The Very Troubling Partisanship of John Roberts
Speaking to students of the University of Alabama law school, Chief Justice John Roberts launched a blistering attack on President Obama's State of the Union criticism of the Court's Citizens United decision. Calling Obama's prime-time critique "very troubling," Roberts complained that the President's annual address to Congress "degenerated to a political pep rally." Of course, when Robert's political godfather Ronald Reagan or his sponsor George W. Bush used the State of the Union to berate, badger and batter the Supreme Court, that was just fine with the Chief Justice.
"I'm not sure why we're there," Roberts told the audience in Tuscaloosa, adding:
"The image of having the members of one branch of government standing up, literally surrounding the Supreme Court, cheering and hollering while the court -- according the requirements of protocol -- has to sit there expressionless, I think is very troubling."
But during the George W. Bush's tenure, the Justices served as a prop for his State of the Union battles with the judiciary.
Bush's Supreme politicking during his State of the Union speeches was a regular fixture of his presidency. For three straight years (2004, 2005 and 2006), President Bush denounced "activist judges" and insisted "for the good of families, children and society, I support a constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage." On the very day Samuel Alito joined the Robert Court, Bush used his 2006 SOTU for a victory lap:
"The Supreme Court now has two superb new members -- new members on its bench: Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Sam Alito. I thank the Senate for confirming both of them. I will continue to nominate men and women who understand that judges must be servants of the law and not legislate from the bench."
And throughout the presidency of Ronald Reagan, for whom John Roberts promoted the gutting of the Civil Rights Act, overturning Roe v. Wade and a dangerously ignorant policy in response to the AIDS crisis, bashing the Supreme Court was a routine occurrence.
In 1983, President Reagan penned a screed in Human Life Review, echoing Justice Byron White's declaration that the Court's ruling in Roe was an exercise of "raw judicial power." Reagan wrote:
"Make no mistake, abortion-on-demand is not a right granted by the Constitution. No serious scholar, including one disposed to agree with the court's result, has argued that the framers of the Constitution intended to create such a right. ... Nowhere do the plain words of the Constitution even hint at a 'right' so sweeping as to permit abortion up to the time the child is ready to be born."
And as radio host Michael Smerconish noted, Reagan didn't hesitate to get in the Justices faces during his State of the Union speeches:
Among Reagan's State of the Union addresses, on four occasions he did what Obama attempted to do: urge Congress to address a Supreme Court decision with which he disagreed. but in the Gipper's case, he avoided any direct reference to the Supreme Court decision.
The issue of abortion, he acknowledged in 1984, was "very controversial." He asked: "But unless and until it can be proven that an unborn child is not a living human being, can we justify assuming without proof that it isn't?"
One can only speculate whether Justice Harry Blackmun, a Nixon nominee and author of the majority opinion in Roe, wondered out loud, "I'm not sure why we're there."
When John Roberts first assumed the mantle of Chief Justice in 2005, George Washington University law professor, New Republic regular and author of the PBS series and book "The Supreme Court" Jeffrey Rosen lauded Roberts as the second coming of the legendary John Marshall:
"Whenever the Court gets dramatically out of step with the public, and issues intensely controversial, narrowly divided opinions, all of that carefully hoarded legitimacy can go out the window. That's why I'm persuaded by Roberts' argument that resurrecting Marshall's vision is all the more important in a polarized age."
But by 2007, Rosen expressed buyer's remorse over the radical and divisive Roberts, echoing Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) lament that his Democratic colleagues were "too easily impressed with the charm of Roberts" and concluded, "There is no doubt that we were hoodwinked." By July, Rosen aired his disappointment in a piece titled, "Will Roberts Ever Get Better?"
"Although Chief Justice John Roberts began the term by calling for greater consensus, a third of cases were decided by five-to-four votes, the highest percentage in more than ten years. The polarization inspired the four liberal justices to write some of their most passionate, incisive, and memorable dissents."
In the wake of the Court's decision in Citizens United v. FEC, Rosen seemed to finally come to grips with John Roberts radical conservatism and naked partisanship:
While Roberts talked persuasively about conciliation, it now appears that he is unwilling to cede an inch to liberals in the most polarizing cases. If Roberts continues this approach, the Supreme Court may find itself on a collision course with the Obama administration--precipitating the first full-throttle confrontation between an economically progressive president and a narrow majority of conservative judicial activists since the New Deal...
Political backlashes are hard to predict, contested constitutional visions can't be successfully imposed by 5-4 majorities, and challenging the president and Congress on matters they care intensely about is a dangerous game. We've seen well-intentioned but unrestrained chief justices overplay their hands in the past--and it always ends badly for the Court.
And in case of John Roberts, for the people of the United States.
(This piece also appears at Perrspectives.)
in a black robe.
.
Why, of course it's NOT being an activist Judge when...
... It's the U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice doing it, YES?
.
Starve the WAR Beast...
... Feed Americans.
Partisan is how the Japanese say "Party On!"
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Poor Justice Roberts, it must be hell to make poor decisions and have people call you on them. He's one of two stains bush left on this country for a long long time to come.
Roberts may not be sure why he's there but the rest of know.
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
Well...probably stuck with this asshat in black for the rest of my natural days.
"Anyone that makes less than $150K in this country, has no business voting Republican."
and take Scalia and Thomas with you.
And why are they there? They're certainly not doing their Constitutionally required job. I agree with his Hoser--I mean Honor.
Well we know why Alito is there. Remember the questions about her husband made Mrs Alito cry. After that they had to vote him in to make it up to her.
I don't think many of us had any doubts about Roberts or Alito. Too bad others didn't, like the ones who voted for them.
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
I just heard on tv that Scalia never attends the state of the union speech because he feels the court has been reduced to "bumps on a log".
That isn't exactly the way I would describe some of them but if it works for him, fine.
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
But would she listen?
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!11!!!!!
me-oww!
because they insisted on sterilizing people they did not care for: minorities and poor people. If you follow the chain of events that led to Roe vs Wade you will see that the states don't care about abortions. They want the right to commit genocide by sterilization. Eugenics isn't just a Nazi thing. It's an American thing also.
!!!
... I put some of the blame on the Democrats who voted for this guys appointment. It's no secret this guy was a corporate hack for his whole life. Another cave in by the wimps let this guy "fall thru the cracks" on onto the bench probably 30-40 years.
As if!
on Sandra Day O'Conner. She could have held out until there was a democratic president in office. We all knew that Bush would be appointing a right wing corporatist.
Her husband was very ill and she wanted to be with him and care for him in his last years. Can't fault her for loving her husband.
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
for explaining her reason for leaving.
She obviously did the right thing for her husband.
She and others were holding out as long as they could for a Democratic president.
from Dems. She, one of the Gang of Five that over turned our democracy by installing Bush.
When we all thought Gore had won she was overheard saying "now I'll have to stay on the bench for four more years." Moderate waiting for a Dem president (tgw above)? Not by a long shot.
As to Roberts, it's time for a group of people to get loud about impeaching him. Just to get the meme out there. Scalia/Thomas are no better but have the seniority.
that voted against his confirmation even. They could have placed a hold on the nomination!!! There was no reason for them not to! And ever reason for them to do so! Fucking filthy Republicans think nothing of doing so even when there is no reason whatsoever for the hold! only 40 fucking Rethug pigs in the Senate and they can place holds like there's no tomorrow even when the nominee isn't the least bit controversial. Fucking spineless Demtrash when they had 49 seats in the Senate couldn't be bothered to place a hold on this bat shit crazy further right then David Duke asshole Roberts. WTF???
IOKIYAR
this travesty dates back to the 19th century, during the robber baron
era, the ruling granting personhood to corps was an "obiter dictum"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obiter_dictum
meaning it was not even part of a court ruling
the case itself was "santa clara county vs. southern pacific
railroad"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_Coun...
hope this sheds some light on this issue
for myself, nothing else points out better how we are all subject to our corporate overlords.
corporations should not have constitutional rights, only human beings should have constitutional rights in the united staes of america
who marches in lock step with the Republican Party, but takes it a step or two beyond when he decides to legislate from the bench, something he testified before congress that he would not do. He is among the elitists who want the government to be run & controlled by the banks, insurance companies & other corporations, & still supports Ronald Reagan's propagandist nonsense that money will "trickle down" to the "little people." Roberts is another piece of the disasterous mess left behind by the clueless & moronic George W. Bush
Woody McBreairty
on most of your points, however the personhood of corporations has been established as common law, if not exactly legally, for quite some time, therefore the ruling could be construed as not legislating from the bench, but only applying precedent.
the way to approach this may be for people to start claiming the same rights as corporations, or bring a homicide charge against say, the people who bankrupted one of those wall street companies.
or, a civil rights group could directly challenge the original court ruling.
something other than a constitutional amendment.
somebody smarter than me may be able to think up something creative.
Create a (State) Corporation.
Have that corporation register to vote.
Have that corporation run for office.
Once the corporation is rejected (presumably for both), file a law-suit on behalf of the corporation based on the 2 SCOTUS decisions.
The suit will lose – so challenge it all the way to SCOTUS.
The inevitable and eventual decision will be that corporations ARE NOT people (and therefore cannot vote or run for office), thus invalidating the prior rulings.
It’s doubtful that the SCOTUS will rule that corporations are PARTIAL people (like the 3/5 decision all over again).
This seems like the best test to challenge the recent decisions.
Hear this: "The Supreme Court is not the court of last resort because it is always right. It is always right because it is the last resort." I have forgotten who said that first, but it wasn't me.
still seems to me to be the root to a lot of problems, like i said, somebody smarter than me.
have got to get this changed somehow
"past practice." It means, in essence, that if a company, etc. allows a certain thing, then labor can rightfully demand it in future negotiations. That's the gist of it. I am reluctant to call it common "law." A long standing unchallenged pile of steaming--excuse me, please. I almost got carried away there. He knows much about this this corporations as people sticking point.
is what it took to get out of high school, and that's what i had
person falsehood.
Term limits on Judges
And disappointed in Obama. And I have to agree on some of the reasons why. But, there is no way that I want to see anymore politicians get selected for the SCOTUS like the last bunch courtesy of the GOpers.
I know Obama ain't what he looked like he was going to be.
When it comes down to the SCOTUS. I'll continue to support him.
Just imagine if McGump won. pretty damn scary.
What is your conceptual, continuity?
appointed? GWB? Phil Gramm? Joe Lieberman? Help! I can't stop.
But I think it's safe to say that they would be in the same vein.
And I did mean they.
What is your conceptual, continuity?
ball less bipatisan spine missing limp dick whore yada yadas
that traitor back stabber will appoint won't be ANY different.
You know the rightards are so stupid.
"I mean Romney is the most conservative on illegal immigration and I don't think Ronald Reagan could get elected in California today."
Ann "Clipped" Coulter
If I have ightmares about this tonight, Savannah, it's your fault. By the way, are you in Savannah Ga?
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
I am in upstate NY. I just think Savannah, GA is a pretty place.
It is pretty and there is a shop there that makes the best pecan pralines ever tasted by human beings.
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
Can you order online?
Yes you can and I almost did during the holidays. I believe the shop is the nut shop or nut store or something like that. Google, Savannah pecan pralines, that should get you there.
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
"River Street Sweets." They claim to have the best pralines. Easter coming. My excuse. Thanks.
That appears to be the same place. Same prices etc. Maybe they bought out the other store. I have a birthday and easter coming up, that should qualify me for two tins. My mouth is watering just thinking about it. The ones I had before were fresh made in the store so I can't vouch for the ones that come by mail. But I'm going for it.
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
Wed, 03/10/2010 - 13:27 — savannah43
appointed? GWB? Phil Gramm? Joe Lieberman? Help! I can't stop.
_______________________________________________________________
ann colter?
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
.
"I mean Romney is the most conservative on illegal immigration and I don't think Ronald Reagan could get elected in California today."
Ann "Clipped" Coulter
Cokie Roberts? Glen Beck? O'Reilly? Somebody shoot me.
Obama took my guns.
"I mean Romney is the most conservative on illegal immigration and I don't think Ronald Reagan could get elected in California today."
Ann "Clipped" Coulter
He took mine and my ammo too. What the hell is he going to do with that many BBs?
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
jowls!
"Parachutes are allowed in checked or carry-on baggage, but may not be worn in flight."
---Southwest Airlines
he mouthed "Not true." Such class. Such strict protocol.
This man is a card-carrying jerk and unintelligent to boot, just like Scalia. They both think they are so smart, when they are not. Just corrupt, convinced, and self-righteous.
And that goes for Clarence Thomas too.
I believe it was Alito who mouthed, "not true"
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
of the court majority.
"I mean Romney is the most conservative on illegal immigration and I don't think Ronald Reagan could get elected in California today."
Ann "Clipped" Coulter
.
republicanism/conservatism is a mental illness it has killed the economy, almost the country and ruined millions of lives!
Short on time, but there is a case from 91 or 92 (Hudson vs MacMillan?) were Roberts represented an inmate from Louisiana who had been beaten in prison. Robert's arguments before SCOTUS directly contradicts the position espouse by John Yoo's torture memos. And Yoo was Thomas's clerk in 91-92.
Small world.
Back later.
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America, and to the republic which it established, one nation from many peoples, promising liberty and justice for all
and hopes: http://current.com/items/92270190_scotus-chie...
I had heard about that. Well, one can hope.
Damn, It's so nice to be back on Mozilla. That IE was driving me nuts.
As for Roberts stepping down sooner than later? I can see why he should.
But he's too partisan to step down. They'll have to carry him out.
What is your conceptual, continuity?
Saw that-it was a Crim Law professor who started the rumor as an example of the unreliability of witness testimony.
A purple monkey dishwasher example.
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America, and to the republic which it established, one nation from many peoples, promising liberty and justice for all
What amazes is what a whiny, weinnie Roberts is. He and his conservative buddies go to great lengths to bring Citizens back before the court for a second bite, overturn 200 years of precedence and then cry fowl when Obama calls them on it. And look where Roberts choses to do his whining -- at the UA law school! But Morning Joke and Dan Abhrams support him because he's a Supreme. Gimma a break.
Actually it's about a 100 years of precedence
And foul.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
tax cuts to build luxury condos snapped up by Tide football boosters?
"I mean Romney is the most conservative on illegal immigration and I don't think Ronald Reagan could get elected in California today."
Ann "Clipped" Coulter
Since when was the State of the Union anything other than a political pep rally under Reagan, Clinton or George W. Bush? The difference being, the minority in the past has been gracious in their applause instead of sitting on their hands and acting like petulant children.
"stupider and stupider." We are now entering the 1st grade level.
Bought and paid for. When he pulls his robe up, you can see his kneepads.
NOBODY 2012
Don't forget the class displayed by Roberts by botching Obama's swearing in ceremony...
How many times did Alito and Roberts, during their confirmation, say they believed in stare decisis ("to abide by , or adhere to, decided cases)? Is there any way one can call bullshit on a justice?
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
it got to the point where we just kind of hummed along, till the good father just told us to knock it off.
the reason i get so pedantic, is to point out things such as the justices, as much as i agree with everything said about them here, have some legal precedent to use as an excuse.
as with so many other issues, a lot of the anti-people assumptions go back a hundred years.
from this activist POS?
about the contempt his clownact of a court is held in by the majority of Americans, he'd be ashamed to show his face in public.
Then again, maybe not...he's a sociopath in robes.
Not only do we need amendments specifically denying personhood to non-humans, mandating federal funding as the sole legal means to run campaigns, and other amendments, we also need an amendment giving the voters the power to remove any federal or supreme court judge by a simple majority vote in national referendums. It would keep the judges focused on serving the people and defending the constitution or send them packing.
the capacity to feel shame they would be embarrassed!
republicanism/conservatism is a mental illness it has killed the economy, almost the country and ruined millions of lives!
I mean he essentially walked into his impeachment. I've never heard of any sitting Justice, let alone the Chief Justice, who critiqued a President in public. I've never heard that John Marshall assailed Jefferson or Jackson other than in his opinions, but, more pertinently, if we had a functioning democracy and Congress, this guy would be impeached for such shocking and bad behavior.
Somehow, I never knew that John Roberts could be cowed by the crowd. I thought his beliefs were long ago bought off.
while he does it.
since he went into politics the fact that he couldn't be bothered to block the confirmation of this far right wing radical is why I'll never vote for him again. I'm past being sick and tired of Democrats allowing dangerous far right radical Republicans to run roughshod over OUR country!
Article II, Section 3
"He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient."
First, it's not only allowed that the president would give his views on the 3rd branch's ruling, it is a constitutional requirement, if he feels it needs consideration by Congress.
Second, Obama is absolutely correct that, regardless of how you stand on the court's ruling, it is an important ruling and unarguably merits consideration by Congress.
Third, the SCOTUS is a guest at the SOTU. They are there by courtesy. The constitution clearly states that the business of the communication is between second and first branches.
Washington used that first State of the Union Address to focus on the very concept of the "union of states" that had so recently been created. Indeed, establishing and maintaining the union was the primary goal of Washington's first administration.
Finding the whole process of a speech to a joint session of Congress a little too "kingly," Thomas Jefferson chose to carry out his constitutional duty in 1801 by sending details of his national priorities in separate, written notes to the House and Senate. Finding the written report a great idea, Jefferson's successors in the White House followed suit and it would be 112 years before a president again spoke the State of the Union Address.
In a controversial move at the time, President Woodrow Wilson revived the practice of spoken delivery of the State of the Union Address to a joint session of Congress in 1913.
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America, and to the republic which it established, one nation from many peoples, promising liberty and justice for all
better yet, impeach him, as he lied under oath during his confirmation hearings
he is an evil little man
to this. The Roberts Court will go down as one of the most partisan and least respected in history. I think both of the Supreme liars - Roberts and Alito - should be impeached.
Yeah, dumbass, nowhere in Roe v. Wade does it say that a state can't outlaw abortion "up to the time the child is ready to be born." In fact, Roe says that in the third trimester, it can.
But why let pesky little facts get in the way of a good ol' gipper story. If they put his ugly head on the 50$ bill, I'm going to have to do something.
Right. That might be true, if in 2012, we elect an "economically progressive President," because this one isn't. And Rosen doesn't have to worry about the Constitutional crisis because it'll be a cold day in hell when Obama starts acting like FDR.
Turns out Roberts is a partisan hack.
WOW WHAT A FUCKING SURPRISE.
There's always free cheddar in the mousetrap, baby. - Tom Waits
Given his background is anyone here surprised that Robert's is an activist judge and that he is not upholding the Constitution but taking part in trashing it ? Fact is he is a saboteur and a traitor .
with Reagan, Bush and Cheney.
no matter what your problems with the dems or obama are, for the sake of the supremes, we must keep a dem in the wh
"The image of having the members of one branch of government standing up, literally surrounding the Supreme Court, cheering and hollering while the court -- according the requirements of protocol -- has to sit there expressionless, I think is very troubling."
How about the entire population now standing around having been practically disenfranchised by the Court in favor of corporations, one of which could outspend the entire population in an election?
If you need funds to pay for essentials, you have a revenue problem
If you need funds to pay for frivolity, you have a spending problem
began with Bush V. Gore; a decision that I blame Al Gore for, because if he asks for a recount of ALL of the voting districts in Florida, as opposed to cherry picking the districts with majority minority voters, George Bush doesn't get to protest that his 14th Amendment rights were violated.
The SCOTUS showed their partisanship RIGHT in their decision, and wonder why Americans no longer look to them as the court of final resort. They lost their impartiality that day, and it's never coming back.
Roberts just further ensured that the impartiallity of the SCOTUS is gone for GOOD.
I say impeach roberts: lying to Congress under oath about stare decisis (judicial temperment), the Citizens United v FEC (they actually requested the case and went far further than necessary in their decision in pursuance of their partisan drive), and now holding the president up to ridicule in this speech (Obama rebuked the court, but no particular individual justice, and this also shows lack of judicial temperment on robert's part).
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/03/ba...
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Maybe if Roberts didn't rule against the American people every chance he has and maybe if he wasn't a right-wing hack made supreme court judge by Dubya and allowed by the cowardly Democrats he wouldn't feel so self-conscious when someone speaks out for the American people as Obama was in his SOTU speech.
We need some serious changes in this country. But I just don't have faith in my fellow Americans. Sure some of us pay attention to what is done by our leaders and in our name. We care enough to get angry and post messages on blogs, write our representatives, and go out and protest. But the vast majority either doesn't know or doesn't care what is going on and will never* stand with us to fight.
*never until something effects them directly and then they will be all about speaking out.
Wow! I am surprised he didn't go to the top school--Mississippi! Talk about credibility gap!
Candideinnc
"The switch in time that saved nine."
Referring to FDR's threat to the SCOTUS that they better find his New Deal legislation Constitutional, or he would increase the number of justices on the SCOTUS from 9 to 16, I think.
The Constitution does not state that there be only 9 justices on the SCOTUS. It would be interesting to see Obama try to pull an FDR.
End of line...
I think at one time it was as low as five, and at another 12.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
it has become a pep rally though.
guy should have never butchered that swearing in. Going to live in infamy for that one
Nothing will ever erase the extreme crime foisted upon this country and the world by the criminal and treasonous gang of five that installed a brainless, sadistic mass killer in 2000. The resulting disasters will continue to plague the world for untold decades.
I am led to thinking quite often that much of the ills (unemployment, runaway Wall Street thievery, mercenaries and paid cannon fodder mercilessly killing innocent human beings around the world, the great decline of civility, curiosity and pursuit of science and inquiry in this country) we see every day now- well, congratulations, America- how farsighted of you to bring this upon yourself. Whom do we blame for America's many glaring problems today, but the brainwashed voters and the corporate criminals?
The original gang of five now has new rogues on the roster- Alito and Roberts. It is truly a great irony that immeasurable, maniacal and ruthless crooks (such as Scalia- the most monstrous of the bunch) can put on the mantle of Justice.
The vile gang/gangsters in the judiciary is/are responsible for great injustice and misery in this country and elsewhere.
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/LAW/12/14/scotus...
A supposedly independent judge decries the evils of political pep rallies... during a political pep rally.
So the Supremes never have to face the public over their decisions and all of a sudden Bush's pal Roberts is upset because they were called out in public on their idiotic decision.
Well boo-fucking-hoo, we all weep for ya. Climb down off your bench Roberts and get out and find out how ordinary Americans feel about the shit sandwich you handed us with this horrible "Corporations are people, too" ruling you shoved down out throats.
Pardon me, but you're an asshole. Furthermore, a whining asshole.
Democratic Party progressive, Vietnam veteran and proud Union member for 41 years
Alito was confirmed BEFORE Roberts was. It wasn't Roberts' Court yet when Alito was confirmed.
"...Money Trumps Peace..." G.W. Bush, 2007
Is Chief Justice Roberts unhappy with his job?
Or
Is Chief Justice Roberts uncontent with the robe with all the gold oak leafs on the sleeves or is he just getting uppity?
-I thought Roberts had stated commitments to Stare Decisis during his confirmation. If you lie on an applicattion for a job, you can be fired. Is he aware of that?
Would also like to know if Roberts' supreme five that believe in unrestrained free speech would do something to alow me to yell, "bomb" on a airliner legally. After all if foriegn corporations can have unlimited speech why not me?
And why aren't Americans allowed their second amendment right to bear arms in the Supreme Court's own court room? Why?
We need less Reslugs on the court, so we can have some real justice and not partisan Reslug bullshit.
So, let me get this straight, the President isn't allowed to have an opinion unless it agrees with his conservative opponents on the SCOTUS?
That's bullshit.
NEXT
I just don't understand the legal justification for treating corporations as persons. Can anyone clarify this?
Ironic that O'Conner is the "liberal voice" when she was in fact a Republican politician, and appointment. Shows how rediculously skewed the views of those on the right are now.
Comments are closed on this entry