Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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
    More: Interesting, Ginsberg, University of Chicago Law School, abortions, judicial restraint, abortion opponents, U.S. Supreme Court, same-sex marriages  
•       •       •

1660 clicks; posted to Politics » on 12 May 2013 at 5:10 AM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-05-12 09:30:24 AM  
i.imgur.com

/oblig
 
2013-05-12 09:34:41 AM  
i.imgur.com
 
2013-05-12 09:35:42 AM  

Gyrfalcon: 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?


I think the anti-choice crowd would rather have one of those "grass roots" groups with a misleading name in the decision.  Something like "Women First v. Breast Cancer" might make them, well, not happy (since they're incapable of happiness), but slightly less agitated.
 
2013-05-12 09:43:44 AM  
How was giving women the right to their own bodies too sweeping? Was freeing the slaves too sweeping? Maybe we should allow slavery in certain circumstances, to pacify people who miss the old south.
 
2013-05-12 09:43:54 AM  

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


yeah she said the ruling, heck let's quote the article: " Ginsburg would have rather seen the justices make a narrower decision that struck down only the Texas law that brought the matter before the court." so it would have been litigated again and again state by state with 40+ different ruling/interpretations -- how about hell no.
 
2013-05-12 09:47:36 AM  

Alphax: 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.


And look how well that plan worked out for the GOP last fall...blacks voted in record numbers. Oops!
 
2013-05-12 09:49:43 AM  

Milo Minderbinder: 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.


she's entitled to her opinion but IMO it was always there but just got a lot louder with the advent of rabid partisan politics in recent years.
 
2013-05-12 09:49:52 AM  

Tyrone Slothrop: Maybe we should allow slavery in certain circumstances, to pacify people who miss the old south.


Technically, we  DO.

datedaily.mate1.com

As long as it's consensual.
 
2013-05-12 09:54:34 AM  

Tyrone Slothrop: How was giving women the right to their own bodies too sweeping? Was freeing the slaves too sweeping? Maybe we should allow slavery in certain circumstances, to pacify people who miss the old south.


We have the right to privacy or we do not. They are going to have to rule on this matter. Guess which one will win.
 
2013-05-12 09:55:41 AM  

TofuTheAlmighty: 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.


This.

Since the original Roe v. Wade decision met with pretty much a collective yawn in the religious community and it wasn't until years later when Falwell was looking for a way to bring Catholics and Evangelicals together politically that they seized on the anti-abortion thing, this shows a stunning ignorance of both legal and political history on the part of Justice Ginsburg.
 
2013-05-12 09:58:45 AM  
She may see it as a matter of strategy, I'm just glad that we had a couple of decades of relatively safe and unobstructed access to abortion services so that fewer women have had to die from backstreet abortions.
 
2013-05-12 10:03:00 AM  

badhatharry: We have the right to privacy or we do not.


people.virginia.edu

Incorrect. There are certain situations where the individual's right to privacy is outweighed by the need to protect society at large, and at times the individual themselves. While these situations should be heavily regulated and abuses of them not tolerated, they do exist by the virtue of us living under the social contract we do.

There is no harm in mandatory reporting of a gunshot wound, of someone intentionally spreading HIV, or of reporting of a suspicion of child sexual abuse, and a LOT of harm from not reporting them.
 
2013-05-12 10:04:05 AM  

Milo Minderbinder: 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.


No, I got that.  It's sort of the point of the entire discussion, after all.  I simply find it unlikely, if not ridiculous, that--as she apparently believes--under the facade of drooling mouthbreather-osity that is the conservative right wing, there is some sort of hidden reserve of reason that has only been held back by their deep-seated knee-jerk reaction to perceived judicial activism.

I believe it far more likely that, had said mouthbreathers not had to deal with a decision like Roe v. Wade, the only difference would be far MORE laws like those of North Dakota, etc.
 
2013-05-12 10:05:44 AM  
I see what the Democrats are doing now.

They are releasing more information about Benghazi, the IRS teabagger thing, and reviving the Abortion, Gay, and Abortions issues all at the same time. Some of these issues they may lose or postpone on purpose so the Republicans will get a big head going into the debt ceiling fight.

Two things to gain here.

1) Get anything that might even resemble a "scandal" out of the way a year before the midterms. Remind the public how insane Republicans are by their reaction..

2) Give the Republicans a nice length of rope to hang themselves with before the midterms with the debt ceiling fight. Remind the public how insane Republicans are with their party before country mentality.

Sweep the 2014 midterms and get America moving forward again. Keep trolling the GOP until Hilary is in office.
 
2013-05-12 10:24:11 AM  
Am I the only one?

i44.tinypic.com
 
2013-05-12 10:24:42 AM  

Granny_Panties: Keep trolling the GOP until Hilary is in office.


i'm all for trolling the GOP but i really doubt hillary is going to be president.
 
2013-05-12 10:27:21 AM  

Granny_Panties: They are releasing more information about Benghazi, the IRS teabagger thing, and reviving the Abortion, Gay, and Abortions issues all at the same time. Some of these issues they may lose or postpone on purpose so the Republicans will get a big head going into the debt ceiling fight.


Considering that Rand Paul admitted openly that the only reason the GOP made Benghazi an issue was to poison the well for Hillary in 2016, and were basically using a revised account of the deaths of four Americans as political propaganda, that strategy seems to be working.
 
2013-05-12 10:32:17 AM  
What's missing from these scholarly arguments ?
I feel we have overlooked something .

encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com

//2001 Starchild so as not to upset the delicate.
 
2013-05-12 10:38:44 AM  

Dr.Mxyzptlk.: What's missing from these scholarly arguments ?
I feel we have overlooked something .

//2001 Starchild so as not to upset the delicate.


Irrelevant. It's just a bad excuse to control women.
 
2013-05-12 11:05:02 AM  
When I made this very same point a few weeks ago I was hooted down and Widbey called me an idiot. (Actually being called an idiot by Widbey is a badge of honour.)  A very similar thing happened with the death penalty. Before the court ruled it unconstitutional the death penalty was well on its way to being outlawed in just about every state. The Supreme Court's banning it made it a cause celbre it never was before and started a ground swell movement to reinstate the death penalty. Now that the court has reversed itself on the death penalty there are MORE states putting folks to death than were when the court made its first decision!. Abortion was well on its way to becoming the law of the land state by state. Rowe provided a symbol and an impetus for the anti-abortion crowd to rally around. It WAS the right decision but at theWRONG time.
 
2013-05-12 11:08:26 AM  

riverwalk barfly: 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?


Two professions in life are supposed to be objective, neutral, balanced.

Journalists, who spend their college career boozing it up, twittering, social networking, suddenly find that poof they are journalists and somehow not telling people how they vote, or even if they do vote enables them to write neutral, honest, insightful, objective, balanced, stories.

Lawyers, who spend their careers prosecuting people, or defending people, or paving the way for giant corporations, and poof, throw on black robes, and somehow being quiet about their  opinions because honestly, they've never thought about them and don't want to prejudice anything, enables them to write neutral, honest, insightful, objective, balanced, opinions.

Everyone else is quizzed on their knowledge and thought processes to make sure the sky is blue in their world and 1 + 1 = 2.

I think you're swallowing a load of malarkey that judges, lawyers, and special interests put forward to think that judges should pretend that mentioning their opinion makes them beholden either to their opinion, or to others.

Same thing with journalists.
 
2013-05-12 11:19:08 AM  

Delawheredad: Abortion was well on its way to becoming the law of the land state by state. Rowe provided a symbol and an impetus for the anti-abortion crowd to rally around. It WAS the right decision but at theWRONG time.


Except for the fact that it was not, and illegal and back alley abortions were such a problem that the early EMT textbooks of the era had an entire chapter dedicated to how to manage back-alley abortion complications and related injuries.
 
2013-05-12 11:21:04 AM  
She probably didn't say that for those countries that used to have decades long killing sprees over such "moral issues," the US controversy is an anachronism.

The time of those wars coincided with the founding of the US, possibly giving the extremists a place of escape in case the conflicts ended in Europe and everyone got a little more respectful.
 
2013-05-12 11:29:17 AM  
Saying a case you argued for AS AN ACLU ATTORNEY would have been "better" than the one the court had already decided and used as precedent to uphold your case? She may be a lady, but she's sure got a set of balls on her. The very picture of judicial/lawyer arrogance.
 
2013-05-12 11:40:37 AM  
I think abortion should be legal (at least for the first few months), but the idea that it's protected by the constitution is ridiculous.  Roe vs Wade was a terribly reasoned decision.
 
2013-05-12 11:43:11 AM  
Hardinparamedic

  And as the Gosnell trial so deftly demonstrates in some ways things have not changed one iota. The man is a butcher now and would have been a butcher then. He's completely legal, was state inspected and yet is the very thing that Rowe was SUPPOSED to do away with!

 Abortion is a nasty procedure no matter where you stand on the issue of its legality.
 
2013-05-12 11:50:15 AM  

AtlanticCoast63: ...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.


This.
Her point appears to be that the end result of choice may have been achieved in a more stable manner than the specific language of RvW. Choice isn't going anywhere nationally (the places with gun control will have abortions and vice versa) but the argument that the specific language of the Roe decision itself did the choice no long term favors is an old one.
 
2013-05-12 11:51:20 AM  
Despite abortion being farking awesome, the legal reasoning behind Roe v Wade was far from a slam dunk.  You can love the fact that if you drop a load in someone who forgot to take their birth control one day you can just pay some cash and make the problem go away without rolling your eyes at the way this case law was decided.  

Although I suppose the Due Process clause giving some imaginary constitutional right to privacy is not much worse than the hoops that have been jumped through to mutate the meaning of the commerce clause.
 
2013-05-12 11:51:20 AM  
That is not a headline. iIt is a thesis statement for an essay in Freshman Composition I.
 
2013-05-12 11:54:51 AM  

Richard Roma: I think abortion should be legal (at least for the first few months), but the idea that it's protected by the constitution is ridiculous.  Roe vs Wade was a terribly reasoned decision.


It's a basic issue of health and life. Women due a lot more often when you make basic health care illegal.
 
2013-05-12 11:55:07 AM  

riverwalk barfly: 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


Here is the thing ... unlike ... say ... people who are elected to Congress ... Judges are generally intelligent people and are truly interesting to listen too (even Scalia - Thomas not so much).  I wish more Judges would do press and speak publicly.  If nothing else - to fight the demonizing of the court by right and left wing nutjobs. The three Supreme Court judges in Iowa got kicked off the bench for their decision legalizing same sex marriage because they didn't come out and publicly protect the court and its role in government.

/met Ginsburg at a wedding she was officiating
 
2013-05-12 11:55:22 AM  

Delawheredad: Hardinparamedic

  And as the Gosnell trial so deftly demonstrates in some ways things have not changed one iota. The man is a butcher now and would have been a butcher then. He's completely legal, was state inspected and yet is the very thing that Rowe was SUPPOSED to do away with!

 Abortion is a nasty procedure no matter where you stand on the issue of its legality.


Um the problem was that he wasn't being inspected and the procedures he was performing were illegal.
 
2013-05-12 11:57:41 AM  

Delawheredad: nd as the Gosnell trial so deftly demonstrates in some ways things have not changed one iota


No it doesn't. It indicates a total failure of the system, and the exact need why regulation and oversight of providers are needed. It doesn't indicate why patients should be punished for a legitimate medical procedure.

Delawheredad:  The man is a butcher now and would have been a butcher then.


Agreed.

Delawheredad: He's completely legal, was state inspected and yet is the very thing that Rowe was SUPPOSED to do away with!


Disagree completely. He was not completely legal - in fact his clinic had been cited multiple times over the last decade for the conditions and practices by which he engaged in, and the Grand Jury findings indicate he was acting outside the law while utilizing corrupt inspectors and a STATE Department of Health which had better things to do than it's job.

In reality, Gosnell had very, very bizarre beliefs on things like Racial Eugenics and differences between women of color and white women, and acted on these in perpetrating his crimes.

Delawheredad: Abortion is a nasty procedure no matter where you stand on the issue of its legality.


Just because someone is pro-choice does not make them pro-abortion. I don't like it in most cases (life of the mother and fatal genetic disease/massive birth defects are two areas I personally think it's completely okay), but it's not my decision to force on others.
 
2013-05-12 11:58:40 AM  

Fart_Machine: Delawheredad: Hardinparamedic

  And as the Gosnell trial so deftly demonstrates in some ways things have not changed one iota. The man is a butcher now and would have been a butcher then. He's completely legal, was state inspected and yet is the very thing that Rowe was SUPPOSED to do away with!

 Abortion is a nasty procedure no matter where you stand on the issue of its legality.

Um the problem was that he wasn't being inspected and the procedures he was performing were illegal.


Yes, but that won't stop the pro-life folks from twisting the truth to suit their agenda.

They're trying to use Gosnell the same way the gun control lobby used Sandy Hook.

And the Pro-life folks still can't see the irony in it.
 
2013-05-12 11:59:20 AM  

Fart_Machine: Um the problem was that he wasn't being inspected and the procedures he was performing were illegal.


Yes, he was. He was being inspected, and his clinic was shut down temporarily multiple times for filthy conditions and violations of the state medical practice act. The state was too damn lazy to do a proper investigation and shut him down permanently and take his license.

FFS, he was using unlicensed people to perform basic medical procedures which alone would have gotten his license taken away according to the medical practice act. That's ignoring all of the other crap he did.
 
2013-05-12 12:00:47 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Yes, but that won't stop the pro-life folks from twisting the truth to suit their agenda.

They're trying to use Gosnell the same way the gun control lobby used Sandy Hook.

And the Pro-life folks still can't see the irony in it.


Can we please stop calling them pro-life. They're not. They're anti-choice. They're as much pro-life as I am pro-rape.
 
2013-05-12 12:02:36 PM  
I've never gotten the whole abortion issue. Republican's seem to act like Democrats  like abortion. No one does. If you want to go and act like Mrs Garrison from South Park and "scramble the baby up your cooch" then you don't need an abortion you need mental help.

Don't like abortion? Don't have one.
 
2013-05-12 12:05:27 PM  

hardinparamedic: Delawheredad: Abortion is a nasty procedure no matter where you stand on the issue of its legality.

Just because someone is pro-choice does not make them pro-abortion. I don't like it in most cases (life of the mother and fatal genetic disease/massive birth defects are two areas I personally think it's completely okay), but it's not my decision to force on others.


Same. I think abortion should be a last resort and that we should do our best to keep people from getting into a situation like that (ie: sex-ed that isn't worthless, easy access to contraception).

Of course the same people who are "Pro-Life" don't believe in these things which is why I fail to take them and their concerns seriously.

/And don't get me started with how the "Pro-Life" crowd treats these children after they are born...
 
2013-05-12 12:08:28 PM  
part of the problem:
This.
Her point appears to be that the end result of choice may have been achieved in a more stable manner than the specific language of RvW. Choice isn't going anywhere nationally (the places with gun control will have abortions and vice versa) but the argument that the specific language of the Roe decision itself did the choice no long term favors is an old one.


No. What she is doing is laying the public groundwork for her vote to strike down same sex marriage. This is not about abortion at all. When her fellow liberals whine and biatch about her betrayal she is going to justify it by stating, "Look at Roe. I did not want to give the conservatives another symbol to attack." I'll leave it to others whether they think that is bullshiat or not. But mark my words and mark them clearly, that is exactly what is going to happen.

I said after oral argument that I did not consider Ginsberg to be a shoo in and I am more convinced than ever she is going to vote no.
 
2013-05-12 12:17:04 PM  
Gyrfalcon:  I don't ever see abortion as being anything but viciously divisive.

I agree with this sentiment completely.  On one side you have people defending a fetus' right to live... they really cannot compromise at all without still endorsing 'baby murder'.  On the other side it is people concerned with women's rights and population control.   Some pretty heavy hitters on both sides.

Perhaps future technology can help with a solution.
 
2013-05-12 12:18:52 PM  
Why are people against common-sense abortion control? No one is coming to take your abortions away. If these changes will save one life, just one life, then it will be worth it.
 
2013-05-12 12:20:26 PM  

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.


You should never ever feel bad about that and I say that as a 36 year old father of an awesome son.   I would, had I known, still have asked his mother to have an abortion though.

That being said, couldn't live without

imageshack.us
 
2013-05-12 12:22:03 PM  

Doom MD: Why are people against common-sense abortion control? No one is coming to take your abortions away. If these changes will save one life, just one life, then it will be worth it.


They won't save a life.

Yes, I see what you did, and I rolled my eyes. More barriers to health care mean more dead women.
 
2013-05-12 12:27:12 PM  

zarberg: I've never gotten the whole abortion issue. Republican's seem to act like Democrats  like abortion. No one does. If you want to go and act like Mrs Garrison from South Park and "scramble the baby up your cooch" then you don't need an abortion you need mental help.

Don't like abortion? Don't have one.


I don't like abortion any more than I like appendectomies. They're a neutral medical procedure. Logically if the fetus isn't a human life, then you shouldn't care if a woman has one abortion or a hundred. I wouldn't really care if a person had one melanoma removed or a hundred either.

It's either human life or it's not. You can't say "Yeah this fetus has a bit of human life, but not enough to outweigh the rights of the mother over her own body, so she can kill it if she wants."
 
2013-05-12 12:29:17 PM  
 
2013-05-12 12:33:27 PM  

Alphax: Doom MD: Why are people against common-sense abortion control? No one is coming to take your abortions away. If these changes will save one life, just one life, then it will be worth it.

They won't save a life.

Yes, I see what you did, and I rolled my eyes. More barriers to health care mean more dead women.


I wonder how many people on here are pro-choice but anti-gun. They're ok with abortions but god forbid someone have a firearm to protect themself. For the record I'm pro-choice and pro-2nd amendment.
 
2013-05-12 12:36:18 PM  

worlddan: part of the problem:
This.
Her point appears to be that the end result of choice may have been achieved in a more stable manner than the specific language of RvW. Choice isn't going anywhere nationally (the places with gun control will have abortions and vice versa) but the argument that the specific language of the Roe decision itself did the choice no long term favors is an old one.

No. What she is doing is laying the public groundwork for her vote to strike down same sex marriage. This is not about abortion at all. When her fellow liberals whine and biatch about her betrayal she is going to justify it by stating, "Look at Roe. I did not want to give the conservatives another symbol to attack." I'll leave it to others whether they think that is bullshiat or not. But mark my words and mark them clearly, that is exactly what is going to happen.

I said after oral argument that I did not consider Ginsberg to be a shoo in and I am more convinced than ever she is going to vote no.


My hearing is gone... maybe youre better at hearing this particular dog whistle than I am. It would not suprise me. But I have heard her argument before....
 
2013-05-12 12:37:31 PM  

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?


The King of All-Caps: RAND PAUL for one.
 
2013-05-12 12:37:37 PM  

Doom MD: Alphax: Doom MD: Why are people against common-sense abortion control? No one is coming to take your abortions away. If these changes will save one life, just one life, then it will be worth it.

They won't save a life.

Yes, I see what you did, and I rolled my eyes. More barriers to health care mean more dead women.

I wonder how many people on here are pro-choice but anti-gun. They're ok with abortions but god forbid someone have a firearm to protect themself. For the record I'm pro-choice and pro-2nd amendment.


I believe that if you own a gun, you are more likely to die a violent death, so I don't consider them defensive weapons.
 
2013-05-12 12:39:00 PM  

Doom MD: Alphax: Doom MD: Why are people against common-sense abortion control? No one is coming to take your abortions away. If these changes will save one life, just one life, then it will be worth it.

They won't save a life.

Yes, I see what you did, and I rolled my eyes. More barriers to health care mean more dead women.

I wonder how many people on here are pro-choice but anti-gun. They're ok with abortions but god forbid someone have a firearm to protect themself. For the record I'm pro-choice and pro-2nd amendment.


I believe that you have the right to have a gun to defend yourself.

I don't believe that means that you have the right to any gun your little heart wants without any questions asked.
 
Displayed 50 of 219 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report