PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Kagan Hearings Begin


petegz28
06-28-2010, 05:22 PM
Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan pledged on Monday to do her best to consider "every case impartially, modestly, with commitment to principle and in accordance with law" if appointed to the nation's highest court.

Speaking on the first day of her confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Kagan said the court must ensure that "our government never oversteps its proper bounds or violates the rights of individuals."

"But the court must also recognize the limits on itself and respect the choices made by the American people," she said, adding that her past work in government public service has shown her that, in her words, "no one has a monopoly on truth and wisdom."

"I will make no pledges this week other than this one -- that if confirmed, I will remember and abide by all these lessons," she said. "I will listen hard, to every party before the court and to each of my colleagues."

Kagan's opening testimony marked the beginning of a marathon high-pressure vetting by the committee, in which members will scrutinize her record. Her remarks also came after the GOP, including the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, voiced concerns over the 50-year-old solicitor general, telling the panel that her career has been "consumed more by politics than law."

Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., ranking Republican on the panel, said Kagan's record warrants close questioning as the Senate considers her appointment to the nation's highest court.

"Ms. Kagan certainly has numerous talents and good qualities, but there are serious concerns about this nomination," he said.

Sessions noted that Kagan has "never tried a case before a jury" and "has associated herself with well-known activist judges." He also maintained that she broke the law in denying military recruiters access to students at Harvard Law School, where she served as dean.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., called some of the nominee's past actions and writings "a bit disturbing," and said that Kagan's temporary ban on military recruiting at Harvard was "inappropriate." Graham, however, said Kagan's nomination wouldn't change the balance of power on the court.

The Democrats, meanwhile, including chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, lauded the 50-year-old solicitor general as a moderate and mainstream legal scholar.

"I believe the fair-minded people will find her philosophy well within the legal mainstream," Leahy said. "I welcome questions but urge senators on both sides to be fair. No one should presume that this intelligent woman who has excelled during every part of her varied and distinguished career, lacks independence."

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said Kagan had a "sterling reputation" and was "unquestionably qualified" to serve on the Supreme Court, calling her lack of judicial experience "refreshing." And Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said he's confident Kagan will bring "both moderation and pragmatism" to the high court.

"You represent the best this country has to offer," Schumer said of Kagan.

Obama nominated Kagan to succeed retiring Justice John Paul Stevens, a frequent dissenter in a string of 5-4 rulings handed down by a conservative majority under Chief Justice John Roberts.

Kagan's chances are bright as she begins the weeklong hearing, pressing to portray herself as a mainstream, impartial addition to the court.

Democrats have more than enough votes to confirm her. Republicans have shown no inclination to try to block such a vote, although some conservative interest groups are urging them in increasingly vocal ways to do so.

The GOP is expected to grill Kagan on hot-button issues from guns to abortion to campaign finance, arguing that she'd bring liberal politics and an anti-military bias to the job of a justice.

Graham and other Republicans have cited several concerns, including her actions as a dean to restrict military recruiters on Harvard's campus and her stated admiration for liberal Israeli judge Aharon Barak, former president of Israel's Supreme Court.

But Kagan's supporters said the smoking gun just isn't there. Before her nomination was announced, she was considered one of the least controversial potential picks, and Democrats said her would-be critics have been struggling ever since.

"It feels like we have an opposition in search of a rationale," White House senior adviser David Axelrod said on a conference call Friday.

Much attention has been focused on her work in the 1990s as a mid-level Clinton administration staffer in the White House and from her earlier yearlong clerkship for Justice Thurgood Marshall. One item that will likely come up is a 1995 article in which she described Supreme Court hearings as a "vapid and hollow charade."

Some Republicans have expressed concerns that Kagan would become a judicial activist along the lines of Marshall. Confirmed in 1967 as the first black justice in history, he was a civil rights lawyer best known in his earlier career for successfully arguing the case in which the Supreme Court ruled that segregation of public schools along racial lines was unconstitutional. As a young lawyer, Kagan was one of his clerks at the high court.

Feinstein said her record is what matters most.

"This is a very impressive record, and that's what we judge people on -- not that she said this one time or that one time," she said.

Leahy echoed that point, saying the charges against Kagan have been made in a "vacuum" because the nominee has not had a chance to answer.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06/28/senate-panel-begins-kagan-supreme-court-hearing/

petegz28
06-28-2010, 05:24 PM
I don't see how someone can consider this woman mainstream with a sterling record and unquestionably qualified when she flat out broke the law by prohibiting military recruiters on campus and has never tried 1 case before a jury.

We already saw today how Sotomayor said one thing during her hearings and then tried to rule another regariding the Gun Rights laws. I expect nothing different from Mrs. Mainstream.

notorious
06-28-2010, 05:48 PM
We should NEVER have an extremist Supreme Court member.

|Zach|
06-28-2010, 05:59 PM
We should NEVER have an extremist Supreme Court member.

Who are we referring too?

notorious
06-28-2010, 06:01 PM
Who are we referring too?

Ms. Kagan, of course.

|Zach|
06-28-2010, 06:06 PM
Ms. Kagan, of course.

ROFL

notorious
06-28-2010, 06:54 PM
denying military recruiters access to students at Harvard Law School, where she served as dean.






Exhibit A.

stevieray
06-28-2010, 07:20 PM
Who are we referring too?
to....

still don't know the difference, do ya?

mlyonsd
06-28-2010, 07:20 PM
"But the court must also recognize the limits on itself and respect the choices made by the American people," she said, adding that her past work in government public service has shown her that, in her words, "no one has a monopoly on truth and wisdom."


This statement and her whole Harvard anti military stance are proof to me she's a liar in that she would first put her personal preferences before the law.

If she was on the Gong Show she should get the gong.

Direckshun
06-28-2010, 07:53 PM
Snooze.

|Zach|
06-28-2010, 07:54 PM
to....

still don't know the difference, do ya?

Is this where I say you are frothing?





















*I don't want any insecure back channel crying over this post..

notorious
06-28-2010, 07:55 PM
Snooze.

Normally I would say "This", but a Supreme Court Justice is a very powerful position. We need someone in there that will make judgements according to law and not because of how they think the world should be.

notorious
06-28-2010, 07:57 PM
Can anyone defend Kagan? What does she bring to the table that would make her worthy of such an important job?

BigChiefFan
06-28-2010, 08:04 PM
It will be interesting to see her stances on matters of the law.

mlyonsd
06-28-2010, 08:10 PM
Can anyone defend Kagan? What does she bring to the table that would make her worthy of such an important job?

Alito and Roberts got a closer scrutenizing than she will. At the end of the day her already proving her own personal feelings dictate what is right won't mean much.

notorious
06-28-2010, 08:12 PM
It will be interesting to see her stances on matters of the law.

What does that have to do with anything?

|Zach|
06-28-2010, 08:17 PM
Can anyone defend Kagan? What does she bring to the table that would make her worthy of such an important job?

Who needs to defend Kagen? Seriously. Everyone is just sitting and watching the opposition grasp at straws.

notorious
06-28-2010, 08:22 PM
Who needs to defend Kagen? Seriously. Everyone is just sitting and watching the opposition grasp at straws.

I just wanted her supporter's opinion.



I see her as a far left nut. The reason behnind my opinion is how she handled the Harvard/Military issue.


I would be just as concerned if the Pub's had a Bible-Thumping, Abortion Extremist nutjob being nominated.

|Zach|
06-28-2010, 08:24 PM
I just wanted her backer's opinion of her.



I see her as a far left nut. The reason behnind my opinion is how she handled the Harvard/Military issue.


I would be just as concerned if the Pub's had a Bible-Thumping, Abortion Extremist nutjob being nominated.

Seems like people would be running not walking to blast her during these proceedings if she were really some nut. But as it is...she is just going through the process to get confirmed and some people are still reaching to find ways to attack her.

notorious
06-28-2010, 08:31 PM
Seems like people would be running not walking to blast her during these proceedings if she were really some nut.

I don't see it as a reach, but that's just a difference in our viewpoints. She appears to me to be a person that wants to dictate instead of interpret law.

Direckshun
06-28-2010, 08:32 PM
I would be just as concerned if the Pub's had a Bible-Thumping, Abortion Extremist nutjob being nominated.

Uh...

notorious
06-28-2010, 08:37 PM
Uh...

Please, you have the floor :)

stevieray
06-28-2010, 09:19 PM
Is this where I say you are frothing?

*I don't want any insecure back channel crying over this post..

knock yourself out, imitation is flattery...but deflecting back to me doesn't change the point.

still crying about a channel that doesn't exist is frothing.

|Zach|
06-28-2010, 09:32 PM
knock yourself out, imitation is flattery...but deflecting back to me doesn't change the point.

still crying about a channel that doesn't exist is frothing.

Frothy.

blaise
06-28-2010, 09:57 PM
She's not going to have any problem getting in, but I have to laugh at Leahy and Schumer lauding her moderation. Those two don't strike me as all that moderate themselves.

And is it illegal to disallow military recruiters? I didn't think it was illegal. I thought it was just an issue of schools being hypocritical by refusing and then taking federal dollars anyway. I remember this coming up at American University's law school around 1999. Personally, I think it's dumb to disallow the recruiters. I'm sure you think your students are intelligent, you supposedly want debate and a diversity of ideas, why are you choosing for the students? Let the recruiters come and let your students decide for themselves.

FD
06-28-2010, 10:30 PM
She's not going to have any problem getting in, but I have to laugh at Leahy and Schumer lauding her moderation. Those two don't strike me as all that moderate themselves.

And is it illegal to disallow military recruiters? I didn't think it was illegal. I thought it was just an issue of schools being hypocritical by refusing and then taking federal dollars anyway. I remember this coming up at American University's law school around 1999. Personally, I think it's dumb to disallow the recruiters. I'm sure you think your students are intelligent, you supposedly want debate and a diversity of ideas, why are you choosing for the students? Let the recruiters come and let your students decide for themselves.

The basis for disallowing the recruiters is that her university has a policy against organizations that discriminate based on sexual orientation and the military does not allow gay members.

stevieray
06-28-2010, 10:31 PM
Frothy.
to frothy?
too frothy?

You can do it ! /Rob Schneider

blaise
06-28-2010, 10:53 PM
The basis for disallowing the recruiters is that her university has a policy against organizations that discriminate based on sexual orientation and the military does not allow gay members.

I think the argument would then be that the military is part of the federal government, so where are you drawing the line. Were they letting other federal government departments recruit? Why would the idealism stop at the military? The military is funded by the federal government and the government allows the military to implement the policy. I would wager there's other governmental agencies that didn't give the same standing to homosexuals as they did heterosexuals. Did the federal government offer family benefits to homosexual couples as part of their insurance coverage? Why didn't she view that as discrimination based on sexuality?

FD
06-28-2010, 11:19 PM
I think the argument would then be that the military is part of the federal government, so where are you drawing the line. Were they letting other federal government departments recruit? Why would the idealism stop at the military? The military is funded by the federal government and the government allows the military to implement the policy. I would wager there's other governmental agencies that didn't give the same standing to homosexuals as they did heterosexuals. Did the federal government offer family benefits to homosexual couples as part of their insurance coverage? Why didn't she view that as discrimination based on sexuality?

Harvard Law, like almost all law schools, doesn't allow recruiters from organizations that discriminate. I'll accept your wager and say that no other Federal government agencies discriminate in their hiring practices, particularly on the grounds of sexual orientation.

Here's some more background info:

Kagan was not yet dean when the controversy arose. Harvard never joined the coalition of law schools whose lawsuit against the Pentagon went to the Supreme Court. Under her leadership, Harvard Law School did not resist the government as strenuously as some other institutions. And, while she continued through nearly six years as dean to express her disagreement with the federal rules, she softened her language over time.


Law schools began to sue. The largest case, brought by a coalition of 36 law schools calling themselves the Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, went to the Philadelphia-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, which ruled that the federal rule was unconstitutional because it interfered with the schools' free-speech rights. George W. Bush's administration appealed to the Supreme Court, which, in March 2006, decided 8 to 0 against the law schools, saying the Solomon Amendment did not undermine students' and professors' speech because they still were free to protest the rule.

Although Harvard did not join FAIR, many of its professors filed a brief with the 3rd Circuit and another with the Supreme Court, siding with the coalition but offering different legal grounds. Kagan, with many others, signed on both times. More than 50 of 81 Harvard law professors joined in the first brief, and 40 of 81 in the second. Walter Dellinger, a veteran Supreme Court lawyer who wrote the briefs for the Harvard professors, said, "I do not believe Elena made any comment on the brief at all in the drafting process." She requested a footnote saying she was participating as a professor, not as the dean.


In 2004, after the 3rd Circuit said the federal rule was unconstitutional, Kagan had reinstated the school's nondiscrimination policy for military recruiters; the school's career office did not help them that fall. But once the Supreme Court took the case -- months before its ruling -- Kagan reversed course. Other schools held out longer. Yale Law School denied the Pentagon until 2007, while its professors pursued a separate lawsuit on the issue.

At her confirmation hearing last year to become solicitor general, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) asked her about the issue. "Do you think if you'd been solicitor general when [the case] came to the court that you would have defended the statute?" he asked.

Kagan said: "There's a clear obligation on the part of the solicitor general to defend the statute in that circumstance unless there's no reasonable basis to argue for the statute. . . . Because I know the case . . . I feel comfortable saying, of course, there was a reasonable basis; I mean, my gosh, the Supreme Court ruled [unanimously]. So I absolutely would have defended that statute."

Sorkin, the former leader of Harvard's gay law students, said that while she was dean, Kagan never flouted the federal rule. "Ultimately, she understands we follow the law here even if we don't agree with it."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/17/AR2010041701296.html

notorious
06-28-2010, 11:22 PM
Good work Forward Dante, you are bringing some great info to the table.

blaise
06-28-2010, 11:41 PM
I didn't say I wager other agencies discriminate regarding hiring practices. Your initial post was that the school had a policy against sexual discrimination period. There was no mention of hiring practices. Maybe the policy at schools like Harvard was simply against discrimination when it came to hiring and you didn't say that, I don't know. My point is that, unless you're saying that homosexuals were given the same benefits as heterosexuals in every government agency, then the argument could be made that there's sexual discrimination going on.
And I think maybe you're reading too much into my initial post. It's not like I'm anti-Kagan, or that I was bashing her for not letting military recruiters on campus. I just find the concept of not allowing military recruiters a bit disingenuous. The federal government funds the military. I would argue that the military is part of a larger organization that is the federal government. I don't see the point at drawing the line at the military when you're disallowing recruiting. If it was truly a principle matter why not bar all the government agencies?
I'm not here to debate the legality of it. Like I said in my initial post, I didn't even know if it was legal or not. I'm just saying, personally, in my opinion, it's basically silly. Why can't they let the students decide for themselves? And if it's really an issue of principle, then go all the way and don't allow any federal government agencies.
In short, I've alway viewed disallowing the recruiters more (for the most part) as pandering and grandstanding and less about some adherence to principles. You can certainly disagree with that.

googlegoogle
06-29-2010, 12:37 AM
http://politics.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2010/06/23/kagan-calls-israeli-activist-judge-my-hero.html Her fav judge is an activist Israeli. Anyone check if she's a citizen?

ClevelandBronco
06-29-2010, 12:52 AM
http://politics.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2010/06/23/kagan-calls-israeli-activist-judge-my-hero.html Her fav judge is an activist Israeli. Anyone check if she's a citizen?

I see nothing in the Constitution that says she has to be a citizen of the U.S.

Surely I'm missing something.

ClevelandBronco
06-29-2010, 12:54 AM
...Surely I'm missing something.

I know. I'm dickless and I shouldn't call you Shirley.

petegz28
06-29-2010, 12:17 PM
WASHINGTON — Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan on Tuesday fought off Republicans who were trying hard to paint her as a liberal activist, saying she'd be a fair, open-minded justice and refusing to call herself a "legal progressive."

"I honestly don't know what that label means," Kagan told Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama .

Sessions, the Senate Judiciary Committee's top Republican, kept pressing the former Harvard Law School dean, quoting her colleagues to make the point. Kagan wouldn't take the bait, though.

"My politics would be, must be, have to be completely separate from my judging," said Kagan, who was a domestic policy adviser in the Clinton administration.

President Barack Obama nominated Kagan, who's now the solicitor general, to replace retiring Justice John Paul Stevens . Since Democrats control 58 Senate seats, and none has signaled opposition to Kagan, her confirmation is expected.

Republicans such as Sessions nonetheless hope to use this week's hearings to raise public doubts about Kagan and the president who nominated her. In particular, they're challenging her lack of judicial experience and her past dealings with the military.

Foremost in early questioning Tuesday were Republican concerns about Kagan's decision to restrict military recruiting at Harvard Law School , while she was its dean, because of the military's policy banning gays and lesbians from serving openly. Kagan called the policy a "profound wrong" and a "moral injustice of the first order" in a 2003 e-mail.

Under the so-called Solomon Amendment, schools that deny recruiting opportunities to the military can be cut off from federal funding. In 2005, after an appellate court ruled that the Solomon Amendment was unconstitutional, Kagan stopped providing official law school access to the military. The access later was restored, as the Supreme Court unanimously upheld the Solomon Amendment in 2006.

Sessions noted that Kagan's "runaround" meant that the Pentagon lost a full recruiting season.

"I feel like you mishandled that. I'm absolutely confident you did," Sessions said.

Kagan responded that "the military had access to our students and our students had access to the military throughout my entire deanship."

"We wanted to make absolutely sure students had access to the military at all times, but we did have a long-standing anti-discrimination policy," she said.

More broadly, under softball questions from Democrats, Kagan offered her view of a justice's responsibility, saying that the Constitution's framers were "pretty wise men; if we always remember that, we'll do pretty well, because part of the wisdom was that they wrote a Constitution for the ages."

Democrats and Republicans pressed her to elaborate, seeing her view as reflecting her judicial philosophy.

The Constitution, Kagan said, "just says what you're supposed to do and how things are supposed to work," but it's open to change.

She used the example of the Fourth Amendment, which says there shall be no unreasonable search or seizure. "What counts as an unreasonable search and seizure?" Kagan asked. "What's unreasonable? That's the question."

Kagan wouldn't go further with specifics on her views, though, even after Democrats asked about her 1995 view that confirmation hearings should offer more insight into a nominee's thinking.
Committee members were expected to continue questioning Kagan throughout the day Tuesday and probably most of Wednesday. Each member gets half an hour to engage her. The hearings, which will feature legal experts and public witnesses later in the week, are expected to end Thursday or Friday.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20100629/pl_mcclatchy/3551844

petegz28
06-29-2010, 12:40 PM
Grassley is grilling her ove rthe 2nd and she is squirming to answer whether or not she agreed with the Heler and McDonald cases and whether she thinks the 2nd is a fundamental Right or a Right simply granted by the government.

petegz28
06-29-2010, 12:42 PM
Oh snap! Grassley just asked her why as Dean she required students to take an international law course but never a Constitutional law course.

The Mad Crapper
06-29-2010, 12:50 PM
The woman is a communist.

RJ
06-29-2010, 01:09 PM
http://i45.tinypic.com/29qnkvb.jpg

go bowe
06-29-2010, 01:14 PM
I don't see how someone can consider this woman mainstream with a sterling record and unquestionably qualified when she flat out broke the law by prohibiting military recruiters on campus and has never tried 1 case before a jury.

We already saw today how Sotomayor said one thing during her hearings and then tried to rule another regariding the Gun Rights laws. I expect nothing different from Mrs. Mainstream.unhhhh...

that's ms. mainstream...

go bowe
06-29-2010, 01:36 PM
This statement and her whole Harvard anti military stance are proof to me she's a liar in that she would first put her personal preferences before the law.

If she was on the Gong Show she should get the gong.actually, her stance at harvard was never anti-military...

anti-military policy regarding gays serving in the military, but never anti-military...

and she never banned military recruiters from the law school...

what actually happened was that instituted a policy that only "banned" the recruiters from using the main placement office but continued to allow them full access to the law school's students under the sponsorship of the school's veterans organization... http://snipurl.com/ycr80

go bowe
06-29-2010, 01:44 PM
This statement ("But the court must also recognize the limits on itself and respect the choices made by the American people...") that part of her statement sounds a whole lot like she plans on giving greater effect to legislative actions and/or referendums in her decision-making process: limits on the court and respect the choices made by the american people...

actually i like this part of the statement quite a lot...

go bowe
06-29-2010, 01:54 PM
Can anyone defend Kagan? What does she bring to the table that would make her worthy of such an important job?well, let's see...

she's brilliant and very well versed in the law, particularly constitutional law...

as for her never having been a judge, over the past hundred years or so a very large number of supremes had not been judges, and some never even had a legal career...

her record seems to suggest that she is a pragmatist rather than an ideologue who served as the dean of the second most prestigious law school in america...

i think she will even display a pro-government bias every now and then because of her experience in the executive branch, just as alito has shown a bit of a government bias in his prior decisions...

go bowe
06-29-2010, 02:08 PM
I think the argument would then be that the military is part of the federal government, so where are you drawing the line. Were they letting other federal government departments recruit? Why would the idealism stop at the military? The military is funded by the federal government and the government allows the military to implement the policy. I would wager there's other governmental agencies that didn't give the same standing to homosexuals as they did heterosexuals. Did the federal government offer family benefits to homosexual couples as part of their insurance coverage? Why didn't she view that as discrimination based on sexuality?it's one thing to discriminate on the basis of sexual preference and quite another to "discriminate" based on marital status in the absence of any legal marital relationship...

go bowe
06-29-2010, 02:12 PM
http://politics.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2010/06/23/kagan-calls-israeli-activist-judge-my-hero.html Her fav judge is an activist Israeli. Anyone check if she's a citizen?nah, she's a muslim born in kenya with a faked birth certificate...

go bowe
06-29-2010, 02:17 PM
The woman is a communist.and you're a nazi, so what? :D :D :D

go bowe
06-29-2010, 02:19 PM
http://i45.tinypic.com/29qnkvb.jpgan excellent political cartoon... :thumb: :thumb: :thumb:

The Mad Crapper
06-29-2010, 02:39 PM
and you're a nazi, so what? :D :D :D

I am Der Fuhrer.

;)

go bowe
06-29-2010, 03:05 PM
I am Der Fuhrer.

;)oh shit, please excuse me dear leader, er fuhrer...

Saul Good
06-29-2010, 05:23 PM
I'll go on record and say that I'm okay with this pick. It's my hope that there won't be any filibuster threats.

petegz28
06-29-2010, 06:09 PM
I'll go on record and say that I'm okay with this pick. It's my hope that there won't be any filibuster threats.

Well, my take on it is a President should get who he nominates. That being said she seems to have more integrity than Sotomayor. Though the whole military bit still sits bad with me

patteeu
06-29-2010, 06:19 PM
... who served as the dean of the second most prestigious law school in america...

:LOL:

Bill Parcells
06-29-2010, 06:27 PM
Frothy.

I see you put on your clown shoes in this thread. awesome!



ROFL

Saul Good
06-29-2010, 07:39 PM
Well, my take on it is a President should get who he nominates. That being said she seems to have more integrity than Sotomayor. Though the whole military bit still sits bad with me

I don't necessarily think that the president should get carte blanche, but I understand your point.

The military part irked me until I heard her explanation. I'm okay with it. I don't completely agree with her, but I think it's a legitimate policy, and she seemed to stay true to it.

Baby Lee
07-24-2010, 04:46 AM
This is about the confluence of my won thoughts and real time events, and no speculation and certainly no evidence of anything.

I don't know if anyone watches Boston Medical, but there's a doctor on there named Kelly Wright. So I'm watching and something seems familiar, and suddenly it hits me, she looks like a young Elena Kagen. Not 5 seconds after I have this epiphany, the character states that she's gay, the first time she's said anything about her personal life on the show.

http://abc-bostonmed.s3.amazonaws.com/photos/id4471/kelly-wright%2024.png
http://abc-bostonmed.s3.amazonaws.com/photos/id4481/kelly-wright%206.png

alnorth
08-06-2010, 07:10 PM
http://d.yimg.com/a/p/ap/20100806/capt.3cff4e05bdd04a50a1c5e79d3bb14331-3cff4e05bdd04a50a1c5e79d3bb14331-0.jpg?x=237&y=345&q=85&sig=LPrrwEL3VOhfvk8A3GnaUA--

"Jujumon jojoba pateesa Barack, Ho Ho Ho Ho!"

Hopefully John Roberts can avoid becoming a meal in the next 2-6 years.

googlegoogle
08-06-2010, 08:38 PM
lesbian?

alnorth
08-06-2010, 08:50 PM
lesbian?

hungry

Ebolapox
08-06-2010, 09:17 PM
lesbian?

does anybody really give a shit?