"Like most patriotic Americans, I spent the weekend celebrating the fact that Barack Obama is no longer president of the United States."

johnrussell
By:  @johnrussell, last year
Comments: 92 ..

Tags

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/huppke/ct-scalia-supreme-court-huppke-20160215-story.html

"Like most patriotic Americans, I spent the weekend celebrating the fact that Barack Obama is no longer president of the United States.

Having served out all seven years of his two terms (2 x 4 = 7), he has left the White House, making it available as an Airbnb rental property until a new president is inaugurated in 2017. (Call ahead for special spring break rates!)

Obama’s second term ended Saturday after the death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. Almost immediately after news of the conservative justice’s passing hit the Internet, Republican lawmakers declared Obama a lame duck who could not possibly nominate a replacement.

After all, nothing would dishonor Scalia, who embraced constitutional originalism, more than the president doing what the Constitution originally says he’s supposed to do.




Antonin Scalia | 1936-2016




Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, the fiery conservative who used a sharp intellect, barbed wit and a zeal for verbal combat to fight against the tide of modern liberalism, has died. 





About an hour after Scalia’s death was announced, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said the vacancy should not be filled until a new president is in office: “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice.”

Granted, 65,915,795 American people voted for Obama to be president for a second term, but that was way back in 2012. Clearly we need some fresh voices. And can we really trust people who voted for Obama?

The other point raised by “libs” and “people who have taken at least a high-school level civics class” is that filling vacancies on the Supreme Court is part of the president’s job description.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, responding to the kerfuffle over Scalia’s death, wrote: “Article II Section 2 of the Constitution says the President of the United States nominates justices to the Supreme Court, with the advice and consent of the Senate. I can't find a clause that says ‘... except when there's a year left in the term of a Democratic President.’”

Well, Sen. Warren, maybe you’re just not looking hard enough. I’m pretty sure it’s in there.

Besides, there is historical precedent that shows you do not nominate and confirm a Supreme Court justice during an election year. Or as the Supreme Court-monitoring SCOTUSblog reported: “The historical record does not reveal any instances since at least 1900 of the president failing to nominate and/or the Senate failing to confirm a nominee in a presidential election year because of the impending election. In that period, there were several nominations and confirmations of Justices during presidential election years.”

OK, maybe that’s not the best example, but clearly it would be improper for Obama to nominate a replacement because of his lame-duck status.

The term “lame duck” generally applies to a president serving out his term after his successor has been elected. But in Obama’s case, the Republican-led Congress that doesn’t like him decides when he becomes a lame duck. (I think that rule is probably in that same part of the Constitution that Elizabeth Warren hasn’t found yet.)

The day Scalia died, Obama had 341 days left in office. So a lame-duck president is someone who has at least 341 days left in office.


Had Scalia died 50 days earlier, a lame-duck president would be someone who has 391 days left in office. And if the justice had passed away any time prior to Obama’s first inauguration in 2009, Obama would have become the first president to enter office as a lame duck.

Make sense? Of course it doesn’t.

And it doesn’t matter because nothing that has ever happened matters in this case. Dan Abrams, chief legal affairs anchor for ABC News, said on Sunday: “Justice Scalia’s memory for conservatives is so important that this time anything that happened in the past is not particularly relevant to what’s happening now.”

What matters is that Obama cannot be allowed to choose the next Supreme Court justice, because he’ll undoubtedly destroy the country by picking a Muslim-Mexican lesbian Wiccan-priestess marijuana farmer.

I contacted Princeton University historian Kevin M. Kruse via email and asked him to sum up what we’re currently seeing. He wrote:

“Basically: The history isn't as cut and dry as Democrats suggest, but it's certainly on Obama's side on balance. The general rule, informal at that, is that a president shouldn't make nominations in last six months of his term — but we're well outside that window. Republicans have every right to block specific nominees, but we've never seen a blanket claim that they just wouldn't consider anyone for nearly a year before.”

I only paid attention to the part where he said “the president shouldn’t make nominations,” so that pretty much confirms the opinions of GOP lawmakers, GOP presidential candidates and probably Ted Nugent.

The evidence is clear: A real president is supposed to nominate people to fill vacancies on the Supreme Court; Obama can’t do that because Republicans don’t want him to; therefore, Obama is no longer president and the Lincoln Bedroom in the White House is available for only $250/night.

The people (who don’t like Obama) have spoken.

And what they say matters more than the 65,915,795 who voted the president into office.

I’m pretty sure that’s in the Constitution somewhere too. Keep looking, Sen. Warren."

Flagging unavailable
JohnRussell
link 02/16/16 09:41:22AM @johnrussell:

The evidence is clear: A real president is supposed to nominate people to fill vacancies on the Supreme Court; Obama can’t do that because Republicans don’t want him to; therefore, Obama is no longer president and the Lincoln Bedroom in the White House is available for only $250/night.

The people (who don’t like Obama) have spoken.

And what they say matters more than the 65,915,795 who voted the president into office.

I’m pretty sure that’s in the Constitution somewhere too. Keep looking, Sen. Warren."

Flagging unavailable
 
Kavika
link 02/16/16 09:51:56AM @kavika:

Excellent article. I especially enjoyed the line about Ted Nugent.

Flagging unavailable
 
JohnRussell
link 02/16/16 09:53:34AM @johnrussell:

 The respected Scotusblog published this in one of its first posts about Justice Antonin Scalia’s sudden passing:


 In the wake of the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, questions have arisen about whether there is a standard practice of not nominating and confirming Supreme Court Justices during a presidential election year. The historical record does not reveal any instances since at least 1900 of the president failing to nominate and/or the Senate failing to confirm a nominee in a presidential election year because of the impending election. In that period, there were several nominations and confirmations of Justices during presidential election years.

Flagging unavailable
 
JohnRussell
link 02/16/16 09:55:30AM @johnrussell:

The sole argument against this fact is the assertion that politics is more partisan now, as if that would negate the constitution , historical precedent and the wishes of the American people who say they want less partisanship. 

Flagging unavailable
 
jwc2blue
link 02/16/16 10:19:28AM @jwc2blue:

The sole argument against this fact is the assertion that politics is more partisan now,

That's pretty much the entirety of Orrin Hatch's argument that I heard on NPR this morning.

http://www.npr.org/2016/02/16/466898534/hatch-its-not-the-time-to-have-a-battle-over-a-supreme-court-nominee

I mean; "We're too divided to do this, so we're going to make things more divided by blocking whoever Obama puts forward."

If that isn't just about the lamest excuse I've ever heard...

Flagging unavailable
 
jwc2blue
link 02/16/16 10:14:18AM @jwc2blue:

After all, nothing would dishonor Scalia, who embraced constitutional originalism, more than the president doing what the Constitution originally says he’s supposed to do.

Amazingly, our members who cite Scalia's insistence on following the word and intent of the Founders as one of his virtues don't seem to appreciate the irony of ignoring the Constitution when denying Obama's obligation to appoint a replacement.

Flagging unavailable
 
1stwarrior
link 02/16/16 01:11:50PM @1stwarrior:

Blue - Scalia was best known for using the "founder's" language to pull political decisions - not constitutional decisions which is the court's function.

Flagging unavailable
 
96WS6
link 02/16/16 06:33:31PM @96ws6:

The GOP is going about it all wrong.  The President has a constitutional obligation to nominate someone and the senate has a constitutional duty to approve or disapprove that nominee.  Simple as that.  Let him nominate someone.

Flagging unavailable
 
Hal A. Lujah
link 02/16/16 10:42:26AM @hal-a-lujah:

Scalia could have at least left us an opinion on who gets to pick his replacement before he went off and died.  Rude.

Flagging unavailable
 
Mark in Wyoming
link 02/16/16 11:57:29AM @mark-in-wyoming:

hal , I read an article yesterday where he did in a way say who he thought should be on the court , think it was in the WaPo ill have to look for it  if I can find it again.

the drist of it I took away is the court , in his opinion needed someone not from the east or west coasts , but from the middle of the country, the southwest he indicated, someone to help the court  be more representative of the whole country and not just the book end population centers.

 I think he did this in his opinion on same sex marriage that recently went through the court if that helps you look it up on your own.

Now , my thoughts , the President has the obligation  to make a nomination if he so decides to , it is one of his stated presidential powers , Just as it was McConnels obligation to say what he did as for waiting for the next president , that would fall under the advice clause , advice can be taken or left and that of course is up to the president to decide what he does, just as its left to the senate to do whatever they would do.

personally if a nominee is presented , the senate of course should decide how next to proceed , I would hope , they give the nominee due consideration and then an honest vote as to what they think, that I think and believe is how it is suppose to work, but very seldom , in my life time how it has actually worked.

Flagging unavailable
 
JohnRussell
link 02/16/16 12:12:08PM @johnrussell:

 I would hope , they give the nominee due consideration and then an honest vote as to what they think, that I think and believe is how it is suppose to work, but very seldom , in my life time how it has actually worked.

actually, that is always how it has worked for supreme court nominations. there has never in the history of the country been one that did not get either a hearing , a vote, or both. 

Flagging unavailable
 
Cerenkov
Flagging unavailable
 
Cerenkov
link 02/16/16 12:16:05PM @cerenkov:

Does he have the consent of the Senate? No? Case closed.

Flagging unavailable
 
JohnRussell
link 02/16/16 12:26:59PM @johnrussell:

Does he have the consent of the Senate? No? Case closed.

otherwise known as

Flagging unavailable
 
Cerenkov
link 02/16/16 01:37:47PM @cerenkov:

"Sen. Elizabeth Warren, responding to the kerfuffle over Scalia’s death, wrote: “Article II Section 2 of the Constitution says the President of the United States nominates justices to the Supreme Court, with the advice and consent of the Senate. I can't find a clause that says ‘... except when there's a year left in the term of a Democratic President.’”"

It's not that hard a sentence to read... Give yourself more time. Sound it out...

 

Flagging unavailable
 
Hal A. Lujah
link 02/16/16 04:16:11PM @hal-a-lujah:
I can understand why John is confused by your statement.  It seems to suggest that the Senate will not confirm anyone Obama nominates, regardless of who it is, and that you are hunky-dory with that.  Therefore, John's picture is quite accurate for you.  Your pitch on this that unless a republican gets elected in Nov., it's fine for the Senate to indefinitely continue to obstruct, and never ever ever consider confirming another justice if that's what they feel like doing.
Flagging unavailable
 
JohnRussell
link 02/16/16 04:22:21PM @johnrussell:

There is no precedent for Cerenkov's position. 

Flagging unavailable
 
Cerenkov
link 02/16/16 05:58:34PM @cerenkov:

Right. The Democrats set the precedent and now they will reap the consequences. 

Flagging unavailable
 
Jonathan P
link 02/16/16 01:58:25PM @jonathan-p:

I get that this is a partisan battle and all, and since we have all endeavored to label each other, I will undoubtedly be classified accordingly, especially after what you are about to read.

When you really boil it down, the choice is to have a more liberal Court, or a less liberal, and potentially more conservative court. In an ideal world, we would have 9 Justices of centrist ilk, who look to interpret law 1)as our Founding Fathers would have it with a healthy dose of 2)modern interpretation. Laws are meant to breathe. They need to be applied to today's world. I think the Court has done a reasonably good job in the majority of cases.

Ideally, the Court should reflect our national character and political ideology. And that political ideology is decidedly right of center. There is a Republican majority in the Senate. There is a Republican majority in the House. 31 of our Governors are Republican. All politics is local.

Yes, we have a Democrat President. But that's all we have, and since his election, the electorate has voted more Republican. We don't appoint for one man, and one party. We appoint for the people, because it's the people who need to be represented.

Flagging unavailable
 
JohnRussell
link 02/16/16 02:31:46PM @johnrussell:

On paper sounds good, but it has flaws and holes. For example, people may describe themselves as conservative, and in reality hold some or a majority of liberal views. The description is too inexact and too fluid even. 

I do agree that justices should be objective as possible. 

Another issue is appointing a supreme court justice who might be there 25 years based on which party holds congress today. 

The president is the big cheese in our system. he or she gets to pick Supreme Court justices barring something disqualifying in their background. 

Flagging unavailable
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
link 02/16/16 02:15:26PM @perrie-halpern:

Jon, 

I agreed with you until this:

Ideally, the Court should reflect our national character and political ideology. And that political ideology is decidedly right of center. There is a Republican majority in the Senate. There is a Republican majority in the House. 31 of our Governors are Republican. All politics is local.

How our reps and senators get in, is a matter of a lot of factors other than how the public feels. If one was to go with number of people belonging to a party, then we could say that the country is more Democratic. If we were to do it by polls, then we could say that the country is more independent. Do you see my point?

With 4 to the right and 4 to the left, ideally, we should have a moderate. That would make for a balanced court, which I think the court should be. 

 

Flagging unavailable
 
JohnRussell
link 02/16/16 02:34:04PM @johnrussell:

With 4 to the right and 4 to the left, ideally, we should have a moderate. That would make for a balanced court, which I think the court should be. 

Except that 3 or 4 of the current justices are 80+ years old. How long would this "balance" be in place and who will be responsible for maintaining it in the future? 

 

Flagging unavailable
 
Jonathan P
link 02/16/16 03:11:03PM @jonathan-p:

 If one was to go with number of people belonging to a party, then we could say that the country is more Democratic. If we were to do it by polls, then we could say that the country is more independent. Do you see my point?

Yes, I see your point. But it has nothing to do with the reality of the composition of our elected officials. More registered Dems? Great. Why do they vote Republican in most Gubernatorial races? Country is more independent? Great. Tell me why we have more Republican elected officials across the board. This is what representation is. And if it's stupid to you, you're not alone. But who's got their finger on the heartbeat of America? Not a lone President, to make a yay or nay decision.

Flagging unavailable
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
link 02/16/16 03:43:22PM @perrie-halpern:

 Why do they vote Republican in most Gubernatorial races? 

Because of the way the states are made up. More states are Republican, but they have low populations. The states with the Dem as govs are high population states. So that isn't really an indicator. 

Flagging unavailable
 
JohnRussell
link 02/16/16 03:16:20PM @johnrussell:

Not a lone President, to make a yay or nay decision.

The Constitution gives the power to nominate Supreme Court justices to the president. 

Flagging unavailable
 
Jonathan P
link 02/16/16 03:20:18PM @jonathan-p:

That's fine. And then Congress confirms or rejects. No problem.

It would be nice if he would do us a favor and think about his selection before trotting out someone who is obviously not capable of a centrist opinion. I've seen the short list, and it lends itself to more partisan bickering, not less.

Flagging unavailable
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
link 02/16/16 07:58:53PM @perrie-halpern:

There we agree, Jon. 

Flagging unavailable
 
JohnRussell
link 02/16/16 03:29:16PM @johnrussell:

It depends on whether or not Obama is led to believe his nominee will receive a fair hearing. 

Flagging unavailable
 
Sean Treacy
link 02/16/16 04:28:18PM @s:

It's called the schumer rule.

 

the democrats don't Believe the senate should confirm a nominee of president with less than 18 months left in his term. Republicans aee  Just following their rules.

Flagging unavailable
 
JohnRussell
link 02/16/16 04:41:55PM @johnrussell:

There has never been a Supreme Court nominee who did not receive a hearing (or a vote) within 100 days of their nomination. 

End of story. 

Flagging unavailable
 
Sean Treacy
link 02/16/16 05:41:05PM @s:

That's completely false. I  looked at two nominations, Thomas and Bork. Both took over 100 days to be voted on.

 

Flagging unavailable
 
JohnRussell
link 02/16/16 06:56:47PM @johnrussell:

The hearings on Clarence Thomas nomination began well before the 100 days had passed since the date of his nomination, July 1, 1991. 

Robert Bork was nominated by Reagan on July 1, 1987. His nomination hearing in the Senate began on Sep 1st, I believe. That is about 60 days. 

I said hearing and/ or vote within 100 days Sean, not just vote. 

Keep trying though. 

Flagging unavailable
 
Dowser
link 02/16/16 05:02:12PM @dowser:

Ok folks, Obama is president until another president is officially sworn in.  That means he is still president.  Don't like it?  Suck it up!  All of us had to suck it up when George W. was tearing the country apart.  Sure, we belly-ached and moaned.  That is our right, as voters.  But no one celebrated his 'early demise' as our president.

To deny the presidency is to disenfranchise the voters who elected him.  Just remember that turn about is fair play, folks.  All this belly-aching, moaning and groaning isn't going to help anyone when YOUR guy wins.  

To prevent Obama from nominating a candidate for the seat is going to bite the republicans in the tail end, later on.  Hopefully, he will nominate a true moderate.  Not that it will please the far right, who will fight tooth and toenail, no matter who he nominates, but still-- you have to allow the man his presidency, whether or not you're pleased with the job he's done.

Flagging unavailable
 
Sean Treacy
link 02/16/16 05:24:29PM @s:

.  Just remember that turn about is fair play, folks

Exactly. The Democrats were the first party to block a qualified judge for purely ideological reasons. Obama is the first President who ever voted to filibuster a Supreme Court nominee.  It's time the democrats finally reap what the sowed.

To prevent Obama from nominating a candidate

No one is preventing Obama from doing anything. He can nominate anyone he wants and the Senate, using the precedent set by Obama and the Democrats can reject the nominee for any reason they see fit. As you say, turnabout is fair play. 

 

Flagging unavailable
 
JohnRussell
link 02/16/16 05:27:22PM @johnrussell:

Sean, the only thing that Obama and the Democrats can ask for is a hearing and a vote. As you probably know, the Republicans say they are not going to do that. 

You can try to keep spinning, but you still aren't getting anywhere. 

Flagging unavailable
 
Cerenkov
link 02/16/16 05:56:19PM @cerenkov:

They brought it on themselves. It's time to reap.

Flagging unavailable
 
Dowser
link 02/16/16 06:42:52PM @dowser:

When and who, Sean?

So, "He did it first" is a good excuse for doing the wrong thing?  Not to me.  Or, if I tried that when I was a kid, I would be grounded, still.  At age 60.  

That is what this reminds me of-- play ground talk...  Adults don't behave this way.  Spoiled children do.

Flagging unavailable
 
Sean Treacy
link 02/16/16 08:01:57PM @s:

You sure have the mentality of the bully down. You sound like an attorney for a long term wife beater getting mad at the wife for finally standing up and defending herself.  Republicans should sit back and let democrats abuse them I guess, lest they do something "wrong" as well. Funny how that works.  

The democrats have been abusing the system to the Republicans disadvantage for 30 years and your response is to get mad at the Republicans for standing up for themselves. 

It's always amusing to see hypocrisy revealed. Unless you've spent the last 30 years attacking the democrats for their treatment of Republican nominees, you are a hypocrite for attacking Republicans for exercising their rights. 

Flagging unavailable
 
Dowser
link 02/17/16 10:13:32AM @dowser:

Me, a bully?  I just asked who the democrats had denied to have a hearing for, and when, because I honestly couldn't remember.  That's being a bully?

This is typical.  You don't like the question, so you attack the person who asks.  Nice.  Mature.  This is a play ground mentality.  Did you stick your tongue out at me?

By the way-- I'm still curious.  Who was nominated to the Supreme Court, and the democrats told the sitting president that they wouldn't even have a hearing of the nomination?  When did this happen?  Who was the sitting president?  I can't remember that this has ever happened before-- and I would really like to know!

By the way, I'm a moderate-- so I criticize BOTH sides of the aisle.  Maybe you just don't see it, often, but I do!

 

Flagging unavailable
 
JohnRussell
link 02/17/16 10:19:00AM @johnrussell:

Don't mind Sean, Dowser. He is frantic over this is issue. 

Flagging unavailable
 
A. Macarthur
link 02/17/16 11:58:51AM @a-macarthur:

This is typical.  You don't like the question, so you attack the person who asks.  Nice.  Mature.  This is a play ground mentality.  Did you stick your tongue out at me?

It's a regularly-occurring tactic (by more than one member) that has driven members away from discussion …

… that's death for a discussion forum.

I often wonder if it's orchestrated; in another thread, I was criticized for an issue I have raised several times. What followed was a barrage of attacks on my "manhood," my career and a few other cheap shots thrown in … the gangbang theme from the old site!

BUT I DIDN'T RAISE THE ISSUE IN THE THREAD!

I DIDN'T RAISE THE ISSUE! And the one who DID RAISE IT, AND THE ONE WHO PUT IT ON ME -- disappeared from the thread while his cohorts were blasting away … UNTIL I SAID I WAS LEAVING THE DISCUSSION BECAUSE IT HAD BECOME A PERSONAL INSULT FEST …

THEN THAT MEMBER RETURNED AND BEGAN TO REASSERT THE LIE OF THE ARTICLE -- THE SOURCE OF WHICH AND THE CONTENT OF WHICH I HAD REPUDIATED AND DEBUNKED!

In this thread we have the admission that Republicans elected members of Congress to thwart any successes of Obama. DOES THAT MEAN IF CLINTON OR SANDERS IS ELECTED (and the House/Senate retain Republican majorities), THAT WE GET 4 or 8 MORE YEARS OF SABOTAGING EVERY UTILITARIAN INITIATIVE?

I regularly and with specifics, debunk the lies promulgated by right-wing anonymous e-mails and other crocks; in doing so, I give the disreputable histories of the sources and associated individuals that repeat-and-repeat those lies.

The responses are personal swipes and dismissive arguments …

dismissive statement is any statement which negates the value of an opposing argument without actually addressing any of its substance.

Although it is not actually a valid form of argument, it is frequently phrased in such a way that it might be mistaken for one; this usage is a form of rhetorical deception.

Argument by collective dismissal is an especially severe form of this, in which multiple points are dismissed as a group without any of them being addressed.

Types



  • argument from irrelevance: "I don't see how that's relevant." when the original argument has specifically named one or more points of relevance
  • argument from unimportance: "There are more important things to worry about."
  • argument by contradiction: "No, you're wrong." "I don't accept that hypothesis."
  • argument from overabundance: "You have too many points, I can't address them all." -- so I'm not going to address any of them.
  • argument from subjectivity: "This is a matter regarding which there is no objective resolution, therefore any conclusions you might reach by objective reasoning from this statement are invalid, regardless of how much evidence you might present to support it."

Real-world Usage



  • "We don't find any persuasive, affirmative evidence that this is true.", when in fact evidence has been presented. (Philip Zelikow)
Flagging unavailable
 
Randy
link 02/16/16 05:55:53PM @randy:

I think the GOP Senate would be wise to make a deal with the President on a new, moderate, Justice now, because when Clinton wins the Presidency she'll likely have enough coat tails to bring the Senate back to the Democrats and then they'll get a liberal Justice, instead of agreeing to a moderate one now. Besides when she is elected are they going to say the American people will get to decide on a new Justice AFTER her term(s) are over? How long can they stretch this piss poor excuse for not doing their job?

Flagging unavailable
 
A. Macarthur
link 02/16/16 06:11:47PM @a-macarthur:

Article Two of the United States Constitution places the power of appointing Justices with the President of the United States, stating:


"he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law..."

Nothing about "lame duck," "final year in office," nor any other form of equivocation.

Conservatives consistently (and incorrectly) rail against Obama for violating the Constitution (without specifically making the case by the way) … but now that he is exercising his Constitutionally mandated responsibility to nominate a replacement for Scalia … now Conservtives have no problem allowing the Constitution to be violated.

Why is that?

But, if we're going to dick around with the Constitution, let's look at the Second Amendment, the Tenth Amendment, and in fact, going forward, let's determine if/when any/all laws are followed based solely on who's in office in the venue where a law is violated.

 

Flagging unavailable
 
Sean Treacy
link 02/16/16 06:15:23PM @s:

Consent of the Senate. Did you miss that part?

… now Conservtives have no problem allowing the Constitution to be violated.

I don't think you understand the Constitution if you think rejecting a Presidential nominee somehow violates it. 

Flagging unavailable
 
A. Macarthur
link 02/16/16 06:29:32PM @a-macarthur:

Consent of the Senate. Did you miss that part?

No, and you don't understand what that means.

The Senate does not give its consent as to whether or not a sitting President gets to nominate a successor to a departed Justice.

Consent is with regard to whether or not the Senate approves a nominee … whether the nominee is appointed or not is the Senate's call … but nomination is the Constitutional Mandate of the President alone.

You're wrong on this one, Sean.

Flagging unavailable
 
Cerenkov
link 02/16/16 06:32:45PM @cerenkov:

You're wrong Mac. He can nominate anyone he likes but without the Senate's consent, they won't be confirmed. If Obama wants to waste more of our money nominating left wing nuts who won't be confirmed, we can't stop him.

Flagging unavailable
 
A. Macarthur
link 02/16/16 06:44:30PM @a-macarthur:

You're wrong Mac. He can nominate anyone he likes but without the Senate's consent, they won't be confirmed. 

That's what I said, Cerenkov. Confirmation is not the same as nomination.

The President gets to nominate a replacement … the Senate does not have the power to prevent the President from doing so. If the Senate rejects the nominee, and/or threatens to reject the nominee or, fails to take a vote one way or the other, that does not abrogate the President's Constitutional power to nominate.

You are wrong, Cerenkov.

And the Senate will reap the reward or punishment of the electorate whichever way it goes … up, down or filibuster. If the electorate resents the outcome and perceives the outcome to be partisan-motivated, it may vote accordingly for candidates … pro or con by party.

Flagging unavailable
 
Randy
link 02/16/16 06:49:21PM @randy:

I believe that, if they do nothing but block confirmations, they'll pay for it at the polls in November as it is a prime example of what people seem to be angry about, gridlock in Washington. They will be playing right into the narrative of being nothing but obstructionists. Not good for them.

Flagging unavailable
 
Cerenkov
link 02/16/16 07:04:14PM @cerenkov:

Lol. The Republicans were elected to obstruct Obama's agenda. Their constituency will be pleased.

Flagging unavailable
 
Cerenkov
link 02/16/16 07:03:20PM @cerenkov:

You're wrong, mac. No one said he couldn't nominate anyone. He was advised not to. Fortunately free expression still reigns.

Flagging unavailable
 
jwc2blue
link 02/16/16 06:55:04PM @jwc2blue:

If Obama wants to waste more of our money nominating left wing nuts who won't be confirmed, we can't stop him

I wonder how much it costs for Obama to nominate someone compared to the many failed "investigations" and scores of failed republican votes to repeal Obama Care. 

Better still, the 15 nominees that had republican votes that they are still blocking.

Please, save your faux "wasting our money" bullshit.

Flagging unavailable
 
Cerenkov
link 02/16/16 07:01:59PM @cerenkov:

No thanks. I'll be using it again soon. Stop wasting my money.

Flagging unavailable
 
jwc2blue
link 02/16/16 07:23:10PM @jwc2blue:

 I'll be using it again soon.

Of course you will. You don't quibble over whether your comments are true or not.

Flagging unavailable
 
1stwarrior
link 02/16/16 07:20:22PM @1stwarrior:

How 'bout $73M spent on vacations for the Obama's over the past two years - talk about a waste of money.

Flagging unavailable
 
A. Macarthur
link 02/16/16 07:30:50PM @a-macarthur:

A Continuing Pattern

These latest chain e-mails are part of a continuing pattern of indignant, anonymous authors spreading false and misleading claims about the travels of the president and the first lady.

In November 2010, we wrote about the "highly doubtful" claim that Obama's trip to India would cost $200 million each day. That figure was based on only one report from an Indian news organization that cited an unnamed official, with no additional evidence to support the claim. The White House called the claim "wildly exaggerated."

In July 2009, we wrote about another chain e-mail that complained that the first lady used taxpayer money to take her daughters and her mother on a European vacation. While taxpayers were on the hook for some of the cost of transporting the first family, and for providing security for them, no taxpayer money was used for their personal expenses.

In October 2008, we wrote about the false claim that Michelle Obama spent nearly $450 on room service at the Waldorf-Astoria hotel in New York City that year. Not only did Obama not stay at that hotel when she was in the city, according to her husband's then-presidential campaign, she hadn't yet arrived in New York by the time the bogus receipt claimed she had ordered room service.

http://www.factcheck.org/2011/07/the-traveling-president/

George W. Bush took more vacation days than any other president.

During his eight-year presidency, Bush did take 879 days of vacation, including 77 trips to his Texas ranch. So far, Obama has taken about 150 days off. But our founders were away even more.

During his first two years in office, President John Adams was criticized for making two lengthy trips to his home in Quincy, Mass., taking him away from the capital, which was then Philadelphia, for a total of eight months. Adams left Philadelphia to avoid a yellow-fever outbreak and then to care for his ill wife, Abigail. And his absence came at a time when the United States nearly went to war with France.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-presidential-vacations/2014/08/15/2aa969c6-2311-11e4-958c-268a320a60ce_story.html

Need more … just ask.

But, I'd be interested in where the $ 73 million came from; do share that information, please.

Flagging unavailable
 
1stwarrior
link 02/16/16 07:50:11PM @1stwarrior:

"BUSH DID IT - BUSH DID IT"

OK, now it's alright 'cause BUSH DID IT.

Report: Price of Obama getaways $70 million so far, and counting


http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/white-house/article50172810.html


THE OBAMAS’ PERSONAL TRIPS IN 2015


Jan. 1-3 Family trip to Hawaii.

Feb. 19 President Obama trip to Chicago.

Feb. 14-16 Michelle Obama and daughters ski trip to Aspen, Colorado.

Feb. 14-16 President Obama golf outing to Palm Springs, California.

March 12 Michelle Obama trip to Los Angeles.

March 12-13 President Obama trip Los Angeles.

March 28-29 President Obama’s golf outing to Palm City, Florida.

June 15-21 First lady Michelle Obama, mother, daughters travel to the United Kingdom and Italy.

June 20-21 President Obama golf outing to Palm Springs, California.

July 17-19 Father-daughter weekend in New York.

Aug. 7-23 Family trip to Martha’s Vineyard, Mass.

Not to mention that the Obama's have momma/cousins/aunts/uncles/friends on these trips that are also paid for by the taxpayers.

http://www.investors.com/politics/andrew-malcolm/obama-vacation-expenses-already-exceed-70-million-dollars/

As with the slow-motion releases of Hillary Clinton’s emails, the idea of
bureaucratic stalling, of course, is that the details become “old” news more likely
to be ignored by media. Fortunately, we’re not on vacation this week, so we can help the president out. Here goes:

The new expense reports, heavily-redacted allegedly for security reasons, push the total known costs for vacations during Obama’s reign to nearly $71 million — with another full year to go. That’s about $10.1 million per year in known expenses.

The totals come from Judicial Watch, the dogged watchdog group that pursues such information through repeated Freedom of Information Act requests.

Earlier this year Judicial Watch obtained transportation costs for a pair of the Democrat’s cross-country golf weekends just in 2015. They totaled nearly $2 million, or $20,000 per hole, the Washington Examiner calculated.

In February, for instance, Obama spent President’s Weekend golfing with male friends in Palm Springs. At $206,000 per flight hour, that trip set taxpayers back $1.03 million. That does not include other costs such as security and transportation.

Of course, even with Camp David available for free in Maryland every president goes on vacation, though none have gone so far so often as the Obamas, sometimes in separate planes.

Their family trips to Hawaii, for example, require at least 18 hours of Air Force One flight time at $206,000 per flight hour. Or $3.7 million minimum.

Complaints of over-spending on personal travel have dogged this first couple starting with Michelle Obama’s luxury vacation with friends to Spain at the peak of the recession and subsequent family excursions during the nation’s weakest economic recovery since World War II.

As we reported earlier this year: The Obamas have “traveled more than any other first family, often with Mrs. Obama’s mother and her friends. By the summer of 2014 the Obamas had taken 31 international trips lasting 119 days. At the same point in his presidency, Ronald Reagan had taken 14 such trips over 73 days.

“When the family visited Ireland in 2013, taxpayers were hit for just under $8 million, including a quarter-million dollars for a two-day side-trip to Dublin for the Obama women. They chose a $3,500-per-night hotel suite in addition to 29 other rooms for their traveling party at the five-star hotel.

“Last year when Mrs. Obama, her mother and two daughters toured China, they stayed in a Beijing hotel suite costing $8,400 per night.”

The happy travelers. (Olivier Douliery/Newscom)

The happy travelers. (Olivier Douliery/Newscom)


Joe Biden, currently vacationing with his wife in the Virgin Islands, hasn’t exactly suffered on the road either. Two years ago an unusually large Biden entourage ran up a London hotel bill of $480,000 in one night.The next day in Paris, Biden’s tab was $585,000, again for a single night.

The latest expense revelations extracted from the Secret Service by Judicial Watch seem almost a bargain by comparison. They show, among other things, $92,000 for rental cars and $225,000 for lodging paid to Paradise Luxury Rentals and Cabana Girl LLC for agents during the Obamas’ 2013 Hawaii holiday.

“It is easy to see why the Secret Service, reeling from its own scandals, covered up these outrageous expense numbers for just one of Obama’s luxury Christmas vacations,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The $317,000 in Secret Service expenses are only the tip of the iceberg for the true cost of Obama’s 2013 vacation in Hawaii, which has now skyrocketed to $8,098,060.”

"BUSH DID IT - BUSH DID IT".

Yeah - right.

 

Flagging unavailable
 
A. Macarthur
link 02/16/16 08:03:08PM @a-macarthur:

If Bush did it and you didn't criticize it, correct or not, your indignation is selective.

That aside …

Now as the Obama family departs Friday on its annual holiday vacation to Hawaii, new estimates put the price tag of the Obamas’ 2015 trips that are all or largely personal at $11.6 million for travel costs alone, according to the conservative group Judicial Watch, based on federal government records. That brings the overall cost of personal or largely personal travel to at least $70.5 million since Obama took office in 2009, according to the group’s analysis.

I'll review the list and for now, accept it on its face. But I'll check it item-by-item.

Flagging unavailable
 
1stwarrior
link 02/16/16 10:24:33PM @1stwarrior:

No, I was just as bad on Georgie - probably worse since I didn't like him.

Flagging unavailable
 
A. Macarthur
link 02/16/16 10:34:52PM @a-macarthur:

No, I was just as bad on Georgie - probably worse since I didn't like him.

Fair enough; let's call an IMPASSE on this one then.

Flagging unavailable
 
A. Macarthur
link 02/16/16 08:08:50PM @a-macarthur:

Andrew Malcom … known prevaricator … your investors.com source man …

Execrable Los Angeles Times blogger Andrew Malcolm makes a bizarre allegation this morning:


You may have thought as a regular American citizen you were capable of marking the upcoming 10th anniversary of the deadly 9/11 attacks in your own quiet, sad way as you and your family choose.

However, in its infinite federal wisdom and one-size-fits-all philosophy, the Obama White House has drafted a set of detailed orders for how he wants the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks observed, both at home and abroad.

We're not kidding.


Nope, he's not kidding. He's lying.

Malcolm is referring to a New York Times report from this morning on the Obama administration's "detailed guidelines to government officials on how to commemorate the 10th anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks, with instructions to honor the memory of those who died on American soil but also to recall that Al Qaeda and other extremist groups have since carried out attacks elsewhere in the world." [emphasis added]

Government officials. Like diplomatic employees and other representatives of the U.S. government. Not "regular American citizens" marking the occasion with their families, as Malcolm claimed.

Indeed, Malcolm acknowledges as much and even says that the guidelines make sense later in his post:


After weeks of quiet internal planning, two sets of guidelines were dispatched by the Democratic administration, one for American respresentatives [sic] to use abroad and another to all federal agencies at home.

[...]

Some 9/11 guidelines are common sense. U.S. diplomats, for instance, are reminded to acknowledge the ensuing losses and sacrifices of many nations to terrorist attacks during the past decade since 9/11. And there are the usual tribute reminders for military personnel, police and first-responders, among others, for their ongoing community service and sacrifices.


And yet, Malcolm framed the story as a bizarre tale of big government intrusion into the lives of ordinary Americans, callously playing off the emotions stirred by 9-11 to gin up anger at the Obama administration, knowing full well that what we was alleging was completely false.

But telling the truth won't get you that coveted Drudge link, which, in the end, is what really matters.

Flagging unavailable
 
jwc2blue
link 02/16/16 08:21:22PM @jwc2blue:

But telling the truth won't get you that coveted Drudge link, which, in the end, is what really matters.

And his audience makes it abundantly clear on a daily basis that there is no room for truth in their version of news.

Flagging unavailable
 
1stwarrior
link 02/16/16 10:25:00PM @1stwarrior:

Go for the source, right?

Flagging unavailable
 
A. Macarthur
link 02/16/16 10:39:32PM @a-macarthur:

Go for the source, right?

I never represented a client in an adverse action in which I did not make (when applicable) "witness credibility" a key component as part of questioning the allegations.

"Paper trails" often caused a recanting and/or rewording of charges … if not dismissal.

Flagging unavailable
 
JohnRussell
link 02/17/16 12:50:09PM @johnrussell:

"When President Bush traveled to England in the fall of 2003 for a state visit, theGuardian reported that "Mr. Bush, his wife, Laura, and a 700-strong entourage worthy of a travelling medieval monarch, flew into Heathrow airport." And the Telegraphbroke it down further, reporting that "Mr. Bush will be accompanied by a retinue consisting of 250 members of the Secret Service, 150 advisers from the National Security Department, 200 representatives of other government departments and 50 political aides." Also traveling with the president were "his personal chef, personal assistants, four cooks, medics and the presidential 15-strong sniffer dog team," according to the report."

http://www.factcheck.org/2011/07/the-traveling-president/

Flagging unavailable
 
A. Macarthur
link 02/16/16 08:15:34PM @a-macarthur:

The new expense reports, heavily-redacted allegedly for security reasons, push the total known costs for vacations during Obama’s reign to nearly $71 million — with another full year to go. That’s about $10.1 million per year in known expenses.

The totals come from Judicial Watch, the dogged watchdog group that pursues such information through repeated Freedom of Information Act requests.

I'm a cynic … I'd like to see the "heavily-redacted" expense reports.

It's not that I don't take their word for it … if the obtained it "through repeated Freedom of Information Act requests," then as a show of good faith, roll 'em on out and we'll add it all up.

Flagging unavailable
 
1stwarrior
link 02/16/16 07:36:00PM @1stwarrior:

The courts, including SCOTUS, has ruled in 22 cases that Obama has violated the Constitution with his "end-runs" - think that kinda "makes the case", doncha think?

Flagging unavailable
 
A. Macarthur
link 02/16/16 07:45:07PM @a-macarthur:

The courts, including SCOTUS, has ruled in 22 cases that Obama has violated the Constitution with his "end-runs" - think that kinda "makes the case", doncha think?

The lower court rulings are not necessarily the final word … they can be appealed …

The only decision among the 13 in which the High Court clearly found Obama “had exceeded his constitutional authority” was the case Goodlatte said occurred “last week.” The late June decision in NLRB v. Noel Canning found that Obama had overstepped his authority in making three appointments to the National Labor Relations Board without Senate approval.

http://www.factcheck.org/2014/07/obama-and-executive-overreach/

But I am searching to find the 22.

If/when I do, I'll post them.

Flagging unavailable
 
A. Macarthur
link 02/16/16 08:27:03PM @a-macarthur:

Presidential Authority Rebuked?

Goodlatte made the claim that the Supreme Court’s “9-0 decision last week was the 13th time the Supreme Court has voted 9-0 that the president has exceeded his constitutional authority.” That’s a stretch, at best.

The only decision among the 13 in which the High Court clearly found Obama “had exceeded his constitutional authority” was the case Goodlatte said occurred “last week.” The late June decision in NLRB v. Noel Canning found that Obama had overstepped his authority in making three appointments to the National Labor Relations Board without Senate approval.

Richard Lempert, a nonresident senior fellow with the Brookings Institution and an emeritus law professor at the University of Michigan, reviewed Goodlatte’s list of cases for us and said that “only Noel Canning can be fairly cited to support this position.”

When we contacted Goodlatte’s office, spokeswoman Jessica Collins told us the lawmaker’s figure referred to the court’s rejections of the “times the administration actually ACTED to exceed [executive] authority and times the administration’s stated position was that they COULD exceed their constitutional authority.” That’s different from what Goodlatte said. But many of the cases don’t actually involve executive authority. As Lempert told us in an email, many “do reflect an effort to broadly define powers of the federal government (which encompasses both Congress and the Executive.)”

Adam Winkler, a professor of law at UCLA, told us that Goodlatte “overreaches a bit.” However, he says, “it’s clear the Obama administration, like the Bush administration before it, has been aggressively expanding presidential authority. This a worrisome trend — sufficiently so that exaggeration and misrepresentation aren’t necessary.”

Winkler mentions two cases among the list of 13 that are misrepresentations: McCullen v. Coakley, which “had nothing to do with presidential power” and instead was a challenge to a Massachusetts law requiring no-protest buffer zones around abortion clinics. The Obama administration wrote a brief supporting the law. Another, Arizona v. United States, “was widely viewed as a major victory for the administration in limiting Arizona’s anti-immigration law,” Winkler said in an email.

In that ruling, the Supreme Court sided with the Obama administration in three of four issues, finding that federal immigration law preempted the state law. Says Lempert: “On the fourth and probably the least consequential section, the Court sided with Arizona. This case hardly represents a rebuke to the Obama administration, and Obama’s power as President was never in issue.”

Our fact-checking colleagues at PolitiFact.com also consulted legal experts on Goodlatte’s claim and found it to be false. Tom Goldstein, publisher of SCOTUSblog.com, called Goodlatte’s figure “a concocted statistic.”

According to the spokeswoman, Goodlatte is pointing to nine Supreme Court decisions described in a report by Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, and another four unanimous decisions that have occurred since. Lempert told us Cruz’s characterization of the cases in his report “is for the most part dishonest.”

Several of the cases began during the George W. Bush administration, and the Obama administration continued advocating the same position. Also, Lempert says, these cases weren’t about the extent of presidential power, but “rather they concerned technical and jurisdictional issues or the meaning of statutory language.”

In one of the Bush-era cases, Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School v. EEOC, the administration contested a Lutheran church’s claim of a ministerial exemption to an employment-related suit involving a teacher of secular subjects. Religious organizations do have such an exemption from most suits involving employees in religious positions. “It was left to the courts to determine if this claim should be upheld,” Lempert says. “What we have here is a normal contest over how the meaning of a statute with substantial First Amendment implications should be defined.” Cruz, however, describes the case as an attempt by the Obama administration to give the federal government the power to “interfere with a church’s selection of its own ministers.”

In PPL Corp. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, the Obama administration defended a decision by a Bush IRS Commissioner to disallow certain tax credits related to income earned abroad. Two more cases that began under Bush:  Gabelli v. SEC, which concerned whether the statute of limitations on SEC fraud cases began when the fraud occurred or when it could have been discovered; and Arkansas Game & Fish Commission v. United States, in which the state sued the Army Corps of Engineers for harm caused to state property by the Corps imposing a temporary flood regime. (Cruz described the Obama administration’s defense as an effort to have power to “destroy private property without paying just compensation.”)Horne v. USDA involved raisin farmers fighting production quotas (since the early 2000s) and a question of court jurisdiction.

Two of the cases were Fourth Amendment law enforcement cases, not presidential authority questions. United States v. Jones, a case that began under Bush, concerned whether the FBI could use GPS tracking devices without a warrant, and United States v. Wurie concerned whether police could search cell phones without a warrant, a case that began with a 2007 Boston police case.

Finally, the three other cases in Goodlatte’s list were: Sackett v. EPA, a case that originated under Bush and concerned whether landowners could challenge in court a Clean Water Act compliance order from the Environmental Protection AgencySekhar v. United States, a case over whether the advice of a New York state attorney fit the meaning of extortion under the Hobbs Act; and Bond v. United States, which questioned whether a Pennsylvania woman who repeatedly tried to poison her husband’s mistress could be charged with violating a congressional chemical weapons treaty (a charge to which she pleaded guilty in 2007).

To be sure, there is some interpretation involved in Supreme Court cases, and rulings. Winkler says the Obama administration hasn’t fared well with the High Court in general. “This administration has lost an unusually large number of cases over the years. The Solicitor General usually wins about 70% of cases in which he’s a party at the Supreme Court. Over the past three terms, Obama’s Solicitor General has won less than half his cases.” But that depends on how you categorize wins and losses. In an article on SCOTUSblog.com, lawyerAndrew Pincus found a 71 percent win rate, noting that the multiple issues in some cases makes determining such a record difficult.

So, some may see the cases cited by Goodlatte as more demonstrative of a federal power issue than others. But Goodlatte claimed the Supreme Court has voted unanimously 13 times that “the president has exceeded his constitutional authority.” That’s not true.

http://www.factcheck.org/2014/07/obama-and-executive-overreach/

Flagging unavailable
 
1stwarrior
link 02/17/16 10:58:18PM @1stwarrior:

Why don't you summarize what you want to say??

47% loss is not a fairly decent loss rate for a "Constitutional Lawyer" - ya think?

Flagging unavailable
 
Petey Coober
link 02/18/16 01:47:32AM @petey-coober:

Why don't you summarize what you want to say??

He's starved for attention ... my guess .

Flagging unavailable
 
A. Macarthur
link 02/18/16 12:21:46PM @a-macarthur:

Read the information I posted … then read through the thread as to why I don't summarize.

Flagging unavailable
 
A. Macarthur
link 02/16/16 07:32:52PM @community:

Price tag of Obamacare repeal: $353 billion


The CBO report

06/19/15 01:54 PM EDT

Updated 06/19/15 07:15 PM EDT


 http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/obamacare-repeal-congressional-budget-office-deficit-119228#ixzz40NfmvLzE

Anyone wanna' do the cost of the Government Shutdown?

Flagging unavailable
 
1stwarrior
link 02/16/16 07:37:00PM @1stwarrior:

Repealing Obamacare will NOT shut the government down.

Quit with the "Sky is falling, the sky is falling" routine.

Flagging unavailable
 
A. Macarthur
link 02/16/16 07:52:37PM @a-macarthur:

 


Repealing Obamacare will NOT shut the government down.

Quit with the "Sky is falling, the sky is falling" routine.

I didn't state nor imply it did …

Two separate issues and two separate expenditures.

Here’s How Much The Government Shutdown Cost The Economy (2013)


$24 Billion

http://swampland.time.com/2013/10/17/heres-what-the-government-shutdown-cost-the-economy/

Flagging unavailable
 
1stwarrior
link 02/18/16 08:27:20PM @1stwarrior:

"When I attack a source" and "Your argument is dismissive not definitive."

How shall I count the ways those two clauses/phrases are SLAMS on someone else's intelligence?????  You have set yourself up as the barrister, jury and judge on what is acceptable in a discussion.

Sorry - don't work that way.

Flagging unavailable
 
A. Macarthur
link 02/18/16 09:04:53PM @a-macarthur:

"When I attack a source" and "Your argument is dismissive not definitive."

How shall I count the ways those two clauses/phrases are SLAMS on someone else's intelligence?????  You have set yourself up as the barrister, jury and judge on what is acceptable in a discussion.

Sorry - don't work that way.

What's the specific objection to attacking a source by stating its history, its conflicts-of-interests, and, those at the source who benefit from those conflicts-of-interests. When a source has a history of being sued for libel/slander … and has been found guilty, there's a "witness credibility" issue.

Check the "slam" allegation and see who accused who of badgering, etc. for doing nothing more than posting information.

I've tried to be your friend, 1st, but you frequently turn these disagreements personal.

That saddens me.

Flagging unavailable
 
1stwarrior
link 02/18/16 10:37:58PM @1stwarrior:

Nope - don't turn them into personal comments.  Based on your "history" and experience, I would have/am expecting a different sort of discussion from you.  What I see, too frequently, is your Labor/Union Stewart/Negotiator coat being worn through criticizing other's comments.  You turn it into a battle of who can spout/cut'n'paste the most instead of getting to the kernel of the comment made.  To you, IMHO, any comment made is a target for bombasting, off topic of course, from you, on the use of their source, the author of the article used, the slant of the letters, highlighting, bolding, etc..

I would like to see responses from you that specifically address the comment made WITHOUT WEBSTER'S DICTIONARY/ROGET'S THESAURUS having to be used to justify/explain why a person said what they said.  They don't need lectures - they need discussion on the comment made.

I had had hopes of getting into the Indian Law arena but, 5 weeks from graduation from law school, I had a massive cardiac arrest and was forced to retire by three doctors who said, in essence, the stress of the job was going to kill me (and I had just had my first warning).  So, I retired 2 months ago (yes, I still have my overly-priced law degree) and am throwing all stressful things out the door and have picked up trying to get back into playing golf.  Nope - golf isn't stressful.  Placing a face on each ball hit will do wonders for your stress level winking.  My wife, on occasion, has kicked my azz out of the house and told me to go play golf until I get in a better mood.  Well, you know what they say - the wife is happy, the house is happy.

JMHO

Flagging unavailable
 

Share This

Who is online








Visitors: 36