If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Chron)   Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg says that while she supports Roe vs. Wade, she feels the ruling by her predecessors on the court was too sweeping and gave abortion opponents a symbol to target   (chron.com) divider line 219
    More: Interesting, Ginsberg, University of Chicago Law School, abortions, judicial restraint, abortion opponents, U.S. Supreme Court, same-sex marriages  
•       •       •

1651 clicks; posted to Politics » on 12 May 2013 at 5:10 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



219 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-12 12:46:46 AM
I think it's more because it was a 5-4 decision. Much like Obamacare, the GOP will still be butthurt about RvW 40 years from now.
 
2013-05-12 12:51:16 AM
We're all lucky it got the decision it did, when it did.

themindiswatching: I think it's more because it was a 5-4 decision. Much like Obamacare, the GOP will still be butthurt about RvW 40 years from now.


Nah, we'll have transitioned into single-payer by then, as planned.
 
2013-05-12 01:15:42 AM
She looks tired
 
2013-05-12 02:20:35 AM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: She looks tired


sorry.  I kept her up late last night.
 
2013-05-12 02:22:35 AM

Bucky Katt: MaudlinMutantMollusk: She looks tired

sorry.  I kept her up late last night.


All of 6:00 PM, huh?

/damned daylight savings time can spoil an evening
 
2013-05-12 03:09:47 AM
I had a pregnancy scare once (I'm the guy), and while I'm not a personal fan of the procedure I can't in a million years imagine being the voice in charge of whether you can have it or not. It was a grueling month - she had made it clear that's what would happen and I struggled with having to live with this plus the fact that I couldn't have possibly provided the life I would imagine for a kid at that stage in my life. Ultimately, though, it was her body. I just made a guest appearance one night.

I think it's unfair that people equate being pro-choice with the idea that we're all going out to the abortoplex to have some fun on a Saturday night. They even have a concession stand! But no...no one actually digs abortion. It's just the rational thing to do. You're ruining three lives when the child isn't wanted or can't be afforded.

Now at the age of 38 I still have problems dealing with my neurotic, adopted puppy. You want me handling a child? I'm not even sure how to properly hold one, and with some luck will never have to.
 
2013-05-12 03:52:39 AM
I'm pretty sure abortion opponents wouldn't be happy about it no matter when or how it happened. It's like Obama trying to appease Republicans, it's just pointless.
 
2013-05-12 05:28:17 AM
Too sweeping?  Seriously?  The idiot rightwingtard hordes looked at Roe v. Wade, ignored it, and went right back to doing everything in their power to outlaw the right to choose in the name of their imaginary sky fairy and half-witted delusions of how they believe medical science to work.  With each year, as time goes forward, womens' rights go backwards as the right continues to work to eliminate access to abortion on a state level, all DESPITE Roe v. Wade.

Too sweeping?  Imagine what the situation would be like if Roe v. Wade had been any LESS sweeping.
 
2013-05-12 05:30:47 AM
Clearly, Republicans should be passing stricter and stricter laws on abortion. She's wavering, fellas! Now's your chance!
 
2013-05-12 05:30:53 AM
"That was my concern, that the court had given opponents of access to abortion a target to aim at relentlessly," she told a crowd of students. "... My criticism of Roe is that it seemed to have stopped the momentum that was on the side of change."

Hmmm, one the one hand RBG's assessment makes sense to me in that Roe v Wade was a sweeping ruling that ran ahead of public opinion at the time which is turn led to the political empowerment of the religious right which is bad.

OTOH, the religious right's relentless campaign against abortion access is unabashedly wrong, immoral, unethical, unrealistic, unenforceable, sexist and will likely never end completely which is worse.

The ruling is also a disappointment to a degree, Ginsburg said, because it was not argued in weighty terms of advancing women's rights. Rather, the Roe opinion, written by Justice Harry Blackmun, centered on the right to privacy and asserted that it extended to a woman's decision on whether to end a pregnancy.

Full agreement here. Citing right to privacy rather than women's rights/autonomy was a bit of a cop out.
 
2013-05-12 05:34:55 AM
I wonder if she's hinting at a restrained ruling in Hollingsworth v. Perry, e.g. gay marriage, but only in California.
 
2013-05-12 05:40:58 AM
Yes....but whoever the defendant was in an abortion case was going to be the "target," Justice Ginsburg, or did that not occur to you when you made the comment? Or was the hope that we'd somehow have "Abortion Providers, Inc. v. Right-Wing Lunatics Corp." as our final decision? While I am not a Supreme Court Justice, nor even a judge, I'm enough of a student of human behavior to know that one ain't gonna happen any time in this century.

Or is it your thought that if only we had ignored it a while longer, it would have "gone away" like the gay marriage thingy? Perhaps....but given the number of totally liberal and 110% pro-civil-rights individuals who nevertheless can argue all day long that abortion is killing babies, I doubt that we'd ever have seen a time when, absent a court ruling, that abortion would have been socially acceptable as gay marriage. Maybe I'm merely 25 years younger than her Honor, and more cynical, but I don't ever see abortion as being anything but viciously divisive.
 
2013-05-12 06:27:56 AM
www.godlikeproductions.com
 
2013-05-12 06:53:25 AM
I don't think the people demanding control over women's bodies are going to relent soon.
 
2013-05-12 06:53:36 AM
One thing remains true: Once born, they simply no longer care about a child.
 
2013-05-12 06:56:36 AM

Captain Dan: I wonder if she's hinting at a restrained ruling in Hollingsworth v. Perry, e.g. gay marriage, but only in California.


That was my immediate take. Which sucks.
 
2013-05-12 07:01:58 AM

Emposter: Too sweeping?  Seriously?  The idiot rightwingtard hordes looked at Roe v. Wade, ignored it, and went right back to doing everything in their power to outlaw the right to choose in the name of their imaginary sky fairy and half-witted delusions of how they believe medical science to work.  With each year, as time goes forward, womens' rights go backwards as the right continues to work to eliminate access to abortion on a state level, all DESPITE Roe v. Wade.

Too sweeping?  Imagine what the situation would be like if Roe v. Wade had been any LESS sweeping.


I think you miss her point. By virtue of the decision, the policy debate was largely taken out of the equation. Those favoring choice no longer had to defend choice on the merits, but just had to point to the decision. Ginsburg is saying this throws the democratic process a curveball, a disrupting method to reach a position we would have (hopefully) come to democratically; in effect, conservative intransigence was CREATED by the decision.
 
2013-05-12 07:09:46 AM
The GOP made it a political issue.   Only the Catholics cared about the issue before Roe v. Wade.   The evangelicals saw a political opportunity and took it.   With that said, they have used it as a way to control women.
 
2013-05-12 07:11:20 AM
Also, sitting justices should keep quiet about their personal opinions, unless speaking from the bench.
 
2013-05-12 07:12:10 AM
The worst part about Roe v. Wade, in my opinion, was that it was decided by nine men, at least one of whom was a notorious womanizer. However, this decision (among other things) did eventually lead to greater acknowledgements of women's rights, and eventually put several women on the Supreme Court, where the decision might be revisited someday, only this time, with the direct input of women justices.

As society as a whole becomes less dogmatic about religious doctrine, any revisitation of this decision will be increasingly likely to be a more solid majority rather than an overturning.
 
2013-05-12 07:13:11 AM

riverwalk barfly: Also, sitting justices should keep quiet about their personal opinions, unless speaking from the bench.


Could you expand on this statement a bit? I'm genuinely curious.
 
2013-05-12 07:16:12 AM

themindiswatching: I think it's more because it was a 5-4 decision. Much like Obamacare, the GOP will still be butthurt about RvW 40 years from now.


It was actually a 7-2 decision. Shows you how far we've come.
 
2013-05-12 07:25:24 AM

ox45tallboy: riverwalk barfly: Also, sitting justices should keep quiet about their personal opinions, unless speaking from the bench.

Could you expand on this statement a bit? I'm genuinely curious.


I don't pretend to have any experience in law other than being arrested twice - but it feels prejudicial and if I'm  going before the supreme court already knowing what one of the justice's opinions are...... how does that change my arguments?
 
2013-05-12 07:32:21 AM
Conservative intransigence was created by LBJ's signing of the Civil Rights Amendment, not RvW.

/Hell, it was really created by the Emancipation Proclamation, they just didn't have to actually accept it until LBJ.
 
2013-05-12 07:39:06 AM

AdrienVeidt: Conservative intransigence was created by LBJ's signing of the Civil Rights Amendment, not RvW.

/Hell, it was really created by the Emancipation Proclamation, they just didn't have to actually accept it until LBJ.


Indeed.
 
2013-05-12 07:41:33 AM

ox45tallboy: riverwalk barfly: Also, sitting justices should keep quiet about their personal opinions, unless speaking from the bench.

Could you expand on this statement a bit? I'm genuinely curious.


jumping in on this - i could see a point to be made; in that it could sound as if she is inviting a new challenge

Instead, Ginsburg told an audience ...... she feels the ruling.... was too sweeping....
 "... My criticism of Roe......
The ruling  was  centered on the right to privacy


consider the wider audience
 
2013-05-12 07:42:30 AM
Do you mean the Civil Rights ACT of 1964?  If so, you are comparing apples to suspension bridges.  The Act was passed by a popularly elected Congress.  Roe was "forced" on the electorate, comparitively speaking.  I think Ginsburg's point is that that distinction gives ammunition to the opposition.  Who protests the Civil Rights Act these days, outside of Alabama?
 
2013-05-12 07:44:11 AM

themindiswatching: I think it's more because it was a 5-4 decision. Much like Obamacare, the GOP will still be butthurt about RvW 40 years from now.


All NFIB v. Sebelius did was say "the democratic processes have the right to produce this result. The people acting through their elected representatives may do this without offending the Constitution." Roe v. Wade took abortion out of the democratic processes. That's what enraged abortion opponents, and has fueled the anti-choice movement for so long.

It sounds like she's expecting Roe to be overturned in the near future though. A lot of people don't realize Kennedy started out on the Court as anti-choice. He switched later on, but the man is a Roman Catholic. I've always suspected his switch was politically motivated rather than legally so. He wanted to diminish the appearance that the abortion right was threatened in order to keep from energizing abortion-rights supporters. If I'm right, he should switch back about... now.
 
2013-05-12 07:50:13 AM

Milo Minderbinder: Do you mean the Civil Rights ACT of 1964?  If so, you are comparing apples to suspension bridges.  The Act was passed by a popularly elected Congress.  Roe was "forced" on the electorate, comparitively speaking.  I think Ginsburg's point is that that distinction gives ammunition to the opposition.  Who protests the Civil Rights Act these days, outside of Alabama?


I don't think people call it out by name much, but there's a concerted effort across many states to restrict voting rights in recent years.
 
2013-05-12 07:51:26 AM

riverwalk barfly: I don't pretend to have any experience in law other than being arrested twice - but it feels prejudicial and if I'm going before the supreme court already knowing what one of the justice's opinions are...... how does that change my arguments?


This is just me, but I'd rather know everything about the judge who was trying my case before I decide on a strategy. I'm currently in Alabama, where nearly all judges in state courts are elected, so you get to know pretty much what their political philosophy is during the campaign (well, at least as much as any politician). I'm personally not in favor of elected judges, because it opens the door to corruption, but in a red state like Alabama, the judges usually are who they say they are - right-wing and proud of it.

You can get a pretty good idea of any of the SCOTUS justices based on their writings, and even more from the confirmation hearings, especially when the majority party in Congress is not the same as the President's party. SCOTUS justices are almost invariably press-shy (with a few exceptions like Scalia), and if you've heard Sandra Day O'Connor's interview with Jon Stewart, she said that this is because they are the only branch of government that is required to explain their entire decision-making process on the record, and to say anything else to the press would either be redundant, or would make it appear as if the official record was incomplete.

Having said that, I'm not opposed to SCOTUS justices having a public life, and even giving more press interviews. Sometimes the rulings are intentionally vague, or worded in a duplicitous manner in order to satisfy two ways of thinking. However, it is simply not likely for the above listed reasons. But it is important to note that they do this by choice, not by any mandate or law.
 
2013-05-12 07:55:39 AM

ox45tallboy: SCOTUS justices are almost invariably press-shy (with a few exceptions like Scalia),


And Scalia is also notorious for expressing his views off the bench. Way more so than Ginsberg.
 
2013-05-12 08:00:23 AM
So, Milo, you're saying that conservatives were cool with the Act passing, to such a degree that the Republicans created the Southern Strategy in a deliberate attempt to swap the party constituencies isn't what created their intransigence?

Sorry, man, you said RvW created it and you're just wrong about that. RvW was just the loudest of the early examples of it once it was already in place. Why was Goldwater biatching about biblethumpers ruining his party before RvW if the intransigence wasn't already happening?
 
2013-05-12 08:15:10 AM

AdrienVeidt: So, Milo, you're saying that conservatives were cool with the Act passing, to such a degree that the Republicans created the Southern Strategy in a deliberate attempt to swap the party constituencies isn't what created their intransigence?

Sorry, man, you said RvW created it and you're just wrong about that. RvW was just the loudest of the early examples of it once it was already in place. Why was Goldwater biatching about biblethumpers ruining his party before RvW if the intransigence wasn't already happening?


No, I'm saying I agree with Ginsburg in that a SCOTUS decision is more galvanizing to the opposition than
legislation passed by democratically elected representatives, and particularly so at the local level.
 
2013-05-12 08:22:00 AM
Roe v. Wade didn't start start the anti-abortion crusade - desegregation did. And only after Jerry Falwell got pissy that conservative Christian schools would lose tax breaks over their racist policies.
 
2013-05-12 08:23:30 AM

dickfreckle: I had a pregnancy scare once (I'm the guy), and while I'm not a personal fan of the procedure I can't in a million years imagine being the voice in charge of whether you can have it or not. It was a grueling month - she had made it clear that's what would happen and I struggled with having to live with this plus the fact that I couldn't have possibly provided the life I would imagine for a kid at that stage in my life. Ultimately, though, it was her body. I just made a guest appearance one night.

I think it's unfair that people equate being pro-choice with the idea that we're all going out to the abortoplex to have some fun on a Saturday night. They even have a concession stand! But no...no one actually digs abortion. It's just the rational thing to do. You're ruining three lives when the child isn't wanted or can't be afforded.

Now at the age of 38 I still have problems dealing with my neurotic, adopted puppy. You want me handling a child? I'm not even sure how to properly hold one, and with some luck will never have to.


Look there are plenty of men who faced more challenges than a "neurotic dog " and all this pseudo Woody Allen shait life is too tough.

Want to spare two lives ruined from your self confessed fears. Go have a vacastomy .

Oh you may want to see how some 20 year old men are doing in this life.


http://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/70129360?locale=en-US&mqso=8100023 0& awmatchtype=b&awnetwork=g&awcreative=25639099508&awkeyword=%2Brestrepo %20%2Bmovie&awposition=1t1&awexpid=&awdevice=c&awcampaignid=121071908& gclid=COvqkJrGkLcCFYQ7OgodaFQAkA
 
2013-05-12 08:25:11 AM

dickfreckle: I had a pregnancy scare once (I'm the guy), and while I'm not a personal fan of the procedure I can't in a million years imagine being the voice in charge of whether you can have it or not. It was a grueling month - she had made it clear that's what would happen and I struggled with having to live with this plus the fact that I couldn't have possibly provided the life I would imagine for a kid at that stage in my life. Ultimately, though, it was her body. I just made a guest appearance one night.

I think it's unfair that people equate being pro-choice with the idea that we're all going out to the abortoplex to have some fun on a Saturday night. They even have a concession stand! But no...no one actually digs abortion. It's just the rational thing to do. You're ruining three lives when the child isn't wanted or can't be afforded.

Now at the age of 38 I still have problems dealing with my neurotic, adopted puppy. You want me handling a child? I'm not even sure how to properly hold one, and with some luck will never have to.


Be careful what you wish for.
 
2013-05-12 08:32:58 AM

Milo Minderbinder: AdrienVeidt: So, Milo, you're saying that conservatives were cool with the Act passing, to such a degree that the Republicans created the Southern Strategy in a deliberate attempt to swap the party constituencies isn't what created their intransigence?

Sorry, man, you said RvW created it and you're just wrong about that. RvW was just the loudest of the early examples of it once it was already in place. Why was Goldwater biatching about biblethumpers ruining his party before RvW if the intransigence wasn't already happening?

No, I'm saying I agree with Ginsburg in that a SCOTUS decision is more galvanizing to the opposition than
legislation passed by democratically elected representatives, and particularly so at the local level.


Right on then. But that's not what 'create' means, is all I'm saying. I'm sure we agree conservatives are generally worthless dickheads, so I'll still but you a beer if/when possible, mang.
 
2013-05-12 08:38:32 AM
More like it makes no sense when we have no right to privacy for medical procedures.
 
2013-05-12 08:40:23 AM

badhatharry: More like it makes no sense when we have no right to privacy for medical procedures.


Huh?

Various federal and state laws, most notably HIPAA, would argue otherwise - with few legal exceptions. Would you clarify that comment for me?
 
2013-05-12 08:44:42 AM

m3000: I'm pretty sure abortion opponents wouldn't be happy about it no matter when or how it happened. It's like Obama trying to appease Republicans, it's just pointless.


They could outlaw abortion, and execute any "whore" that looks for one.  They could pass laws allowing them to stone suspected gays, Muslims, and college graduates in the street.  They could pass laws making this country a theocratic, despotic empire in which the word of God was our only Constitution.

And they'd still find someone else to blame, and still be a bunch of ignorant, miserable farks.
 
2013-05-12 08:49:14 AM
Don't abortions get one closer to Nirvana since they recycle the spirit faster?
 
2013-05-12 08:50:45 AM

AdrienVeidt: Milo Minderbinder: AdrienVeidt: So, Milo, you're saying that conservatives were cool with the Act passing, to such a degree that the Republicans created the Southern Strategy in a deliberate attempt to swap the party constituencies isn't what created their intransigence?

Sorry, man, you said RvW created it and you're just wrong about that. RvW was just the loudest of the early examples of it once it was already in place. Why was Goldwater biatching about biblethumpers ruining his party before RvW if the intransigence wasn't already happening?

No, I'm saying I agree with Ginsburg in that a SCOTUS decision is more galvanizing to the opposition than
legislation passed by democratically elected representatives, and particularly so at the local level.

Right on then. But that's not what 'create' means, is all I'm saying. I'm sure we agree conservatives are generally worthless dickheads, so I'll still but you a beer if/when possible, mang.


"Create" in the sense that much of the opposition came from resentment that the outcome was forced on them. But I think it goes farther. I think the victors following a decision often become intellectually indolent, because they can simply point to the "scoreboard"; they aren't forced to make persuasive policy arguments. Ever been in a policy debate with a gun nut and all s/he can say is "Second Amendment"?
 
2013-05-12 08:53:44 AM
AdrienVeidt:
Sorry, man, you said RvW created it and you're just wrong about that. RvW was just the loudest of the early examples of it once it was already in place. Why was Goldwater biatching about biblethumpers ruining his party before RvW if the intransigence wasn't already happening?

I believe that the quote you're referring to was from the '80s, and the bible-thumpers were part of the Reagan coalition. Ralph Reed and his ilk.
 
2013-05-12 08:54:23 AM

badhatharry: More like it makes no sense when we have no right to privacy for medical procedures.


HIPAA allows people the right to privacy regarding medical procedures. That's why someone else's abortion is none of your goddamn business.

/Pro choice
//Five hole punches on my card from the Rape N Scrape
///One more, and I get a free hat.
 
2013-05-12 08:54:32 AM
...NPR broadcast Justice Ginsburg's comments a month or so back, pointing out that she was one of the lawyers who made Roe possible.  (FULL DISCLOSURE:  I don't agree with it, but the Supreme Court says it is a Constitutional right, and as far as I'm concerned that means it's legal).  The impression I got from her comments, however, was that she genuinely expects it to be seriously challenged and/or overturned sometime soon.
 
2013-05-12 08:56:28 AM

hardinparamedic: badhatharry: More like it makes no sense when we have no right to privacy for medical procedures.

Huh?

Various federal and state laws, most notably HIPAA, would argue otherwise - with few legal exceptions. Would you clarify that comment for me?


http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/faq-government-access-med ic al-records
 
2013-05-12 09:05:16 AM

badhatharry: hardinparamedic: badhatharry: More like it makes no sense when we have no right to privacy for medical procedures.

Huh?

Various federal and state laws, most notably HIPAA, would argue otherwise - with few legal exceptions. Would you clarify that comment for me?

http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/faq-government-access-med ic al-records


Every situation you listed is covered under the "Mandatory Release of PHI" regulations that HIPAA establishes for mandatory reporting events. However, the ACLU website goes into the extreme on one point: The police CANNOT access your health information unless they submit a written letter of why to the hospital  It is still a violation for that facility to give information other than demographics needed to identify a patient, and mandatory disclosures under law - i.e. suspected sexual or physical abuse, gunshot wounds/stab wounds, - without having that in hand. Even this access is relatively restricted based on a "need to know".

But no, your original post is a little incorrect and misleading. Your abortion is your business, and the only way a person can access that information is if YOU sign away the ability for them to do so, or if they have a court order.
 
2013-05-12 09:06:49 AM
img59.imageshack.us
 
2013-05-12 09:11:38 AM

ox45tallboy: riverwalk barfly: I don't pretend to have any experience in law other than being arrested twice - but it feels prejudicial and if I'm going before the supreme court already knowing what one of the justice's opinions are...... how does that change my arguments?

This is just me, but I'd rather know everything about the judge who was trying my case before I decide on a strategy. I'm currently in Alabama, where nearly all judges in state courts are elected, so you get to know pretty much what their political philosophy is during the campaign (well, at least as much as any politician). I'm personally not in favor of elected judges, because it opens the door to corruption, but in a red state like Alabama, the judges usually are who they say they are - right-wing and proud of it.

You can get a pretty good idea of any of the SCOTUS justices based on their writings, and even more from the confirmation hearings, especially when the majority party in Congress is not the same as the President's party. SCOTUS justices are almost invariably press-shy (with a few exceptions like Scalia), and if you've heard Sandra Day O'Connor's interview with Jon Stewart, she said that this is because they are the only branch of government that is required to explain their entire decision-making process on the record, and to say anything else to the press would either be redundant, or would make it appear as if the official record was incomplete.

Having said that, I'm not opposed to SCOTUS justices having a public life, and even giving more press interviews. Sometimes the rulings are intentionally vague, or worded in a duplicitous manner in order to satisfy two ways of thinking. However, it is simply not likely for the above listed reasons. But it is important to note that they do this by choice, not by any mandate or law.


You make very valid points.   We all don't come to Fark to flame.  I do feel educated by your comments on this.   Don't entirely agree, but....  lol
 
2013-05-12 09:28:43 AM

ox45tallboy: riverwalk barfly: I don't pretend to have any experience in law other than being arrested twice - but it feels prejudicial and if I'm going before the supreme court already knowing what one of the justice's opinions are...... how does that change my arguments?

This is just me, but I'd rather know everything about the judge who was trying my case before I decide on a strategy. I'm currently in Alabama, where nearly all judges in state courts are elected, so you get to know pretty much what their political philosophy is during the campaign (well, at least as much as any politician). I'm personally not in favor of elected judges, because it opens the door to corruption, but in a red state like Alabama, the judges usually are who they say they are - right-wing and proud of it.

You can get a pretty good idea of any of the SCOTUS justices based on their writings, and even more from the confirmation hearings, especially when the majority party in Congress is not the same as the President's party. SCOTUS justices are almost invariably press-shy (with a few exceptions like Scalia), and if you've heard Sandra Day O'Connor's interview with Jon Stewart, she said that this is because they are the only branch of government that is required to explain their entire decision-making process on the record, and to say anything else to the press would either be redundant, or would make it appear as if the official record was incomplete.

Having said that, I'm not opposed to SCOTUS justices having a public life, and even giving more press interviews. Sometimes the rulings are intentionally vague, or worded in a duplicitous manner in order to satisfy two ways of thinking. However, it is simply not likely for the above listed reasons. But it is important to note that they do this by choice, not by any mandate or law.


willvideoforfood.com
You know, I learned something here today.

I had always thought that the reason that SCOTUS rulings are so vague at times is that they leave the ability for the court to revise or clarify them based on situations that arise in the future from their decisions that were unforeseeable at the time.
 
Displayed 50 of 219 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report