Join Early Retirement Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 05-29-2009, 01:15 PM   #41
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,820
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisC View Post
Retired Federal Judges don't get a Federal Civil Service pension; they get lifetime pay at the salary they were receiving before retirement and keep their Federal health benefits; and they can enter "active retirement status," in which they can still occasionally sit as Judges on Federal cases and retain their own office. One former US Supreme Court Justice, Tom C. Clark, used to ride the Circuits as a retired Justice of the Court, and hear lots of cases. Retired Justice Byron Whizzer White likewise maintained an office and heard cases at the lower court level. Not sure whether Retired Sandra Day O'Connor has heard any cases yet, but it would be a real privilege for any trial lawyer to try a case before a retired Justice. She had been a trial judge before she went to the Supremes.

If you were to look at the investments of other Justices who primarily had careers of Federal service like Justices Alito or Thomas before they got appointed to the Supreme Court, I'm sure they would have similar investment profiles to Judge Sotomayor. Thomas, in particular, because for most of his career he was unmarried like Judge Sotomayor and had little income from a spouse.
Thanks for clarifying. Sounds like a deal I'd like.
__________________

__________________
Independent is offline  
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 05-29-2009, 01:18 PM   #42
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
REWahoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Texas Hill Country
Posts: 42,117
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisC View Post
I think this is demonstrated by the strip-search case before the Court involving the 13 year old girl, where I heard that Justice Ginsburg remark after the case was argued and given the temperment of her colleagues that "they've never been a 13 year old teenage girl." .
Perhaps we should lobby the Obama administration to appoint unclemick to the bench.
__________________

__________________
Numbers is hard

When I hit 70, it hit back

Retired in 2005 at age 58, no pension
REWahoo is offline  
Old 05-29-2009, 01:19 PM   #43
Moderator
ziggy29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 15,612
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisC View Post
I think that once you've gone through confirmation, at least once, it necessarily means you have the "goods." It doesn't mean you're politically safe for a step up, but it does mean that your legal experience has proven good enough for a seat on the Federal Bench.
In other words, it guarantees one is worthy of consideration, but it's no guarantee that they won't demonstrate the Peter Principle at the next level.
__________________
"Hey, for every ten dollars, that's another hour that I have to be in the work place. That's an hour of my life. And my life is a very finite thing. I have only 'x' number of hours left before I'm dead. So how do I want to use these hours of my life? Do I want to use them just spending it on more crap and more stuff, or do I want to start getting a handle on it and using my life more intelligently?" -- Joe Dominguez (1938 - 1997)

RIP to Reemy, my avatar dog (2003 - 9/16/2017)
ziggy29 is offline  
Old 05-29-2009, 01:58 PM   #44
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 331
Ah, the Supremes are a lost cause, locked away in their room and robes, scribing boring decisions that make most of us yawn.

In any case, looks like Ruth Bader Ginsbug won't be the hot babe in the band anymore.

jug
__________________
jug is offline  
Old 05-29-2009, 03:18 PM   #45
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 898
Quote:
Originally Posted by ziggy29 View Post
In other words, it guarantees one is worthy of consideration, but it's no guarantee that they won't demonstrate the Peter Principle at the next level.
Like this guy: Charles Evans Whittaker - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
__________________
Someday this war's gonna end . . .
ChrisC is offline  
Old 05-29-2009, 03:27 PM   #46
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 11,615
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisC View Post
Some would say the current gang is hardly diverse at all: most are from Yale and Harvard law schools, a majority are from the same religious order, none attended public colleges as undergraduates or law students, most are from the Northeast. Have they had "diverse personal experiences" . . .
There are only nine justices. We'd have to specifically engineer people to fit each seat if we wanted to somehow have an accurate demographic representation of gender, religion, economic circumstances at birth, public school vs private school attendance, astrological sign, etc. And, I'm happy and not surprised that most of the Supreme Court justices hail from the nation's finest law schools.

I guess the whole idea is that some people want a Supreme Court that "looks like America." I've been to Walmart, I've seen "America." Instead of "America" I'll settle for a Supreme Court that "looks like" the best justices we can find, with "best" being determined by the political process and based on the evidence of the nominee's legal and academic work. Period.

I assume that all those arguing for the nominee's social background and ethnicity to have a weight similar to his/her judicial "chops" will cite Clarence Thomas as a candidate who demonstrates the validity of this approach.
__________________
"Freedom begins when you tell Mrs. Grundy to go fly a kite." - R. Heinlein
samclem is online now  
Old 05-29-2009, 03:30 PM   #47
Moderator
ziggy29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 15,612
Quote:
Originally Posted by samclem View Post
I guess the whole idea is that some people want a Supreme Court that "looks like America."
I didn't know America was comprised of 100% lawyers.
__________________
"Hey, for every ten dollars, that's another hour that I have to be in the work place. That's an hour of my life. And my life is a very finite thing. I have only 'x' number of hours left before I'm dead. So how do I want to use these hours of my life? Do I want to use them just spending it on more crap and more stuff, or do I want to start getting a handle on it and using my life more intelligently?" -- Joe Dominguez (1938 - 1997)

RIP to Reemy, my avatar dog (2003 - 9/16/2017)
ziggy29 is offline  
Sotomayer post
Old 05-29-2009, 03:46 PM   #48
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 398
Sotomayer post

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,” said Judge Sotomayor.

I grew up below the poverty level. In 6th grade I broke my ankle but no one would take me to the hospital. In 9th grade I had one pair of pants and one shirt to my name. Many of my fellow students would make fun of me for always wearing the same tattered clothes to school. It was girls, more often than boys. I don't remember how many were Hispanic, but a fair percentage were black. I won't mention what happened in the 10th grade, but it wasn't good. In 11th grade, I tried to pull out an abscessed tooth with a pair of pliers because no one would take me to the dentist (up until then, the last time I had been to the dentist was in 5th grade). Many people joke about dumpster diving, but for me, it was an applicable skill. That's what you do when you're hungry and want food. I would sometimes do homework in a storm drain near my house. It was warm, and I could see from a nearby streetlight shining through the grate. Sometimes I would sleep there. I didn't want to go home. And I'm not even scratching the surface. My childhood years were filled with household violence, alcoholism, and drugs. And plenty more. The police would often stop me on my way home from school to ask me how I was doing and how things were going at home. But no complaints. My experience is likely the driving force behind my frugality, and hence my ability to retire early.

A girl at school had a mother who was a state supreme court judge. We even got to meet her once when we went on a field trip to the courthouse. However, Sotomayor believes that this girl, whose life was filled with relative luxury and opportunity, was somehow better than me due to the "richness of her experiences." This isn't a knock on my female classmate. She was a nice person. She even asked if I would go to the senior prom with her. Couldn't go, though. It cost money. Didn't have anything to wear. But it is a knock on Sotomayor.

Sorry Sonia. Don't lecture me about richness of experience. I've had plenty. And there are many in worse situations. And most of them are white (half being boys/male). Whites make up about 2/3 of those below the poverty level. But they don't count. They don't have the necessary "richness of experience."

[moderator edit]
__________________
Shawn is offline  
Old 05-29-2009, 04:17 PM   #49
Confused about dryer sheets
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2
Berkeley Law - News Archive

Full text of 2001 Sotomayer speech
__________________
EDDY AMPS is offline  
Old 05-29-2009, 04:31 PM   #50
Moderator Emeritus
Bestwifeever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 16,375
It's probably not affecting her financial decision-making re ER, but she acknowledges your concern:

White House: Sotomayor says she chose word poorly - Yahoo! News
__________________
“Would you like an adventure now, or would you like to have your tea first?” J.M. Barrie, Peter Pan
Bestwifeever is offline  
Old 05-29-2009, 04:47 PM   #51
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 7,530
Hmmm... this thread is giving me some ideas about future jobs my wife would be highly qualified for (right skin color, gender, educational background, diverse "life experience" that makes Shawn's anecdote above look like living da high life).

And for that rate of pay and level of benefits, she could make some thinly veiled quasi-racist comments, too!
__________________
FUEGO is offline  
Old 05-29-2009, 05:17 PM   #52
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 11,615
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisC View Post
My point to Mr. Armor, however, was why does he persist in thinking that people view their ethnicity as the single most important charactistic that defines who they are?
And, here we have Judge Sotomayor, in her own words (Thanks, Eddy Amps):

Quote:
Who am I? I am a "Newyorkrican." For those of you on the West Coast who do not know what that term means: I am a born and bred New Yorker of Puerto Rican-born parents who came to the states during World War II.
Given a chance to tell an audience "who she is" -- she chose to highlight not her accomplishments but her ethnicity.

So, to answer your question: Mr Armor probably "persists in thinking that people view their ethnicity as the single most important characteristic that defines who they are" because these very people keep saying it is.
__________________
"Freedom begins when you tell Mrs. Grundy to go fly a kite." - R. Heinlein
samclem is online now  
Old 05-29-2009, 05:21 PM   #53
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 898
Quote:
Originally Posted by samclem View Post
There are only nine justices. We'd have to specifically engineer people to fit each seat if we wanted to somehow have an accurate demographic representation of gender, religion, economic circumstances at birth, public school vs private school attendance, astrological sign, etc. And, I'm happy and not surprised that most of the supreme court justices hail from the nation's finest law schools.

I guess the whole idea is that some people want a Supreme Court that "looks like America." I've been to Walmart, I've seen "America." Instead of "America" I'll settle for a Supreme Court that "looks" like the best justices we can find, with "best" being determined by the political process and based on the evidence of the nominee's legal and academic work. Period.

I assume that all those arguing for the nominee's social background and ethnicity to have a weight similar to over his/her judicial "chops" will cite Clarence Thomas as evidence of the validity of this approach.
You know since we first started selecting Supreme Court Justices, the preference was always to have a Supreme Court that in fact looked like America, which then meant a geographically diverse body of Justices (save for the exclusion of certain religions, races, ethnic groups and gender). One hundred and thirty years later, Presidents decided to negate the prior exclusion by affirmatively taking religion into account, then a half century later race was taken into account, and then afterwards gender, and now ethnicity again in light of a growing underrepresented ethnic population. So, this really isn't anything new. I understand your view that you think that we're beyond viewing this as progress. I think it is and we have a divide that will never be closed, as we have fundamental differences about concepts of meritocracy and the significance of other factors that should or should not be taken in account. Not gonna debate you about that.

However, your laudatory goal of selection of the "best Justices" ignores the fact that the "political" nature of the appointment process itself makes that goal unattainable in virtually all cases. For every Justice appointed, one can probably drum up a Judge Learned Hand or Judge David Bazelon who didn't get appointed and who could lay claim to being "better" than the Justice appointed. Presidents select the best Justice for them, period! And in selecting Clarence Thomas, George H. Bush did select the best Justice for his presidency, at that time.
__________________
Someday this war's gonna end . . .
ChrisC is offline  
Old 05-29-2009, 05:25 PM   #54
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 7,530
Ole Judge Learned Hand. Best judge name EVAR! And a good jurist to boot.
__________________
FUEGO is offline  
Old 05-29-2009, 05:32 PM   #55
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 898
Quote:
Originally Posted by samclem View Post
Given a chance to tell an audience "who she is" -- she chose to highlight not her accomplishments but her ethnicity.

So, to answer your question: Mr Armor probably "persists in thinking that people view their ethnicity as the single most important characteristic that defines who they are" because these very people keep saying it is.
Hmmm, an audience of people on the West Coast attending a Berkeley La Raza Law Journal 12 Annual Symposium. Context is everything, especially when someone is trying to inspire others to succeed.
__________________
Someday this war's gonna end . . .
ChrisC is offline  
Old 05-29-2009, 06:51 PM   #56
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
bright eyed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,891
The attempt to make the racial equivalent arguments - of flipping whatever she said and replacing it w/ white is simply ridiculous.

We don't live in that equivalent world.

I've been the "first" to do a lot in my family and community and I have to tell you, if anything it sucks. You can feel isolated, you may not have people you can relate to or the networks to support you in your efforts. It's always heralded as a great thing, having been there, i can tell you it doesn't feel so great. And yes, you do have to wonder sometimes whether people are treating you one way or another because of their personality, or maybe because you're different - is that self imposed? perhaps, but based on experience. and having to go through that mental game is stressful.

Any assumption that the other justices have been making decisions not based on their backgrounds is also rather silly.

She's being asked the questions about what role her race/background plays...does that happen to all the white nominees?

Just listen to some of the hearings and questions that have been asked in the Supreme Court and you will know some of these people are not careful, considerate people with lots of background in the law and how it should be interpreted. They're idealogues who ask people questions or make presumptions based on their ideology...that's why we all KNOW you can predict the vote one way or the other nearly w/out fail w/ the exception of one or two swing votes...
__________________
If i think of something clever to say, i'll put it here...
bright eyed is offline  
Old 05-29-2009, 08:40 PM   #57
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 11,615
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisC View Post
Hmmm, an audience of people on the West Coast attending a Berkeley La Raza Law Journal 12 Annual Symposium. Context is everything, especially when someone is trying to inspire others to succeed.
The truth doesn't change based on the audience. A "wise" person wouldn't have made these remarks in front of any audience. I think, in retrospect and based on the attention her remarks have generated, she would agree at this point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisC View Post
I understand your view that you think that we're beyond viewing this as progress. I think it is and we have a divide that will never be closed, as we have fundamental differences about concepts of meritocracy and the significance of other factors that should or should not be taken in account. Not gonna debate you about that.
I understand why you don't want to defend this position. After all, what I want is what Martin Luther King wanted:

Quote:
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Aug 28, 1963
Somehow the left and the right have transmogrified over the last 40 years, and now we have this bizarre situation where a few folks (mostly in the preferences racket) are doing everything possible to keep racial identity politics alive. James Taranto had a great article covering this today. In part:
Quote:
Sotomayor's statement ["I would hope that a wise Latina woman, with the richness of her experiences, would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."] is, however, an expression of prejudice, an exercise in stereotyping. It reminds us of an exchange on an early episode of "All in the Family," which we caught as part of a retrospective aired earlier this week on the TV Land cable network. Archie Bunker and the Meathead are arguing over a brochure advertising a slate of candidates for local office:
Archie: What's the matter with this? I call this representative government. You've got Salvatori, Feldman, O'Reilly, Nelson--that's an Italian, a Jew, an Irishman and a regular American there. That's what I call a balanced ticket.
Meathead: Why do you always have to label people by nationality?
Archie: 'Cause, how else are you going to get the right man for the right job? For instance, take Feldman there. He's up for treasurer. Well, that's perfect. All them people know how to handle money. Know what I mean?
Meathead: No, I don't.
Archie: Well, then you got Salvatori running for D.A. He can keep an eye on Feldman. You know, I want to tell you something about the Italians. When you do get an honest one, you really got something there.
Meathead: Aw, c'mon, Arch.
Archie: Well, then here you got O'Reilly, the mick. He can see that the graft is equally spread around, you know. You got Nelson, the American guy. He's good for TV appearances, to make the rest of them look respectable.
Like Sotomayor, Archie is not propounding a theory of racial or ethnic supremacy but describing the world in terms of culturally contingent stereotypes. He is engaging in identity politics.



What's fascinating about this is that the Meathead (played by Rob Reiner) is a peer of La Jueza Empática: She was born in 1954; Reiner, in 1947. But the liberalism of "All in the Family" is not the liberalism of the baby boomers. It is that of an earlier generation--Archie Bunker's generation. Series creator Norman Lear and Carroll O'Connor, who played Archie, were born in 1922 and 1924, respectively.
Today, you can easily imagine a conservative uttering the Meathead's earnest query: "Why do you always have to label people by nationality?" But somewhere along the line, liberalism lost its ideals and adopted Archie Bunker's theory of representative government.
The children of black neurosurgeons and black lawyers face no significant special obstacles in today's America. The children of the inner city welfare moms, both black and white, face severe obstacles. The racial barriers are, in every practical sense, gone. The barriers caused by economic circumstance are real. The sooner we concentrate on the real problems, the sooner we'll move ahead together as Americans (without hyphens).
__________________
"Freedom begins when you tell Mrs. Grundy to go fly a kite." - R. Heinlein
samclem is online now  
Old 05-29-2009, 09:38 PM   #58
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 898
Quote:
Originally Posted by samclem View Post
The truth doesn't change based on the audience. A "wise" person wouldn't have made these remarks in front of any audience. I think, in retrospect and based on the attention her remarks have generated, she would agree at this point.
You might be right that one sentence in her speech shows she used poor language if parsed in isolation from her entire remarks. I read the whole speech and it didn't appear offensive to me, but then again I'm not colorblind like you and not willing to seize every isolated statement to demonstrate my point.


Quote:
Originally Posted by samclem View Post
I understand why you don't want to defend this position. After all, what I want is what Martin Luther King wanted:
Ah, the obligatory reference to MLK -- I knew it would appear soon, but do you really believe MLK would be as colorblind as you appear to be? MLK also noted that the "arc of a moral universe is long but it bends towards justice" so sometimes we do have take imponderables like race, ethnicity or other factors into account to arrive at justice.

I've grown weary of trying to convince you and others that positions of absolute colorblindness are not categorical imperatives of morality under an ethical system of fairness.

Quote:
Originally Posted by samclem View Post
Somehow the left and the right have transmogrified over the last 40 years, and now we have this bizarre situation where a few folks (mostly in the preferences racket) are doing everything possible to keep racial identity politics alive. James Taranto had a great article covering this today. In part:
The children of black neurosurgeons and black lawyers face no significant special obstacles in today's America. The children of the inner city welfare moms, both black and white, faces severe obstacles. The racial barriers are, in every practical sense, gone. The barriers caused by economic circumstance are real. The sooner we concentrate on the real problems, the sooner we'll move ahead together as Americans (without hyphens).
Undoubtedly there is a declining significance of race in our society; you suggest it has no special significance; I disagree; in my opinion, the gap between the ideal and reality is still there; you wish to minimize or ignore it; and you act as if my view inhibits me or others from "concentrating" on the "real problems" -- it doesn't -- it's just a factor to be taken into account, which you wish to ignore.
__________________
Someday this war's gonna end . . .
ChrisC is offline  
Old 05-29-2009, 10:19 PM   #59
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
bright eyed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,891
I would hope the folks who support the ideas of fairness and a society that does not judge people based on their ethnicity/race/gender etc can cultivate an open mind and heart to listen to those who have experienced these identities from a different point of view. There is no consensus amongst people of any race/gender/ethnicity on what these experiences might be, but it seems to be a general theme that there is either denial or resistance to seeing things from a point of view different from one's on and that causes us to hit a wall when these discussions come around.

As a country we have made wonderful leaps and bounds in moving this forward, but to rush it and push for closure without a fair airing out of some dirty laundry may result in a less satisfactory outcome, particularly for those who have experienced the worst forms and downfalls of discrimination.

While Sotomayor may have said things that cause some to question her point of view - could it also be that we have not heard much from people who share her point of view in the mainstream institutions of power? Could it be that some who wish her to fail regardless of her merits will push and inflate these issues beyond their relative importance? Could it be there is some element of racial/gender discrimination to these attacks?

While I don't hold race/ethnicity as the primary concern for anything, I do understand it's significance and role in shaping where we have all come from. And it IS significant that she is the first, because, frankly she's the first. So it is coming up all the time.
The fact that she has accomplished what she has given her background and resources, IS significant and a wonderful accomplishment. Does that diminish the accomplishment of others who have also struggled and sacrificed? no, it's just significant, and statistically very significant!

I teared up when I saw that she was nominated. It was an emotional response. She looks like my mother in law and that is incredibly moving to me that this is happening in my lifetime and more importantly in the life of my daughters.
__________________
If i think of something clever to say, i'll put it here...
bright eyed is offline  
Old 05-29-2009, 10:45 PM   #60
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 11,615
Quote:
Originally Posted by bright eyed View Post
As a country we have made wonderful leaps and bounds in moving this forward, but to rush it and push for closure without a fair airing out of some dirty laundry may result in a less satisfactory outcome, particularly for those who have experienced the worst forms and downfalls of discrimination.
We should ALL want to "rush it"--to hasten the day that racial discrimination ends. And by "discrimination" I mean it in the original sense--to "discriminate" (which means "to choose or decide") based on race. If race plays a "plus" factor ("we would prefer to fill this job/student slot/judgeship with a black candidate") or a "minus" factor ('we would prefer not to have a black candidate fill this position") it is still choosing (discriminating) by race. It is time that we stop discriminating (in the broadest sense) by race.

What kind of "fair airing of dirty laundry" do you have in mind? Is there anything more to be said? Does anyone not know of the past? How long will we languish in this? How long must we replay the role of "victim" and "victimizer" despite the evidence before our eyes? Who is really helped by this? Do our kids get to learn to be victims, too?

Most people in America recently chose a black man to lead them. There are very few countries in the world that have achieved the degree of racial equality we enjoy in America. Despite an undeniable history of slavery and racism, we are not that country anymore. It is a good sign that Americans can look beyond racial identities in choosing their leaders. An even more positive sign is that race played a relatively minor role in the election (except among African American voters--which is understandable, but regrettable).

In the ghetto, in the barrio, in the slums, there are poor people that need assistance. It's not because they are black, or latino, or white. It is because they are poor, or because they have rotten homes, or other causes. But, race, thankfully, is no longer an issue in America unless we choose to make it one.
__________________

__________________
"Freedom begins when you tell Mrs. Grundy to go fly a kite." - R. Heinlein
samclem is online now  
Closed Thread


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Obama Chooses Sonia Sotomayor for Supreme Court haha Other topics 1 05-26-2009 04:42 PM
The Supremes Martha Other topics 10 10-03-2005 07:47 PM
Marijuana and the Supremes Martha Other topics 16 06-09-2005 11:01 AM
Look out, the Supremes are out to get ya!!!! mickeyd FIRE and Money 30 12-09-2004 09:35 AM

 

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:24 PM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.