Tag Archives: United States Supreme Court

May 19, 2013 · 6:22 PM

The Week in Wingnuts

Wingnuts

The Daily Beast

Legalized abortion causes school shootings, Obamacare will lead to conservatives being denied health services, and other wacky assertions from our political leaders.

North Dakota: Legalized Abortions Cause School Shootings

U.S. Representative Kevin Cramer knows the answer to why there have been so many school shootings in the U.S. over the past few years, and it’s not easy access to guns or inadequate treatment of the mentally ill. No, the Republican from North Dakota insists, the rise in school shootings is directly connected to the legalization of abortion and a supposed decline in Christian values. “We learned this week that the Pentagon is vetting its guide on religious tolerance with a group that compared Christian evangelism to rape, and advocated that military personnel and colluding chaplains who proselytize should be court martialed,” Cramer said during a commencement speech at the Catholic University of Mary that, miraculously, went unnoticed by the national media until this week. “Forty years ago, the United States Supreme Court sanctioned abortion on demand. And we wonder why our culture sees school shootings so often.” Cramer’s link between “normalized perversion” and mass murders rings eerily similar to Michele Bachmann’s argument that the September 11 terror attacks in 2001 and 2012 were God’s way of passing judgement (sic) on our country’s moral demise.

Missouri: The Gays Killed the Bullying Bill

Missouri’s Republican Representative Sue Allen has called on her constituents to contact openly gay lawmakers Jolie Justice and Mike Colona and blame them for the death of her anti-bullying bill. The key difference between Allen’s bill and other, more successful anti-bullying legislation is that it bans enumerated lists of specific groups of people that need protection–such as gay and transgender students–because she believes they are too partisan. “I typically try to keep partisanship out of my message, but this is an issue for the Democrats who wish for certain students (LGBT-gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender) to be ‘enumerated’ within school policies…What they [Justus and Colona] don’t seem to understand is that stronger policies help ALL students, even those they would have characterized.” The problem with Allen’s argument is that enumerating specific groups does not, as she suggests, negate protection for anyone else, it simply ensures that any bullying of people who identify with these particularly at-risk groups is reported.

Kansas: Let’s Rise Above the N-Word

Kansas State Board of Education member Steve Roberts stood his ground Tuesdayin the face of offended fellow board members, defending his use of the N-word during last month’s meeting “100 percent.” In response to a comment from Topeka’s former NAACP president about the need for more African-American history in schools, Roberts launched into his own monologue about pushing “the frontiers of political correctness” with regards to the N-word–using it in full. When the board reconvened this week, Roberts was confronted about his use of the word, and how it offended people in the room, but he was remorseless. “I did my best to say the ‘N-word’ clinically. I’m willing to be considered politically incorrect, I don’t think that’s a bad thing,” Roberts said, suggesting that his critics were simply seeking media attention.

MInnesota: What’s Next, Political Bias for Health Care?

Michele Bachmann wouldn’t say she was happy to find out that the IRS had, in fact, been targeting conservative groups seeking nonprofit status, but the revelation did bring her some satisfaction. The Representative from Minnesota jumped at the chance to use the IRS scandal as evidence that the overreaching of big government has gotten out of control, suggesting that if non-profit organizations were targeted for their political beliefs, who’s to say they same system of discrimination won’t be used for other programs, such as health care. “Knowing it’s the IRS who will be the enforcing mechanism for this new entitlement program of Obamacare, it is very important to ask–and now it is reasonable to ask–could there be potential political implications of access to health care, denial of health care? Will that happen based on a person’s political beliefs or their religiously held beliefs?” Bachmann asked at a Capitol Hill rally on Thursday. “Those questions would have been considered out of bounds a week ago. Today those questions are considered more than reasonable, and more than fair for the American people.”

Related articles

Leave a Comment

Filed under The Week In Wingnuttery

Tagged as , , , , , , ,

April 1, 2013 · 11:07 AM

Cardinal Dolan To Gay Couples: You’re Only ‘Entitled To Friendship’

Too bad some religious organizations are myopic to the cultural and political sea change occurring in modern society…

Think Progress

Cardinal Timothy Dolan told ABC’s This Week on Sunday that gay people are entitled to “friendship” but not a long-last romantic relationship in the eyes of the Catholic Church.

Appearing on the program following oral arguments at the Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of two laws targeting gay and lesbian couples, Dolan said that the Church should treat same-sex couples with love, while reminding them that “sexual love…is intended only for a man and a woman”:

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS (HOST): And you know, especially this week – because it’s been at the top of the news – for many gay and lesbian Americans –– gay and lesbian Catholics, they feel unwelcome –– in the Church. And what do you say as a minister, as a pastor – to a gay couple that comes to you and say, “We love God. We love the Church. But we also love each other, and we –– want to raise a family in faith. What do you say to them?

DOLAN: Well, the first thing I’d say to them is, “I love you, too. And God loves you. And you are made in God’s image and likeness. And – and we – we want your happiness. But – and you’re entitled to friendship.” But we also know that God has told us that the way to happiness, that – especially when it comes to sexual love – that is intended only for a man and woman in marriage, where children can come about naturally. We gotta be – we gotta do better to see that our defense of marriage is not reduced to an attack on gay people. And I admit, we haven’t been too good at that.

Dolan has been vocal in his opposition to marriage equality, repeatedly condemning the rights of same-sex couples under the guise of love and support for the gay community.

After lobbying against New York’s marriage equality law, Dolan prohibited by decree any Church personnel or property from being utilized for same-sex marriage ceremonies under penalty of “canonical sanctions,” calling the state’s law “irreconcilable with the nature and the definition of marriage as established by Divine law.” He has also compared the “threat” posed to marriage by gays and lesbians to that of polygamy, adultery, forced marriage, communist dictatorships, and incest.

Despite his rhetoric, a majority of New York Catholics supported the marriage equality bill months before it came to a vote and still do.

Related articles

Comments Off

Filed under U.S. Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , ,

March 27, 2013 · 8:24 AM

Bill O’Reilly: Gay Rights Advocates Have ‘Compelling Argument’

TPM LiveWire

As two landmark gay rights cases appear before the Supreme Court this week, Fox News host Bill O’Reilly on Tuesday said those in favor of equal rights on the issue have a “compelling argument” against religious conservatives.

“The compelling argument is on the side of homosexuals,” O’Reilly said. “That’s where the compelling argument is. We’re Americans, we just want to be treated like everyone else. That’s a compelling argument. And to deny that, you’ve got to have a compelling argument on the other side. And the other side hasn’t been able to do anything but thump the bible.”

O’Reilly added that he has long supported civil unions for same-sex couples. “The gay marriage thing, I don’t feel that strongly about it one way or the other,” he said, adding that the issue should be left up to the states.

O’Reilly has previously suggested that accepting same-sex marriage could lead to polygamy, because polygamists would want the same treatment as other groups.

Video:  (Watch (key part comes in at 4:50)

Related articles

1 Comment

Filed under Fox News

Tagged as , , , , , , ,

March 26, 2013 · 5:01 PM

Alito’s provocative question

The last time we visited oral arguments from The Court was in Shelby County v. Holder (a voting rights case), in which Justice Antonin Scalia famously stated that the Voting Rights Act was “perpetuation of racial entitlement”.

That was more of a shocker than Justice Samuel Alito stating that assessing  the effects of “marriage equality” is a newer development than cell phones or the Internet.  Scalia’s statement was purely racist and insulting…in my opinion Alito’s argument says: “we need a lot more time on this issue…”

The Maddow Blog

Justice Samuel Alito

I’m still working my way through the transcript (pdf) of today’s Supreme Court oral argument on California’s Prop 8, but there’s one quote that already seems to be generating quite a bit of attention. It comes by way of Justice Samuel Alito:

“Traditional marriage has been around for thousands of years. Same-sex marriage is very new. I think it was first adopted in The Netherlands in 2000. So there isn’t a lot of data about its effect. And it may turn out to be a — a good thing; it may turn out not to be a good thing, as the supporters of Proposition 8 apparently believe.

“But you want us to step in and render a decision based on an assessment of the effects of this institution, which is newer than cell phones or the Internet? I mean we — we are not — we do not have the ability to see the future. On a question like that, of such fundamental importance, why should it not be left for the people, either acting through initiatives and referendums or through their elected public officials?”

Alito’s argument seems to be one focused on the calendar. Perhaps, the theory goes, millions of Americans can be denied equal rights for an indefinite period of time, and jurists can revisit the issue in the future. At that point, they can ask once more whether or not allowing two consenting adults to get married is “a good thing.”

Remember the fine print in the Declaration of Independence? We have an inalienable right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness, just so long as the specific type of happiness is older than mobile telephones.

I’m not altogether sure what Alito thinks might happen, even if he had “the ability to see the future,” but the larger question seems to be the justice’s willingness to leave marriage rights “for the people.” What’s wrong with that? The answer, I suspect, has something to do with the nature of rights — they are, by definition, opportunities afforded to people that cannot be taken away without due process.

Rights are not supposed to be open to popularity contests. Throughout American history, if all contentious decisions over civil rights were left solely to popular will and the political process, progress would have been very slow, indeed. It’s precisely why Americans have turned to their last available option — the courts — as a way of ensuring their rights are protected.

What’s more, as Solicitor General Donald Virrelli reminded Alito, opponents of marriage equality aren’t seeking a pause to progress, or decisions through initiatives, referendums, or the political process — they’re seeking constitutional amendments to permanently limit the rights of same-sex couples.

Virrelli also reminded the justices:

“[T]he principal argument in 1967 with respect to Loving and that the Commonwealth of Virginia advanced was: Well, the social science is still uncertain about how biracial children will fare in this world, and so you ought to apply rational basis scrutiny and wait. And I think the Court recognized that there is a cost to waiting and that that has got to be part of the equal protection calculus.”

Related articles

1 Comment

Filed under Justice Sam Alito, U.S. Supreme Court

Tagged as , , , , , , ,

· 6:35 AM

5 Key Facts About the Supreme Court Gay Marriage Cases

[Today] and Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear two cases dealing with same-sex marriage: Hollingsworth v. Perry, a review of California’s Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage in the state, and United States v. Windsor, which challenges the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), a law preventing the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages performed by the states.

The outcomes of these cases could change the status of same-sex marriage substantially, or the Court could rule narrowly, altering little in the current marriage landscape. Here are the key facts about the cases and what’s behind them.

Live Science

1. Challenges in California

In May 2008, the California Supreme Court ruled that marriage is a fundamental right under the state’s constitution, effectively legalizing same-sex marriage in the state. In November 2008, however, California voters approved Proposition 8, which amended the state constitution to state that only marriage “between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” [Same-Sex Marriage Gains Acceptance (Infographic)]

The Supreme Court case Hollingsworth v. Perry is the culmination of a string of legal challenges against Proposition 8. A federal district court judge in San Francisco overturned the proposition in 2010, but supporters appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which paused same-sex marriages in the state pending the appeal. The Ninth Circuit court then ruled that in approving Proposition 8, California voters had unfairly targeted a minority group and removed a right they once possessed, violating the Equal Protection Cause of the federal Constitution.

Nevertheless, same-sex marriages are still on hold in California, as Prop 8 proponents appeal the case to the Supreme Court, hoping to get the Ninth Circuit Court decision reversed. The justices will hear an hour of oral arguments in the case on Tuesday morning (March 26).

2. The case against DOMA

United States v. Windsor, on the other hand, deals with federal law. In 1996, Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, which prevents same-sex married couplesfrom receiving federal benefits, such as the ability to jointly file taxes or collect Social Security survivor’s benefits.

The Supreme Court will consider whether denying these benefits violates the Equal Protection clause of the U.S. Constitution. This clause, part of the 14th Amendment, says that no state shall “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” The courts have held that equal protection requirements apply to the federal government as well.

3. The people behind the cases

The “Windsor” in United States v. Windsor is Edith Windsor, who married Thea Spyer in Toronto, where same-sex marriage is legal, in 2007. The two New York residents had been together for 40 years. In 2009, Spyer died. New York recognized the two women’s union, but the federal government, because of DOMA, did not. Windsor was thus required to pay more than $363,000 in federal estate taxes on her wife’s estate, a payment not required by couples whose marriages are legally recognized by the federal government. [5 Myths About Gay People Debunked]

In Perry v. Hollingsworth, Kristin Perry of California, who was denied a marriage license in 2009 in Alameda County, Calif., is the prosecutor; Dennis Hollingsworth, head of ProtectMarriage.com, a group formed to promote Proposition 8, is the defendant.

4. Possible outcomes: Hollingsworth v. Perry

In dealing with Proposition 8, the Supreme Court justices have a wide range of options. They could rule that Hollingsworth and his organization don’t have “standing” to file a lawsuit challenging earlier decisions about the proposition, because same-sex marriage would not threaten them personally. That would allow same-sex marriage to stand in California without changing policy elsewhere. The justices might also keep their ruling narrow, allowing earlier decisions to overthrow Proposition 8 to stand on the basis that it was a voter initiative that took away a right gay and lesbian citizens in California already had. That ruling would re-open same-sex marriage in California, but not speak to marriage rights in other states.

Or the Court could tackle same-sex marriage broadly with Proposition 8 as its impetus, deciding whether same-sex couples have a fundamental right to marry. A final possibility, urged by the federal government, would be to strike down Proposition 8 based on the fact that California allows same-sex civil unions but not marriage. According to a brief filed by the federal government, this sets up two “separate but equal” institutions, violating Constitutional promises of equal protection. A ruling striking down Proposition 8 on those grounds would affect seven other states that permit same-sex civil unions and ban marriage.

5. Possible outcomes: United States v. Windsor

The question of standing, or who has the right to argue a case in front of the Court, comes into play in United States v. Windsor as well. The Obama administration announced in 2011 that it would no longer be defending DOMA in court, believing it to be an unconstitutional law. Republicans in the House of Representatives formed a group called the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) to step in and defend the law in the administration’s stead. The Court will have to determine if BLAG has standing to defend DOMA before hearing other arguments. If the justices decide BLAG doesn’t have standing, the same-sex marriage case returns to the lower courts and would likely wind its way back to the Supreme Court eventually.

If the Court decides not to dismiss the case, they could uphold DOMA, continuing the status quo of state marriages remaining unrecognized federally. If the law is struck down, the Court could write the decision narrowly, opening federal benefits to married gay couples but not broadly addressing the question of marriage as a fundamental right. Or the justices could address whether prohibiting same-sex marriage violates the Equal Protection Clause, recognizing a constitution right to same-sex marriage.

The justice’s rulings are expected in late June.

Related articles

3 Comments

Filed under Prop 8, U.S. Supreme Court

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , ,

March 25, 2013 · 10:40 AM

Supreme Court To Hear Affirmative Action Case

Apparently the majority Justices of the Supreme Court want another shot at dismantling Affirmative Action.

The Huffington Post

The Supreme Court is broadening its examination of affirmative action by adding a case about Michigan’s effort to ban consideration of race in college admissions.

The justices already were considering a challenge to the University of Texas program that takes account of race, among many factors, to fill remaining spots in its freshman classes. The Texas case has been argued, but not yet decided.

The court on Monday said it would add the Michigan case, which focuses on the 6-year-old voter-approved prohibition on affirmative action and the appeals court ruling that overturned the ban. The new case will be argued in the fall. A decision in the Texas case is expected by late June.

The dispute over affirmative action in Michigan has its roots in the 2003 Supreme Court decision that upheld the use of race as a factor in university admissions. That case concerned the University of Michigan law school.

In response to the court’s 5-4 decision in that case, affirmative action opponents worked to put a ballot measure in front of voters to amend the state constitution to outlaw preferential treatment on the basis of race and other factors in education, as well as government hiring and contracting. In November 2006, 58 percent of Michigan voters approved the measure.

Civil rights groups sued to block the provision the day after the vote. In November, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals voted 8-7 to invalidate the ban as it applies to college admissions. It did not address hiring or contracting.

The appeals court said the constitutional amendment is illegal because it prohibits affirmative action supporters from lobbying lawmakers, university trustees and other people who ordinarily control admissions policies. Instead, opponents of the ban would have to mount their own long, expensive campaign through the ballot box to protect affirmative action, the court said.

That burden “undermines the Equal Protection Clause’s guarantee that all citizens ought to have equal access to the tools of political change,” the court said. The 6th Circuit divided along ideological lines, with its more liberal judges in the majority.

In the Texas case, a white student who was denied admission to the University of Texas is suing to overturn the school’s use of race among many factors to fill out its incoming freshman classes. The bulk of the slots go to Texans who graduated in the top 10 percent of their high school classes.

The Michigan case is Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, 12-682.

Related articles

 

Comments Off

Filed under U.S. Supreme Court

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

March 5, 2013 · 7:21 AM

Tuesday Blog Roundup – 3-5-2013

Health care will be an Obama legacy
Julian Zelizer says Republican officials now see powerful incentives for them to embr..

Now here’s some real movement on gun control
This is probably the most significant movement in the debate over gun reform that we&..

U.S. and China Said to Agree on North Korea Sanctions
United Nations diplomats said Monday that the United States and China have reached ag..

Jeb Bush: No path to citizenship in immigration reform
Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush said Monday that he does not support a pathway to citiz..

Video: Sandra Day O’Connor on social shifts, Bush v. Gore
Sandra Day O’Connor, former Supreme Court Justice and author of “Out of Order,” talk..

84% of world’s fish not safe to eat more than once a month
I’m not sure how happy I am eating something that’s so poisonous you can only eat one..

McCain, Graham again vow to hold up Brennan nomination
Now let’s say we want documents about the War of 1812. It’ll be hilarious. Yep, we’r..

GOP open to ‘grand bargain,’ as long they don’t have to bargain
They’ve got some beachfront property they’d love to sell you. Congressiona..

Even Switzerland passes executive pay limits, why can’t we?
If the country known for its huge banking & pharmaceutical industries can pass e..

Menendez accuser says she was paid to make up prostitution claims
Looking back, there may have been signs it was a fake. Amazing. Only days before the..

 

2 Comments

Filed under U.S. Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , ,

March 3, 2013 · 1:21 PM

VP Joe Biden and AG Eric Holder in Selma today for “Bloody Sunday” commemoration

selma-bridge-cross-2013.jpg

Police ready Selma’s Edmund Pettus Bridge for the Sunday, March 3, 2013, commemoration of Bloody Sunday. (Vasha Hunt/al.com)

AL.com

SELMA, Alabama — Vice President Joe Biden is in Selma this morning for the anniversary of Bloody Sunday, the violent 1965 clash between law enforcement and protesters on the Edmund Pettus Bridge during a march for voting rights.

Images of the clash in which officers wielded billy clubs and tear gas against protesters helped galvanize support for passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Biden will speak at noon at the Unity Day Brunch. He will then join a crowd expected to numbers in the thousands as the group makes the annual symbolic crossing across the bridge.

Biden’s visit comes four days after the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments challenging Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act which requires states with a history of discrimination to get Justice Department approval before making any change to election procedure. The case is out of Alabama’s Shelby County. Shelby County argued the South and Shelby County has changed and the oversight is no longer needed.

On March 7, 1965 marchers made it just a few blocks from the churches where they had assembled. When they reached Selma’s Edmund Pettus Bridge, they were attacked by state troopers and Dallas County deputies, some on horseback wielding billy clubs and firing canisters of tear gas into the marchers.

The attack was broadcast on national news programs and reported in newspapers throughout the country.

Eight days later, President Lyndon Johnson called a joint session of the Congress where he proposed the landmark 1965 Voting Rights Act. Later that year, 100 years after the end of the Civil War, African-Americans were guaranteed the right to vote.

Related articles

1 Comment

Filed under Selma 2013

Tagged as , , , , , , ,

November 28, 2012 · 8:08 AM

Supreme Court Inaction Boosts Right To Record Police Officers

Score another one for democracy…

The Huffington Post

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court  declined to review a decision by the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals blocking the enforcement of an Illinois eavesdropping law. The broadly written law — the most stringent in the country — makes it a felony to make an audio recording of someone without their permission, punishable by four to 15 years in prison.

Many states have similar “all-party consent” law, which mean one must get the permission of all parties to a conversation before recording it. But in all of those states — except for Massachusetts and Illinois — the laws include a provision that the parties being recorded must have a reasonable expectation of privacy for it to be a crime to record them.

The Illinois law once included such a provision, but it was removed by the state legislature in response to an Illinois Supreme Court ruling that threw out the conviction of a man accused of recording police from the back of a squad car. That ruling found that police on the job have no reasonable expectation of privacy.

The Illinois and Massachusetts laws have been used to arrest people who attempt to record on-duty police officers and other public officials. In one of the more notorious cases, Chicago resident Tiawanda Moore was arrested in 2010 when she attempted to use her cell phone to record officers in a Chicago police station.

Moore had come to the station to report an alleged sexual assault by a Chicago cop, and says she became frustrated when internal affairs officers allegedly bullied her and attempted to talk her out of filing the report. Moore was eventually acquitted.

The lawsuit was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, which is planning a police accountability project in Chicago that will involve recording police while they’re on duty. The organization wanted to be sure its employees and volunteers wouldn’t be charged with felonies.

The 7th Circuit Court found a specific First Amendment right to record police officers. It’s the second federal appeals court to strike down a conviction for recording police. In August 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit ruled that a man wrongly arrested for recording cops could sue the arresting officers for violating his First Amendment rights.

Continue reading here…

Related articles

Comments Off

Filed under U.S. Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

September 21, 2012 · 3:43 PM

Tea Party Threatens Revenge Against Pennsylvania Justices For Not Upholding Voter ID Law

 

Someone please explain this to me:  How in the hell did the Tea Party turn into an intimidation , extortion and revenge organization?

They’re talking about “exacting revenge” on a group of State Supreme Court Justices who didn’t think that voter intimidation was just and decided to send the case back to the lower court and commented that the law should be suspended immediately.

Who are these people and what do they really want from us, in addition to getting the “black guy” out of office?

Think Progress

Earlier this week, every single sitting Pennsylvania Supreme Court justice rejecteda lower court decision allowing that state’s voter ID law to take effect. Four justices joined a majority opinion requiring the lower court judge to look at the case again due to concerns that voters were unable to obtain the IDs they were supposed to have easy access to as a matter of law, and two more justices joined a dissent arguing that the law should simply be suspended right away. Three of the justices in the majority were Republicans.

Nevertheless, a Tea Party group is now threatening to exact revenge upon the state supreme court for refusing to uphold a law that prevents many low-income, student and minority voters from casting a ballot:

A Philadelphia-area tea party group says it will work to defeat two state Supreme Court justices next year if the state’s new voter identification law isn’t in effect for the Nov. 6 election.

The Independence Hall Tea Party on Thursday also criticized the court’s decision to send a legal challenge to the law back for a lower court review.

It called the decision “a cowardly move” to “punt the ball.”

Chief Justice Ronald Castille, a Republican, and Justice Max Baer, a Democrat, are each finishing a 10-year term in January 2014.

These kinds of campaigns of vengeance against justices who place the law ahead of conservative’s policy preferences are increasingly common. Two years ago, a Florida Tea Party group launched a similar revenge campaign after the Florida Supreme Court kept an unconstitutional ballot initiative attempting to nullify the Affordable Care Act off the state ballot. Similarly, anti-gay groups poured hundreds of thousands of dollars into a successful effort to remove three Iowa supreme court justices because they had the audacity to recognize that the state’s constitution does not permit discrimination against gay couples.

As a recent Center for American Progress report explains, corporate interest groups have alsospent big money to stack state judiciaries with friendly judges and justices. In one of the most egregious cases, a West Virginia coal baron spent $3 million to buy a seat on the state supreme court for a justice who later went on to strike down a $50 million verdict against his company, although the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately ruled that the bought-and-paid-for justice should have recused himself.

Related articles

 

3 Comments

Filed under Tea Party Hubris, Tea Party Ignorance, Voter Identification, Voter Intimidation, Voter Suppression

Tagged as , , , , , , ,