Press "Enter" to skip to content

Republican Voters Against Trump: End the Embarassment, Bring Back Competence

When you need a campaign ad that really hits hard, turn to Republicans—in this case, Republican Voters Against Trump, a project of Defending Democracy Together, who use the campaign slogan I’ve recommended: It’s Time for a Competent President:

Not a leader, not President, just a scared incompetent embarrassment. You know that. Those who have worked with him know that, our allies know that, and our enemies know that. Everyone knows that. It’s time for a competent President. Let’s elect one [links added; Republican Voters Against Trump, “The Panic Room President,” video posted to YouTube 2020.06.05].

Competence. That’s not all that’s missing from the Trump Administration. But it’s all you need to take a moment this fall and vote for the other guy, the decent man who actually worked in the White House for eight years, the genuine public servant who can actually lead a nation and a world.

68 Comments

  1. Edwin Arndt 2020-06-06 09:33

    Cory, it has been made abundantly clear that there is
    no place in the democratic party for a person like me,
    a pro-life conservative, so I just won’t be voting.

  2. David Newquist 2020-06-06 11:58

    Hitler had Hermann Goering; Trump has Mitch McConnell. Hitler had Heinrich Himmler; Trump has William Barr. Hitler had Joseph Goebbels; Trump has Kayleigh McEnany.

    Godwin’s Law be damned.

  3. mike from iowa 2020-06-06 12:06

    Hermann Goering; at least seemed nice. McCTurtlefartface (not his real name) couldn’t spell nice if you spotted him the c, a and t.

    Kayleigh McEnany.has been voting illegally in Florida while she lives in DC and has a New Jersey drivers license., She claims her parent’s address as hers.

    Fired cop Chauvin has been charged with the same crime.l He votes in Florida while he lives in Minn.

  4. jerry 2020-06-06 12:20

    110,000 killed in action from Covid19, at least. 41 million out of work. And then, the jobs reports come in and say that 2.5 million of us went back to work in the kitchens and slaughterhouses. Now we find the numbers were actually wrong.

    “When the U.S. government’s official jobs report for May came out on Friday, it included a note at the bottom saying there had been a major “error” indicating that the unemployment rate likely should be higher than the widely reported 13.3 percent rate.

    The special note said that if this “misclassification error” had not occurred, the “overall unemployment rate would have been about 3 percentage points higher than reported,” meaning the unemployment rate would be about 16.3 percent for May. But that would still be an improvement from an unemployment rate of about 19.7 percent for April, applying the same standards.” Washington Post 6.6.20

    Bring back competency indeed. Bring back people who know arithmetic.

  5. Chris S. 2020-06-06 12:49

    @Edwin Arndt:
    In the presidential election you have a binary choice: Trump or Biden. This isn’t about your precious feelings, or whether an entire political party caters to you on every position. (If it was, I’d never be able to vote in any election, ever.)

    In this, the Greatest Democracy in the World™, we are given two options. Pick one. Personally, I think one isn’t great, but the other is blatantly evil — and if you can’t tell the difference, then the blame is on you, not on everybody else. You don’t get to mewl about not getting your perfect candidate from the party you don’t belong to. Your party gave us Trump.

  6. Edwin Arndt 2020-06-06 13:43

    Cris, this is not about feelings but strongly held beliefs that
    I will not abandon. I will not have my vote interpreted as
    supporting abortion. I simply will not.

    By the way, I stopped calling myself a republican during
    the early years of the George W. Bush administration.

  7. Loren 2020-06-06 14:05

    And let us heed that old lefty snowflake, George Will. He is advocating for a total house cleaning by rejecting those that are complicit in this charade. Yes, that includes our famous Mikey Rounds who said he would not vote to convict Trump during the impeachment hearings BEFORE evidence was presented, voted NOT to hear evidence and has back the Orange Blossom Bunker Boy EVERY SINGLE TIME! Never forget!

  8. jerry 2020-06-06 15:15

    Edwin, do what ya gots to do. trump is going down, so let’s help hand him the anvil off the pier. In fact, even his campaign admits it. From the trump fascist campaign, I give you this:

    ““Everyone knows public polling is notoriously wrong about President Trump. Our internal data consistently shows the president running strong against a defined Joe Biden in all of our key states,” Tim Murtaugh, a Trump campaign spokesman said.”

    Team Blue already has the House so whatever the hell Dirty Johnson is gonna do for the next forever, is probably just pick lint out of his belly button. Doubtful he will bring any kind of bacon home for projects here.

    Still time for EB5 Short Rounds to do something positive like caucus with the Democrats, that would go for Thune as well. What the hey, another round of impeachment for trump would do the country good. Sometimes you have to destroy the village to save it. Maybe that would help to make their lives something more than to just be known to have supported treason.

  9. mike from iowa 2020-06-06 15:17

    Mr Arndt, how many wingnuts do you suppose support abortions for theirs, but not for yours?

    How many wingnut wealthy women have had abortions, do you suppose?

    How many daughters or Mistresses of wingnuts have had abortions?

    Personally, I do not know a single person of any political party advocating for abortion on demand. Freedom of choice is not pro-abortion. Why are you afraid to allow women to make their own choice?

  10. Debbo 2020-06-06 15:20

    I’ve never understood how how anyone can draw the line at abortion but not be equally ready with their Sharpie about the deaths of air breathing children and adults. Baffles me.

    So if Dictatorial Doofus is elected the number of children suffering from poverty, lack of education, disease, and other problems will increase. Same for their parents and all their kin. There will be more dead women from botched abortions. Also more dead women and children from domestic violence since Misogynist Moron and Bill disBarr don’t have a problem with it. However, there will be very few legal abortions.

    Edwin, that’s not just stupid thinking. That’s cruel. How are you going to live with that? Lie to yourself? Denial?

    I read George Will’s op ed a couple days ago and was shocked to find myself in agreement. Just Mango Menace out is not enough. Moscow Mitch is every bit as bad, perhaps worse because he is sane, but very evil. All of the enablers must go. We must have Democratic control of government to save the USA.

  11. jerry 2020-06-06 15:22

    Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff met with top Democrats for a discussion after trump gassed the peaceful protesters.

    “Milley also reached out Tuesday to Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York, said another person granted anonymity to discuss the situation. A third official said Milley had spoke with perhaps 20 or more members of Congress in the days following Monday’s photo op and Trump’s implicit threat to invoke the Insurrection Act to permit him to use federal troops in a law enforcement role in the nation’s capital and in other cities.”

    Resign like the Portland Press Herald said to do.

    “But ask yourself – can this country take five more months like the last five? You are a president supported by a minority of the people, and your only path to victory in November is to further divide the nation. This campaign could do even more lasting damage than you have done already.
    We know that you are not much of a student of history, but you recently said that you “learned a lot from Richard Nixon.”
    That’s good, because he set the historical precedent for what you should do now.
    In a nationally televised address, Nixon said that he knew that he was about to be impeached over Watergate, and he wanted to fight the charges.
    But since that would be destructive to the nation he served, he chose instead to resign. Nixon said: “By taking this action, I hope that I will have hastened the start of that process of healing which is so desperately needed in America.”
    America needs to heal again. Please resign now, and let us begin.” Portland Press Herald 6.6.20

  12. Buckobear 2020-06-06 15:27

    What does abortion have to do with it??
    “Right to life” really means “give it a birthday, after that the hell with it.”
    As pointed out above this election isn’t about one issue, it’s about competence, compassion and corruption. The current occupant has no competence and no compassion; but makes up for it in corruption,
    He and his enablers (including dusty and round mike need to be consigned to the dustbin of history.

  13. Edwin Arndt 2020-06-06 16:25

    Mike, I simply see it differently than you do. When a woman has
    an abortion, there are two bodies involved, not just one. How
    is it not cruel to kill a baby. A few of our states have laws that
    say a child that survives an abortion can be left to die. That seems
    incredibly gruesome to me. Have we no standards of morality?
    Have we no empathy or feelings of humanity for that child? The
    aborted child is just as human as the mother.

    Debbo, I’m all for making things better for single mothers.
    I’m all for making men more responsible. But we already have laws for that. What we need, I believe, is a higher standard of
    what constitutes a moral society. Making abortion easy doesn’t
    accomplish that. Making abortion easy promotes a hedonistic
    and promiscuous attitude that in my opinion leads to moral decline.
    How do we change societal attitudes? I don’t pretend to know
    exactly but it is a challenge we have to try to meet. My opinion.

  14. Debbo 2020-06-06 17:34

    You avoided most of my comment and the laws you cited are not effective. I get that you are a one issue only person. You can participate in significant harm that way this November.

  15. mike from iowa 2020-06-06 17:50

    Must be hard/lonely being a single issue voter.

  16. jerry 2020-06-06 17:56

    good one mfi

  17. jerry 2020-06-06 18:10

    Republican voters can see the handwriting on the wall and it says 25 to 30% unemployment with another 20 million unemployed. The PPP runs out in July and senate republicans will not put the money into it to keep the economy afloat. The real problems with all of this will start to happen around the time of the Sturgis Rally and then into September and October. Dan Ahlers will start to look real good in a month or two to all voters.

    “The U.S. Senate passed the House version of Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) legislation Wednesday night, tripling the time allotted for small businesses and other PPP loan recipients to spend the funds and still qualify for forgiveness of the loans.”

  18. Edwin Arndt 2020-06-06 18:21

    Debbo, we have a major difference of philosophy, moral
    standards, and opinion.

  19. Richard Schriever 2020-06-06 19:12

    Yes Mr Arndt – you certainly do. YOU are willing to overlook the mistreatment of living, breathing, independent people In favor of your personal issue. And that issue amounts to FORCING women to do YOUR will with their bodies. And before coming back with the whole “but the baby” crap, the imagery of the performance of abortions after the first trimester on VIABLE (that is able to survive IF born) is virtually non-existent outside of your IMAGINATION.

    Yes, YOUR moral perspective and “standards”; your philosophy and opinions are all about elevating YOU above all others and no one else. We get it.

  20. jerry 2020-06-06 19:19

    Republican voters against trump know what a catastrophe he continues to be.

    Looks like Maine will elect a Democrat to replace Susan Collins, who even stayed the hell away from King Covid’s visit to a Maine factory that produces testing swabs. Th governor of Maine didn’t meet with him, the boy is Covid19 personified

    “GUILFORD, Maine – President Donald Trump traveled to Maine Friday to tour a facility that makes medical swabs used for coronavirus testing, but the swabs manufactured in the background during his visit will ultimately be thrown in the trash, the company said.
    Puritan Medical Products said it will have to discard the swabs, a company spokeswoman told USA TODAY in response to questions about the visit.
    It is not clear why the swabs will be scrapped, or how many. The company described its manufacturing plans for Friday as “limited” – but the disruption comes as public health officials in Maine and other states have complained that a shortage of swabs has hampered their ability to massively scale up coronavirus testing.
    Workers in white lab coats, hair nets and plastic booties worked at machines making swabs while the president walked through the room. Trump, who did not wear a mask for the visit, stopped at one point to talk with some of the workers.
    “Made in the USA. I’ve been saying it for a long time,” Trump said.” https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/06/05/trump-maine-puritan-throw-away-coronavirus-swabs/3153622001/

    Everything trump touches, dies.

  21. Robin Friday 2020-06-06 19:52

    We need money and facilities to make BIRTH CONTROL easy and accessible, but the right-to-lifers won’t have that either. Doesn’t fit with THEIR “moral standards”.

  22. Debbo 2020-06-06 20:42

    Jerry, since Toxic Toddler wouldn’t wear a mask or any other PPE, he contaminated the entire place. That’s why they had to throw out the swabs, shut down the lines and disinfect everything and place.

  23. Mary D 2020-06-06 22:30

    Let’s not lose our democracy over this one issue. Because soon it will not be a political football that Republicans have taken as a party platform to gather up votes. South Dakota has had two initiative measures and the abortion law still stands and every year a right-wing Republican brings up yet another bill so legislators do not have time to really work on legislation that is needed because they spend hours upon hours debating that bill. Soon abortion is going to be, and maybe is already, a moot point.

    From South Dakota, Winnipeg is only a day’s drive. Women who have money can drive up there and come home the next day. Less wealthy women have to fight the tight laws we have or find some not so healthy way to get an abortion. Making the abortion laws stronger does not do away with abortion, it just drives abortions underground like they were before Roe vs. Wade in 1974.

    Soon though, Republicans are going to lose this vote gathering part of their platform as the abortion pill becomes more available on the internet. This pill taken in the privacy of their own homes it does not, most of the time, present any problems and if it does and they go to the hospital the medication does not show up in blood work and is treated as a miscarriage. Most women take abortion very seriously and the introduction of his pill in not going to increase the number of abortions to a great degree.

    Women do not have to ask Edward’s or Justice Kavenaugh’s permission The attached is just a site I Googled for brief information. In it there is a story of a woman living in her car with with two children. We surely are not going to judge her as to why she is now pregnant or why she cannot raise another child in these conditions. Possibly she was even raped? Republican-loving children have evidently failed to find ways to help her and her children. Her decision now is that she just cannot go on. Another story I read in another site is of a woman who is pregnant with a baby, that is not going to be a baby when born and will not even draw its first breath. Her decision is hers to make, not ours. What about the 12 year old girl who is the victim of incest, or the 15 year old girl raped by the football team? Parents need to have the right to make the decision for their children as to what is best for their family and their belief.

    It is a decision not taken lightly by women and it is between the women and her God. Here is the link. https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/10/20/17999996/abortion-mail-online-mifepristone-misoprostol

  24. CRJ 2020-06-07 01:49

    I would expect that if one is pro life / anti abortion then being against the death penalty is naturally part of their stance. If not, then it’s really all about them and not others.

  25. bearcreekbat 2020-06-07 02:37

    Voters who consider abortion an important issue need to focus on the solution to their goal. The steps are clear:

    1. Recognize that the U.S. Constitution currently enshrines a “right of privacy” that flatly prohibits government officials from interfering with an individual’s right to make his or her own decisions about procreation, such as whether or not a woman decides to maintain or end a pregnancy during the 1st trimester of pregnancy. This right of privacy also provides for significant, although not absolute, restrictions on the power of government officials to interfere with an individual’s private decision in later trimesters.

    2. Since this is a matter of Constitutional law, such a voter needs to find candidates that will introduce a constitutional amendment to eliminate or modify that “right of privacy” and empower government officials to take control over individual’s procreation decisions.

    This means, of course, that a voter can vote for President with out regard to steps 1 and 2 because the President is not authorized to introduce constitutional amendments:

    The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures.

    https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution#:~:text=The Constitution provides that an,thirds of the State legislatures.

    Refusal to vote for a presidential candidate because of an opposition to the individual “right of privacy” that allows a woman the privacy to make her own procreation decisions, including whether to have an abortion, without government interference, therefore, is, as a matter of fact not opinion, not consistent with the U.S. Constitution. This fact also suggests It has no rational connection to a moral stance that I can ascertain.

    In the end, using abortion as a reason to vote against, or refuse to vote for, a presidential candidate that supports other policies that the voter agrees with, but has no power to introduce the desired and constitutionally required amendment to eliminate or modify the “right of privacy” seems appropriately described by an old Jerry Jeff Walker tune:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9srTXOBvKUk

  26. Debbo 2020-06-07 03:03

    🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

  27. Loren 2020-06-07 08:39

    Let’s say Edwin and single issue voters get their way. All the children born, and they better be white to have a chance in that society, will have to contend with mining and drilling in our national parks, polluted lakes, rivers, oceans and atmosphere. The NRA will assure that those born have a limited life span due to unlimited fire power to crazy people. Only “christian” people will be allowed to pass laws because, like Edwin, only they are “moral.” Now that they are “born,” they have no access to gov’t programs because now they are a drag on society. No social security, medicare, SNAP,… because they will be afforded the opportunity to pull themselves up by the boot straps. Get off your high horse, Ed, and think of the consequences of “I get my way or I’m not playing.”

  28. jerry 2020-06-07 08:49

    The embarrassment continues with “baby gate”, Who knew it would be that simple to just build a wall around trump and forget about the boondoggle on the Mexican border.

    “President Donald Trump has now overseen the construction of a perimeter fence around the White House that is nearly two miles in length — and it’s already getting mocked relentlessly on social media.

    As construction of the perimeter fence continued on Friday, many Twitter users said it reminded them of a baby gate that new parents use to keep their infants from crawling into potentially dangerous areas.” https://www.rawstory.com/2020/06/babygate-trends-as-trumps-white-house-border-fence-gets-a-hilarious-new-nickname/#.XtrjEjrkGio.twitter

    Meanwhile, 110,000 dead from Covid19 and rising, 40 million without work, another 20 million set to come on the unemployment parade next month, rioting in the streets while chubby baby soils himself in the bunker.

  29. o 2020-06-07 09:21

    My question is how has the GOP pulled people like Edwin (anti-abortion) as single-issue voters for so long? Edwin has at least seemingly hit a breaking point where that single issue no longer warrants voting for/supporting a party that diverges in other important ways from his philosophy. That has always been my issue with these “pro-life”-single-issue voters and their blind adherence to the GOP; they have never leveraged their true power to transform the party into an image they prefer. Instead they hitch their wagons to and abhorrent machine that happens to support one (albeit the one biggest issue to them) and write blank checks to that party to do awful things supporters would not otherwise support. In fact, even on that one issue the GOP has not been particularly successful (I have aways believed that was purposeful — that way they create need).

    I also believe there are plenty of Democrats that more closely hold a true “pro-life” stance than these pandering GOP sloganists.

  30. o 2020-06-07 13:37

    bearcreekbat, that is not the only pathway; the GOP has charted a different solution/campaign strategy: go after the courts. Nominating and confirming (stacking) anti-Roe judges on district, appellate and Supreme courts makes the banning of abortion one decision away. I know of may SD GOP voters of the same mind as Edwin who voted for President Trump for ONLY that reason – he will appoint anti-abortion judges to the court.

    Unfortunately these anti-Roe judges will also be ruling on a spate of rights and freedoms that will be eroded or repealed by judges of this ilk. Those voters are sentencing the US to decades of repression far beyond their intended abortion focus.

    I would also argue that if the “pro-life” were serious about addressing abortion, they ought to focus on the cause of abortion — unwanted pregnancy. There would be broad support for so many initiatives to prevent unwanted pregnancy and to create a more wanted/welcome circumstance for pregnant women. The fallacy of the “pro-life” philosophy is that abortion is caused by the ability to choose; that oversimplification pigeon holes their solutions.

  31. bearcreekbat 2020-06-07 14:19

    o, you are certainly correct that as a practical matter we could elect leaders who might find unethical individuals to be appointed as judges that will disregard law and ethics and the Constitution’s impediments to extinguishing existing constitutional rights.

    First, only the SCOTUS can issue a court decision that takes away an existing constitutional right. The SCOTUS is charged with correcting any lower court that makes a decision that is inconsistent with SCOTUS precedent about the meaning of our U.S. Constitution.

    As I understand it, and I could be wrong, judicial ethics generally would disqualify a justice from sitting on a case in which the justice declares beforehand how he or she will rule on either factual or legal issues that come before the Supreme Court. That seems to be one reason why none of the Trump appointees would publicly promise to vote to overrule existing precedent, despite Trump’s contrary promise to appoint, in effect, unethical individuals as Justices who will overrule Roe regardless of the facts of the case before them or the legal arguments presented on the matter.

    While I would certainly agree that any individual can violate the law or ethical obligations, I think it a mistake to suggest that this is any more of a legitimate pathway to taking away the “right of privacy” than the pathway chosen by such strong believers as Michael F. Griffin, Paul Jennings Hill, John Salvi, Eric Rudolph, James Kopp, Shelley Shannon, and Robert L. Dear. See:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence#Murders

    A claim to be voting based on morals and principles, by definition, would have to be based on following the Constitution, laws and ethics that guide our nation. One could certainly disagree with the principles of our Constitutional government based upon competing moral values, but then I don’t really see what point there would be in voting at all if one doesn’t believe that change should be accomplished in the manner set forth by the Constitution, consistent with the ethical principles of American government.

    I can agree with the morality of taking a position in any case before the SCOTUS that an existing constitutional rule or right is an incorrect interpretation of the Constitution and needs correction. But seeking Justices who will take the extra-constitutional position that existing rights must be eliminated through a judicial decision without even considering of the facts or legal arguments of the individual case before the Court certainly doesn’t seem to qualify as a moral position.

  32. Donald Pay 2020-06-07 16:05

    Yes, in general, we want competence in leaders. But here’s the deal about Donald Trump: he is competent in the area of being incompetent. That’s what endears Trump to the drooling dead-enders who remain among the Trump base. And Trump just naturally knows how to be competently incompetent.

    I call Trump’s base “the dumb crowd” because they are largely, as the name implies, “dumb,” though “clueless” and “not reality based” might be two appropriate labels for these folks. If you want to speak of morals, rather than IQ, Hillary’s “basket of deplorables” serves well.

    Pick one of the droolers out of a Trump rally, and they could do just as well (I’d say poorly) as Trump as President. They know it, we know, and now some Republicans have come to know it, too. The thing is that is what the droolers admire about Trump. He’s not like Obama or Hillary, clearly superior in every way to them. They could never be like those two competent people.

    The droolers sniff at wanting someone trying to appeal to their “better angels.” They’d rather imagine they were sniffing the nether parts of Stormy Daniels and pretending to be President Il Duce, just like Trump. They want someone as dumb and immoral as they are, and that’s what they got. But they don’t think they are immoral, because they grab onto their one issue morality, like Trump grabs female nether parts, as if that proves how righteous they are. But it only shows them as foolish as Donald Trump, holding the Bible upside down, much like Satan would do.

  33. o 2020-06-07 16:33

    bearcreekbat, the GOP targeting of the judicial branch has the added benefit of no review. Courts decide the validity of laws. As you point out, the laws currently protect a woman’s right to an abortion, but simply saying “that is the law” does not mean it is settled. Our nation, and the purpose of the judicial system, changes moral stances. I will not belittle this argument with a list of things that were “legal” but later became immoral in our nation’s eyes. I accept this is the “pro-life” stance. My side cannot hide behind the law “because it is the law.” With the Supreme Court (and some others) appointments are for life and no actually enforceable code of conduct exists for how to rule. The judicial ethics you mention are really the sole discretion of those who appoint — which brings us back to the grand ploy of the GOP. For example, the US Senate will NOT disqualify a nominee from the President KNOWN to be anti-Roe; that is how judicial ethics are decided.

    I believe any court (or legislature) can take away even Constitutional rights. The appellate process makes the Supreme Court the final arbiter in that decision, but the Supreme Court can and does decide to not hear cases which, in effect, allows issues to be decided by lower courts.

    Your reasoning that rights cannot be contracted would seem to also warrant a mirrored argument that rights cannot be expanded. For that, I would also reject your reasoning.

    Think of the expansion – conservative expansion – of First Amendment “Free Speech.” Money is speech. Corporations are people – so have free speech. Right to Work is free speech. All of those were rights created by the Supreme Court and are now Constitutional Rights. It can and does also work the other way to diminish, restrict, or eliminate rights through judicial fiat.

    Although many in this nation are uncomfortable with abortion, many are more uncomfortable with the realities of banning, criminalizing mothers and doctors, and creating another exclusive privilege of the rich. unfortunately, even in a Constitutional Democratic Republic, an ideological heist of the courts undermines all the will of the majority. THAT is the GOP end game. That is the offering to the “pro life” voters from the GOP. It has worked.

    If the Conservatives, GOP, Federalist Society also gets to flip Ginsberg, then the worst of the Trump racist, bigoted, greedy, undemocratic America will blossom for at least the rest of my life, and probably yours — even with Democratic Presidents and Legislatures.

  34. mike from iowa 2020-06-07 16:42

    Correct me if I am wrong, bcb, but aren’t, at least, the last 2 nominees to the Spotus decidedly un-precedential in nature. And don’t they fit quite nicely with crusty old Thomas and the little Alito worm guy in thinking too many cases were wrongly decided by preceding justices?

    And last, but not least, is Chief Justice Roberts whose vote depends on the day of the week, it seems.

  35. Ben Cooper 2020-06-07 17:14

    So much hate and delusion displayed on this page. The hating Liberal mob is out to blame President Trump for Democrat incompetence. Too bad, you lose again. The economy is recovering, Democrat encouraged riots are winding down and your incompetence is on display for all to see.

  36. bearcreekbat 2020-06-07 18:27

    o, my comments were never intended to ignore the power of the SCOTUS to interpret Constitutional language or re-evaluate existing precedent on a case by case basis. That has been the law of the land since Marbury v. Madison, and frankly it is an interpretation of the Constitution that has frequently benefited our country. I have disagreed with many of the SCOTUS constitutional decisions but I respect that aspect of the division of governmental power as laid out by Justice Marshall in 1803.

    The point I tried to make is that under our system the exercise of that power is supposed to be in the hands of relatively impartial decision makers and exercised on a case by case basis consistent with Due Process of law. I argue that it is unethical and contrary to the doctrine of judicial review for an individual to seek or accept an appointment to the SCOTUS based on a promise to pre-decide any issue the Court addresses in a particular manner with no regard for the facts or arguments presented in an individual case properly before the Court. Indeed, if we openly accepted such an exercise of power to decide Constitutional issues in advance of a case, Justices would not have to accept and review any particular case. Rather they could simply meet decide which precedent they wanted to change or overrule, or decide to interpret our Constitution on any topic as they saw fit.

    That is currently unlawful, however, under the Constitutional requirement for a case or controversy to invoke the power (i.e. jurisdiction) of the SCOTUS. If a President succeeded in appointing an individual to the Court that has promised to change the law regardless of the merits of the required case or controversy, that would be both unethical and contrary to existing law.

    Likewise, the Constitutional requirement of Due Process has been held by the Court to require that litigants seeking or opposing a change in Constitutional law be given a meaningful opportunity to be heard by an impartial decision maker before the government is permitted to take final action that restricts an individual’s rights. If a Justice has already decided what action he or she will take in a case or controversy before even hearing the individual litigants, that Justice is not acting in an impartial manner nor has the Justice honored the Constitution’s guarantee of Due Process of law.

    Under these circumstances, to vote for a President because you believe that President will find an individual that will fail to honor the Constitution’s guarantee of Due Process and make Constitutional decisions before hearing the requisite case or controversy necessary to invoke SCOTUS jurisdiction and power is disrespectful to a Constitutional form of government and the rule of law.

    While some folks would argue that it is a moral act to disrespect a law they disagree with, that is usually in a situation where the individual openly declares their objection to the law in question and accepts the consequences of challenging that law, like Rosa Parks.

    Trying to fill the SCOTUS with individuals that surreptitiously disrespect the jurisdictional limits of the SCOTUS and the Due Process Clauses of the Constitution doesn’t really fall in the category of objecting to the law. It is more like cheating and lying to achieve the sought after objective, which to most is hardly a moral stance at all, absent highly unusual circumstances.

    You are correct, however, that any means of reeling in unlawful acting SCOTUS Justices are rare. FDR succeeded somewhat during the New Deal by threatening to pack the Court. Impeachment is a remedy, although not yet used on a Justice of the Supreme Court. Indeed, this tune by the Bar & Grille Singers focuses on federal district judges, but generally is an accurate description SCOTUS justices as well, and underscores your point.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53XThNjW6pY

  37. mike from iowa 2020-06-08 07:04

    Looks like Ben cooper missed the turnoff to Power’s dump site. it is to your far right and straight down. May you find some comfort there.

  38. bearcreekbat 2020-06-08 09:38

    mfi, despite their apparent conservative backgrounds I can find no indication that either Gorsuch or Kavanaugh made any promises to vote one way or another on overruling Roe, eliminating or restricting the right of privacy in procreation matters, or on any other issue. If they did make such a commitment it must have been done surreptitiously precisely because they know that doing so would be unethical and inconsistent with a promise to uphold the Constitution.

    Here is a report that Gorsuch testified:

    . . . that he would “have walked out the door” had President Donald Trump asked him to overturn the ruling of Roe v. Wade.

    https://www.cnn.com/2017/03/21/politics/scotus-hearing-neil-gorsuch-roe-v-wade/index.html

    Here is a report indicating Kavanaugh testified that

    . . . he views Roe v. Wade, the landmark ruling that legalized abortion nationwide, as “important precedent of the Supreme Court” that has been “reaffirmed many times.” Yet he declined to say he would not vote to reverse Roe, saying that such a vow — on any case — would violate judicial norms.

    https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/09/politics/kavanaugh-on-the-issues/index.html

    In both cases these nominees denied making the promise that an anti-choice voter claims to seek, namely,to repeal the Right of Privacy and authorize the government to veto a woman’s personal reproductive decisions. If these voters choose a Presidential candidate only because they hope that candidate will secretly obtain such unethical and unlawful promises from future SCOTUS nominees, then that voter’s action is consistent with my analysis indicating that such voter has acted with an unethical and likely unlawful goal under our Constitution, which again seems to be less than a “moral” act.

    The moral act would have been to seek an amendment to the Constitution to remove the existing constitutional Right of Privacy and grant the power they seek to government officials, which depends on federal and state representatives and senators, not a President (especially one who will gain the power to enact other policies that actually hurt people and are morally questionable).

  39. mike from iowa 2020-06-08 10:01

    Thanks for the reply, bcb. My comments are in moderstion for some reason and it takes a while to see them. So let’s focus on Kavanaugh for a moment.

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/04/24/abortion-supreme-court-precedent-roe-v-wade/3002575001/\
    Since 1973, the constitutional right to abortion has hinged on the high court’s decision in Roe v. Wade, later modified but upheld in 1992. Before he was confirmed to the court in 2018 by the narrowest of margins, Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh referred to those rulings as “precedent on precedent.”

    But in striking down a Louisiana prisoner’s conviction and subsequent sentence of life without parole, the Supreme Court jettisoned yet another of its own precedents, established a year before Roe and a generation before 1992’s Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Six justices agreed with the reversal.

    There is a lengthy opinion from Kavanaugh which is not easy for lay person me to sort through, but it doesn’t sound like a good deal for Roe.

  40. leslie 2020-06-08 10:23

    Gorsuch was placed in violation of the constitution. 100 year old Justice John Paul Stevens said regarding Thomas and Kavanaugh: “…the quality of their judicial work is far more important” than the sexual misconduct and assault allegations.

    Safe to say there are mammoth problems with the supreme court. It is going to take a muscular Democratic administration to wade through the chaos left by Republicans. What else is new? I would thoroughly enjoy another impeachment if warranted before November though. Howabout you DB Cooper? McConnell would betray the country yet a third time in one presidential term.

    By 2050 we need to make major changes for a new democracy. Right now we need to take action to stop global warming at 1.5C. Then, kill economic inequality for good.

  41. bearcreekbat 2020-06-08 11:03

    leslie, I am guessing that you state “Gorsuch was placed in violation of the [C]onstitution” because Obama nominated Garland but the Senate declined to consent by refusing to bring his nomination up for a vote. This opened the door for Gorsuch’s nomination. If this is your viewpoint, could you identify the provision in the Constitution that you conclude was violated by Gorsuch’s appointment, and/or the SCOTUS case law, if any, that supports your interpretation of such provision?

    If my guess is incorrect, could you indicate on what other basis you conclude Gorsuch’s appointment violated the Constitution?

    I have considered the issue and so far am a loss to justify this contention. I respect your views and would appreciate your insight on the matter, if you are so inclined to share it.

  42. mike from iowa 2020-06-08 12:24

    Give pizza chants.

  43. bearcreekbat 2020-06-08 12:51

    mfi, I have no doubt that Kavanaugh has his own pre-existing opinions on whether Roe should be be overruled and the Right of Privacy eliminated or modified, and that these opinions weighed in the minds of the Republicans that told Trump to nominate Kavanagh. The point I was trying make is simply that someone who claims a moral obligation to vote for or against a particular presidential candidate based on the voter’s hope that this candidate will put someone on the SCOTUS that is committed to affirming or overruling Roe, as suggested by o, is not acting consistent with the Constitution or the ethics of the SCOTUS since under the Constitution an amendment to eliminate the Right of Privacy is the proper course to seek a change in Constitutional law and a President has no constitutional power to initiate such an amendment.

    While personal litigation is an alternative means to seek change, as o implied, the President likewise lacks the power under the Constitution to openly appoint a Justice willing to disregarding ethics and the Constitutional limitations on the power of the SCOTUS. Thus, if a voter has the alternative motive to elect a President who will control the votes of his nominees that certainly may be a practical possibility, but it is not consistent with the Constitution nor judicial ethics for a candidate to make such a commitment to the President. The President and his or her nominee would have to secretly make a deal for that commitment, which strikes me as a form of cheating or deception, which normally qualifies as immoral conduct.

    Hence, the voter who claims such a moral imperative to vote for or against a Presidential candidate in such a dishonest set of circumstances is either engaging in self-deception or is simply lying about the so-called morality of his or her vote.

    Kavanaugh may be a right wing nut and have a history as a high school sexual predator but he has never publicly promised to do what the anti-choice voter theoretically desires from a presidential appointee to the SCOTUS.

  44. mike from iowa 2020-06-08 13:13

    Thanks, bcb. I didn’t really expect drumpf and his justices to admit what I am positive they are planning to do with our laws. I wouldn’t trust these clowns as far as I can toss a bobcat.

  45. Dicta 2020-06-08 13:34

    At this point, I am interested to see if Kagan’s play to the Chief Justice by voting right on several cases under the argument of precedent will work come the abortion cases. I somehow doubt it, but admittedly, Roberts is a wild card.

  46. David Newquist 2020-06-08 14:06

    Bearcreekbat and Leslie,

    A listserv group I belong to, which includes some Constitutional law scholars, have been discussing the legitimacy of the Supreme Court since McConnell stonewalled Obama’s nominee, Garland. I suspect Leslie’s statement that Gorsuch was placed in violation of the Constitution reflects that discussion. The point made by the scholars is that the Senate is required by the Constitution to establish the rules of its proceedings and McConnell defied the established proceedings, which are to provide the Senate the opportunity to vote on any nominee who is passed by the Judiciary Committee. A couple of the scholars point out that the Senate is expressly forbidden to pass a bill of attainder, which is officially declaring a person a criminal or otherwise being disqualified from democratic processes. McConnell and his allies in effect pronounced Garland disqualified, which breaks the established rules. Consequently, according to their argument, the eventual placement of Gorsuch was made possible by a breach of Constitutional required rules.

    There is a consensus among the discussants that McConnell’s tactic was a breach of Constitutional process, but many feel that the argument is too complicated and would not be accepted for a hearing by a Trump-dominated Supreme Court.

  47. leslie 2020-06-08 18:34

    Can democracy stand constant right wing “gotcha” efforts to take us to the mat? Opening the door to torture, or Powell’s 1971 memo present serious risk. We mention other such doors in recent threads. Slamming doors on public interest has pushed forward demonstrations we are witnessing as we weather a pandemic. How close can you push to the edge, is a toxic strategy. Can we push good people too far? Read Newquist’s account of the oily smell of Dachau. McConnell, Thune (only ever worked for the GOP) and Trump avoided the military.

    Context: GOP packs judiciary. Similar to defunding police dept in major city? Who yah gonna call?

    The Senate may only abandon its advice and consent power to “deliberately transfer a sitting President’s Supreme Court appointment powers to a successor in the highly unusual circumstance where the President’s status as the most recently elected President is in doubt.”

    “…whether the historical rule reflects a mere senatorial tradition, which should govern internal senatorial practices of fair dealing, or has further ripened into a constitutional rule,” is open but the consequences are serious. NYU Law Review, Vol. 91, p. 53, On-Line Features (2016).

    The 1962 Henry Fonda/Betty White movie of the same name as the constitutional phrase suffered the same critique the good Professor mentions, too talky! I haven’t seen it yet. But keep pushing the American people, Republicans!

  48. bearcreekbat 2020-06-08 20:05

    David, thanks for sharing these arguments. A couple observations:

    First, the scholars in your group apparently took the position that

    . . . the Senate is required by the Constitution to establish the rules of its proceedings and McConnell defied the established proceedings, which are to provide the Senate the opportunity to vote on any nominee who is passed by the Judiciary Committee.

    According to Wikipedia, however,

    On February 23, the 11 Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee signed a letter to Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell stating their unprecedented intention to withhold consent on any nominee made by President Obama, . . .

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merrick_Garland_Supreme_Court_nomination#:~:text=On%20June%2021%2C%20the%20American,%22well%2Dqualified%22%20rating.

    Thus it appears Garland was never “passed by the Judiciary Committee.”

    Interestingly, the Wikipedia article identifies numerous scholars that urged a vote and criticized the Senate’s position as: unprecedented; undermining the Court; unsupported by any election year exception to the duty to advise and consent; a breach of Senate norms, tradition and best practices; an abdication of duty; undermining the rule of law; harming the economy; harming the states; setting a dangerous precedent; and interfering with the resolution of important cases before the Court. Notably absent seems to be any argument pertaining to the text of the Constitution.

    In contrast, however, several scholars, including scholars that objected to the Senate’s inaction, are reported to have concluded that the Senate inaction did not violate the Constitution:

    George Mason University law professor Ilya Somin argued the Constitution imposes no such duty upon the Senate to hold confirmation hearings and to give a nominee an up-or-down vote.[38] Jonathan H. Adler agreed, writing that while he personally has “long argued that the Senate should promptly consider and vote on every presidential judicial nominee, … there is no textual or historical basis” for the contention that the Senate has a constitutional obligation to do so.[39] Eugene Volokh argues that there has not been a “constant practice of Senators agreeing that every nominee should be considered without regard to there being a looming election” and that “in the absence of such a practice, we come down to more results-oriented politics.”[40] George Mason University law professor David Bernstein argued that while “preexisting constitutional norms” would suggest that “hearings and eventual votes on Supreme Court nominees” were mandatory, this norm is not required by the constitutional text and has been undermined by recent political practice.[41]

    . . . Noah Feldman, a constitutional law professor at Harvard Law School, has said “it’s hard to argue that [the Constitution] requires the [Senate] to put a nominee to a vote.”[43] Vikram Amar, constitutional law professor and dean of the University of Illinois College of Law, wrote that “the text of the Constitution certainly does not use any language suggesting the Senate has a legal obligation to do anything,” but that the “absolutist position” taken by Senate Republicans presents “grave risks” of escalating the judicial-appointment process into “extreme moves and countermoves.”[44]

    I saw no mention no mention of the Bill of Attainder argument. Since the Constitution expressly gives the Senate the power to consent or reject a nomination of any individual for the SCOTUS as well as many other government appointments, the Senate seems to be authorized to disqualify any particular individual from “democratic processes” to obtain a government position.

    In addition, the question of what does “pass a bill” mean. Does the bill have to make it through both the House and Senate to qualify as “passed” or is is one body sufficient? Likewise, does a failure to bring a vote even qualify as a “bill?”

    Regardless, thanks for sharing the thoughts of the scholars in your group. They are interesting for sure and provide needed food for thought and reflection.

  49. David Newquist 2020-06-08 23:03

    Bearcreekbat,
    Not being a lawyer or Constitutional scholar, I am at best a struggling reporter who finds it unwieldy to make a definitive summary of a listserv discussion. The group I refer to brought up the points you summarize from Wikipedia, and, to be accurate about their discussion, they acknowledged that there is no specific text in the Constitution that directs the Senate to hold a vote on executive nominees, but some argued that the language in the Constitution requires a legislative response to executive actions such as the presentation of a nominee. They also argued that while each house made its own rules of procedure, they were obligated to follow the rules they made. The listserv discussion is by no means an exposition of law, but is the kind of exploratory and analytic discussion that legal scholars engage in, I assume.

    It was this discussion that resonated with Leslie’s comment about Gorsuch’s Constitutional misplacement. Your account mentions the signed letter to McConnell vowing the withholding of consent for any Obama Supreme Court nominee. Some discussants contended that such letter constituted a draft of a bill of attainder in that it denied Garland a just consideration without any kind of a due process. There was much debate on that contention.

    What struck me most about the discussion was the often made point that the Constitution is not very coherent on some points.

  50. bearcreekbat 2020-06-09 02:13

    David, an interesting omission from the text of our Constitution, or what might be termed lack of coherence, is any provision giving the SCOTUS the power to review and interpret the Constitution itself and resulting laws, yet we have accepted that as the primary and most important power and function of the Court for more than two centuries. Judicial review would provide the pathway to finding Gorsuch’s appointment to be unconstitutional, despite the lack of any explicit or coherent language in the Constitution requiring the Senate to bring the nomination to the floor for a vote.

    The concept of a weak court with a limited power of judicial review was described by Hamilton in Federalist #78 and expanded upon for Article III courts by Chief Justice John Marshall in 1803 in Marbury v. Madison. This principle gave a relatively weak and ineffective SCOTUS a potent power that helped put the Court on a more equal level with the legislative and executive branches of our government.

    Some scholars argue, however, that judicial review is unconstitutional and contrary to a functioning democratic government. For example, an essay in the Yale Law Journal by Professor Jeremy Waldren sets out two such arguments.

    First, it argues that there is no reason to suppose that rights are better protected by this practice than they would be by democratic legislatures. Second, it argues that, quite apart from the outcomes it generates, judicial review is democratically illegitimate.

    https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5011&context=ylj

    Opposition to judicial review seems to inform the conservative mantras against “activist judges,” and, somewhat ironically, for so-called “textualism,” which itself is a form of judicial review, although theoretically more restrained as contemplated by Federalist #78. And like Roe the case of Marbury v. Madison is merely a precedent that could be overruled by Justices seeking to restrain the Court from interfering with the power of the executive branch under Trump like despots.

  51. Cory Allen Heidelberger Post author | 2020-06-09 07:12

    Republicans will rediscover their support for judicial review when they depend on Trump appointees to overturn actions by the Biden White House and Congress.

  52. leslie 2020-06-09 10:11

    When i have time i may look at this, but think it is significant than Koch poisoned the Geo Mason Univ professor is referenced. WIKI may not be reliable necessarily. I admire the debate BCB and Professor.

    A much larger trend is happening now-defunding policing. I early mentioned Mayor/police chief Allender’s experience in comparison to Noem, and then on its heel his stark warning social programs may be cut to pay for protest policing costs. Skin deep?

    This also may be a House solution. Defunding poisoned Wm Barr.

  53. Dicta 2020-06-10 13:01

    The right to privacy isn’t enshrined in the constitution, but was created with the penumbras argument. Admittedly, I am comfortable with the outcome, but SCOTUS essentially created the right and “penumbras” still makes me chuckle.

  54. bearcreekbat 2020-06-10 14:43

    Dicta is correct. The “Right to Privacy” is based on a SCOTUS interpretation of the language from several explicit provisions of the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment, in a manner similar to virtually all interpretations of the Constitution and laws by the Court, such as the Heller gun rights case or the Brown v. Board of Education case rejecting the Plessy v Ferguson seperate but equal doctrine, as well as numerous other decisions whether conservative or liberal.

    Indeed, if the language “enshrined” in the Constitution was clear or adequate in addressing the meaning of that language then litigation over the meaning of the Constitution would be altogether unnecessary. The results of the SCOTUS going beyond the language actually “enshrined” in the Constitution are a direct result of Justice Marshall’s concept of “judicial review.”

  55. Dicta 2020-06-10 16:53

    I’ll res your judicata you learned stud.

  56. Dicta 2020-06-11 13:16

    The penumbra was established by left leaning members of the court to protect a right to privacy and was later used by the court in numerous good cases like Lawrence v. Texas, Leslie. Or was that meant to be rhetorical flourish?

  57. bearcreekbat 2020-06-11 14:30

    Penumbra apparently has been part of our legal vocabulary since the 19th century. While opinions apparently differ, it is interesting that Professor of Law and Constitutional expert Brannon P. Denning and Distinguished Professor of Law Glenn H. Reynolds

    note that elements of penumbral reasoning can be found in much older cases that precede the first use of the term penumbra; they trace the origins of penumbral reasoning to United States Supreme Court cases from the early nineteenth century.[8] For example, Reynolds and Denning describe Chief Justice John Marshall’s opinion in McCulloch v. Maryland as “the quintessential example of penumbral reasoning”.[9]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penumbra_(law)

    Meanwhile, consistent with Dicta’s observation, Justice William O. Douglas, writing for the 7-2 majority, used the term in recognizing our Constitutional Right of Privacy in the 1965 case of Griswald v. Connecticut, which addressed whether a married couple’s access to birth control could be criminalized or prohibited by the States. Douglas concluded the First, Third, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments create the right to privacy in marital relations.

    Justice Goldberg concurred, rejecting the penumbra analysis, joined by Justices Warren and Brennan and concluding instead that the right to privacy was located in the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments.

    Justice Harlan concurred, arguing that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects the right to privacy.

    Justice White concurred, arguing that the Fourteenth Amendment was the proper basis for the decision.

    Justice Black, joined by Justice Stewart, dissented, arguing that there was no way to infer that the Constitution contained a right to privacy, and that could not be found in the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments.

    https://www.oyez.org/cases/1964/496

    All in all, the terminology seems less important than the concept that a Constitutional Right need not be tied to a single word or exact phrase in the Constitution, but is best determined from the meaning and intent of the Constitution as a whole, especially the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment.

  58. mike from iowa 2020-06-11 15:41

    Keep your legal penumbras away from my eclipse penumbras, is all I got to say.

  59. leslie 2020-06-11 19:04

    I note Prof David Bernstein, Scalia cohort, spoke for the Federalist Society to students March 2020 “Do Changing Norms Undermine…Our System of Governmen?” Of course not, says Scalia from the grave! Continued Koch and GOP agenda? Now TFS or dark money is funding delegitimization of the coming election.

    The Garland stolen seat by GOP’s McConnell was a creature of the Federalist Society, and the matter has not been resolved that i have seen.

  60. Caleb 2020-06-12 20:52

    “How is it not cruel to kill a baby. A few of our states have laws that say a child that survives an abortion can be left to die. That seems incredibly gruesome to me. Have we no standards of morality? Have we no empathy or feelings of humanity for that child? The aborted child is just as human as the mother.”

    While I agree leaving an abortion survivor to die is gruesome, I think believing abortion is cruel requires projection upon and limited empathy with a fetus or baby in the womb, because each lacks conscious understanding of self, suffering, will, and more, and killing the fetus or baby prevents their suffering anything more, something inherent in existence and apparently becoming more ubiquitous as humanity’s global calamity continues. For that reason I also think many people have been and are cruel in forcing human birth or accepting it in passive instinct.

  61. bearcreekbat 2020-06-14 18:32

    Caleb comments on Edwin’s claim that “A few of our states have laws that say a child that survives an abortion can be left to die.” That got me wondering, was Edwin right about the laws of “some states?” I have found no state that has a law described by Edwin. See, e.g.,

    https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/overview-abortion-laws?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIvfLRobuC6gIVFmKGCh04fwtrEAAYASAAEgL2e_D_BwE

    I did find this as it relates to Edwin’s assertion in an article by Patrick J. Marmion, MD published by the US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health. titled “Refusing to Examine Extremely Premature Newborns” :

    . . . it may be illegal to refuse to examine a distressed premature baby born in the hospital. All “born alive” babies are entitled to treatment (Sayeed 2005, e578), and withholding an examination of these babies is an apparent violation of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) which states that a hospital must provide a medical screening examination for all newly born, distressed premature babies. The lead author of the published periviability guidelines agrees, “all that [the law] says is that any birth in the United States needs to be evaluated by a physician” (Wolfberg 2012, 85), yet there are neonatologists who will not examine a newly born baby destined for palliative care. Hospitals violating EMTALA regulations may be subjected to fines and prohibited from participating in all Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services programs and services.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6027110/

    If there is such a state with such a law permitting a physician or hospital to leave a newborn to die I would ask Edwin or anyone else to identify the state and the law. Otherwise Edwin’s statement appears to simply repeat a false statement:

  62. leslie 2020-06-15 21:18

    dicta-At this point, I am interested to see if Kagan’s play to the Chief Justice by voting right on several cases under the argument of precedent will work come the abortion cases. I somehow doubt it, but admittedly, Roberts is a wild card.

    Is Gorsuch’s ruling today what u had in mind?

  63. Debbo 2020-06-18 14:08

    This ad nails GOP cowardice.

    is.gd/VGsE8G

Comments are closed.