world

Biden: Ready for 'long overdue' pick of Black female justice

90 Comments
By COLLEEN LONG, ZEKE MILLER and DARLENE SUPERVILLE

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2022 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.


90 Comments

Comments have been disabled You can no longer respond to this thread.

JUST because she's Black...how about we go back to WHO IS BEST QUALIFIED for any job?

....instead of one of this , two of that...etc.

28 ( +40 / -12 )

Martin Luther King once said " do not judge me by the color of my skin but for the content of my character"

Joe Biden is selecting by the color of the skin/gender NOT by the content of the person's character"...

22 ( +36 / -14 )

So not the best person for the job, just someone black and female?

Would a candidate who "identified" as black and female be OK?

This is just pandering to the "woke" set. If the best person for the job IS a black woman then great. Give her the job.

22 ( +33 / -11 )

Remember Biden is simply doing what he's being told and focusing on political idealogy.

We already have two political hacks serving as Justices- Sotomayor, who falsely claimed Omicron is really deadly and 100,000 children were on ventilators, and Kagan, who falsely claimed vaccines prevent transmission of COVID.

This is a sad reflection on America today.

10 ( +24 / -14 )

U.S. President Joe Biden strongly affirmed Thursday that he will nominate the first Black woman to the U.S. Supreme Court, declaring such historic representation is “long overdue” and promising to announce his choice by the end of February.

It is overdue and Biden is following in the footsteps of MLK day. You know what is another thing Dr. King talked about but the President will not address:

Everybody is on welfare in this country. The problem is that we all to often have socialism for the rich and rugged free enterprise capitalism for the poor. That’s the problem.

-Dr. Martin Luther King

-3 ( +11 / -14 )

This is great because Mitch and his fellow republicans who clearly care nothing for our country or its institutions won’t be able to block Biden’s nominee.

Interesting, so for Biden the most important thing is to put appoint a black woman on to the highest court in the land. Why? Why does Biden have to appoint someone that represents only 7% of the nation? We already have one black person on the bench, does that count? You don’t think it would make more sense if Biden decided to put a Native American or Asian American, Armenian Middle Eastern or how about a gay person? The list goes on and on, it makes more sense to appoint someone that represents a bigger constituent in the US that is, if Biden were serious to bring in racial equality to the SC, but then again, does it have to be solely about skin color? Shouldn’t the criteria be the best person for the job based on their record and judicial philosophy and cases tried? That would make better sense and everyone can respect that, but you should never hire or appoint anyone to any position solely based on their skin color because with that Biden is actually telling other racial groups in the US is that the only qualification you need to be able to sit on the highest court is to be black and screw everyone else, that move in itself is racist. It goes against who we are as a diverse nation because this move is telling everyone else in the US that they all have the wrong skin color and that goes against everything we were taught in school what America should truly be.

11 ( +27 / -16 )

US is that the only qualification you need to be able to sit on the highest court is to be black and screw everyone else,

Look at the candidate list. Their only qualification is their race? So D.L. Hughley can get into the Supreme Court because of race pandering Biden?

-6 ( +10 / -16 )

Hmm ... how odd. At one time we were told that favouring people on the basis of their sex was sexism and this was wrong, and that favouring people on the basis of their race was racism and this was wrong too - but now it seems that we should be discriminating on the basis of people's sex and race. Well, OK then. So if I choose to specifically favour a white man then that's good, yes? No? So is it only all right if you discriminate against white men? Because clearly equality is only good in some cases, and in other cases you should definitely oppress people on the basis of their sex and race - but only if they are white men. Yeah, that's definitely not going to cause any resentment or backlash, and Trump or someone similar definitely won't be boosted by this ...

14 ( +22 / -8 )

Notice the complete exclusion of LGBT candidates (and those who identify as such).

-3 ( +12 / -15 )

The extremist right wing is scared that the two words they hate most ‘woman’ ‘black’ are being considered.

Its both hilarious and pathetic seeing this sorry bunch throwing a fit at progress!

-19 ( +8 / -27 )

All the candidates are qualified - Biden just decided he would pick a black female.

Right wingers are so upset Biden would dare to select a black woman.

How cute!

-20 ( +8 / -28 )

There are some highly qualified candidates on that list whom I would be happy to see as a Justice of the Supreme Court. Many presidents in the past, Republican and Democrat, limit their candidates by race or gender beforehand to add more diversity/perspective to the court. Especially since we can't exactly have blind recruitment for the SCOTUS. Race and gender will always be a factor here and if Biden doesn't choose a Black, female candidate, he'll probably be looking at white males; not because they're better qualified either.

-14 ( +4 / -18 )

Why does Biden have to appoint someone that represents only 7% of the nation?

Sometimes we need to understand the reasons for the right wing hate.

People who were home schooled because their parents opposed desegregation have grown up in hate of minorities.

-18 ( +6 / -24 )

For all those who demm d "best person for the job!", how about also asking why black women have never made it to the Supreme court Vs their proportion of the US population.

Why is it that black women are not in the short list?

Are black women genetically less intelligent? Or is it that a variety of factors, like historical racism and poverty have kept them out?

Remember, over a quarter of white students at Ivy League students are there because of "legacy" reasons.

No wonder the USA has the lowest social mobility in the developed world.

-13 ( +9 / -22 )

The extremist right wing is scared that the two words they hate most ‘woman’ ‘black’ are being considered.

Why? Once again, the left is pivoting to the usual race card diatribe. Again, we have a black and Latino on the bench so my question is, why not Asian or Native American or the best qualified person, why does it have to be about skin color and pertain to specifically one race?

Its both hilarious and pathetic seeing this sorry bunch throwing a fit at progress!

No, it’s a legitimate question.

11 ( +22 / -11 )

why not Asian or Native American

Why do you think that there are no Asians or Native Americans?

Let's look back at the last 100 high court judges and look at their race and sex. To what extent does it reflect society more broadly. And of it doesn't, why do you think not?

Is it a) white men are most capable; or

b) there are structural issues in society that make it easier for white men to succeed at the expense of women and non-whites.

Perhaps you have a "c" - I'd be happy to hear it.

-12 ( +9 / -21 )

One problem everyone is forgetting is that whoever Biden picks will be forever tainted. She may be in fact a great legal mind and a talented judge. BUT... that will be forgotten. There will always be the lingering thought that she was picked due to her pigmentation or genitalia, which is abhorrent. This is tokenism at its worst.

But hey, it worked out great for Biden when he chose his vice-President...

There already is a Black person on the court- is everyone forgetting?

11 ( +20 / -9 )

There will always be the lingering thought that she was picked due to her pigmentation or genitalia, which is abhorrent.

Only amongst the racist and sexist.

-13 ( +9 / -22 )

Again, this is the typical race dogma tired narrative that in this case trumps the constitution and rule of law.

I asked a question. You decided not to answer it. Let's try again.

Why do you think that the supreme court is consistently overwhelmingly white and male? And disproportionately so compared to the population.

Also, do you think that the historical suppression of blacks might have had any effect on that?

-12 ( +7 / -19 )

And that person will be the first Black woman ever nominated to the United States Supreme Court. It is long overdue.”

Hispanic male, Asian, Native American and Pacific Islander justices are also long overdue. However, extreme left wingers only see things in black and white.

6 ( +14 / -8 )

Biden must honor his pledge to nominate a well-qualified black woman, preferably not a pro-establishment judge, but a person of high intelligence and with an abundance of life-experience, so not necessarily even a judge. But Biden shouldn't just stop there: the skewed 6-3 composition of SCOTUS, way out of step with the views of the majority of Americans screams out for balance to remedy the present extremist bias. Expansion of the court is the obvious solution, but probably one beyond the energy and limited vision of an aging, conservative Dem.

JUST because she's Black...how about we go back to WHO IS BEST QUALIFIED for any job?

Er, what about WHO IS MOST RIGHT-WING (or LEAST LEFT-WING), the spoken (or unspoken) rule of hiring people for influential positions in "the Land of the Free?

 whoever Biden picks will be forever tainted.

Uh? And Trump's trinity of Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett seated on the bench of SCOTUS by a disgraced, twice-impeached, president and, in future, likely convicted felon? Will they ever be able to remove that reek and orange stain from their record?

-1 ( +9 / -10 )

Funny this never came up when the Democrats wanted to nominate Merrick Garland, a gasp white male... to the Court. Their priorities were very different 5 years ago. Ol' Merrick has been thrown under the bus it seems.

I would also suggest eliminating any of the candidates who attended Harvard or Yale. Both schools are over represented on the court.

I would like to hear anyone decide the priorities in picking a justice- what qualifications are most important, what are least important, and where does race/gender/height/age/political belief fit amongst those qualifications.

0 ( +9 / -9 )

Fantastic!

-6 ( +5 / -11 )

This kind of pandering is just lazy, and demeaning. The Democrats seem to think that they can shore up their waning support in the African American community by playing the tokenism card.

It is far harder to search for actual quality candidates than having a simple checklist of irrelevant characteristics, but the Democrats seem reluctant to do the work. Immediately disqualifying 93% of the population from the candidate pool due to their race and gender is, by definition, racism. If the best qualified person happens to be black and/or female, great. If not.... not so great.

0 ( +10 / -10 )

Funny to watch the pearl clutching from the right about Biden selecting a black woman for a Supreme Court judge- remember Trump’s selection process ‘Will they do what I ask? Will this satisfy the christian conservative rubes I’m currently scamming?’

0 ( +9 / -9 )

its not about selecting a black woman.

its about only considering someone who is a black woman, exclusively.

thats racist to select for a job only by color of skin.

Literally the definition of racism.

-1 ( +13 / -14 )

Ah-so, I will take a shot at your question. Yes, blacks were kept down for a long time- too long. As were women, Indigenous people, the Irish, gay people, Catholics, Asians.... the list is long. It is a stain on American history. Yet that stain cannot be erased by a simple shallow gesture. It takes years, if not decades of education and work. And it is happening, as you can see by the list of successful black women who have been suggested.

Yet... that cannot be the only, or the most important, qualification for such an important job.

-3 ( +9 / -12 )

its not about selecting a black woman.

its about only considering someone who is a black woman, exclusively. 

thats racist to select for a job only by color of skin. 

Literally the definition of racism.

That’s exactly right.

-2 ( +7 / -9 )

Because “conservative” is not a racial identity.

i assume this black woman will be liberal, no? Or is a conservative black woman ok to choose?

-1 ( +11 / -12 )

What about people who identify as black or female? Might they be considered too?

-6 ( +7 / -13 )

Ketanji Jackson seems to be the front runner as she has clerked for Breyer and passed an interview with the Senate.

Awaiting her confirmation, we will have to put up with the indignation about eminently qualifed women from the usual five knuckle draggers on this forum.

-5 ( +5 / -10 )

Wanted high ranking lawyer. Must be black and female. Asians, whites and others need not apply. Would that ad be allowed?

-2 ( +8 / -10 )

@Mr K the legalese is super tricky. By high ranking lawyer, you surely meant judge. And I doubt that the pool of potential nominee judges is as huge as you think.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

thats racist to select for a job only by color of skin.

lol No. Biden never said he would he would select a nominee based only on the color of their skin.

The reality is there multiple individuals that will be equally qualified for a seat on the SCOTUS, and Biden says he will choose one who is black and a woman.

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

Tora, you are undoubtably right. The pool of potential nominee judges IS very small. Which is even more reason why refusing to consider 93% of that small pool is idiocy.

I mean, let's be real here for a minute. The skin color of the potential judge makes no difference, nor does the genitalia. The key point is the political leaning. I can guarantee that female black conservative candidates will not appear on the list of potential justices. That is why the left is so vituperative about Trump's three selections. He picked conservative judges. He chose a woman to replace a woman, but that did not matter to anyone. The left was upset because he picked a conservative to replace a liberal. It is all political theatre.

Would the left have applauded if Trump had picked a conservative black woman instead of Neil Gorsuch? Or Brett Kavanaugh? I think not.

-3 ( +5 / -8 )

Huh, I would wager a female version of Clarence Thomas would be hard to locate. Do you have a short list of names that you feel Trump should have nominated instead of the three he went with?

0 ( +4 / -4 )

"...And that person will be the first Black woman ever nominated to the United States Supreme Court...."

That sounds like white and male people need not apply....

Americans think the way to fix discrimination is to simply discriminate against someone else...

2 ( +6 / -4 )

Something US Presidents have stopped doing is nominating to the Supreme Court people who are distinguished leaders in areas other than the law. At one time or another this nation has had former Senators, former state Governors, Secretaries of the Treasury, Secretaries of State, a Labor Secretary, former Ambassadors, state legislators, an SEC Chairman, a university regent and quite a few attorneys who were never judges. Of the 112 people who have served as US Supreme Court Justices, 41 had no previous judicial experience. There is nothing written in stone anywhere that a Supreme Court Justice has to be a judge or even have a law degree. I feel having justices with backgrounds outside of a courtroom is necessary for a balanced Supreme Court. They bring a different point of view to the court that has been missing the last two or three decades.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Desert Tortoise- sounds interesting. How about Condaleeza Rice for the job then?

1 ( +5 / -4 )

This reminds me of times when conservatives demand ro know what Democrats have ever done for black people.

2 ( +7 / -5 )

Biden says he will choose one who is black and a woman.

so the color of skin AND gender. so now racist and sexist.

with some bigotry mixed in.

-4 ( +6 / -10 )

So does that mean there were no capable black justices male and female? Why did Trump select three white justices? Nothing to do with race, yes?

because that racial identity is already represented by Clarence Thomas in the proper proportion based on the % of population. Liberals always forget about Clarence, best justice EVER.

-7 ( +4 / -11 )

What is this proper proportion you speak of? Surely something not enshrined in law.

And if CT is so great, why did the other conservative leaning justices leave him isolated on their last Trump/ exec privelege ruling?

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

For almost 2 years, Democrats — including Joe Biden — filibustered the nomination of California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown to the D.C. Circuit court.

She could have been the first Black female Justice.

Democrats only pretend to care about diversity. Look at how Joe Biden mistreated Clarence Thomas in his own confirmation hearing.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

Why did Trump select three white justices? Nothing to do with race, yes?

correct, nothing to do with race. Trump did not consider race or gender at all when he made the selections, so is in fact not a racist as a result.

Excellent progress!

Trump didnt select 3 white judges he selected 3 conservative judges.

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

lol No. Biden never said he would he would select a nominee based only on the color of their skin.

He sure did in the debate. That’s on record.

The reality is there multiple individuals that will be equally qualified for a seat on the SCOTUS, and Biden says he will choose one who is black and a woman.

He said that as well, but he was very specific about the individual being black.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Uh? And Trump's trinity of Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett seated on the bench of SCOTUS by a disgraced, twice-impeached, president and, in future, likely convicted felon? Will they ever be able to remove that reek and orange stain from their record?

I very much doubt it.

Funny to watch the pearl clutching from the right about Biden selecting a black woman

No one would ever consider me even slightly right-wing, but I find this determination to choose someone based on race/sex ahead of competence and qualification disturbing to say the least. If the person best for the job happens to be black, female, Asian, Latino, whatever, then fine. But to choose on the basis of race/gender? No.

Makes my skin itch to find myself upvoting the comments of some of JT’s most right-wing extremists.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

WA4TKG

JUST because she's Black...how about we go back to WHO IS BEST QUALIFIED for any job?

Brett Kavanaugh's main qualification is beer drinking and boofing. It's certainly not his experience or competence that got him a seat on the Supreme Court. So don't go saying ability is the only qualification.

In reality, his main qualification was being Catholic, as was Amy Coney Barrett's. And Catholics are only 17% of the US, but two thirds of the Supreme Court.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

To the people that say they should be qualified, this is just not true. Amy Coney Barrett didn't even know the five freedoms!

And I don't remember any outcry, when Trump said that he will appoint a woman ahead of Amy Coney Barrett's nomination.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

cleo

No one would ever consider me even slightly right-wing, but I find this determination to choose someone based on race/sex ahead of competence and qualification disturbing to say the least. If the person best for the job happens to be black, female, Asian, Latino, whatever, then fine. But to choose on the basis of race/gender? No.

I would say that the nominee needs to be qualified, but you also need representation in the community. Blacks comprise 13 - 14% of the community and women 10%. It seems sensible it have a black woman in the SCOTUS.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

*women 50%

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

It is utter folly to try and represent the diversity of America within a group of 9 people. At the moment, as someone said there are too many Catholics on the Courty. True. Also too many Jews. Also far far too many graduates of Harvard and Yale- 8 of the 9 justices went to just 2 universities! As far as I know, no athiests or Muslims or Hindus or Buddhists. No gay or trans or two spirited.

Now, can one justice 'cover off' more than one category? This is important. Two black women would make the court racially imbalanced, but close on basis of gender. If one of them were Jewish, that would further skew the religious imbalance. It is utter stupidity to keep trying to check off these 'diversity boxes'. How about just gather a group of qualified people (with no regard for their intersectionality), throw their names in a hat, and pick one?

IMHO the biggest problem is that justices are appointed for life. This makes each selection a momentus and life changing event. How about mandatory retirement at 70 or 75 and possibly a term limit of 5 or 10 years? This will ensure turnover and relative political neutrality.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

Now then, to answer my question about why Clarence Thomas voted alone to keep Trumps records secret, the most compelling reason in JT comments at the time of the verdict was. . . Drumroll. . . Because his wife had a role in facilitating the Jan. 6 uprising, and the other justices did not want that stain on their records. Thus, we can argue that any holdout diehard Thomas fans like our own blacklabel must be some ways down the path that leads to political extremism.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

He sure did in the debate. That’s on record.

It is also on record that you wrote these eminently qualified women are being selected ONLY because of skin color.

The conservative dog whistles are foghorns.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

He sure did in the debate. That’s on record.

I highly doubt that in a debate Biden said he'd nominate someone to SCOTUS only because of their skin color. Any link to substantiate that claim?

4 ( +6 / -2 )

She could have been the first Black female Justice.

Except she's a libertarian nut job. Why bring up the color of her skin? I thought the right didn't like identity politics.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

There are already both Black and women justices. So it’s nothing about representation.

It’s voter pandering and necessary response to the blackmail of Joe Biden by James Clyburn.

-9 ( +1 / -10 )

It’s voter pandering and necessary response to the blackmail of Joe Biden by James Clyburn.

Likewise, then, Trump was clearly vote pandering when nominated three whites to the SCOTUS. It's nothing about representation.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

I didn’t bring it up, Biden did when he announce he will only consider Black women.

But for Joe Biden we would have had a Black female justice already.

He also voted against the only current Black justice so it’s not like he cared about diversity then, why now? Hint: needs that vote and has to repay Clyburn.

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

“I will be putting forth a nominee next week. It will be a woman, I think it should be a woman because I actually like women much more than men.”

—Donald Trump, September 2020

Remember the howls of outrage from conservatives back then? Neither do I.

7 ( +10 / -3 )

But for Joe Biden we would have had a Black female justice already.

Lol No. She was never nominated to the SCOTUS. You're confusing the Supreme court with lower courts. There were black female judges before her. And it's a good thing he blocked her, the last thing we need is another libertarian nut.

He also voted against the only current Black justice so it’s not like he cared about diversity then, why now? 

Do you think the fact that Clarence Thomas is a rightwing nut has something to do with Biden not voting in his favor? That hardly means he isn't interested in diversity.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

This is essentially how modern Democrats work, make empty gestures like nominating a black woman or making a holiday for Juneteenth because it creates an illusion of progress.. Forgiving student loans, acting on drug reform, labor rights, real healthcare reform, etc. all threaten capital owners. So he they promise but never deliver...

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

Blacklabel

There are already both Black and women justices. So it’s nothing about representation.

It's totally about representation. There are no black woman justices on the SCOTUS and there never has been.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

you also need representation in the community

It seems to me you're saying a white person cannot represent black constituents, a black person cannot represent white constituents, people cannot represent constituents of the opposite sex.....

If that's true of American society, then it's something I find very, very sad.

Lol, no one here is far-right or extreme

The US centre-left is what the rest of the world deems right-wing. The US right wing is far right by any normal measure.

5 ( +9 / -4 )

They've been picking mostly white males for centuries - even outright racists - so good on him for considering a seriously overlooked demographic. Progress.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

the difference is that Trump didn't say, "I will only consider white people for the job".

Is that what Biden said? I've consistently asked for proof, and none of the rightists here have offered proof. Should I just assume there is none?

2 ( +4 / -2 )

your views and politics are not center.

Center-right

They are quite to the right of that. Extremist,

Nope, if they were I wouldn’t vote for Trump or the GOP

-13 ( +2 / -15 )

Democrats have done next to nothing for Black people since Biden took their votes to get elected. So this is to try to cover that up and get a “talking point”.

-8 ( +3 / -11 )

takeda.shingen.1991@gmail.com

It’s voter pandering and necessary response to the blackmail of Joe Biden by James Clyburn.

Likewise, then, Trump was clearly vote pandering when nominated three whites to the SCOTUS. It's nothing about representation.

And they certainly weren't qualified. Their only qualification was being Catholic in a hope to overturn Roe vs Wade.

5 ( +8 / -3 )

When Trump picked a woman? Liberals demanded that too, was no disagreement and woman is not a race.

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

“I will be putting forth a nominee next week. It will be a woman, I think it should be a woman because I actually like women much more than men.”

—Donald Trump, September 2020

No mention of race.

Remember the howls of outrage from conservatives back then? Neither do I.

What for?

-6 ( +4 / -10 )

Attilathehungry

Takeda, the difference is that Trump didn't say, "I will only consider white people for the job".

You mean, he didn't say that bit out loud.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

cleo

you also need representation in the community

It seems to me you're saying a white person cannot represent black constituents, a black person cannot represent white constituents, people cannot represent constituents of the opposite sex.....

They can represent them, but they don't bring the empathy and experience to the job. It's why corporations strive for diversity. It's why in communities you want the police force to be made up of racial groups that reflect the community.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

You mean, he didn't say that bit out loud.

Correct. Yet Biden did.

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

Takeda, here is a Biden quote from 2020, when his election campaign was tanking and he needed to keep the Black vote:

“I’m looking forward to making sure there’s a Black woman on the Supreme Court"

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

Quote from Jen Psaki last week;

"The president has stated and reiterated his commitment to nominating a black woman to the Supreme Court and certainly stands by that,"

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

Blacklabel

You mean, he didn't say that bit out loud.

Correct. Yet Biden did.

So they are the same except that Biden was more transparent.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

So we have an assumed racist based on an internet poster speculating as to a persons thoughts.

compared to s confirmed racist who made s public announcement of his racism.

wasn't Biden supposed to be better than Trump? Why are the excuses for all his offensive behavior only “ reeeee but Trump did it too”

all done. Say what you want, but this wrong of Biden to do.

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

"The president has stated and reiterated his commitment to nominating a black woman to the Supreme Court and certainly stands by that,"

And that is not the same thing as claiming Biden is picking a black woman, only because of their race/gender.

Believe me, I'll be the first to criticize Biden if he nominates Megan Thee Stallion.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

So they are the same

No unless you can read Trumps mind like I can read Biden’s public statements.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

No mention of race.

Come on. It’s identity politics, the same as what the libs you despise do.

Let’s cut the bad faith arguments, shall we?

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Blacklabel

So they are the same

No unless you can read Trumps mind like I can read Biden’s public statements.

It's one of my superpowers.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Come on. It’s identity politics, the same as what the libs you despise do. 

No, because there was no mention of race, the only qualification was that they were conservative and that they follow the and interpret the law based on the outlines of the Constitution.

Let’s cut the bad faith arguments, shall we?

Yeah, Plastic, let's!

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

bass4funk

the only qualification was that they were conservative and that they follow the and interpret the law based on the outlines of the Constitution.

And that they were Catholic and white.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites