Trump has chosen his Supreme Court nominee (Brett Michael Kavanaugh)

C Mc
C Mc Posts: 4,463
edited July 2018 in News & Current Events

Judge Kavanaugh, 53. Born in Washington, the son of two lawyers and the graduate of one of its elite private high schools, Georgetown Preparatory School, Judge Kavanaugh is in many ways a creature of the city Republicans like to deplore.

After seven years at Yale, where he went to college and law school, he returned here for a varied career that included stints in the Justice Department, the independent counsel’s office, a private law firm and the White House before joining the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Along the way, he married the former Ashley Estes, who served as personal secretary to Mr. Bush. They have two daughters.

He served under Kenneth W. Starr, the independent counsel who investigated President Bill Clinton, examining the suicide of Vincent W. Foster Jr., the deputy White House counsel, and drafting parts of the report that led to Mr. Clinton’s impeachment. He worked on the 2000 Florida recount litigations that ended in a Supreme Court decision handing the presidency to George W. Bush. And he served as a White House lawyer and staff secretary to Mr. Bush, working on the selection of federal judges and legal issues arising from the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

As a judge, though, he has been a conservative powerhouse, issuing around 300 opinions. His dissents have often led to Supreme Court appeals, and the justices have repeatedly embraced the positions set out in Judge Kavanaugh’s opinions.

America once again under Mr. Trump is shaping the future and the lives of people. Is this choice good, sad or indifference?

  1. What says ye of the process in choosing Supreme Court Justice?
  2. Did Mr. Trump just secure his Kingship with his Supreme Court nominee (Brett Michael Kavanaugh)?
  3. Do abortion rights advocates have anything to worry or to be afraid of?
  4. What is the Heritage Foundation?
  5. What rights and authority that this organization has to select Supreme Court Judges?
  6. Is it fair to have an organization of this caliber to draw up a list of known decisions for judges when a case comes to the "High Court"? CM

SOURCE: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/09/us/politics/brett-kavanaugh-supreme-court-trump.html

Post edited by C Mc on
Tagged:
· Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
«13

Comments

  • C Mc
    C Mc Posts: 4,463

    CORRECTION: It was the The Federalist Society that draw up a list of potential judges, not the Heritage Foundation. Still who are they?

    The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies, most frequently called the Federalist Society, is an organization of conservatives and libertarians seeking reform of the current American legal system in accordance with a textualist or originalist interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. Founded in 1982, it is one of the nation's most influential legal organizations.[6][7]

    The group has played a significant role in moving the national debate to the right on the Second Amendment, campaign finance regulation, state sovereignty, and the Commerce Clause. It plays a central role in networking and mentoring young conservative lawyers.[8] According to Amanda Hollis-Brusky, author of Ideas with Consequences: The Federalist Society and the Conservative Counterrevolution, the Federalist Society "has evolved into the de facto gatekeeper for right-of-center lawyers aspiring to government jobs and federal judgeships under Republican presidents."[6]

    The society is a membership organization that features a student division, a lawyers division, and a faculty division. The society currently has chapters at more than 200 United States law schools and claims a membership exceeding 10,000 law students. The lawyers division comprises more than 60,000 practicing attorneys (organized as "lawyers chapters" and "practice groups" within the division) in eighty cities.[2] Its headquarters are in Washington, D.C. Through speaking events, lectures, and other activities, the society provides a forum for legal experts of opposing views to interact with members of the legal profession, the judiciary, law students, and academics.[2][9]

    The society began at Yale Law School, Harvard Law School, and the University of Chicago Law School in 1982 as a student organization that challenged what its founding members perceived as the orthodox American liberal ideology found in most law schools. The society was started by a group of some of the most prominent conservatives in the country, including Attorney General Edwin Meese, Solicitor General and Reagan Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork, Indiana congressman David M. McIntosh, Lee Liberman Otis, Energy Secretary and Michigan senator Spencer Abraham, and Steven Calabresi. Its membership has since included Supreme Court justices Antonin Scalia, John G. Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch.[10] The society asserts that it "is founded on the principles that the state exists to preserve freedom, that the separation of governmental powers is central to our constitution, and that it is emphatically the province and duty of the judiciary to say what the law is, not what it should be."

    The society looks to Federalist Paper Number 78 for an articulation of the virtue of judicial restraint, as written by Alexander Hamilton: "It can be of no weight to say that the courts, on the pretense of a repugnancy, may substitute their own pleasure to the constitutional intentions of the legislature... The courts must declare the sense of the law; and if they should be disposed to exercise WILL instead of JUDGMENT, the consequence would equally be the substitution of their pleasure to that of the legislative body."

    A black cameo
    The society logo is a silhouette of James Madison Formation 1982
    Type Legal; Legal status 501(c)(3) nonprofit

    Purpose "To promote the principles that the state exists to preserve freedom, that the separation of governmental powers is central to our constitution, and that it is emphatically the province and duty of the judiciary to say what the law is, not what it should be."[1]

    Location: 1776 I Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20066
    Coordinates 38.901°N 77.0412°W
    Membership: 60,000–70,000[2][3]
    President: Eugene B. Meyer[1]
    Executive Vice President: Leonard Leo[4]
    Budget Revenue: $18,197,898
    Expenses: $15,077,690
    (FYE September 2015)[5]
    Website www.fed-soc.org

    CM

    SOURCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Society

    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • reformed
    reformed Posts: 3,176

    Hopefully, Roe v. Wade will finally be overturned!

    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • C Mc
    C Mc Posts: 4,463
    edited July 2018

    My view of the Mr. Trump's Supreme Court nominee (Brett Michael Kavanaugh) to serve on the US Supreme Court to fill an upcoming vacancy, calls for a few words. Many people are concerned about whether the court will overturn "Roe v. Wade". Many in CD hopes the same. I will not say personally if its "good" or "bad", for America, at this point.

    Let's not forget that there were abortions before "Roe v. Wade" (rights too). I'm not so much concern if it will be overturned. It's just a matter of time after they have gutted it with weighty requirements. It's not "rocket science" to conclude this and the complete overturning of Roe v. Wade. One simply has to look at the religious affiliation of the current justices on the "High bench":

    Name ---------- -------- ----Religion

    John Roberts (Chief Justice) --- Roman Catholicism
    Anthony Kennedy --- Roman Catholicism
    Clarence Thomas --- Roman Catholicism
    Ruth Bader Ginsburg -- Judaism
    Stephen Breyer -------- Judaism
    Neil Gorsuch --- ---- -- Catholic /Episcopal
    Samuel Alito ------------ Roman Catholic
    Elena Kagan ------------ Conservative Judaism
    Sonia Sotomayor ----- -------- Roman Catholicism
    Brett Michael Kavanaugh?? -------- -- Roman Catholicism (if confirmed)

    Their religious affiliations will be a controlling factor in their rulings above and beyond the law. So, good-bye, Roe v. Wade. A word of caution or a point toward the future. Regardless, when Roe v. Wade is overturned, there will always be abortions in America, even if it's fully repealed. Nothing will stop abortions in America, Supreme Court or not. If it's fully repealed, a situation will exist in America that the US Government will beg women to have abortions. Surely, I am not blowing smoke. What do you think?

    So, you see, my concern with the nominee is not over Roe v. Wade. This I will share in subsequent posts. Stay tuned. CM

    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • reformed
    reformed Posts: 3,176

    @C_M_ said:
    My view of the Mr. Trump's Supreme Court nominee (Brett Michael Kavanaugh) to serve on the US Supreme Court to fill an upcoming vacancy, calls for a few words. Many people are concerned about whether the court will overturn "Roe v. Wade". Many in CD hopes the same. I will not say personally if its "good" or "bad", for America, at this point.

    Let's not forget that there were abortions before "Roe v. Wade" (rights too). I'm not so much concern if it will be overturned. It's just a matter of time after they have gutted it with weighty requirements. It's not "rocket science" to conclude this and the complete overturning of Roe v. Wade. One simply has to look at the religious affiliation of the current justices on the "High bench":

    Name ---------- -------- ----Religion

    John Roberts (Chief Justice) --- Roman Catholicism
    Anthony Kennedy --- Roman Catholicism
    Clarence Thomas --- Roman Catholicism
    Ruth Bader Ginsburg -- Judaism
    Stephen Breyer -------- Judaism
    Neil Gorsuch --- ---- -- Catholic /Episcopal
    Samuel Alito ------------ Roman Catholic
    Elena Kagan ------------ Conservative Judaism
    Sonia Sotomayor ----- -------- Roman Catholicism
    Brett Michael Kavanaugh?? -------- -- Roman Catholicism (if confirmed)

    Their religious affiliations will be a controlling factor in their rulings above and beyond the law. So, good-bye, Roe v. Wade. A word of caution or a point toward the future. Regardless, when Roe v. Wade is overturned, there will always be abortions in America, even if it's fully repealed. Nothing will stop abortions in America, Supreme Court or not. If it's fully repealed, a situation will exist in America that the US Government will beg women to have abortions. Surely, I am not blowing smoke. What do you think?

    So, you see, my concern with the nominee is not over Roe v. Wade. This I will share in subsequent posts. Stay tuned. CM

    Of course there will still be abortions, just as there will still be gun deaths if you ban guns. What is the difference? Banning abortion makes intentional killing illegal. That is already the case with guns.

    But thanks, you just bolstered the argument that we should not do anything more about guns because death will still happen.

    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • C Mc
    C Mc Posts: 4,463

    @C_M_ said: So, you see, my concern with the nominee is not over Roe v. Wade. This I will share in subsequent posts. Stay tuned. CM

    I found Mr. Brett Michael Kavanaugh to be smart but obsequious to precedent as a mechanical judge in any future rulings. He's a stooge for extremes in America. This is more of the same. "A fish rots at the head first". So, this Supreme Court Hearing is another political charade to dupe the American people by the appointment of one (President Trump) who is deficient in administrative, relational, intellectual skills. He lacks moral authority, therefore, all his dealings will be just as oleaginous. There are 100,000 pages unavailable (claiming "Executive Privilege"), and the 42,000 pages dumped on the Dems within 15 hours of the hearings. This process reeks with a sense of unfairness and secrecy.

    Mr. Brett Michael Kavanaugh should go the way of the 30 persons officially nominated to the Supreme Court, who for various reasons never served on the Court:

              Nominee        /Year    /Nominated by    /Outcome
    1. Robert Harrison -1789 -Washington -Declined
    2. Levi Lincoln Sr. -1811 -Madison -Declined
    3. Alexander Wolcott -1811 -Madison -Rejected, 9–24
    4. John Quincy Adams -1811 -Madison -Declined
    5. John J. Crittenden -1828 -J. Q. Adams -Postponed
    6. William Smith -1837 -Jackson -Declined
    7. John C. Spencer -1844 -Tyler -Rejected, 21–26
    8. Reuben H. Walworth -1844 -Tyler -Withdrawn
    9. Edward King -1845 -Tyler -Withdrawn
    10. John M. Read -1845 -Tyler -No Action
    11. George W. Woodward -1845 -Polk -Rejected, 20–29
    12. Edward A. Bradford -1852 -Fillmore -No Action
    13. George E. Badger -1853 -Fillmore -Postponed
    14. William C. Micou -1853 -Fillmore -No Action
    15. Jeremiah S. Black -1861 -Buchanan -Rejected, 25–26
    16. Henry Stanbery -1866 -A. Johnson -Nullified
    17. Ebenezer R. Hoar -1869 -Grant -Rejected, 24–33
    18. Edwin Stanton -1869 -Grant - Died
    19. George Henry Williams -1873 -Grant -Postponed
    20. Caleb Cushing -1874 -Grant -Withdrawn
    21. Roscoe Conkling -1882 -Arthur -Declined
    22. William B. Hornblower -1893 -Cleveland -Rejected, 24–30
    23. Wheeler Hazard Peckham -1894 -Cleveland -Rejected, 32–41
    24. John J. Parker -1930 -Hoover -Rejected, 39–41
    25. Homer Thornberry -1968 -L. B. Johnson -Nullified
    26. Clement Haynsworth -1969 -Nixon -Rejected, 45–55
    27. G. Harrold Carswell -1970 -Nixon -Rejected, 45–51
    28. Robert H. Bork -1987 -Reagan -Rejected, 42–58
    29. Harriet Miers -2005 -G. W. Bush -Withdrawn
    30. Merrick Garland -2016 -Obama -No Action

    More recently, any of the outcomes above will be best for Mr. Kavanaugh. He is subject (all documents available) to go the way of James Clement Haynesworth (rejected), G. Harrold Carswell (rejected), R. H. Bork (rejected) and Harriet Miers (withdrawn).

    SOURCE:

    --"U.S. Senate: Supreme Court Nominations: 1789–Present". senate.gov. Washington, D.C.: United States Senate. Retrieved August 2, 2018

    PS. With Mr. Trump, as President, American is in trouble! See today's NYT Anonymous Op-Ed (Member of his cabinet). CM

    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • reformed
    reformed Posts: 3,176

    @C_M_ said:

    @C_M_ said: So, you see, my concern with the nominee is not over Roe v. Wade. This I will share in subsequent posts. Stay tuned. CM

    I found Mr. Brett Michael Kavanaugh to be smart but obsequious to precedent as a mechanical judge in any future rulings. He's a stooge for extremes in America. This is more of the same. "A fish rots at the head first". So, this Supreme Court Hearing is another political charade to dupe the American people by the appointment of one (President Trump) who is deficient in administrative, relational, intellectual skills. He lacks moral authority, therefore, all his dealings will be just as oleaginous. There are 100,000 pages unavailable (claiming "Executive Privilege"), and the 42,000 pages dumped on the Dems within 15 hours of the hearings. This process reeks with a sense of unfairness and secrecy.

    Mr. Brett Michael Kavanaugh should go the way of the 30 persons officially nominated to the Supreme Court, who for various reasons never served on the Court:

              Nominee      /Year    /Nominated by    /Outcome
    1. Robert Harrison -1789 -Washington -Declined
    2. Levi Lincoln Sr. -1811 -Madison -Declined
    3. Alexander Wolcott -1811 -Madison -Rejected, 9–24
    4. John Quincy Adams -1811 -Madison -Declined
    5. John J. Crittenden -1828 -J. Q. Adams -Postponed
    6. William Smith -1837 -Jackson -Declined
    7. John C. Spencer -1844 -Tyler -Rejected, 21–26
    8. Reuben H. Walworth -1844 -Tyler -Withdrawn
    9. Edward King -1845 -Tyler -Withdrawn
    10. John M. Read -1845 -Tyler -No Action
    11. George W. Woodward -1845 -Polk -Rejected, 20–29
    12. Edward A. Bradford -1852 -Fillmore -No Action
    13. George E. Badger -1853 -Fillmore -Postponed
    14. William C. Micou -1853 -Fillmore -No Action
    15. Jeremiah S. Black -1861 -Buchanan -Rejected, 25–26
    16. Henry Stanbery -1866 -A. Johnson -Nullified
    17. Ebenezer R. Hoar -1869 -Grant -Rejected, 24–33
    18. Edwin Stanton -1869 -Grant - Died
    19. George Henry Williams -1873 -Grant -Postponed
    20. Caleb Cushing -1874 -Grant -Withdrawn
    21. Roscoe Conkling -1882 -Arthur -Declined
    22. William B. Hornblower -1893 -Cleveland -Rejected, 24–30
    23. Wheeler Hazard Peckham -1894 -Cleveland -Rejected, 32–41
    24. John J. Parker -1930 -Hoover -Rejected, 39–41
    25. Homer Thornberry -1968 -L. B. Johnson -Nullified
    26. Clement Haynsworth -1969 -Nixon -Rejected, 45–55
    27. G. Harrold Carswell -1970 -Nixon -Rejected, 45–51
    28. Robert H. Bork -1987 -Reagan -Rejected, 42–58
    29. Harriet Miers -2005 -G. W. Bush -Withdrawn
    30. Merrick Garland -2016 -Obama -No Action

    More recently, any of the outcomes above will be best for Mr. Kavanaugh. He is subject (all documents available) to go the way of James Clement Haynesworth (rejected), G. Harrold Carswell (rejected), R. H. Bork (rejected) and Harriet Miers (withdrawn).

    SOURCE:

    --"U.S. Senate: Supreme Court Nominations: 1789–Present". senate.gov. Washington, D.C.: United States Senate. Retrieved August 2, 2018

    PS. With Mr. Trump, as President, American is in trouble! See today's NYT Anonymous Op-Ed (Member of his cabinet). CM

    There is more information about this nominee than the last 5 combined. He has a great judicial record. Can you actually find something legitimate against the nominee other than he was nominated by Trump?

    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • C Mc
    C Mc Posts: 4,463

    Release the documents. The truth will prevail. CM

    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • reformed
    reformed Posts: 3,176

    @C_M_ said:
    Release the documents. The truth will prevail. CM

    I love how you ignored the fact we know more and have more about him than any other candidate. Do you even know what docs are withheld? Don't be stupid.

    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • C Mc
    C Mc Posts: 4,463

    I found Mr. Brett Michael Kavanaugh doesn't appear to be truthful. He seems to be a judicial chameleon. CM

    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • reformed
    reformed Posts: 3,176

    @C_M_ said:
    I found Mr. Brett Michael Kavanaugh doesn't appear to be truthful. He seems to be a judicial chameleon. CM

    Based on what?

    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • GaoLu
    GaoLu Posts: 1,368
    edited September 2018

    Brett Michael Kavanaugh is looking better all the time. An amazing man. One more great man, a gift of grace from God it seems, to lead our nation. While some may be put off by his involvement leading to Clinton's impeachment, others see that as good experience. He has finished the Boston marathon in 3:59 (I am a runner and that is good time). He is also Catholic. Of course there are many much better reasons to appoint him.

    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • C Mc
    C Mc Posts: 4,463

    @GaoLu said:
    Brett Michael Kavanaugh is looking better all the time.)... He is also Catholic...

    I said above, it's not about the law on abortion. It's about religion and the law, as the cover. This why I am skeptical of the RCC Priest sex-crimes will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. The many Catholic lawyers, judges, prosecutors, etc. on the lower level of law enforcement, in view of Kavanaugh's mission on the "High Court", causes one to wonder. Your thoughts...CM

    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • GaoLu
    GaoLu Posts: 1,368

    I see his being Catholic as a very, very good thing from every angle, Catholic and otherwise. Who to better keep the RCC accountable? Who to better have Bible-based values? I just can't imagine a much better man. I for one, shall do as God told us in the Bible and give thanks for his grace in America's hour of need and redemption. I thank God for the Christians who repent of their sin and critical spirit, of their slander and hypocrisy, Christians who pray, and for whose prayers God grants this day of grace.

    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • C Mc
    C Mc Posts: 4,463

    Sweet nothing. CM

    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • reformed
    reformed Posts: 3,176

    @C_M_ said:
    Sweet nothing. CM

    Glad you see that is what your arguments amount to.

    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • C Mc
    C Mc Posts: 4,463

    @reformed said:

    @C_M_ said:
    Sweet nothing. CM

    Glad you see that is what your arguments amount to.

    No you don't! However, try these: Guns, Corporations, abortions, deregulation, Isolation a criminally-prone President from investigations, subpoenas, indictments, voter-oppression, etc. CM

    PS. Need I say more. CM

    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • reformed
    reformed Posts: 3,176

    @C_M_ said:

    @reformed said:

    @C_M_ said:
    Sweet nothing. CM

    Glad you see that is what your arguments amount to.

    No you don't! However, try these: Guns, Corporations, abortions, deregulation, Isolation a criminally-prone President from investigations, subpoenas, indictments, voter-oppression, etc. CM

    PS. Need I say more. CM

    Guns, yes, he supports the law.
    Corporations, what?
    Abotions, he said Roe is settled law and precedent.
    Deregulation, what's wrong with that?
    Isolate a President from Investigation, he said the opposite actually and cited Nixon vs. United States.
    Voter Oppression? How is he in favor of that?

    Your arguments just are from a different planet and not tied at all to reality. Wake up dude.

    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • C Mc
    C Mc Posts: 4,463

    "Ignorance is bliss".

    In other words: "Ignorance, or lack of knowledge, is usually not viewed as a good thing. However, there may be certain situations where you are happier not knowing the truth". CM

    SOURCES:

    -- “On a Distant Prospect of Eton College,” by the eighteenth-century English poet Thomas Gray: “Where ignorance is bliss, / 'Tis folly to be wise.'”

    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • reformed
    reformed Posts: 3,176

    @C_M_ said:

    "Ignorance is bliss".

    In other words: "Ignorance, or lack of knowledge, is usually not viewed as a good thing. However, there may be certain situations where you are happier not knowing the truth". CM

    SOURCES:

    -- “On a Distant Prospect of Eton College,” by the eighteenth-century English poet Thomas Gray: “Where ignorance is bliss, / 'Tis folly to be wise.'”

    I notice you couldn't actually refute my claims. Did you actually watch the hearing or do you just like spewing liberal talking points?

    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • C Mc
    C Mc Posts: 4,463

    Zzzz...CM

    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • GaoLu
    GaoLu Posts: 1,368

    That is what I figured.

    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • C Mc
    C Mc Posts: 4,463

    @GaoLu said:
    That is what I figured.

    Why hide the documents? Nothing to hide, release all them. A shadow will be over all of his decisions. Smart man, bad move to be confirmed. CM

    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • reformed
    reformed Posts: 3,176

    @C_M_ said:

    @GaoLu said:
    That is what I figured.

    Why hide the documents? Nothing to hide, release all them. A shadow will be over all of his decisions. Smart man, bad move to be confirmed. CM

    Do you even know what documents are available? Has nothing to do with his judicial service or opinions. We have more on him than the last 5 justices COMBINED.

    You really need to get a better argument because your current one is a #nothingburger and quite honestly #stupid

    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • C Mc
    C Mc Posts: 4,463

    I don't need a "better argument", just the truth. Face it. CM

    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • reformed
    reformed Posts: 3,176
    edited September 2018

    @C_M_ said:
    I don't need a "better argument", just the truth. Face it. CM

    You have the truth, you just reject it. And yes, you do in fact need a much better argument.

    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • reformed
    reformed Posts: 3,176

    Also @C_M_ I take your previous post about Kavanaugh and abortion to mean you support the murder of babies?

    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • GaoLu
    GaoLu Posts: 1,368

    The Truth so far is looking awesome. More awesome all the time. Brett Michael Kavanaugh seems to be a great choice.

    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • C Mc
    C Mc Posts: 4,463

    Reformed/GaoLu,

    Why do you endorse a man who supports any citizen to take a life in America and deals in weapons of death?

    As for abortion, Kavanaugh supports it. CM

    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • reformed
    reformed Posts: 3,176

    @C_M_ said:
    Reformed/GaoLu,

    Why do you endorse a man who supports any citizen to take a life in America and deals in weapons of death?

    As for abortion, Kavanaugh supports it. CM

    Has he said he supports abortion? No he hasn't.

    And he definitely doesn't support any citizen to take a life. That is just absurd.

    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
  • C Mc
    C Mc Posts: 4,463

    @reformed said:

    @C_M_ said:
    Reformed/GaoLu,

    Why do you endorse a man who supports any citizen to take a life in America and deals in weapons of death?

    As for abortion, Kavanaugh supports it. CM

    Has he said he supports abortion? No he hasn't.

    And he definitely doesn't support any citizen to take a life. That is just absurd.

    Yes, check the transcript of the hearings. He was clear. Don't take my words for it. Watch the hearings, all of it. CM

    · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In Register

Categories

In this Discussion

Who's Online 0