Hello:
She's everything the president and I wanted - and empathetic too.
She WILL be confirmed. It's just a matter of how much the right wants to embarrass itself.
excon
|
Hello:
She's everything the president and I wanted - and empathetic too.
She WILL be confirmed. It's just a matter of how much the right wants to embarrass itself.
excon
Have not done much research on her yet but this comment stands out .
YouTube - Judge Sonia Sotomayor: Court is Where Policy is MadeQuote:
“All of the legal defense funds out there—they’re looking for people with court of appeals experience. Because court of appeals is where policy is made. And I know, I know this is on tape and I should never say that because we don’t make law. [Laughs] I know. I know. [Laughter] I’m not promoting it, I’m not advocating it, I’m…y’know.”
I know that is not what the founders intended for the court. Her attitude is almost classic textbook definition of judicial activism .
The doctrine of judicial review was in the constitutions of at least 5 of the original 13 states. Its also considered an implied power of the Judicial branch affirmed with Marbury vs Madison in 1803. So I doubt if you can say its not what the Founding Father intended.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
P.S. excon beat you to it with a thread about Sotomayor, so I merged them.
She also said, "we educated, privileged lawyers have a professional and moral duty to represent the underrepresented in our society, to ensure that justice exists for all, both legal and economic justice."
I've wondered what economic justice means and thankfully, the Center For Economic and Social Justice defines the purpose of "economic justice."
"The ultimate purpose of economic justice is to free each person to engage creatively in the unlimited work beyond economics, that of the mind and the spirit."
Huh?
The case that stands out ;which is being reviewed by SCOTUS now is the New Haven Firefighter's reverse discrimination case(Ricci v. DeStefano ) http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=Ricci%2C_et_al._v._DeStefano%2C_et _al.
A panel of the 2nd Circus Court of Appeals ,including Sotomayor, ruled against the plainiffs . Judge Cabranes, a Clintoon appointee objected to the panel's opinion that contained “no reference whatsoever to the constitutional issues at the core of this case.” SCOTUS has already ruled against reverse discrimination in similar cases like Washington v. Davis.
Scott There is a strong argument that says Marberry was a power grab by the judiciary. The only reason it stands is that the other branches have not challenged it. I like the response that Andrew Jackson had to the imperial judiciary .
"John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!"
Hello tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
(snicker) (giggle)... Ahem... You can actually say that with a straight face (assuming I could SEE your face).
Ok. If we're going to get it on about judicial activism, let's GO.
You righty's are as ACTIVIST as you get. Where in your right wing strict constructionist Constitution, does it say that black people are only 3/5ths of white men? In Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), the right wing Court concluded that, be they slave or free, Blacks were a "subordinate and inferior class of beings" without constitutional rights.
Of course, you CAN'T find that crap in the Constitution. They made it up, and they continue to do so.
excon
Dred Scott was absolutely wrongly decided and proof of what I am talking about. Had SCOTUS not interfered in Dredd Scott there is a good chance the Civil War would not have been fought. I will go further... Plessy was also wrongly decided and was corrected by Brown v Board of Education. I am not arguing this on a left v right basis.
By the way ;the 3/5th compromise was in the Constitution but was reversed by amendment... the only proper way to change the Constitution... not by judicial fiat.
Hello again, tom:
Ok, then let's stop with the left and right issues... I simply suggest that when the right say's "strict constructionalist", it's code for a person who has empathy for the right.
You don't, and you wouldn't make the suggestion that only liberals have empathy, would you?? Because if you did, I'd snicker some more...
excon
I am interested in judges interpreting the law ;not making feelings judgement .
Jefferson on judicial activism and judicial review :
"The question whether the judges are invested with exclusive authority to decide on the constitutionality of a law has been heretofore a subject of consideration with me in the exercise of official duties. Certainly there is not a word in the Constitution which has given that power to them more than to the Executive or Legislative branches."
"But the Chief Justice says, 'There must be an ultimate arbiter somewhere.' True, there must; but does that prove it is either party? The ultimate arbiter is the people of the Union, assembled by their deputies in convention, at the call of Congress or of two-thirds of the States. Let them decide to which they mean to give an authority claimed by two of their organs. "
"The Constitution... meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch."
"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves."
I do not use that term .I prefer originalist . I do not want judges making legislation.Quote:
I simply suggest that when the right say's "strict constructionalist", it's code for a person who has empathy for the right.
Here is Sotomayor's idea of empathy .
“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”
In other words a white male could not possibly fairly rule on a case involving a Hispanic. This is the best Obama could come up with ?
Justice has been portrayed as a woman wearing a blindfold. Justice is supposed to be impartial, not emphathetic.
Sonia wants to take off the blindfold and has said as much.
David Frum has an interesting take on Sotomayor as a Supreme...
Quote:
OBNOXIOUS... BUT IN A GOOD WAY?
Tuesday, May 26, 2009 7:57 AM
On the other hand, here's the possible good news in the Sotomayor nomination. A conservative legalist friend notes that the all-important 5th vote on the Supreme Court is Justice Anthony Kennedy's. The Reagan-appointed Kennedy has drifted to the left in recent years - in part (it's gossiped) because of his negative reactions to the brilliant but sometimes acerbic Antonin Scalia.
Having lost in 2008, Republicans had no hope of a conservative or even a moderate judicial nominee. What we should therefore be hoping for, my friend continues, is the most personally obnoxious liberal, someone certain to offend and irritate Kennedy - and push him careening back rightward. For this reason, the politic Elena Kagan would be the very worst pick from a conservative point of view. As dean of Harvard Law School, she proved herself adept at wooing conservative support. By contrast, if Jeffrey Rosen's reporting is correct, Sotomayor was almost unanimously disliked by her colleagues on the Second Circuit and even more by their clerks. And she's unlikely to gain humility from this latest promotion... so who could be better?
David Frum is part of the Republican movement that wants to redefine the "Republican brand" as Democrats lite. (David Gergen is also in that group)http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/26/one-of-obama%E2%80%99s-finest-hours/
Frum is buying into the Obama strategery that a Republican fight against the Sotomayor nomination will be viewed as Republican racism against a growing identity group.
However ,I had expected Kagan to be the nominee because of the reason Frum describes. She is actually more liberal than Sotomayer and by all accounts would've been formidable in a debate .But she is already Solicitor General .
Sotomayor by contrast dismissed the Ricci case with a single paragraph of no substance "that lacked a clear statement of either the claims raised by the plaintiffs or the issues on appeal" and "no reference whatsoever to the constitutional claims at the core of this case." after a review of 1800 pages of testimony and over an hour of oral arguments according to fellow Clintoon appointee Jose Cabranes .
Here is the decision in it's totality :
Perhaps Frum is right that she is a light weight. Perhaps she is Obama's Harriet Miers,and Kagan will be the real nominee after the Republicans trash the hispanic nominee ;further strengthening the Democat hold on them( although it did not seem to matter much that the Dems were free to trash Alberto Gonzalez and blocking Miguel Estrada's nomination to the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circus )Quote:
PER CURIAM:
We withdraw our Summary Order of February 15, 2008. Ricci v. DeStefano, 2008 U.S.
App. LEXIS 3293, 2008 WL 410436 (2d Cir. Feb. 15, 2008).
Plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Arterton, J.) granting the defendants' motion for summary judgment on all counts.
We affirm, for the reasons stated in the thorough, thoughtful, and well-reasoned opinion of the court below. Ricci v. DeStefano, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73277, 2006 WL 2828419 (D. Conn., Sept. 28, 2006). In this case, the Civil Service Board found itself in the unfortunate position of having no good alternatives. We are not unsympathetic to the plaintiffs' expression of frustration. Mr. Ricci, for example, who is dyslexic, made intensive efforts that appear to have resulted in his scoring highly on one of the exams, only to have it invalidated. But it simply does not follow that he has a viable Title VII claim. To the contrary, because the Board, in refusing to validate the exams, was simply trying to fulfill its obligations under Title VII when confronted with test results that had a disproportionate racial impact, its actions were protected.
CONCLUSION
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
I read Rosen's article yesterday. Since it is full of unidentified sources I will defer opinion until some of these sources goes public in Senate testimony. I wonder if there is an Anita Hill in the group ?Rosen did a quick retreat today
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_p...omination.aspx
More Jefferson about the power of SCOTUS:
"This member of the Government was at first considered as the most harmless and helpless of all its organs. But it has proved that the power of declaring what the law is, ad libitum, by sapping and mining slyly and without alarm the foundations of the Constitution, can do what open force would not dare to attempt."
Thomas Jefferson
Hello again, tom:
Rosen NOW say's: "Instead, the strongest case to be made for Sotomayor is the idea that the range of her experience--as a trial judge, appellate judge, and commercial litigator--might give her the humility to recognize that courts participate in a dialogue with the political branches when it comes to defining constitutional rights, rather than having the last word."
If one has to "dialogue" with a politician before one comes up with their "strict" interpretation of the Constitution, it would seem Rosen wants the candidate to be more empathetic to the political view...
To me, that would look like activism. But, that's just me.
excon
Hello again, tom:
Yesterday, the Supreme Court rolled back limits on questioning of suspects... Scalia writing for the majority said the previous ruling was overturned because its "marginal benefits are dwarfed by its substantial costs" in that some guilty defendants go free.
I don't know. I read the Bill of Rights. I don't find anything in there about "costs and/or benefits". He made it up out of whole cloth. In fact, this ruling is judicial activism on steroids!
You don't think so, of course, because the empathy Scalia and the right wingers have is for the COPS!!
The truth of the matter is, that our Constitution was designed to protect the rights of EVERYBODY. Inherent in that truth, is the realization that in order to accomplish that, a few guilty people will go free. It's a cost the founders were willing to undergo. I agree with them. Scalia doesn't. He's wrong.
A further fact. The idea embedded in the above paragraph is the BEDROCK and the FOUNDATION on which our freedoms lie. Scalia doesn't agree. He's wrong.
excon
It is interesting that Solicitor General Elana Kagan;who was also on Obama's short list of potential nominees discussed above;also called for an overruling of the Jackson decision and was one of the authors of the amicus for the government .Presumably Obama also favored it's reversal.
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-cont...jo-4-14-09.pdf
The theory was that Kagan would be better able to take on Scalia in a debate on the bench. But it appears they might be natual allies... at least on issues regarding 6th Amendment rights.
Scalia's argument makes sense when you also factor in the 10th amendment .
Louisiana automatically appointed defense counsel to defendant Montejo and then told him that his failure to accept it means he's rejecting his rights under Michigan v Jackson .The court said that the Jackson decision doesn't work because different states have different systems and the states can decide if a defendant must affirmatively accept counsel or not.
This is a very narrow ruling that in no way denies the defendant 6th Amendment protections.
I think he was referring to separation of powers . The problem with the court is they think they have the power to be the final arbitrator of the Constitution. That to me is activism.Quote:
Rosen NOW say's: "Instead, the strongest case to be made for Sotomayor is the idea that the range of her experience--as a trial judge, appellate judge, and commercial litigator--might give her the humility to recognize that courts participate in a dialogue with the political branches when it comes to defining constitutional rights, rather than having the last word."
If one has to "dialogue" with a politician before one comes up with their "strict" interpretation of the Constitution, it would seem Rosen wants the candidate to be more empathetic to the political view...
To me, that would look like activism. But, that's just me.
Again... I do not adhere to "strict" interpretation .I believe in 'judicial restraint' and 'originalism'.
Judicial Restraint is simply the theory that law and policy is not made from the bench (word to Sotomayor ).
Originalism is not applying the law to a strict text ,but to what the original intent of the law was at the time of the writing. It requires more than just the textual reading ,but it also has to be put in context .That would mean a reading of the supporting documents like the Federalist papers and the writing of the founders. Also when reading the amendments the original intent can also be found in the debates that created the amendment.Originalism allows for reasonable interpretation ;strict construction does not.
She is a Neo-Communist activist bent on destroying our legal system, free market economy and the moral and traditional fabric that weave our country together sad day indeed
Hello C:
Wow! Dude. I wonder how you'd respond if he'd a chosen a real liberal.
excon
Her comment about old white men and latina's is about as racist as you get.
If the shoe was on the other foot, I wonder how loud the left wingers would howl?
Hello gal:Quote:
Originally Posted by galveston
No louder than your right wing brethren. She said something else about the court making policy too, that's going to cause her some trouble...
But, those two things are it, and they ain't near enough to derail her nomination. She's eminently qualified for the bench, and she'll breeze through.
You guys'll muss her up a bit, but it'll be for naught.
excon
I agree she will be confirmed easily . About 11 of the gang of 14 confirmed her for the Circus Court and the ususal suspect RINOs like Olympia Snowjob .
She will also have to answer why 4 recent decisions of hers was overturned. But she has years of experience on the bench so she is in. Besides no one would tolerate a "BORKING " by the Republicans like Bork Thomas and Alito were subjected to by Biden and the Dem thugs on the Judiciary Committee .
Isn't it amazing how the left can play the race card at will. NO PROBLEM!
Just let a conservative try to play it.
I get it now, even dumb people need representation...
Can't wait to see Scalia's first dissent to one of her opinions.Quote:
The most consistent concern was that Sotomayor, although an able lawyer, was "not that smart and kind of a bully on the bench," as one former Second Circuit clerk for another judge put it. "She has an inflated opinion of herself, and is domineering during oral arguments, but her questions aren't penetrating and don't get to the heart of the issue."
Her opinions, although competent, are viewed by former prosecutors as not especially clean or tight, and sometimes miss the forest for the trees. It's customary, for example, for Second Circuit judges to circulate their draft opinions to invite a robust exchange of views. Sotomayor, several former clerks complained, rankled her colleagues by sending long memos that didn't distinguish between substantive and trivial points, with petty editing suggestions--fixing typos and the like--rather than focusing on the core analytical issues.
Not all the former clerks for other judges I talked to were skeptical about Sotomayor. "I know the word on the street is that she's not the brainiest of people, but I didn't have that experience," said one former clerk for another judge. "She's an incredibly impressive person, she's not shy or apologetic about who she is, and that's great." This supporter praised Sotomayor for not being a wilting violet. "She commands attention, she's clearly in charge, she speaks her mind, she's funny, she's voluble, and she has ownership over the role in a very positive way," she said. "She's a fine Second Circuit judge--maybe not the smartest ever, but how often are Supreme Court nominees the smartest ever?"
So far in the 5 cases that she authored the majority opinion ;and SCOTUS granted certiorari ;they reversed 3 of her decisions.
One minute they are telling us the virtues of torture, the next, they are outraged over perceived racism, this from the same crowd that wants to gun down Mexicans as they cross the border and profile blacks..
It's odd how they consider everyone that is left of Cheney who happens to not be white a racist. Is there a non-white skinned person who isn't a racist in the minds of these simpletons?
Btw, this is the same crowd who pretends Rush Limbaugh is NOT a racist when he really has made many overtly racist comments over the years.
All she was saying was that a Latina woman can bring a better perspective to cases involving minorities, specifically Latinos, because she lived it first-hand. She said nothing racist what-so-ever; what she is really saying in greater context is that any given person is better equipped to understand the perspective of their own people than someone else would be through empathy and second hand accounts, her point being that she thinks it's valuable to have some people who understand and represent significant minorities and perspectives on the court, that's all.
So then if I am a white male defendant I should ask for a white male judge because he lived it first-hand ?
You always manage to toss in those ad hominems .Quote:
Is there a non-white skinned person who isn't a racist in the minds of these simpletons?
I bet you are of the opinion that a quote such as hers is not racism because she is a member of a PC approved minority and in her case it is only a reflection of racial and ethnic pride. But a white person gets no pass saying something similar.
To answer your question... Since the discussion is about a justice for SCOTUS then Clarence Thomas comes immediately to mind. He had the "life experience " similar if not harder than justice Sotomayor.
But was that the standard by which the Democrats view him ? Do they think he is a fine judge because of these life experiences ? No ;the racist white Democrats in the Judiciary Committee trashed him during confirmation and the left continues to ridicule him today. Since he doesn't cow-tow to liberal orthodoxy then clearly he is not in that exempt group.
Another jurist that comes to mind is Miguel Estrada . His life experiences did not seem to matter to the left. The Dems used the filibuster to keep him off the bench.
Not only is she racist ;she is also biased and sexists. But my biggest beef with her so far is that she thinks that policy is made from the bench. That is an instant disqualifier . Perhaps she wants the constitution scrapped in the Chavez, Morales, Correa mode.
The real shame here is you actually believe this. Maybe you should get out more.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dare81
Name one.Quote:
Btw, this is the same crowd who pretends Rush Limbaugh is NOT a racist when he really has made many overtly racist comments over the years.
And that matters how exactly?Quote:
All she was saying was that a Latina woman can bring a better perspective to cases involving minorities, specifically Latinos, because she lived it first-hand.
http://www.hudeclaw.com/images/Lady%20Justice.gifQuote:
She said nothing racist what-so-ever; what she is really saying in greater context is that any given person is better equipped to understand the perspective of their own people than someone else would be through empathy and second hand accounts, her point being that she thinks it's valuable to have some people who understand and represent significant minorities and perspectives on the court, that's all.
I suppose you want the blindfold off?
Hello Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
There was a Supreme Court ruling recently about a 13 year old girl being strip searched... The old white men on the court didn't understand how humiliating it was until Ruth Bader Ginsberg told them.
The "empathy" THEY showed, of course, was for the COPS who did the searching...
So, if the blindfold is OFF for the RIGHTY'S, you betcha I want it OFF for the ordinary people.
excon
Breyer also spoke from personal experiences and his comments were shallow and as irrelevant to the issues in Safford Unified School District v. April Redding as Ginsbergs . This case will be decided on 4th amendment issues ;not on the sensitivities of Breyer ,Ginsberg ,or Savana Redding . A strip search can be humiliating to anyone regardless of age or gender. The question is ;was it constitutional ?
My own opinion ? I think the search went beyond what was "reasonable" .
As far as I can tell this case hasn't been decided yet so I'm not sure how you can say that. Have you predetermined the outcome based on the justices handling of the arguments? As humiliating as it was and as unbelievably stupid the school district was shouldn't the constitution still be the deciding factor?Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
I see the Constitution as black or white. So do you. Only your black is my white. Since we both can read, and we're not deficient, there apparently IS a grey area.
THIS is the area where empathy IS important. You guys are empathetic as well, only you deny it... I don't know why.
Even though tom explained away the ACTIVISM displayed above by Antonin Scalia, it IS what it IS. That is, of course, unless you can find the words "costs" and or "benefits" ANYWHERE in the Bill of Rights.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
You won't find it, because it's NOT there. Do you know why?? Because the founders believed what they wrote. They didn't say your rights are sacrosanct unless we can find a benefit to society to REMOVE them.
Noooo. It doesn't say that at all.. A right, is a right, is a right. Scalia is making it up on the fly, and you can't deny it.
excon
That was nice cherry-picking of Scalia's opinion...
Where's the activism in that?Quote:
(c) Stare decisis does not require the Court to expand significantly the holding of a prior decision in order to cure its practical deficiencies. To the contrary, the fact that a decision has proved “unworkable” is a traditional ground for overruling it. Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U. S. 808 . Beyond workability, the relevant factors include the precedent’s antiquity, the reliance interests at stake, and whether the decision was well reasoned. Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U. S. ___, ___. The first two cut in favor of jettisoning Jackson: the opinion is only two decades old, and eliminating it would not upset expectations, since any criminal defendant learned enough to order his affairs based on Jackson’s rule would also be perfectly capable of interacting with the police on his own. As for the strength of Jackson’s reasoning, when this Court creates a prophylactic rule to protect a constitutional right, the relevant “reasoning” is the weighing of the rule’s benefits against its costs. Jackson’s marginal benefits are dwarfed by its substantial costs. Even without Jackson, few badgering-induced waivers, if any, would be admitted at trial because the Court has taken substantial other, overlapping measures to exclude them. Under Miranda, any suspect subject to custodial interrogation must be advised of his right to have a lawyer present. 384 U. S. at 474. Under Edwards, once such a defendant “has invoked his [Miranda] right,” interrogation must stop. 451 U. S. at 484. And under Minnick v. Mississippi, 498 U. S. 146 , no subsequent interrogation may take place until counsel is present. Id. at 153. These three layers of prophylaxis are sufficient. On the other side of the equation, the principal cost of applying Jackson’s rule is that crimes can go unsolved and criminals unpunished when uncoerced confessions are excluded and when officers are deterred from even trying to obtain confessions. The Court concludes that the Jackson rule does not “pay its way,” United States v. Leon, 468 U. S. 897 , n. 6, and thus the case should be overruled. Pp. 13–18.
2. Montejo should nonetheless be given an opportunity to contend that his letter of apology should have been suppressed under the Edwards rule. He understandably did not pursue an Edwards objection, because Jackson offered broader protections, but the decision here changes the legal landscape. Pp. 18–19.
Hello Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
I read it, and I'm still not deficient.. It's a lot of legal mumbo jumbo to limit a Constitutional right based upon the costs and benefits to society...
A duck by any other name, IS a duck. Or should I talk about the forest and the trees. At least I GET how the left is empathetic... Right wing empathy goes right over your head... Maybe you been sipping TOO much Limbaugh koolaid
excon
PS> Cherry picking?? Dude! You'd sing a different tune if they tried to take away your guns based upon the costs and/or benefits to society...
The Jackson rule made a presumption that if a suspect waived the right to council being present during questioning ,that the police would still be violating the suspects rights by questioning the suspect . That was the activist decision... not the reversal of the Jackson rule.
This ruling is in line with the position of several states as well as the Obama Administration .
As for empathy... when juries are instructed they are told to ignore personal feelings and to decide a case based on the law as the judge has instructed them. Juries are supposed to be impartial ;why not judges ?
Scalia is one of the most defendant friendly justices on the court.
Here are some of his recent cases :
Crawford v. Washington Scalia supported defendants against prosecutors trying to get convictions based on hearsay.
Blakely v. Washington Scalia led the fight against the mandatory federal sentencing guidelines.
Arizona v. Gant.. Scalia ruled in favor of criminal defendant on 4th amendment issue concerning a car search, overruling NY v. Belton.
Begay v. United States ..that DUI was not a violent felony based on the rule of lenity.
United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez -- that a criminal defendant has a right to counsel of his choice.
“I don't want a 'competent' lawyer. I want a lawyer to get me off. I want a lawyer to invent the Twinkie defense. I want to win.”
United States v. Santos.. that the money laundering statute is ambiguous
So the truth is that Scalia has decided cases both for and against the criminal .
Sure looked legally sound to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
I don't drink Koolaid. The difference between left-wing and right-wing empathy is the right-wingers don't see government as the primary source and dispenser.Quote:
A duck by any other name, IS a duck. Or should I talk about the forest and the trees. At least I GET how the left is empathetic... Right wing empathy goes right over your head... Maybe you been sipping TOO much Limbaugh koolaid
Has nothing to do with my point, which was tell the whole story, not just the part that (dishonestly) supports your argument.Quote:
PS> Cherry picking?? Dude! You'd sing a different tune if they tried to take away your guns based upon the costs and/or benefits to society...
Is this what empathy looks like in a liberal administration, politicizing a blatant case of voter intimidation?
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:18 PM. |