So the Supreme Court is likely to rule it is a political question? That’s a slippery slope. Dr. Reich, can you appear on late night and explain this? It is these attacks which are the most frightening, the ones you can’t watch violently unfolding, the strategic deeply intricate plots that will not only ultimately work, but which the public will never even understand. Thank you for your brave and tireless service to our democracy.
Honestly, to be as thorough as possible in getting the word out to the GENERAL public, he ought to convince more popularly read publications such as "People" magazine to carry such op-eds.. and I'm not even kidding. (Should I stop before suggesting he hook up with some tik tok influencer w/ millions of followers??......)
What good would it do? SCOTUS is not compelled to make a decision based on what might be seen on Colbert or Kimmel. For that matter, they are neither swayed by the public at large as evident by Dobbs.
S.4573 - Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition Improvement Act of 2022
117th Congress (2021-2022)
Date Actions Overview
10/18/2022 Committee on Rules and Administration. Reported by Senator Klobuchar under authority of the order of the Senate of 10/14/2022 with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. Without written report.
07/20/2022 Introduced in Senate
Sponsor: Sen. Collins, Susan M. [R-ME] (Introduced 07/20/2022)
Committees: Senate - Rules and Administration
Committee Meetings: 09/27/22 4:00PM
Latest Action: Senate - 10/18/2022 Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 529.
" Brett Kavanaugh, Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch have all endorsed aspects of the theory. Notably, they didn’t disavow it in yesterday’s oral argument."
28 U.S. Code § 455 - Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge. Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Is to the judge's knowledge likely to be a material witness in the proceeding.
"Shall" is mandatory language. None of the parties filed a request that these justices should be questioned for bias. Given the recent revelations about Thomas, it's incredible that he has not been challenged since the revelations about his wife became common knowledge. Alito has placed himself in jeopardy.
This isn't a question of "party affiliation" bias, it goes to actual prejudice.
Recusal must occur when a justice has a conflict as the "appearance of impropriety" rather that actual culpability is the standard.
Although I have never participated before SCOTUS, I was a member of the Supreme Court Bar and was a member of an Inn of Court that had members who were Supreme Court justices. Ethics was a given. The lion sat with the lamb as justices with divergent views remained friends.
The chief justice has the power to investigate. If, say, the ACLU can file an amicus brief, it can file a motion to voir dire the justices.
Daniel, I didn't know the justices could be challenged. Why has it not been done? It seems all the conservative justices in the case on Monday over religious right to refuse service had conflicts of interest since lately, they have been servants of the Roman Catholic Church rather than servants of the American people. Republicans seem to love the stances the justices are taking today, so are not going to challenge any of the justices' right to hear a case. We are in trouble if nothing is done here. The conservative justices are out of control and are OK with undermining our democracy and everyone in it who is not rich, white, straight, and male. That is a minority which is problematic.
For people who make their living before SCOTUS, it may be a kamikaze mission.
But at every other level, these motions come as part of the job. I don't think challenging someone's religion is appropriate. But the appearance goes to who a justice is publicly seen associating socially with, makes extrajudicial statements about a case or issue that comes before the court, or has an apparent financial connection. The most famous statement was by Scalia in the Darth Vader duck hunting incident. At that time, the Sierra Club filed a motion. https://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/18/politics/scalia-angrily-defends-his-duck-hunt-with-cheney.html
Scalia was the hero of the Federalist Society but was also the first ACUS chair, was an officer of the ABA, and was in my Inn of Court.
Daniel, I don't see Ruth Sheets (above) challenging religion, even if she seems to be. I think she might be challenging the hierarchical structure of their church, rather than its teachings and membership. Firm hierarchy, such as the Catholic Church (one of the oldest in history) forms minds that are more prone to defer to authoritarians, since they are compelled in so many ways by their church. They've been taught to values loyalty, obedience, deference, humility, and higher spiritual aspiration. There are other values that hone the membership to be like sheep, guided by the metaphorical shepherd. When politics makes its appearance, they tend to lean toward the conservative side because they've been warned against individualism, selfishness, and any other characteristic that makes waves.
Daniel excellent information. Thank you for the effort. I know that Ginni Thomas interfered in Wisconsin and Arizona and still I was stunned to learn yesterday on news that she contacted 27 legislators in those states! The lawyer for Joel Greenberg last week came right out and said that election fraud in Florida is all over the state from Tallahassee to Broward County which is right in line with Trump boasting that he sent the Oath Keepers to Florida when Gillium was on the verge of beating De Santis and STOLE THE ELECTION FOR DE SANTIS. Trump was boasting he had some dirty stuff on De Santis. Election theft goes back to 2000 in Florida (they're old hands at this) when the Supreme Court stole the presidency for Bush. There is no end in sight AND to answer Robert's question about mainstream news, ALL MAJOR NEWS OUTLETS ARE OWNED BY THE RULING CLASS. The ruling class has been at this democracy theft for 45 plus years, they're at the end game of consolidating their power, the SC case is an example of how screwed the American people really are. Look at South American countries and some Eastern European countries, Asian countries too, citizens live very badly in corrupt governments, really desperate, awful lives under corruption and repression. Daniel, you speak of solutions, who exactly would usher in such change(s). Certainly, presently we have no leaders to address this. They're all terrified of the moneyed elite who keep them in power.
I am old and out of the way, but I can rattle off a list of organizations like CREW who should be all over it If I were independently wealthy I'd be supporting legal organizations who could, if fully funded, sue some of the maltreats into oblivion. See Brennan Center for Justice. https://www.brennancenter.org/issues
My mom was living in Stuart, Florida in 2000. She was challenged at the polls, and said that she saw police chase away anyone who looked like a Democrat. I asked her to do something. I was super hatched and not an eyewitness. My brother was practicing -- in Pa. She was intimidated but I know that the US Civil Rights Commission sent investigators. They made a finding that there was intimidation.
I was living in DC but I held hearings in Miami when the vote count was attacked by Republicans, some of whom I recognized as lawyers from DC.
It wasn't until September 11, 2001 that the results of several newspapers disclosed that given a full audit of the 2000 Florida vote, Gore was the winner.
We have just been informed of the Germany arrests of those attempting to take over the government. With the influence of Q-anon, members of government, police, and military it seems had been drawn into this scheme. The New York Times article discusses influences in Germany, the US, and Russia trying to get rid of democracy. We have seen some of our Congress persons praising authoritarians and those committing sedition, SCOTUS not being held accountable, judges, police, military, journalists sympathetic to these views with little consequences. We have never been given the information as to why the Capital police were not prepared on Jan 6th when the Secret Service, FBI and other agencies had the information of possible violence. Why do you think that time and time again laws that could be informed are not?
Linda, I suspect the Capitol police were not prepared, deliberately. Among the Trumpers and Trumpettes in all areas of the military, police, and other agencies, there were many who wanted the coup attempt to succeed. The fact that it didn't, I believe was because a whole lot of underestimated people stepped up and acted on behalf of our democracy. And, a woman was shot as she broke into the Capitol. The attackers expected free rein when they did their thing, not a death in their ranks. The fact that all of the members of Congress and their staffs, families, and others were whisked off to safety very quickly or were able to hide from the attackers meant they got no hostages and were foiled that way too. A problem is that the sentences for the insurrectionists for the most part have been really light, a little slap on the wrist as they say when the crime was huge. People now serve sentences for a very small amount of drugs and women are jailed for longer for trying to protect themselves from an abuser. Those who attacked the Capitol were abusers of our democracy. We have a Supreme Court whose conservatives were specifically put on the Court to undermine our democracy and despite swearing an oath to protect and defend our Constitution, they are working with white supremacists and others, like religious fanatics to undermine it. We are learning just what an oath is worth to our conservative judges and justices as well as a whole lot of Republican members and upcoming members of Congress. Ignorance on the part of voters has led to much of this, but complacency, believing nothing really bad can happen to our democracy keeps a bunch of other folks from standing up and saying "no! No more!"
I saw a blurb somewhere (yesterday?) where the current head of the Capital police announced that "the next time.." they'll be totally prepared, suggesting that some sort of analysis had been completed. I think I'll wait for the Jan. 6 Committee's final report re things that must be changed.. Current plans are for them to issue a formal report to the public Dec. 21 (to include outlining the events leading to the Insurrection, WHO was involved, and WHO they feel committed criminal acts -- yes, they will make criminal referrals to DOJ). IDK how detailed they might get in terms of recommendations.
I am so ignorant of many details and legal verbiage used of and within political bills, opinions and decisions. I am appreciative of being a part of several on line groups that have helped me these last few years. With that said, my question is about the names you listed. Is the list of politicians against the state legislatures having all power with no oversight? As you can tell, I am still somewhat confused about the wording above. Thank you in advance for your response.
Daniel, I am totally surprised to see the names of my NC senators on this co-sponsor list. Thom Tillis was NC House Speaker before Moore. Moore, plus his buddy, Senate Majority leader, Phil Berger, would stop at NOTHING to grab power for themselves and their nasty party. They are vicious thugs, who would gladly burn NC (and the US) down just so they could preside over a smoking ruin. I hope the Electoral Reform Act passes and that Moore's lawsuit fails. I bet the "originalists" won't be so interested in the original intent and meaning of the Constitution if it doesn't favor their party. Increase the size of the court!
Michon, ditto on everything you have said. Sometimes it is on the late-night talk shows that wisdom strikes and people begin to get frustrated and want something addressed and changed. We'll see!
So many threats to our democracy! The ultimate threat that I see is the Citizens United decision which said that corporations are people and money is speech. This introduced enormous influence of corporations, and super wealthy in our elections. We must pass an amendment to reverse this decision, and there is one in Congress now. We the people must come together to pass this amendment and reverse this damage to democracy.
Kathleen, I, too, think this is one of the most critical rulings by the Supreme Court which has been handing down an appalling number of bad decisions in the past 40 years or so. Citizens United was pretty much out of nowhere and it wasn't clear just how much damage it would do until a couple of years later. Now we know and it is outrageous. It allows the rich to buy candidates and elections. If parties can lean on the very rich to finance their campaigns while claiming they are receiving mostly low-amount donations, it is a lie and who can stop it? On the other hand, today, how can one run a campaign at almost any level without corporate and wealthy donor backing. Those guys can buy all the air time on TV, radio, and the internet and alas, people will believe what they hear most often, generally not even questioning the truth of what is being claimed. Admittedly, some truth in advertising would help a great deal since candidates are now being sold like products. I don't see that happening, though. We do need an amendment that limits the amount any individual or corporation can give at any level on penalty of huge fines. The big lie is that corporations are persons and that money is speech. We need to hear more of that in our media too. The Supreme Court is on a roll undermining our democracy. Do they not get it that with the fascism they are trying to bring in, they will no longer be of any use and will be easily removed. They need to understand that democracy is the only way to protect something as ridiculous as lifetime appointments to anything.
I hadn't even been following the "citizens united" case but when the decision came down, I immediately thought, "WTH were they thinking????" (Didn't even really understand at that time all the "behind the scenes" shenanigans that had been already been in play for years..) And for the past several months I've also had the same thought.... Do the justices not understand that they may be putting themselves out of business? At THIS point, I'm pretty convinced they realize that and do not care, because the "dark forces" putting them onto the court in the first place, and "supporting" them in their miserable decisions will undoubtedly continue "supporting" them in grand style well after they have become unnecessary.
MM, I am having a hard time these days not seeing the behavior of the SC as a kind of treason, just a bit slower and more insidious than January 6th was, but at least as potentially destructive. I am so disappointed that when Dems had a chance, they didn't expand the court to actually have a majority of members who really care about this nation, not just being taken care of as they await their entrance into heaven for their Catholic deeds of undermining our nation.
Yes, Michon, Barrett is OK with lying to get on the SC so she can fulfill what she sees as her mission to make this country a white Catholic nation no matter what the founders or anyone today wants. She should be charged with lying to Congress as should Kavanaugh and Gorsuch, but these days, we don't seem to be able or willing to hold any conservatives accountable for anything they do and they are doing a lot to undermine the country they claim to LOVE so much. I guess lying is now a part of Roman Catholic dogma, they do it so much, smile, then just keep going. There were a lot of folks back in 1960 who were scared of Catholics like JFK getting power. Maybe they were right, but not about those particular Catholics. The ones now have no moral compass I can see, just what makes them feel good and gets them what they want and gives them more power. I was raised Catholic and don't remember learning that lying or power grabbing were ever acceptable. It is a good thing I left the church, I might have become like Barrett, Alito, Thomas, Kavanaugh, and Roberts. It seems Sotomayor missed the training the other Catholics got.
I agree. I was drowning in appeals for contributions to Senator Warnock, and I couldn't discern which groups might be likely to help him and which might be taking a cut themselves. For years I have given small contributions to a group supposedly devoted to fighting Citizens United, but they dispense it at their discretion with no relation to combating the decision that I see. I know Republican donors are prepared to spend millions, but I can't, and neither can most others.
Thank you for bringing this important topic. Moore v. Harper is a very big deal. But the Electoral Reform Act is bigger. This is because it is something that we can all do (an admittedly small) something about, namely, write our Senators and Congressmen. I recommend it. And I now will be doing so myself. Thank you, Robert. --- Supplemental: I just finished writing both of my senators and my congressman. At the very least it gives me the feeling of having done what little I can. Thank you again.
one thing we can do is $upport independent and local news media -- both have a better handle on events overlooked by the kochs and other elites and they also understand how these events contribute to overall corruption and to the global rush to fascism and authoritarianism.
statesnewsroom.com. If you go there, you can find the independent paper that is reporting on your state Legislature I recommend you subscribe it’s free and disseminate widely.
The local paper in Berkeley ('Berkeleyside') couldn't make the economics work & folded (all the community investors got zeroed); it did get reconstituted with a grant from some non-profit organizations - but the question of what can be done to "support" such organizations (other than consuming their news) is, apparently, an open question...
The local paper here in Charleston, SC has reasonable local investigating and reporting. However, as far as national issues -- nada of any use. Rachel Maddow practically begged viewers to support their local papers, so I have. It's insanely expensive (was $350/yr.) I paid it, rarely looked at it (I got it online), and didn't renew. Then they had a sale for $150/yr., so I (grudgingly) subscribed again.
The N-S border state where I grew up had a glorious, muckraking, Pulitzer-winning capital city daily that soared as readers vanished down the gullet of Fox/Sinclair, struggled, then collapsed. What looked at first like a white knight rode in, turned out to be a yokel-scale hedge fund that did what hedge funds like Alden do to papers. The nyTimes has devised a solution that probably could be scaled down, but it leaves the newspaper just one cog of something larger.
Much as I love newspapers, I'm guilty too. I started reading on a screen for a living before PCs were invented and have read exclusively onscreen for decades. Even if what I read is a digital version of what I'd be reading anyway, it's still not print. The cut-off for me was when the Sunday NYT went to $3.50. I think it's about that now on weekdays.
I have lost much faith in our mainstream media. Besides the poignant points you bring up I see how much oxygen it has given to a traitorous ex president, it speaks of him as a front runner for the 2024 presidential campaign but little about the more than likely prospect that he will soon be an indicted one. How he can be taken seriously in this regard when his organization has been charged as criminal and yet more classified documents have been uncovered is, frankly, mind boggling. For any other candidate the media would be, correctly, stating that his campaign has been killed in its cradle. Not in his case, the media, by not pointing out the legal jeapordy he is in, is indirectly helping the clear and present danger he presents to our democracy to continue. Our mainstream media has clearly abdicated its role as our Fourth Estate.
I am a retired broadcast journalist (I have a face and voice for radio.). The final 10+ years of my career in journalism was spent embedded with and covering the North Carolina State Legislature. Received some industry recognition of which I am proud. That is all gone now, the studio office in the Legislative Building that once offered about 80 stations across the state as many as 500 short, broadcast stories per legislative session ... is dark.
The privately owned media is a business, self protecting, self enhancing. There are still a lot of very dedicated journalists trying to work within restrictions, less and less air time, trying to inform people who, according to studies, don't really want to be informed. Private business must make profit to survive. Profit in broadcasting is tied ALMOST directly to the ratings system. The ratings system feeds off what we refer to as "lowest common denominator programming." Consultants tell management that news coverage may attract a portion of an audience with at least a high school education and that does not move the ratings needle. Entertainment delivers an overall audience of all ages. You don't have to think, so painful. So, where is the soft drink giant going to purchase its advertising? Where will it get the best cost per thousand? The money drives the media. News production is personnel intensive. It costs very little to program only music or some idiot who runs his/her mouth. I do remember working for a large market all-news station that was never "number one ... one ...one" in the ratings (insert echo). But it had big ticket advertising aimed at that upper income, better educated audience. Even that has fallen out of favor among business owners/managers who seek a short-term spike in profit before moving on. Technology has also fractured the potential audience and station income ... local stations, with mom-and-pop programming, ie. the school lunch menu, coverage of the city council meeting ... give way to satellite music juke boxes.
Some television stations have increased coverage, but again, this is ratings-intensive, and journalists fight for air time to inform rather than just entertain. Consultants still provide managers with a buffer, someone to blame if ratings fail to bring in the money. I moan the loss of so many newspapers.
I said the same thing but in a different way. I don't think it's a popular opinion here though. Leftists today need somebody to criticize and blame for everything. The MSM is a favorite.
You'd think so Kerry. The filibuster has evolved to be a minority rule tool that has been wielded by McConnell as a knee-jerk response to anything that could help the American people, except the rich white ones. Even if it is going to be kept, it should require talking to defend one's position followed by a vote. Stopping all votes with a word from the minority leader is unacceptable in a democracy. Also, if it is necessary to keep it, which I don't think it is, there should be a limited number of times it can be used, say, 20 in a year, so only 20 items can be completely blocked in a year meaning everything else comes up for discussion and a vote. The minority can try to influence the majority over time, of course. That way, the minority would have a voice, but not one that is constantly in opposition to everything. It seems to me that McConnell uses the filibuster in lieu of having any ideas or even a platform for serving the American people, even their constituents.
Absolutely Ruth. Either you really filibuster-talk, or it cannot be used. Moscow Mitch, and others have abused it for way too long. I prefer it to be gone or if not, used sparingly.
I have this vision of (moderate?) Democratic Senators pointing to their triumph of defeating filibuster reform while the Supreme Court has enabled the gutting of the American democratic experiment. Hurray, they cry, We have preserved the great deliberative spirit! Meanwhile, the country itself is in ashes.
I believe it has to be a national law. Somehow the House needs to agree and possibly they could. The Senate leads the way. Otherwise it can be a fight through many states. And if Biden expands the Supreme Court, that would stop the illegal and immoral, unethical renderings of SCOTUS. One can only hope. A state by state fight of this issue is lengthy and takes up too much time. The Constitution must be upheld and if something is not clear, it must become a law. ???
Cindy, I agree stopping the "Independent Legislatures" nonsense is critical and passing the bill that would clarify the electoral system until it can be gotten rid of are essential. We need Congress to act before the end of the year. They don't exactly seem to be doing much lately even though Dems are under a time constraint since Repubs will take over the House in January, a sad day for this country. How do we light the fire under them? How to we get the word out in our media that the Senate must act quickly. We need to start shaming Republicans for their dismissal of our democracy in their quest for whiteness, money, and power.
While I might not grasp all the madness (requires a bit of reading) that is going on, I do know enough to recall Trump’s inclination he could overturn voters election. I do understand the issue and consequences of gerrymandering and I am in agreement with mainstream news and how they don’t really explain this type of issue very well.
As far as I see it, the Supreme Court should not have accepted this challenge, but our highest court has become far from what they should be and those who are of the Republicanism have already shown their partiality that defies their OATH!
Dianna, I think you are right that the SC conservatives have ditched their oaths in favor of power they can wield over people who just don't want their brand of interference when called for by disgruntled white people who want more power than they deserve. This is the second case this week brought by people who think they deserve more power and influence than they should have in our democracy. The first involved a white supposed artist who hasn't even opened a business yet but wants to be sure when/if she does, she does not have to serve LGBTQ persons if she doesn't want to because of some sort of religious BS. This country's constitution says we have freedom of religion. That should mean your religion should be your religion, not forced on me or anyone else. If you go into business, you serve everyone or no one. Black people, other people of color, disabled persons, and others have had to fight for the right to be served. Now, it's religious people claiming they should not have to serve people they don't like. That should never have been a case even considered by the SC, but as Catholics, the majority is working hard to make this a white Catholic country with everyone else as beggars for our rights. That should be acceptable to no one. So much for the SC conservatives' oaths to the American people. It seems their oaths are to their church in their attempt to make a white Catholic nation as they try to gain entrance into heaven. Disgusting! The second case the "independent legislatures" nonsense should also never have been taken on, but in the conservative attempt to gain and keep power in our government, they want to let state legislatures, notoriously unstable, to pick candidates, set boundaries, and elect whoever they want for offices. We did that crap in states and communities with bosses who decided who would be elected. It was completely undemocratic and mostly went away. The SC conservatives and the scared white people who brought the stupid case in the first place, want to bring it back, though all over the country. That needs to be called out by every media outlet (well, except Fox Not Really News) to inform people their state legislatures want their votes to be irrelevant and candidates picked by mostly old white men and a few white women sitting in their state capital. I don't see how that can be a good thing or wanted by anyone.
Good luck with making this public and urging Congress still under Democrat control (in both senses of the word) to get a move on. I've passed it top a few US citizens.
This is a great recap of the situation we find ourselves in. One sentence about education as a solution is not enough --the problem remains. How are enough people reached so that their consciousness results in changes needed. In the face of forces which are working to prevent such consciousness.
So the Supreme Court is likely to rule it is a political question? That’s a slippery slope. Dr. Reich, can you appear on late night and explain this? It is these attacks which are the most frightening, the ones you can’t watch violently unfolding, the strategic deeply intricate plots that will not only ultimately work, but which the public will never even understand. Thank you for your brave and tireless service to our democracy.
Good idea to go on late night TV. Also, he could submit his essay as an op-ed in the Washington Post or New York Times.
Honestly, to be as thorough as possible in getting the word out to the GENERAL public, he ought to convince more popularly read publications such as "People" magazine to carry such op-eds.. and I'm not even kidding. (Should I stop before suggesting he hook up with some tik tok influencer w/ millions of followers??......)
What good would it do? SCOTUS is not compelled to make a decision based on what might be seen on Colbert or Kimmel. For that matter, they are neither swayed by the public at large as evident by Dobbs.
I think they should go on Morning Joe, also. Some of us just love to go to bed early and we don't stay up for late night.
Call your Senator!!!!!!!!!
S.4573 - Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition Improvement Act of 2022
117th Congress (2021-2022)
Date Actions Overview
10/18/2022 Committee on Rules and Administration. Reported by Senator Klobuchar under authority of the order of the Senate of 10/14/2022 with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. Without written report.
07/20/2022 Introduced in Senate
Sponsor: Sen. Collins, Susan M. [R-ME] (Introduced 07/20/2022)
Committees: Senate - Rules and Administration
Committee Meetings: 09/27/22 4:00PM
Latest Action: Senate - 10/18/2022 Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 529.
15 Republican co-sponsors.
Cosponsor Date Cosponsored
Sen. Manchin, Joe, III [D-WV]* 07/20/2022
Sen. Portman, Rob [R-OH]* 07/20/2022
Sen. Sinema, Kyrsten [D-AZ]* 07/20/2022
Sen. Romney, Mitt [R-UT]* 07/20/2022
Sen. Shaheen, Jeanne [D-NH]* 07/20/2022
Sen. Murkowski, Lisa [R-AK]* 07/20/2022
Sen. Warner, Mark R. [D-VA]* 07/20/2022
Sen. Tillis, Thomas [R-NC]* 07/20/2022
Sen. Murphy, Christopher [D-CT]* 07/20/2022
Sen. Capito, Shelley Moore [R-WV]* 07/20/2022
Sen. Cardin, Benjamin L. [D-MD]* 07/20/2022
Sen. Young, Todd [R-IN]* 07/20/2022
Sen. Coons, Christopher A. [D-DE]* 07/20/2022
Sen. Sasse, Ben [R-NE]* 07/20/2022
Sen. Graham, Lindsey [R-SC]* 07/20/2022
Sen. Grassley, Chuck [R-IA] 08/06/2022
Sen. Hickenlooper, John W. [D-CO] 08/06/2022
Sen. Padilla, Alex [D-CA] 09/21/2022
Sen. Bennet, Michael F. [D-CO] 09/21/2022
Sen. Toomey, Patrick [R-PA] 09/21/2022
Sen. Hassan, Margaret Wood [D-NH] 09/22/2022
Sen. Klobuchar, Amy [D-MN] 09/28/2022
Sen. Blunt, Roy [R-MO] 09/28/2022
Sen. Kelly, Mark [D-AZ] 09/28/2022
Sen. McConnell, Mitch [R-KY] 09/28/2022
Sen. Carper, Thomas R. [D-DE] 09/29/2022
Sen. Thune, John [R-SD] 09/29/2022
Sen. Cortez Masto, Catherine [D-NV] 09/29/2022
Sen. Cornyn, John [R-TX] 09/29/2022
Sen. Feinstein, Dianne [D-CA] 09/29/2022
Sen. Schumer, Charles E. [D-NY] 09/29/2022
Sen. Burr, Richard [R-NC] 11/14/2022
Sen. Peters, Gary C. [D-MI] 11/14/2022
Sen. Booker, Cory A. [D-NJ] 11/14/2022
Sen. Brown, Sherrod [D-OH] 11/14/2022
Sen. Durbin, Richard J. [D-IL] 11/14/2022
Sen. King, Angus S., Jr. [I-ME] 11/14/2022
" Brett Kavanaugh, Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch have all endorsed aspects of the theory. Notably, they didn’t disavow it in yesterday’s oral argument."
28 U.S. Code § 455 - Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge. Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Is to the judge's knowledge likely to be a material witness in the proceeding.
"Shall" is mandatory language. None of the parties filed a request that these justices should be questioned for bias. Given the recent revelations about Thomas, it's incredible that he has not been challenged since the revelations about his wife became common knowledge. Alito has placed himself in jeopardy.
This isn't a question of "party affiliation" bias, it goes to actual prejudice.
Recusal must occur when a justice has a conflict as the "appearance of impropriety" rather that actual culpability is the standard.
Although I have never participated before SCOTUS, I was a member of the Supreme Court Bar and was a member of an Inn of Court that had members who were Supreme Court justices. Ethics was a given. The lion sat with the lamb as justices with divergent views remained friends.
The chief justice has the power to investigate. If, say, the ACLU can file an amicus brief, it can file a motion to voir dire the justices.
Daniel, I didn't know the justices could be challenged. Why has it not been done? It seems all the conservative justices in the case on Monday over religious right to refuse service had conflicts of interest since lately, they have been servants of the Roman Catholic Church rather than servants of the American people. Republicans seem to love the stances the justices are taking today, so are not going to challenge any of the justices' right to hear a case. We are in trouble if nothing is done here. The conservative justices are out of control and are OK with undermining our democracy and everyone in it who is not rich, white, straight, and male. That is a minority which is problematic.
For people who make their living before SCOTUS, it may be a kamikaze mission.
But at every other level, these motions come as part of the job. I don't think challenging someone's religion is appropriate. But the appearance goes to who a justice is publicly seen associating socially with, makes extrajudicial statements about a case or issue that comes before the court, or has an apparent financial connection. The most famous statement was by Scalia in the Darth Vader duck hunting incident. At that time, the Sierra Club filed a motion. https://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/18/politics/scalia-angrily-defends-his-duck-hunt-with-cheney.html
Scalia was the hero of the Federalist Society but was also the first ACUS chair, was an officer of the ABA, and was in my Inn of Court.
they may go down as Kamikazes
but their Names'll be
Remembered for
Generations
.
and we might just get a Supreme Court that
lives Up To it's Demand over the Front door:
EQUAL JUSTICE FOR ALL - carved in
stone in letters ten feet high.
.
Perhaps some few of our Justices might
wish to try the Front Door more often.
Hi Ethan, look at my profile pic
Daniel, I don't see Ruth Sheets (above) challenging religion, even if she seems to be. I think she might be challenging the hierarchical structure of their church, rather than its teachings and membership. Firm hierarchy, such as the Catholic Church (one of the oldest in history) forms minds that are more prone to defer to authoritarians, since they are compelled in so many ways by their church. They've been taught to values loyalty, obedience, deference, humility, and higher spiritual aspiration. There are other values that hone the membership to be like sheep, guided by the metaphorical shepherd. When politics makes its appearance, they tend to lean toward the conservative side because they've been warned against individualism, selfishness, and any other characteristic that makes waves.
I agree that we have to find a path to challenge judicial ethics.
28 USC 455 is a path!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
well, That was EZ.
Hi Diane, look at my profile pic
Daniel excellent information. Thank you for the effort. I know that Ginni Thomas interfered in Wisconsin and Arizona and still I was stunned to learn yesterday on news that she contacted 27 legislators in those states! The lawyer for Joel Greenberg last week came right out and said that election fraud in Florida is all over the state from Tallahassee to Broward County which is right in line with Trump boasting that he sent the Oath Keepers to Florida when Gillium was on the verge of beating De Santis and STOLE THE ELECTION FOR DE SANTIS. Trump was boasting he had some dirty stuff on De Santis. Election theft goes back to 2000 in Florida (they're old hands at this) when the Supreme Court stole the presidency for Bush. There is no end in sight AND to answer Robert's question about mainstream news, ALL MAJOR NEWS OUTLETS ARE OWNED BY THE RULING CLASS. The ruling class has been at this democracy theft for 45 plus years, they're at the end game of consolidating their power, the SC case is an example of how screwed the American people really are. Look at South American countries and some Eastern European countries, Asian countries too, citizens live very badly in corrupt governments, really desperate, awful lives under corruption and repression. Daniel, you speak of solutions, who exactly would usher in such change(s). Certainly, presently we have no leaders to address this. They're all terrified of the moneyed elite who keep them in power.
I am old and out of the way, but I can rattle off a list of organizations like CREW who should be all over it If I were independently wealthy I'd be supporting legal organizations who could, if fully funded, sue some of the maltreats into oblivion. See Brennan Center for Justice. https://www.brennancenter.org/issues
My mom was living in Stuart, Florida in 2000. She was challenged at the polls, and said that she saw police chase away anyone who looked like a Democrat. I asked her to do something. I was super hatched and not an eyewitness. My brother was practicing -- in Pa. She was intimidated but I know that the US Civil Rights Commission sent investigators. They made a finding that there was intimidation.
I was living in DC but I held hearings in Miami when the vote count was attacked by Republicans, some of whom I recognized as lawyers from DC.
It wasn't until September 11, 2001 that the results of several newspapers disclosed that given a full audit of the 2000 Florida vote, Gore was the winner.
The minute James Baker showed up in Tallahassee in 2000 I knew the election was lost for Gore. Can you say "oil money" and "oil depletion allowance" ?
When the gore-bush SCOTUS decision was announced in the end, I knew deep down right then that it was bs...
We can eat our hearts out, right?
Hi Tom, look at my profile pic
We have just been informed of the Germany arrests of those attempting to take over the government. With the influence of Q-anon, members of government, police, and military it seems had been drawn into this scheme. The New York Times article discusses influences in Germany, the US, and Russia trying to get rid of democracy. We have seen some of our Congress persons praising authoritarians and those committing sedition, SCOTUS not being held accountable, judges, police, military, journalists sympathetic to these views with little consequences. We have never been given the information as to why the Capital police were not prepared on Jan 6th when the Secret Service, FBI and other agencies had the information of possible violence. Why do you think that time and time again laws that could be informed are not?
Linda, I suspect the Capitol police were not prepared, deliberately. Among the Trumpers and Trumpettes in all areas of the military, police, and other agencies, there were many who wanted the coup attempt to succeed. The fact that it didn't, I believe was because a whole lot of underestimated people stepped up and acted on behalf of our democracy. And, a woman was shot as she broke into the Capitol. The attackers expected free rein when they did their thing, not a death in their ranks. The fact that all of the members of Congress and their staffs, families, and others were whisked off to safety very quickly or were able to hide from the attackers meant they got no hostages and were foiled that way too. A problem is that the sentences for the insurrectionists for the most part have been really light, a little slap on the wrist as they say when the crime was huge. People now serve sentences for a very small amount of drugs and women are jailed for longer for trying to protect themselves from an abuser. Those who attacked the Capitol were abusers of our democracy. We have a Supreme Court whose conservatives were specifically put on the Court to undermine our democracy and despite swearing an oath to protect and defend our Constitution, they are working with white supremacists and others, like religious fanatics to undermine it. We are learning just what an oath is worth to our conservative judges and justices as well as a whole lot of Republican members and upcoming members of Congress. Ignorance on the part of voters has led to much of this, but complacency, believing nothing really bad can happen to our democracy keeps a bunch of other folks from standing up and saying "no! No more!"
YES. And I felt your first sentence was the case, even before the violence really escalated.
I saw a blurb somewhere (yesterday?) where the current head of the Capital police announced that "the next time.." they'll be totally prepared, suggesting that some sort of analysis had been completed. I think I'll wait for the Jan. 6 Committee's final report re things that must be changed.. Current plans are for them to issue a formal report to the public Dec. 21 (to include outlining the events leading to the Insurrection, WHO was involved, and WHO they feel committed criminal acts -- yes, they will make criminal referrals to DOJ). IDK how detailed they might get in terms of recommendations.
Hi Kevin, look at my profile pic
Yet the conservative justices never disqualify or recuse themselves whenever it is called for.
Apparently, even at that level, if you get away with something untoward without consequence, you'll keep doing it...
I am so ignorant of many details and legal verbiage used of and within political bills, opinions and decisions. I am appreciative of being a part of several on line groups that have helped me these last few years. With that said, my question is about the names you listed. Is the list of politicians against the state legislatures having all power with no oversight? As you can tell, I am still somewhat confused about the wording above. Thank you in advance for your response.
Rhonda
Hi Daniel, look at my profile pic
Daniel, thank you. You always manage to get good information out to us.
Daniel, I am totally surprised to see the names of my NC senators on this co-sponsor list. Thom Tillis was NC House Speaker before Moore. Moore, plus his buddy, Senate Majority leader, Phil Berger, would stop at NOTHING to grab power for themselves and their nasty party. They are vicious thugs, who would gladly burn NC (and the US) down just so they could preside over a smoking ruin. I hope the Electoral Reform Act passes and that Moore's lawsuit fails. I bet the "originalists" won't be so interested in the original intent and meaning of the Constitution if it doesn't favor their party. Increase the size of the court!
done
Of course they would rule on a ‘political question’. They got away with it in the Bush/Gore election and it set a frightening president. 😡
(pun intended, I assume!)
TJ, are you Professor of Law at U of Michigan?
Clever but accurate wording!
Hi EJ, look at my profile pic
Michon, ditto on everything you have said. Sometimes it is on the late-night talk shows that wisdom strikes and people begin to get frustrated and want something addressed and changed. We'll see!
I think it should go to Morning Joe. Some of us really like to go to bed early and don't watch late night.
Look at my profile pic ❤️
So many threats to our democracy! The ultimate threat that I see is the Citizens United decision which said that corporations are people and money is speech. This introduced enormous influence of corporations, and super wealthy in our elections. We must pass an amendment to reverse this decision, and there is one in Congress now. We the people must come together to pass this amendment and reverse this damage to democracy.
Kathleen, I, too, think this is one of the most critical rulings by the Supreme Court which has been handing down an appalling number of bad decisions in the past 40 years or so. Citizens United was pretty much out of nowhere and it wasn't clear just how much damage it would do until a couple of years later. Now we know and it is outrageous. It allows the rich to buy candidates and elections. If parties can lean on the very rich to finance their campaigns while claiming they are receiving mostly low-amount donations, it is a lie and who can stop it? On the other hand, today, how can one run a campaign at almost any level without corporate and wealthy donor backing. Those guys can buy all the air time on TV, radio, and the internet and alas, people will believe what they hear most often, generally not even questioning the truth of what is being claimed. Admittedly, some truth in advertising would help a great deal since candidates are now being sold like products. I don't see that happening, though. We do need an amendment that limits the amount any individual or corporation can give at any level on penalty of huge fines. The big lie is that corporations are persons and that money is speech. We need to hear more of that in our media too. The Supreme Court is on a roll undermining our democracy. Do they not get it that with the fascism they are trying to bring in, they will no longer be of any use and will be easily removed. They need to understand that democracy is the only way to protect something as ridiculous as lifetime appointments to anything.
I hadn't even been following the "citizens united" case but when the decision came down, I immediately thought, "WTH were they thinking????" (Didn't even really understand at that time all the "behind the scenes" shenanigans that had been already been in play for years..) And for the past several months I've also had the same thought.... Do the justices not understand that they may be putting themselves out of business? At THIS point, I'm pretty convinced they realize that and do not care, because the "dark forces" putting them onto the court in the first place, and "supporting" them in their miserable decisions will undoubtedly continue "supporting" them in grand style well after they have become unnecessary.
MM, I am having a hard time these days not seeing the behavior of the SC as a kind of treason, just a bit slower and more insidious than January 6th was, but at least as potentially destructive. I am so disappointed that when Dems had a chance, they didn't expand the court to actually have a majority of members who really care about this nation, not just being taken care of as they await their entrance into heaven for their Catholic deeds of undermining our nation.
Barrett all but admits so. She’s there solely to fulfill God’s purpose for her.
Yes, Michon, Barrett is OK with lying to get on the SC so she can fulfill what she sees as her mission to make this country a white Catholic nation no matter what the founders or anyone today wants. She should be charged with lying to Congress as should Kavanaugh and Gorsuch, but these days, we don't seem to be able or willing to hold any conservatives accountable for anything they do and they are doing a lot to undermine the country they claim to LOVE so much. I guess lying is now a part of Roman Catholic dogma, they do it so much, smile, then just keep going. There were a lot of folks back in 1960 who were scared of Catholics like JFK getting power. Maybe they were right, but not about those particular Catholics. The ones now have no moral compass I can see, just what makes them feel good and gets them what they want and gives them more power. I was raised Catholic and don't remember learning that lying or power grabbing were ever acceptable. It is a good thing I left the church, I might have become like Barrett, Alito, Thomas, Kavanaugh, and Roberts. It seems Sotomayor missed the training the other Catholics got.
I agree. I was drowning in appeals for contributions to Senator Warnock, and I couldn't discern which groups might be likely to help him and which might be taking a cut themselves. For years I have given small contributions to a group supposedly devoted to fighting Citizens United, but they dispense it at their discretion with no relation to combating the decision that I see. I know Republican donors are prepared to spend millions, but I can't, and neither can most others.
You are correct. It doesn't matter whom we elect- if they are beholden to the donor class then we have an oligarchy, not a democratic republic.
End Citizens United. There is no such thing as a CORPERSONORATION. Get $ out of politic$.
Hi Kathleen, look at my profile pic
Thank you for bringing this important topic. Moore v. Harper is a very big deal. But the Electoral Reform Act is bigger. This is because it is something that we can all do (an admittedly small) something about, namely, write our Senators and Congressmen. I recommend it. And I now will be doing so myself. Thank you, Robert. --- Supplemental: I just finished writing both of my senators and my congressman. At the very least it gives me the feeling of having done what little I can. Thank you again.
See my comments above.
one thing we can do is $upport independent and local news media -- both have a better handle on events overlooked by the kochs and other elites and they also understand how these events contribute to overall corruption and to the global rush to fascism and authoritarianism.
statesnewsroom.com. If you go there, you can find the independent paper that is reporting on your state Legislature I recommend you subscribe it’s free and disseminate widely.
The local paper in Berkeley ('Berkeleyside') couldn't make the economics work & folded (all the community investors got zeroed); it did get reconstituted with a grant from some non-profit organizations - but the question of what can be done to "support" such organizations (other than consuming their news) is, apparently, an open question...
The local paper here in Charleston, SC has reasonable local investigating and reporting. However, as far as national issues -- nada of any use. Rachel Maddow practically begged viewers to support their local papers, so I have. It's insanely expensive (was $350/yr.) I paid it, rarely looked at it (I got it online), and didn't renew. Then they had a sale for $150/yr., so I (grudgingly) subscribed again.
Depends on where your "local" is. Mine, here in SC, is in line with the SCOTUS 5.
The N-S border state where I grew up had a glorious, muckraking, Pulitzer-winning capital city daily that soared as readers vanished down the gullet of Fox/Sinclair, struggled, then collapsed. What looked at first like a white knight rode in, turned out to be a yokel-scale hedge fund that did what hedge funds like Alden do to papers. The nyTimes has devised a solution that probably could be scaled down, but it leaves the newspaper just one cog of something larger.
That is such a shame.
Much as I love newspapers, I'm guilty too. I started reading on a screen for a living before PCs were invented and have read exclusively onscreen for decades. Even if what I read is a digital version of what I'd be reading anyway, it's still not print. The cut-off for me was when the Sunday NYT went to $3.50. I think it's about that now on weekdays.
What job did you have that required reading on a screen, back in the pre-PC days? Just curious.
Typesetting—cold type.
I have lost much faith in our mainstream media. Besides the poignant points you bring up I see how much oxygen it has given to a traitorous ex president, it speaks of him as a front runner for the 2024 presidential campaign but little about the more than likely prospect that he will soon be an indicted one. How he can be taken seriously in this regard when his organization has been charged as criminal and yet more classified documents have been uncovered is, frankly, mind boggling. For any other candidate the media would be, correctly, stating that his campaign has been killed in its cradle. Not in his case, the media, by not pointing out the legal jeapordy he is in, is indirectly helping the clear and present danger he presents to our democracy to continue. Our mainstream media has clearly abdicated its role as our Fourth Estate.
Media coverage?
I am a retired broadcast journalist (I have a face and voice for radio.). The final 10+ years of my career in journalism was spent embedded with and covering the North Carolina State Legislature. Received some industry recognition of which I am proud. That is all gone now, the studio office in the Legislative Building that once offered about 80 stations across the state as many as 500 short, broadcast stories per legislative session ... is dark.
The privately owned media is a business, self protecting, self enhancing. There are still a lot of very dedicated journalists trying to work within restrictions, less and less air time, trying to inform people who, according to studies, don't really want to be informed. Private business must make profit to survive. Profit in broadcasting is tied ALMOST directly to the ratings system. The ratings system feeds off what we refer to as "lowest common denominator programming." Consultants tell management that news coverage may attract a portion of an audience with at least a high school education and that does not move the ratings needle. Entertainment delivers an overall audience of all ages. You don't have to think, so painful. So, where is the soft drink giant going to purchase its advertising? Where will it get the best cost per thousand? The money drives the media. News production is personnel intensive. It costs very little to program only music or some idiot who runs his/her mouth. I do remember working for a large market all-news station that was never "number one ... one ...one" in the ratings (insert echo). But it had big ticket advertising aimed at that upper income, better educated audience. Even that has fallen out of favor among business owners/managers who seek a short-term spike in profit before moving on. Technology has also fractured the potential audience and station income ... local stations, with mom-and-pop programming, ie. the school lunch menu, coverage of the city council meeting ... give way to satellite music juke boxes.
Some television stations have increased coverage, but again, this is ratings-intensive, and journalists fight for air time to inform rather than just entertain. Consultants still provide managers with a buffer, someone to blame if ratings fail to bring in the money. I moan the loss of so many newspapers.
I said the same thing but in a different way. I don't think it's a popular opinion here though. Leftists today need somebody to criticize and blame for everything. The MSM is a favorite.
Hi Bot, look at my profile pic
So how do we fix it?
Support responsible media.
I wasn’t there…but I guess God handed down the filibuster on Mount Sinai. Right?
You'd think so Kerry. The filibuster has evolved to be a minority rule tool that has been wielded by McConnell as a knee-jerk response to anything that could help the American people, except the rich white ones. Even if it is going to be kept, it should require talking to defend one's position followed by a vote. Stopping all votes with a word from the minority leader is unacceptable in a democracy. Also, if it is necessary to keep it, which I don't think it is, there should be a limited number of times it can be used, say, 20 in a year, so only 20 items can be completely blocked in a year meaning everything else comes up for discussion and a vote. The minority can try to influence the majority over time, of course. That way, the minority would have a voice, but not one that is constantly in opposition to everything. It seems to me that McConnell uses the filibuster in lieu of having any ideas or even a platform for serving the American people, even their constituents.
Absolutely Ruth. Either you really filibuster-talk, or it cannot be used. Moscow Mitch, and others have abused it for way too long. I prefer it to be gone or if not, used sparingly.
I have this vision of (moderate?) Democratic Senators pointing to their triumph of defeating filibuster reform while the Supreme Court has enabled the gutting of the American democratic experiment. Hurray, they cry, We have preserved the great deliberative spirit! Meanwhile, the country itself is in ashes.
Hi Daveususbebejedmekekenrjkekejrjejejejejejeje, look at my profile pic
That 'commandment' along with the 11th: "Thou Shalt Accumulate" were probably part of the
5 commandments that got smashed when Moses was coming down from Mt Sinai (as portrayed
in "History of the World" by the Monty Python crew...
I believe it has to be a national law. Somehow the House needs to agree and possibly they could. The Senate leads the way. Otherwise it can be a fight through many states. And if Biden expands the Supreme Court, that would stop the illegal and immoral, unethical renderings of SCOTUS. One can only hope. A state by state fight of this issue is lengthy and takes up too much time. The Constitution must be upheld and if something is not clear, it must become a law. ???
Cindy, I agree stopping the "Independent Legislatures" nonsense is critical and passing the bill that would clarify the electoral system until it can be gotten rid of are essential. We need Congress to act before the end of the year. They don't exactly seem to be doing much lately even though Dems are under a time constraint since Repubs will take over the House in January, a sad day for this country. How do we light the fire under them? How to we get the word out in our media that the Senate must act quickly. We need to start shaming Republicans for their dismissal of our democracy in their quest for whiteness, money, and power.
Hi Kyle, look at my profile pic
WE NEED THIS INFORMATION! Thank you so much.
Hi Robot, look at my profile pic
Thank you, Robert.
I learned a great deal from this!
I have an idea:
Why don’t YOU run for President?
Seriously!
Jeff Becker
Thank you Professor. That is crystal clear. But it makes you wonder. What were they thinking in 1845?
Hi Mimi, look at my profile pic
GREAT artwork, Professor! A picture speaks a thousand words…. 🌻
While I might not grasp all the madness (requires a bit of reading) that is going on, I do know enough to recall Trump’s inclination he could overturn voters election. I do understand the issue and consequences of gerrymandering and I am in agreement with mainstream news and how they don’t really explain this type of issue very well.
As far as I see it, the Supreme Court should not have accepted this challenge, but our highest court has become far from what they should be and those who are of the Republicanism have already shown their partiality that defies their OATH!
Dianna, I think you are right that the SC conservatives have ditched their oaths in favor of power they can wield over people who just don't want their brand of interference when called for by disgruntled white people who want more power than they deserve. This is the second case this week brought by people who think they deserve more power and influence than they should have in our democracy. The first involved a white supposed artist who hasn't even opened a business yet but wants to be sure when/if she does, she does not have to serve LGBTQ persons if she doesn't want to because of some sort of religious BS. This country's constitution says we have freedom of religion. That should mean your religion should be your religion, not forced on me or anyone else. If you go into business, you serve everyone or no one. Black people, other people of color, disabled persons, and others have had to fight for the right to be served. Now, it's religious people claiming they should not have to serve people they don't like. That should never have been a case even considered by the SC, but as Catholics, the majority is working hard to make this a white Catholic country with everyone else as beggars for our rights. That should be acceptable to no one. So much for the SC conservatives' oaths to the American people. It seems their oaths are to their church in their attempt to make a white Catholic nation as they try to gain entrance into heaven. Disgusting! The second case the "independent legislatures" nonsense should also never have been taken on, but in the conservative attempt to gain and keep power in our government, they want to let state legislatures, notoriously unstable, to pick candidates, set boundaries, and elect whoever they want for offices. We did that crap in states and communities with bosses who decided who would be elected. It was completely undemocratic and mostly went away. The SC conservatives and the scared white people who brought the stupid case in the first place, want to bring it back, though all over the country. That needs to be called out by every media outlet (well, except Fox Not Really News) to inform people their state legislatures want their votes to be irrelevant and candidates picked by mostly old white men and a few white women sitting in their state capital. I don't see how that can be a good thing or wanted by anyone.
Good luck with making this public and urging Congress still under Democrat control (in both senses of the word) to get a move on. I've passed it top a few US citizens.
New article might shed light on the bigger picture unfolding across the world...
https://impakter.com/planet-sustainability-choice-ours/
This is a great recap of the situation we find ourselves in. One sentence about education as a solution is not enough --the problem remains. How are enough people reached so that their consciousness results in changes needed. In the face of forces which are working to prevent such consciousness.
Thanks....great link. Maybe AI will come to our rescue......
Thank you. I bookmarked it.
Hi Michael, look at my profile pic
Hi Bob, look at my profile pic
Media don’t, not doesn’t!
Doesn’t you start that argument again!
LOL! I needed that laugh.
Hi Karl, look at my profile pic
Hi Steve, look at my profile pic