No one in his adult/politicallife ever said “No” to Obama, and thus he lacks the basic character to understand how to handle not getting everything you want exacltly when and how you want it. Its a basic life lesson that most people learn as small children, but one that Diaper Jesus has failed to learn in 50 years.

The country is in my opinion sick to death of Obama acting like a 2-year old slamming his sippy cup on the tray of his high-chair when served veggies instead of ice cream and chocolate at every meal.

Sacramento on April 30, 2012 at 7:39 PM

Well, according to all these pundits the Repubs are the underdogs. Apparently, if three years of abject failure cannot sway them, two more losses won’t hurt right?

I happen to believe that he will be taking a hard hit if either one is knocked down and I certainly hope they lose both.

bluemarlin on April 30, 2012 at 8:02 PM

I have to wonder if he’s planning on losing… send a ton of arguments that even Sotomayor considers to be absurd, then wait to lose, then accuse the court of being biased against him for rejecting his absurdity.

Mr. Prodigy on April 30, 2012 at 9:33 PM

If one bases decisions on what the Constitution actually says and not what people hope it says, then yes, Obama should go down in flames on both cases.

And there is more defeat lined up waiting for him.

insidiator on May 1, 2012 at 7:41 AM

Our last prayer is our SCOTUS which is the last third of our government we are looking to do their job. Our deaf dumb and corrupt Congress along with the Executive Branch, if you could call it that, are lost. How could three years go by without the FBI and the CIA arresting about a third of Congress and all of the administration wrecking our Country. The Court has the power but will they use it? We’ll find out next month.

mixplix on May 1, 2012 at 7:41 AM

Let us catalogue
The Nightmare Scenarios…
So many to choose…

Supreme Court Justice Elizabeth Warren
Supreme Court Justice Carol Browner
Supreme Court Justice Valarie Jarrett
Supreme Court Justice Eric Holder
Supreme Court Justice Greg Craig
Supreme Court Justice Louis Gates

Haiku Guy on May 1, 2012 at 9:44 AM

coldwarrior on April 30, 2012 at 4:36 PM

Read Fords’ pardon of Nixon.

“For…..crimes he may have committed…”

BobMbx on May 1, 2012 at 11:09 AM