News The Impact of Alito's Nomination on Individual Rights and Government Power

  • Thread starter Thread starter rachmaninoff
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
President Bush nominated Harriet Miers, his White House counsel, to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court. Miers, who has no prior judicial experience, has a background as a lawyer and has held various significant roles, including Deputy Chief of Staff. The nomination has sparked mixed reactions, with concerns about cronyism and her lack of a clear ideological stance on critical issues like abortion and affirmative action. Some view her close ties to Bush as problematic, while others note that her nomination received some support from Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid. The discussion highlights fears that Miers may not represent the conservative values expected by some factions within the Republican Party, particularly regarding her potential stance on pro-choice issues. Critics express skepticism about her qualifications, given her limited courtroom experience and the perception that her nomination is more about loyalty than merit. Overall, Miers' nomination raises significant questions about her judicial philosophy and the implications for the Supreme Court's future direction.
  • #51
Hmmmm, religion was a basis. I guess Bush doesn't have a "litmus test"; however, selecting a SCJ based on their religious background might is a litmus test contrary to what Mr. Bush thinks. http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/12/miers.ap/index.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #52
Though limited, documents and history are beginning to emerge. It appears that Ms. Miers should be given the Brown-nose Medal.
 
  • #53
SOS2008 said:
Though limited, documents and history are beginning to emerge. It appears that Ms. Miers should be given the Brown-nose Medal.
What, a new MO for the Bush administration? Now if you screw up, instead of being awarded the Medal of Freedom, they name a new medal after you?
 
  • #54
SOS2008 said:
Though limited, documents and history are beginning to emerge. It appears that Ms. Miers should be given the Brown-nose Medal.
BobG said:
What, a new MO for the Bush administration? Now if you screw up, instead of being awarded the Medal of Freedom, they name a new medal after you?

:smile:10 characters
 
  • #55
Well, she has the wingnut vote. http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=19453
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #56
Scotty is having some fun answering ---gasp---questions. I know, questions are anathema to the Bush Wh but they are being asked now and Bush can't seem to make them stop. Not even with a NYC terror threat.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001305157
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #57
faust9 said:
Scotty is having some fun answering ---gasp---questions. I know, questions are anathema to the Bush Wh but they are being asked now and Bush can't seem to make them stop. Not even with a NYC terror threat.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001305157
I love to watch the Scotty dance, he is so awkward.:smile:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #58
Skyhunter said:
I love to watch the Scotty dance, he is so awkward.:smile:
If the questioning had been about her qualifications, why do I suspect the dance would have continued? :smile:
 
  • #59
The president says Harriet Miers' religious convictions figured into his nomination. Democrats question White House assurances given to religious conservatives.
Karl Rove mentioned to a religious and evangelical broadcaster, several days before Bush announced the nomination publicly. Why all the secrecy, and why the need to re-assure the religious community.

It doesn't bode well for the integrity of the process.
 
  • #60
Here's John Fund of WSJ's piece
How She Slipped Through
Harriet Miers's nomination resulted from a failed vetting process.


http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110007398"

Democrats have always spoken for abortion. Now we have a candidate who by all indications is severely pro-life. Where are the Democrats now?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #61
sid_galt said:
Here's John Fund of WSJ's piece
How She Slipped Through
Harriet Miers's nomination resulted from a failed vetting process.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110007398"
Democrats have always spoken for abortion. Now we have a candidate who by all indications is severely pro-life. Where are the Democrats now?

OK, first off your source is an opinion piece. The WSJ does good reporting of news and events but their OP/ED page is as far right as you can get. What are you getting at with the "where are the dems..." question? The Dems are letting Bush hang himslef on this one. He essentially said she has pre-judged abortion cases and has done so for religion reasons. The fact that Bush tried to nominate an unknown and then follwed up by using religion---this tactic has ticked off a lot of conservatives---is galling, but Bush is doing it to himself. No need to attack Miers when there are more than enough votes (for now) to stop her advancment in the SC (something like 20+ senate republicans IIRC have spoken out now: may this is just a scheme though) along with the 40+ dems in the senate. She and Bush will hang themselves here. The dems will get her during questioning and when they start subpoening(sp?) people who have had assurances from Karl Rove.

No need to play dirty politics while Rove is OOC because Bush cannot muster a good fight for himself. Bush will keep saying things like "Religion was a factor[paraphrase]" and the media will jump on it because everybody loves to watch politicians twist in the wind: especially now that Bush's polling numbers are in the 30's to 40's.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #62
faust9 said:
The WSJ does good reporting of news and events but their OP/ED page is as far right as you can get.

I did not notice anything right wing about it. Partisanship doesn't matter. What matters is whether you were rational or not which the piece was.

faust9 said:
No need to attack Miers when there are more than enough votes (for now) to stop her advancment in the SC

I sincerely hope so


faust9 said:
especially now that Bush's polling numbers are in the 30's to 40's.

I knew they were in 40s. Where did you get they were in the 30s?
 
  • #63
sid_galt said:
I knew they were in 40s. Where did you get they were in the 30s?
39% in the latest poll - just under 40%.


sid_galt said:
Democrats have always spoken for abortion. Now we have a candidate who by all indications is severely pro-life. Where are the Democrats now?
And people say Bush isn't a uniter. :rolleyes:

To be honest, I hope Dems do vote against Miers along with Republican defectors. It would be a shame to appoint an unqualified person to a post that she'll hold for so long just for the joy of seeing Bush 'twist in the wind' - besides, if she is approved, instead of twisting in the wind, Bush has achieved a personal victory.

The humorous thing about this is Republicans like Pat Buchanon saying they think this nomination must have been the President's idea. Even Republicans tend to blame Bush for the bad decisions and give credit to Rove and Bush's staff for the decisions they agree with.
 
  • #64
faust9 said:
No need to attack Miers when there are more than enough votes (for now) to stop her advancment in the SC (something like 20+ senate republicans IIRC have spoken out now: may this is just a scheme though) along with the 40+ dems in the senate. She and Bush will hang themselves here.

Is it just me or does this seem like the perfect opportunity for a little reverse psychology? If some of the far left-wing Democrats came out and gave her the same sort of endorsements the Republicans gave Roberts ('she deserves a fair hearing; we'll base our decision on her judicial views rather than partisan politics, etc') that the conservative Republicans would start chomping at the bit to get rid of her.
 
  • #65
BobG said:
The humorous thing about this is Republicans like Pat Buchanon saying they think this nomination must have been the President's idea. Even Republicans tend to blame Bush for the bad decisions and give credit to Rove and Bush's staff for the decisions they agree with.

I'm pretty sure Buchanon left the Republican party long ago.

Anyway, at this point, my disappointment with how Roberts is approaching this Oregon right-to-die case has been the last straw for me. If I were a Senator, it would almost take a personal assurance from God to get me to vote for Miers. Bush appointee after Bush appointee cannot continue to simply be channeled through the confirmation process while his previous appointees continue to disappoint and bungle. I'm getting seriously ready for Bush to pull a Schroeder and call for a special election to find out whether or not the American public still wants him in office. He's Gray Davis in red.
 
  • #66
Grogs said:
Is it just me or does this seem like the perfect opportunity for a little reverse psychology? If some of the far left-wing Democrats came out and gave her the same sort of endorsements the Republicans gave Roberts ('she deserves a fair hearing; we'll base our decision on her judicial views rather than partisan politics, etc') that the conservative Republicans would start chomping at the bit to get rid of her.
Well since she has no judicial record, and Roberts demonstrated brilliantly how to NOT express a judicial view during Senate confirmation hearings, we will never know her judicial view until she starts making decisions in Supreme Court cases. Unless you think that Bushco will release all of her writings as Bushes attorney. :smile: :cry:
 
  • #67
Skyhunter said:
Well since she has no judicial record, and Roberts demonstrated brilliantly how to NOT express a judicial view during Senate confirmation hearings, we will never know her judicial view until she starts making decisions in Supreme Court cases. Unless you think that Bushco will release all of her writings as Bushes attorney. :smile: :cry:

That's what seems odd to me. There was no way you could pin Roberts down as a conservative, yet the right had no trouble accepting him from the get-go. The only one who seems sure of Miers stance is James Dobson. Did they have some inside information on Roberts the committee at large wasn't privy to? Or is it maybe the other way around and they know a bit about Miers and don't like what they see.
 
  • #68
Grogs said:
Is it just me or does this seem like the perfect opportunity for a little reverse psychology? If some of the far left-wing Democrats came out and gave her the same sort of endorsements the Republicans gave Roberts ('she deserves a fair hearing; we'll base our decision on her judicial views rather than partisan politics, etc') that the conservative Republicans would start chomping at the bit to get rid of her.
I believe Reid was sincere in his own personal position on the matter. However, divide and conquer seems to be working well for the Dems on this one - they have not had to do any negative press or threaten to filibuster or anything. Or should I say Bush was given a long rope (allowing the MO of cronyism instead of qualification) so he could hang himself (twist in the wind)?
 
  • #69
I apologize, once again, if this has been talked about already. I just came upon references that talk about the very beginnings of the Miers nomination process.

The Washington Post reports that the person who recommended Miers for the SC spot was one William K. Kelly.

For those who don't know, Will Kelley is the Deputy White House Counsel - the person with the most to gain, if his boss' spot suddenly becomes vacant.

At that point, according to another senior official close to the process, deputy White House counsel William K. Kelley suggested to Card that Miers ought to be considered for the next seat that opened. "It began to be kicked around in a small circle of people," the official said.

And who does Mr. Andy Card pick for vetting Miers ? Why, none other that Kelley himself.

(from the NY Times, Wednesday Oct 5, 2005 - not available online without subscription)

The president discussed the idea with the White House chief of staff, Andrew H. Card Jr., and Mr. Card then directed Ms. Miers's deputy, William K. Kelly [sic], to vet her behind her back.
So, if Kelley finds that Miers is good to be nominated (and she does get the post) Kelley likely has himself a shiny, new job as the White House Counsel. But if he finds that Miers is not cut out for it (and Miers learns of his negative recommendation), that wouldn't help his relationship with his boss. What a dilemma !

Wait, did I hear someone say "conflict of interest" ?
 
Last edited:
  • #70
An interesting point on Miers: What is being sold by Bush and company are not her beliefs, rather it is her specific church membership that allegedly qualifies her to be a member of the Supreme Court.

I can't believe this is happening in my country. That is, corruption never surprises me. What surprises me is willing acceptance of this abomination by the public.
 
Last edited:
  • #71
Ivan Seeking said:
I can't believe this is happening in my country. That is, corruption never surprises me. What surprises me is willing acceptance of this abomination by the public.

Given the very unwelcoming reception of Miers and Bush's low approval ratings, what makes you so convinced that the public is willing to accept this?

I was very surprised to here this earlier, too. Apparently, Dr. James Dobson held a private meeting with Rove and he was assured that Miers belonged to a very conservative church that holds consistent pro-life views. This was obviously done to win's Dobson's endorsement, with the idea being that a popular evangelical like he could rally the party's far-right to approve the nomination. If so, this probably doesn't violate the letter of the Constitution's clause forbidding a religious test for public office, but it certainly violates the spirit of it.
 
  • #72
I keep feeling like what comes around goes around for Bush, et al. In their attempt to convince the fundamentalists that Miers is "one of them" they committed the taboo of promoting her religious background. Oh my, their true colors have been revealed again.
 
  • #73
loseyourname said:
Given the very unwelcoming reception of Miers and Bush's low approval ratings, what makes you so convinced that the public is willing to accept this?

I was very surprised to here this earlier, too. Apparently, Dr. James Dobson held a private meeting with Rove and he was assured that Miers belonged to a very conservative church that holds consistent pro-life views. This was obviously done to win's Dobson's endorsement, with the idea being that a popular evangelical like he could rally the party's far-right to approve the nomination. If so, this probably doesn't violate the letter of the Constitution's clause forbidding a religious test for public office, but it certainly violates the spirit of it.

... Not to mention that this makes a mockery of the process - his personal lawyer and fellow religious convert... :rolleyes: I mean really, could he be any more obvious? And who can rightfully argue that she is one of the most eligible candidates. The cronyism is absolutely staggering and just a continuation of the incompetence shown during the FEMA/N.O. fiasco. So it certainly is also a betrayal of the Presidency and the Constitution on multiple levels. But then that's how I feel about almost everything of significance that he has done.

Of course this isn't about religion, it is about access to power.
 
  • #74
Has anyone given thought to the question : "If not Miers, then who ?"

This thought scares me...
 
  • #75
Gokul43201 said:
Has anyone given thought to the question : "If not Miers, then who ?"

This thought scares me...

That's true! However, the more that the Bush regime and the Republican machine is weakened, the more influence that the democrats will have.
 
  • #76
Ivan Seeking said:
That's true! However, the more that the Bush regime and the Republican machine is weakened, the more influence that the democrats will have.
I almost agree, except Democrats would overwhelmingly vote against the type of nominee that ultra-conservatives would really like even if Bush were in a stronger position.

The key difference is that Republican Senators aren't so scared to veer off the Bush/party leadership line. Religious fundamentalists have already been losing Frist, even if he didn't have legal problems. While Frist still tries to at least stay close to the Bush doctrine, there doesn't seem to be very many Republican Senators afraid of Frist or Bush anymore. They're more concerned with the 2006 elections and who's most likely to succeed Bush in 2008.

Nominating a 'stealth' candidate for the Supreme Court was a sign of weakness in the first place. Withdrawing her nomination or, worse yet, having her nomination defeated, will only make Bush's position weaker.
 
  • #77
I think on Washington Week it was argued that this represents a shift in the R party - a rejection of the nutty right that took over almost two decades ago. It is also argued that the extreme right is now rejecting the Republicans based on betrayal over the Miers nomination. So hopefully we are close to the time when these extremists will leave the Republican party and go climb back under the rocks from which they came.
 
  • #78
On the other hand, Bush is probably afraid that any true intellectual giant will "turn into liberal", as did Souter by some accounts.
 
  • #79
A look at the betting money reveals these numbers:

Confirm Miers: 66.1

Confirmed by over 50 votes: 77.1

Confirmed by over 60 votes: 63.2

Confirmed by over 70 votes: 28.1

So the smart money is saying she will get confirmed, and by somewhere between 60-70 votes.

Personally, I think a lot of this is "noise" that hides the fact that Miers is very "corporate friendly" and thus...will be backed by Rat's and Pubs' alike...for they've all sold their souls to the highest bidder... big corporate money.
Sooo Ivan..what are your thoughts on Reid's support of this "ultra-conservative" nominee?
 
  • #80
kat said:
Sooo Ivan..what are your thoughts on Reid's support of this "ultra-conservative" nominee?

He's a mormon.
 
  • #81
kat said:
A look at the betting money reveals these numbers:
Confirm Miers: 66.1
Confirmed by over 50 votes: 77.1
Confirmed by over 60 votes: 63.2
Confirmed by over 70 votes: 28.1

Kat:

Are those supposed to be odds? I've never seen odds put in that format. Or are they the percentage of people that bet for that particular occurance (as opposed to against?)
 
  • #82
Ivan Seeking said:
An interesting point on Miers: What is being sold by Bush and company are not her beliefs, rather it is her specific church membership that allegedly qualifies her to be a member of the Supreme Court.
Although I 'knew' this in a manner of speaking, you have phrased it so concisely that my gut wrenched as I read it.

Thanks?
 
  • #83
Grogs said:
Kat:
Are those supposed to be odds? I've never seen odds put in that format. Or are they the percentage of people that bet for that particular occurance (as opposed to against?)
It's a trade exchange..you're speculating on an event. The contracts trade "between 0 and 100, you can think of the price at any time to be the percentage probability of that event occurring. "
www.intrade.com they've been more accurate then any of the polls in predicting outcomes.
 
  • #84
Earlier in the week, the Times's conservative columnist David Brooks savaged the columns Miers wrote in the early 1990s as president of the State Bar of Texas. "The quality of thought and writing doesn't even rise to the level of pedestrian," Brooks wrote. Passages he called typical of her "vapid abstractions" included: "More and more, the intractable problems in our society have one answer: broad-based intolerance of unacceptable conditions and a commitment by many to fix problems."

Fein said he is more concerned about Miers's legal thinking than her syntax, especially as outlined in her three-page letter to then-Gov. Bush on June 11, 1995, when she was the former state bar president. The letter implored Bush to veto a bill moving through the Democratic-controlled legislature that would have prevented the state Supreme Court from capping lawyers' fees.

"This proposed law does violence to the balance of power between the legislative and judicial branch of our State's government and constitutes an assault upon the powers of the Supreme Court" just as it had fallen into "Republican hands for the first time," Miers wrote.

Fein said it is outrageous to invoke separation-of-powers arguments when a legislature — wisely or not — tries to foster free enterprise. By citing the GOP's new control of the Texas Supreme Court, he said, Miers seemed to be seeking a partisan outcome on shaky constitutional grounds.
Overall, Miers is being compared to Quayle - the bloggers and comedians are having a field day:
NBC's Jay Leno suggested the court may need "a woman who's had more courtroom experience, like Courtney Love."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9706138/page/2/
 
  • #85
I found this interesting as well:
Miers is scheduled to meet with Sens. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.. Both voted against confirming John Roberts as the court’s chief justice.

Feinstein said she remained open to voting to confirm Miers, citing in part concerns raised by conservative Republicans. “The way she’s being beaten up by the far right is very sexist. People should hold their fire and give people an opportunity to come before a hearing,” Feinstein said Sunday on CNN’s “Late Edition.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9727260/page/2/

I agree the fundamentalist conservatives probably are sexists. From this perspective it makes sense that the Dems are waiting for more information before taking a position regarding nomination of a minority. At the same time, the fundamentalist conservatives are likely to misread this as Dem support and therefore rally against Miers all the more. Hilarious. Her lack of qualifications and knowledge of constitutional law is the main reason she should not be approved.
 
  • #86
Harriet Miers is a minority?
 
  • #87
in her field...certainly.
 
  • #88
loseyourname said:
Harriet Miers is a minority?
From a civil rights perspective (discrimination, etc.) women are included in the classification of "minority" in general. The fundamentalists want to take women back to the time of being barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen. Dems have long represented minorities better then the Repubs, so are trying to give Miers a full evaluation—that’s the irony.
 
  • #89
SOS2008 said:
From a civil rights perspective (discrimination, etc.) women are included in the classification of "minority" in general.

Seriously? I agree with kat that she's a minority amongst federal judges, but calling women in general a minority seems to be an awful misuse of the term. As of the last census, there were 5 million more females than males living in the United States. Maybe they should change the term to "historically disempowered" to more accurately reflect the situation.
 
  • #90
It's because we don't have equality.

Historically this manifest in the lack of freedoms we had wrt marriage, employment, and of course we had no vote.

At present many of these have been rectified but there is still a *huge* disparity in the amount we are paid compared to a man in an equal position, and there is still considerable bias when you look at promotions and so on in companies etc etc etc...

We aren't valued equally, so are considered minorities. Why do you think bush was pressured to pick "a hispanic, or a woman" ?

-Patty

p.s. "Disempowered" (strike the "historically") works as well. (historically it was worse, but we're not treated equally yet.)
 
  • #91
What she really should have said...
From a civil rights perspective (discrimination, etc.) women are included in the classification of "minority" in general. The fundamentalists want to take women back to the time of being barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen. Dems have long exploited minorities better then the Repubs, so are trying to give Miers a full evaluation—that’s the irony.
 
  • #92
loseyourname said:
Harriet Miers is a minority?
Anyone who thinks Bush is intelligent is in the minority. :biggrin:
 
  • #93
pattylou said:
It's because we don't have equality.
Historically this manifest in the lack of freedoms we had wrt marriage, employment, and of course we had no vote.

It seems whoever first used the term "minority" to refer to women flunked out of basic logic.

All minorities are discriminated against.
Women have been discriminated against.
Therefore, women are minorities.

That's an invalid syllogism. Maybe I'm being nitpicky, though. Technically speaking, I suppose a word can mean anything we say it means. Of course, it can get confusing when sometimes the word "minority" is used to refer to people who are actually part of a majority subpopulation.
 
  • #94
loseyourname said:
It seems whoever first used the term "minority" to refer to women flunked out of basic logic.
All minorities are discriminated against.
Women have been discriminated against.
Therefore, women are minorities.
That's an invalid syllogism. Maybe I'm being nitpicky, though. Technically speaking, I suppose a word can mean anything we say it means. Of course, it can get confusing when sometimes the word "minority" is used to refer to people who are actually part of a majority subpopulation.
I agree with you on the language angle. Maybe "Minority" was chosen because we were minorities in so many areas - government, the workplace, the polling booth.

We are still not represented accurately, in terms of numbers, in government. Women are a 'minority' in government. Maybe there is merit to the idea that the numbers in *population* are less important (in terms of representation/having interests met/etc) than numbers in the government.

But like you said, this is sort of tortured language.
 
  • #95
kat said:
What she really should have said...
If you feel the Republicans do a better job of representing civil rights, why not make your case with a source instead of misquoting another member? Some of these people do not even want women to have access to birth control pills, including pharmacists. What party do you think they belong to? :rolleyes:

Now it appears that Miers is flip flopping depending on the person she is speaking to. This kind of thing is what should concern people – not her religion or gender.
 
  • #96
Astronuc said:
Anyone who thinks Bush is intelligent is in the minority. :biggrin:
I think that in and of itself disqualifies her.

I mean the quality you want most in a Supreme Court Justice is a...judgement right?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #97
Informal Logic said:
If you feel the Republicans do a better job of representing civil rights,
where did I say that? I'd be less inclined to say that they are better at representing then I would to say they are not as skilled at exploiting.
why not make your case with a source instead of misquoting another member?
presenting something she should have said and presenting something as what she said are two very different things. I did not misquote anyone.

Now it appears that Miers is flip flopping depending on the person she is speaking to. This kind of thing is what should concern people – not her religion or gender.
Oh..I find the possibility of her placement on the supreme court VERY disconcerting, but not for the same reasons others apparently have. *shrug*
 
  • #98
kat said:
Oh..I find the possibility of her placement on the supreme court VERY disconcerting, but not for the same reasons others apparently have. *shrug*
Would you care to share your reasons?
 
  • #99
Miers is really wowing the Senate Judiciary. Let's see, she has impressed the right wingnuts (Robertson and Dobbson), she has rankled the conservatives, she has delighted the dems by being, well we'll see but the dems are happy she was nominated for now. On top of everything to date you'd think she'd take the time to answer a few questions sent to here by the Judiciary committy. Nope. http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/19/miers.nomination.ap/index.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #100
She isn't wooing these people:

Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., and senior Democrat Patrick Leahy of Vermont agreed to open Miers' hearings on Nov. 7, but also jointly sent a letter to the White House counsel asking her to more fully answer a questionnaire she turned in Tuesday.

"The comments I have heard range from incomplete to insulting," Leahy said.

"Senator Leahy and I took a look at it and agreed that it was insufficient," Specter said.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/supreme_court/miers/index.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

News Obama planning to nominate a new Justice to US Supreme Court
2
Replies
87
Views
8K
News Bush Nominates Judge Samuel Alito to US Supreme Court
Replies
46
Views
5K
News Who Will Replace Justice Stevens on the U.S. Supreme Court?
Replies
10
Views
4K
News Sandra Day O'Connor to Retire From Supreme Court
Replies
23
Views
4K
News How would Jesus select a Justice to the U.S. Supreme Court?
Replies
32
Views
4K
News Sonia Sotomayor's Controversial Decisions: Examining Her Judicial Record
5
Replies
211
Views
26K
News Rice: More powerful than the Queen of England?
Replies
4
Views
3K
News Supreme Court nominee: John G. Roberts Jr.
2
Replies
57
Views
7K
News Presidential Powers in Perspective
Replies
22
Views
4K
News USA: Legal Frankenstein? Dehumanisation.
Replies
20
Views
4K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top