What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

​ 🏛️ ​Official Supreme Court nomination thread - Amy Coney Barrett (3 Viewers)

Watched an interview with Amy yesterday and she seems like a quality person.  When she said something like a Supreme Court judge is not there to make to laws of the land but there to uphold the laws of the land I guess that is all we can ask for.

 
Summer Wheat said:
Watched an interview with Amy yesterday and she seems like a quality person.  When she said something like a Supreme Court judge is not there to make to laws of the land but there to uphold the laws of the land I guess that is all we can ask for.
Click to expand...
Nah, we can ask for more than that.  A lot more.

 
The Z Machine said:
I think there is a broader question about the subservient nature of the People of Praise.  If she takes guidance from the female leader of this group, where does that guidance stop?  If that leader told her to write an opinion a certain way on an item before the court, would she go along with it?  She did make a covenant to that group to be subservient to the leader.
Click to expand...
I don't know anything about the group - other than that they appear to be a lot more devout than I am.

But, I thought this was a male-dominated sect.  I did not know there was a female leader.

I also think many of these same questions were asked of JFK - would he owe allegiance or fealty to the Pope?

Again, we can't separate a person's faith from who they are as a person.  My chief concerns would be - is she going to impose those beliefs on others?  Can she separate her beliefs from the legal issues.

For example - her faith makes her opposed to all abortions.  Does that dictate her legal arguments on the issue?  Conversely, I would expect her beliefs to be equally as opposed to the death penalty - does she follow her beliefs here?  If there is a difference - its worth a little exploration.

The second, perhaps more important issue, is there enough time to properly vet her?  Rushing decisions like this are fraught with peril.  

I also wonder how people would feel about her faith is she were Muslim, or a Scientologist

 
Form my very cursory understand of the People of Praise, there are male leaders and female leaders and the members are supposed to go to the leader of their sex for guidance.  The overall leadership I'm sure is male dominated.

 
The Z Machine said:
If she takes guidance from the female leader of this group, where does that guidance stop?  If that leader told her to write an opinion a certain way on an item before the court, would she go along with it?  She did make a covenant to that group to be subservient to the leader.

This is not all that different than someone that explicitly said they would take guidance on SCOTUS rulings from the Pope or from a mullah, but in the former case, at least the distance between the Pope and the judge is larger and more diffuse.
Click to expand...
These were the precise concerns with JFK, a known Catholic. How do we know he's not going to take orders from the Pope?

I think the obvious answer in Barrett's case is that those People of Praise folks don't know anything about the work that appellate judges do. On that issue, they'll defer to ACB's expertise rather than the other way around.

 
Sinn Fein said:
There is very little hope.

I think the best the Dems can do right now - is provoke public outrage over healthcare.  That is real, and affects people across the spectrum.

The problem is there is not enough time to really focus anger into action - in a meaningful way.
Click to expand...


I have it on good authority that Trump is going to release the details of an amazing health care plan in 2 weeks.

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
These were the precise concerns with JFK, a known Catholic. How do we know he's not going to take orders from the Pope?

I think the obvious answer in Barrett's case is that those People of Praise folks don't know anything about the work that appellate judges do. On that issue, they'll defer to ACB's expertise rather than the other way around.
Click to expand...
What's your basis for this answer?

 
Henry Ford said:
What's your basis for this answer?
Click to expand...
I'm vaguely familiar with some charismatic Catholic groups, though not her group in particular. Such groups seem to be composed mostly of people who are, I would venture to say, not experts in constitutional jurisprudence. I have no inside information beyond that.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Maurile Tremblay said:
I'm vaguely familiar with some charismatic Catholic groups, though not her group in particular. Such groups seem to be composed mostly of people who are, I would venture to say, not experts in constitutional jurisprudence. I have no inside information beyond that.
Click to expand...
Thanks.  I still don't follow.  Are you saying that because in your experience charismatic Catholic groups have few people who understand constitutional jurisprudence in their ranks that the leaders of these groups would defer to Barrett in all matters of jurisprudence regardless of the group's interest in the outcome of a case? 

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
I'm vaguely familiar with some charismatic Catholic groups, though not her group in particular. Such groups seem to be composed mostly of people who are, I would venture to say, not experts in constitutional jurisprudence. I have no inside information beyond that.
Click to expand...
I think you are almost certainly right on this point. However her husband is an attorney. Will he have say in her rulings?

Also just because someone is in no way qualified to give an opinion rarely stops them.

 
Henry Ford said:
Thanks.  I still don't follow.  Are you saying that because in your experience charismatic Catholic groups have few people who understand constitutional jurisprudence in their ranks that the leaders of these groups would defer to Barrett in all matters of jurisprudence regardless of the group's interest in the outcome of a case? 
Click to expand...
Not just because of that, but yes, I'm saying that I'm pretty confident that a religious group isn't going to be dictating either the legal reasoning or the results of ACB's judicial decisions.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Henry Ford said:
Right, I'm asking the basis of your confidence.
Click to expand...
It's roughly the same basis as for my confidence that Joe Biden isn't going to be a sock puppet president with AOC calling the shots behind the scenes. It's inherently implausible based on my general understanding of how the world works, and there's no specific evidence I'm aware of that reduces that implausibility.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Maurile Tremblay said:
It's roughly the same basis as my confidence that Joe Biden isn't going to be a sock puppet president with AOC calling the shots behind the scenes. It's inherently implausible based on my general understanding of how the world works, and there's no specific evidence I'm aware of that reduces that implausibility.
Click to expand...
I appreciate that this seems like a foolish question to you - why would she defer to a religious body for her rulings? - but it isn't.  Judges and justices are subject to advise and consent clause because of qualification issues, but also to root out undue influences.  Some judges will potentially defer to the wishes of those with financial power over them, or who offer financial opportunity, and some will defer to those with emotional power over them.  If someone believes that another person or entity has power over the disposition of her or her families' immortal souls, I would consider that a fairly strong potential influence if it isn't separated from her work.  

I would say that the builders of youth detention facilities have very little understanding of the work of a court other than outcome-derived understanding.  And yet they certainly influenced two judges in Pennsylvania.  Because those two valued the money they would get from the interaction over their judicial independence.

I'm not sure what part of your understanding about how the world works is in play here, but it appears different from my understanding about how the world works.  Do I think it likely that she would be influenced on every case?  Of course not. But do I think her religious leaders would give her a call if there were an issue they had a particular interest in? Of course I do. The question is how likely she is to pick up the phone and care what they say.  And the farther one gets from mainstream religion, often the closer the bonds between leadership and the rank and file members are - which is an intentionally-created bond when people are supposed to call up a particular leader based on their identity and group and ask for advice (the former "handmaids" in this particular organization.)  I'm not sure why any of that is controversial.

 
And as for Biden being a sock puppet for AOC, I can give better reasons for not believing that than “I know how the world works.”  I’ve met Joe Biden, but beyond that I can see that his actions and statements sharply divide from those of AOC regularly, he’s had a long and followable public life where his positions and statements make sense based on his journey as a human being, and he’s made some great moves and terrible ones in decades of public service. For good or ill, he has a record that makes it pretty clear he isn’t AOC’s sock puppet. 

If you can point to some similar explanation about Barrett and the religious leaders (and to my knowledge we don’t even know who they are) of this 3,000 person sect, I would agree. Otherwise, that’s what years of district court judicial record are for, in part. To find out if a judge is above influence.  She didn’t get those.  Barring that, it’s legitimate to question her regarding the influence any organization she happens to belong to - be it the PTA, the Communist Party of America, the Trial Lawyer’s Association, MENSA, or yes, even her religious organization - has over her.  

 
Henry Ford said:
... But do I think her religious leaders would give her a call if there were an issue they had a particular interest in? Of course I do. The question is how likely she is to pick up the phone and care what they say.  And the farther one gets from mainstream religion, often the closer the bonds between leadership and the rank and file members are - which is an intentionally-created bond when people are supposed to call up a particular leader based on their identity and group and ask for advice (the former "handmaids" in this particular organization.)  I'm not sure why any of that is controversial.
Click to expand...
And this has really nothing to do with Catholicism or the Papacy, but rather the small religious sect that she and her family belong to.  Can she separate the demands / needs / beliefs / desires of her small community to which she has made a covenant from the legal rulings to which she is asked to do from now until her death or departure from the court?

I feel those are valid questions to ask ACB.

I would also like to know about her acceptance of scientific principles, and the conclusions reached by the collaborative and competitive nature of the modern scientific process.  Or does she believe that the world is 6000 years old and the oil was put here by God for us to use as we please.  

 
There is some non-zero number of judges who will end up doing blatantly improper things like accepting bribes or taking orders from a cult. But the base rate is like 0.02% or whatever, right? And it's the same for everybody a priori, which is what makes it a base rate. To raise concerns about any particular judge, you need specific evidence driving those concerns, IMO.

I'm not saying not to ask her questions about stuff. Ask if she'll take bribes. Ask if she'll let her husband secretly write her opinions. Senators may ask whatever they want. Some of the questions might seem crazy to many people but non-crazy to many others -- exactly like questions about Biden being controlled by AOC.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm less concerned with her views on science - judges are often terrible with science generally - but Amy Coney Barrett has also made very clear statements that a judge should recuse herself from a case in which her religious views conflict with the law.  

Consider this statement from her own work:

The Catholic Church's opposition to the death penalty places Catholic judges in a moral and legal bind. While these judges are obliged by oath, professional commitment, and the demands of citizenship to enforce the death penalty, they are also obliged to adhere to their church's teaching on moral matters. Although the legal system has a solution for this dilemma by allowing the recusal of judges whose convictions keep them from doing their job, Catholic judges will want to sit whenever possible without acting immorally. However, litigants and the general public are entitled to impartial justice, which may be something a judge who is heedful of ecclesiastical pronouncements cannot dispense. Therefore, the authors argue, we need to know whether judges are legally disqualified from hearing cases that their consciences would let them decide. While mere identification of a judge as Catholic is not sufficient reason for recusal under federal law, the authors suggest that the moral impossibility of enforcing capital punishment in such cases as sentencing, enforcing jury recommendations, and affirming are in fact reasons for not participating.
Click to expand...
No one put words in her mouth.  This is the abstract from a law review article that she wrote as the first-named author titled "Catholic Judges in Capital Cases."  Does she still believe that? If not, is it because of wanting to change the law?  Are we okay with that?  And what changed her mind?  

By her own rules, if she still believes in them, she would be disqualified from all Supreme Court cases reviewing a case of capital punishment.  Is that an acceptable allowance for one of our nine? Does it extend to abortion?  Separation of church and state? There are a lot of questions that are worth answering.

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
There is some non-zero number of judges who will end up doing blatantly improper things like accepting bribes or taking orders from a cult. But the base rate is like 0.02% or whatever, right? And it's the same for everybody a priori, which is what makes it a base rate. To raise concerns about any particular judge, you need specific evidence driving those concerns, IMO.

I'm not saying to not ask her questions about stuff. Ask if she'll take bribes. Ask if she'll let her husband secretly write her opinions. Senators may ask whatever they want. Some of the questions might seem crazy to many people but non-crazy to many others -- exactly like questions about Biden being controlled by AOC.
Click to expand...
I haven't referred to this as a cult.  Would you like to frame the discussion as though it definitely is?

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
There is some non-zero number of judges who will end up doing blatantly improper things like accepting bribes or taking orders from a cult. But the base rate is like 0.02% or whatever, right? And it's the same for everybody a priori, which is what makes it a base rate. To raise concerns about any particular judge, you need specific evidence driving those concerns, IMO.

I'm not saying not to ask her questions about stuff. Ask if she'll take bribes. Ask if she'll let her husband secretly write her opinions. Senators may ask whatever they want. Some of the questions might seem crazy to many people but non-crazy to many others -- exactly like questions about Biden being controlled by AOC.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure where you get .02% from, but the Yale Law Journal review of corruption in the courts ten years ago or so suggests much higher than that.  I would imagine only .02% get caught, if that's a statistic somewhere.

https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5179&context=ylj

 
People have asked me why I expect someone to have spent time in the lower courts prior to being in the circuits and then the Supreme Court.  This is my number one reason why.  Because years of judicial work will hopefully evidence whether a judge is under undue influence or not.  It is my number one concern with the judiciary, its independence.  That's what ideally leads to fair application of the laws, if not "fair" outcomes.

 
Henry Ford said:
I'm less concerned with her views on science - judges are often terrible with science generally - but Amy Coney Barrett has also made very clear statements that a judge should recuse herself from a case in which her religious views conflict with the law.  

Consider this statement from her own work:

No one put words in her mouth.  This is the abstract from a law review article that she wrote as the first-named author titled "Catholic Judges in Capital Cases."  Does she still believe that? If not, is it because of wanting to change the law?  Are we okay with that?  And what changed her mind?  

By her own rules, if she still believes in them, she would be disqualified from all Supreme Court cases reviewing a case of capital punishment.  Is that an acceptable allowance for one of our nine? Does it extend to abortion?  Separation of church and state? There are a lot of questions that are worth answering.
Click to expand...
If she believes in that...yes, she should recuse from Capital Punishment and Abortion cases...as the Catholic Church is quite clear on those.  If she feels she cannot be unbiased in such a case from a person/belief standpoint...most certainly.  My guess...if questioned, nope, doesn't believe that anymore.

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
There is some non-zero number of judges who will end up doing blatantly improper things like accepting bribes or taking orders from a cult. But the base rate is like 0.02% or whatever, right? And it's the same for everybody a priori, which is what makes it a base rate. To raise concerns about any particular judge, you need specific evidence driving those concerns, IMO.

I'm not saying not to ask her questions about stuff. Ask if she'll take bribes. Ask if she'll let her husband secretly write her opinions. Senators may ask whatever they want. Some of the questions might seem crazy to many people but non-crazy to many others -- exactly like questions about Biden being controlled by AOC.
Click to expand...
I'll take a PM.  Asking for a friend.

 
I think abortion and capital punishment are rather different for purposes of recusal.

With abortion, in a constitutional context, a judge isn't deciding whether abortion is good or bad. She's determining the content and scope of constitutionally protected individual rights, express or implied, and how they interact with a state's inherent police powers.

The same would be true when considering the constitutionality of the death penalty under the Eighth Amendment as a general matter.

But actually ordering someone's death seems far different. Recusing in that last situation, but not in the first two, seems reasonable to me.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Maurile Tremblay said:
I think abortion and capital punishment are rather different for purposes of recusal.

With abortion, in a constitutional context, a judge isn't deciding whether abortion is good or bad. She's determining the content and scope of constitutionally protected individual rights, express or implied, and how they interact with a state's inherent police powers.

The same would be true when considering the constitutionality of the death penalty under the Eighth Amendment as a general matter.

But actually ordering someone's death seems far different. Recusing in that last situation, but not in the first two, seems reasonable to me.
Click to expand...
With abortion, in a case or controversy legal system, a justice will be called on to determine if a woman is allowed to get an abortion or whether lots of women will be allowed to get an abortion.  Same with the constitutionality of capital punishment - it will be decided in the context of whether a particular person may be put to death.

Determining constitutionality will decide individuals' rights.  If she doesn't understand that I have much bigger issues with her appointment.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Henry Ford said:
With abortion, in a case or controversy legal system, a justice will be called on to determine if a woman is allowed to get an abortion or whether lots of women will be allowed to get an abortion.  Same with the constitutionality of capital punishment - it will be decided in the context of whether a particular person may be put to death.

Determining constitutionality will decide individuals' rights.  If she doesn't understand that I have much bigger issues with her appointment.
Click to expand...
There's an obvious (to me) difference between the following two questions:

1. Does capital punishment run afoul of the Eighth Amendment under a proper constitutional analysis?

2. Now that this defendant has been convicted by the jury, it is up to me to finally determine the appropriate sentence after weighing the various mitigating and aggravating circumstances -- should it be death or something else?

I don't know whether the second situation was the intended context for ACB's quotation above (and I'm aware it's now mooted by Hurst). But it is quite easy for me to imagine being able to put aside my personal views and decide issue #1 fairly while being unable to do so with issue #2.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
IvanKaramazov said:
Some of you guys really need to meet some religious people sometime.
Click to expand...
I tell my Christian friends frequently they have no idea how much of the country sees us.

And for sure, much of it is earned and we don't do ourselves a lot of favors many times. Shame on us. But I'll also say tons of the negative perception doesn't match the reality of what I've seen and experienced personally. 

However we got there, it breaks my heart to see how many folks see us. 

 
Joe Bryant said:
I tell my Christian friends frequently they have no idea how much of the country sees us.

And for sure, much of it is earned and we don't do ourselves a lot of favors many times. Shame on us. But I'll also say tons of the negative perception doesn't match the reality of what I've seen and experienced personally. 

However we got there, it breaks my heart to see how many folks see us. 
Click to expand...
Bigotry reaches far beyond skin color.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joe Bryant said:
I tell my Christian friends frequently they have no idea how much of the country sees us.

And for sure, much of it is earned and we don't do ourselves a lot of favors many times. Shame on us. But I'll also say tons of the negative perception doesn't match the reality of what I've seen and experienced personally. 

However we got there, it breaks my heart to see how many folks see us. 
Click to expand...
You think Christians are looked at less favorably than other religious groups?

Imagine how folks see Muslims, Jews, Sikhs, Bahai, etc. I guarantee that the negative perception of Christians pales in comparison to the treatment of those groups. 

 
Joe Bryant said:
I tell my Christian friends frequently they have no idea how much of the country sees us.

And for sure, much of it is earned and we don't do ourselves a lot of favors many times. Shame on us. But I'll also say tons of the negative perception doesn't match the reality of what I've seen and experienced personally. 

However we got there, it breaks my heart to see how many folks see us. 
Click to expand...
Jesus said, “By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another” (John 13:35)

If only we could get that one thing right.

How do people outside the faith view Christians? As dogmatic, unbending, closed minded, as hypocrites, as charlatans (equating certain televangelists with following Christ), as people who don’t know how to have fun, et al.

Its a complete perversion of what it means to love Jesus and be His follower. But tbh I’m not sure how we achieve altering how others view believers.

 
BobbyLayne said:
Jesus said, “By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another” (John 13:35)

If only we could get that one thing right.

How do people outside the faith view Christians? As dogmatic, unbending, closed minded, as hypocrites, as charlatans (equating certain televangelists with following Christ), as people who don’t know how to have fun, et al.

Its a complete perversion of what it means to love Jesus and be His follower. But tbh I’m not sure how we achieve altering how others view believers.
Click to expand...
The Beatitudes  - 

Matthew 5:3–12

3 Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

4 Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.

5 Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.

6 Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.

7 Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.

8 Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.

9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.

The problem is, IMO, that many Christians are more concerned with being Republicans than they are with being Christ followers.  Be humble, be kind, love others.  It’s kind of hard to take someone serious when they claim to believe all of the things above but then will vote for Trump.

 
AAABatteries said:
The Beatitudes  - 

Matthew 5:3–12

3 Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

4 Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.

5 Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.

6 Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.

7 Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.

8 Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.

9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.

The problem is, IMO, that many Christians are more concerned with being Republicans than they are with being Christ followers.  Be humble, be kind, love others.  It’s kind of hard to take someone serious when they claim to believe all of the things above but then will vote for Trump.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I received some awesome DMs this summer.

:shrug:  

I stopped trying.

 
AAABatteries said:
The Beatitudes  - 

Matthew 5:3–12

3 Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

4 Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.

5 Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.

6 Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.

7 Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.

8 Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.

9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.

The problem is, IMO, that many Christians are more concerned with being Republicans than they are with being Christ followers.  Be humble, be kind, love others.  It’s kind of hard to take someone serious when they claim to believe all of the things above but then will vote for Trump.
Click to expand...
They are voting for the party that supports their views.  Don't confuse Christians with diehard Trump supporters.

 
Ramblin Wreck said:
They are voting for the party that supports their views.  Don't confuse Christians with diehard Trump supporters.
Click to expand...
My position is no one should call themself a Christian and vote for that man.  They shouldn’t be so devoted to a political party that they will sell their soul by casting a vote for him.  I totally understand many don’t share that position. 

 
And make no mistake - there’s a lot of Trump supporters who consider themselves Christians - no clue what the numbers are but my guess is over 50% and probably 70-80%+.  

 
AAABatteries said:
My position is no one should call themself a Christian and vote for that man.  They shouldn’t be so devoted to a political party that they will sell their soul by casting a vote for him.  I totally understand many don’t share that position. 
Click to expand...
That's the second time I've read that Trump supporters have "sold their souls" today.  Amazing.

I have a hard time believing Catholics or Mormons or fundamentalist Christians not voting Republican considering the alternatives.  

 
AAABatteries said:
And make no mistake - there’s a lot of Trump supporters who consider themselves Christians - no clue what the numbers are but my guess is over 50% and probably 70-80%+.  
Click to expand...
IDK about that, but back home (West Michigan) it’s a solid block. Far more divided in NYC amongst believers.

 
BobbyLayne said:
IDK about that, but back home (West Michigan) it’s a solid block. Far more divided in NYC amongst believers.
Click to expand...
I don’t really know either and that’s why I left it as a wide range.  If 50%+ of his voters aren’t self-identifying as Christian then I’ll eat my hat.

 
BobbyLayne said:
Jesus said, “By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another” (John 13:35)

If only we could get that one thing right.

How do people outside the faith view Christians? As dogmatic, unbending, closed minded, as hypocrites, as charlatans (equating certain televangelists with following Christ), as people who don’t know how to have fun, et al.

Its a complete perversion of what it means to love Jesus and be His follower. But tbh I’m not sure how we achieve altering how others view believers.
Click to expand...
The most frustrating thing about Christians is that they are human.

The words above are easy for humans to nod in agreement with, but very difficult to live by.

 
AAABatteries said:
I don’t really know either and that’s why I left it as a wide range.  If 50%+ of his voters aren’t self-identifying as Christian then I’ll eat my hat.
Click to expand...
It's higher than that. About 70% of adults in the United States identify as Christian, and I think it's pretty obvious that Trump supporters are more likely than others to identify that way.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Maurile Tremblay said:
AAABatteries said:
I don’t really know either and that’s why I left it as a wide range.  If 50%+ of his voters aren’t self-identifying as Christian then I’ll eat my hat.
Click to expand...
It's higher than that. About 70% of adults in the United States identify as Christian, and I think it's pretty obvious that Trump supporters are more likely than others to identify that way.
Click to expand...
Pew Research Center says it’s down to 65% (2018-19 data) and dropping. Of those, 37% attend services a few times a year, another 18% go to church about once a month.

Anyway, interesting data. I live in one of the “least churched” cities in the country and didn’t realize how low the atheist and agnostic numbers are in the U.S.; I would have guessed much higher.

Huge differences amongst millennials, which is again interesting and at odds with my own personal experience. I go to a very large non-denominational church where the demo is predominantly 35 and under.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

E
Democrats Planning to Add 4 New Justices to the Supreme Court
3 4 5
Replies
242
Views
7K
John123
J
GordonGekko
Should Ruth Bader Ginsburg Have Retired Before Her Passing To Protect Roe v Wade? (6/27/22 17:59 PST)
Replies
47
Views
1K
BladeRunner
BladeRunner

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 4 (members: 0, guests: 4)
Top