Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

LCR vs. United States of America, et al legal update

DADT trial

Thanks to Kathleen for an update -Adam

By Kathleen

Three amicus briefs were filed on Friday in support of the federal government in the case of Log Cabin Republicans v. United States of America, et. al. (LCR v. USA). Amicus briefs in support of Log Cabin Republicans will be due in early April.

You may recall that in September of last year district court Judge Virginia Phillips declared the U.S. military policy known as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) unconstitutional and on October 12, issued a world-wide injunction against its enforcement. The government is appealing that decision in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and in the meantime, the appeals court stayed Judge Phillips’s injunction, pending the outcome of the appeal.

The government’s opening brief in the 9th Circuit was originally due in January. However, proceedings were delayed by the Congressional repeal of DADT at the end of last year and the government’s subsequent claim that repeal should put the court case on hold. Log Cabin Republicans disagreed, arguing that with DADT still in place, and with no time certain for final implementation of repeal, the court case must proceed. Initially the Court suspended briefing while considering the government’s request, but on January 28 the Court issued an order denying the government’s motion and setting a new briefing schedule.

The government filed its opening brief on February 24, and amicus briefs in support of the government were due last Friday. Log Cabin Republicans’ answering brief is due March 28, and amicus briefs in support of LCR will be due one week later.

Foundation for Moral Law brief can be found here. Church of God of Prophecy Chaplaincy Ministries, et al brief 
can be found here. The National Legal Foundation brief can be found here.


  • 1. Alan E.  |  March 7, 2011 at 3:52 am

    Many thanks indeed!

  • 2. dsc77  |  March 7, 2011 at 3:54 am

    Yes! It's so hard to keep track of all this.

    Thank you!

    Dave in Maine

  • 3. Alan E.  |  March 7, 2011 at 3:53 am

    I want to make sure this gets seen. I just posted this on the last thread:

    Did anyone watch Dateline last night? It was a fantastic episode on bullying in schools. I teared up throughout the entire piece. A writeup about the show can be found here:

    The episode can be found on the Dateline page:

  • 4. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  March 7, 2011 at 3:55 am

    I superficially reviewed….looks excellent! Glad you reposted!

  • 5. Kathleen  |  March 7, 2011 at 3:59 am

    Thanks for posting this Alan. I, too, was tearing up through it.

  • 6. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  March 7, 2011 at 3:54 am

    thx for post Kathleen! Looking forward to reading discussion about this as I'm not entirely certain of the implications : /

  • 7. Sagesse  |  March 7, 2011 at 3:58 am

    Thank you Kathleen. I just skimmed them… very hard on the digestion, as usual. They seem to be arguing that DADT must be held consitutional in case some Congress down the line realizes what a giant mistake repeal was… or something.

  • 8. Steve  |  March 7, 2011 at 5:04 am

    Good luck putting thousands of people back into the closet

  • 9. LCH  |  March 7, 2011 at 4:03 am


  • 10. Ed Cortes  |  March 7, 2011 at 4:12 am

    time for scribin'

  • 11. JonT  |  March 7, 2011 at 9:11 am

    Time to be a copy cat 🙂

  • 12. Eric  |  March 7, 2011 at 4:13 am

    Let me get this straight…it is moral to make a career out of killing people, but it is not moral to love someone of the same-sex while you kill people?

    The Foundation for Moral Law needs a new compass.

  • 13. Kathleen  |  March 7, 2011 at 4:17 am

    Yeah, ya think? 🙂 It's unfortunate the way these repressive, immoral, anti-family groups have co-opted words like "liberty", "moral" and "family values."

  • 14. Rev. Will Fisher  |  March 7, 2011 at 5:41 am


  • 15. Kathleen  |  March 7, 2011 at 4:13 am

    s, from complaints about chaplains' religious liberties (and subsequent hopes that DADT will be reinstated?) to DADT never should have been re-instated 'cause we all know gays are icky. It is indeed difficult to digest these, but I suppose there's value in knowing what the judges are being given to read.

  • 16. Kathleen  |  March 7, 2011 at 4:14 am

    hmmm… somehow deleted part of my comment. That was meant to begin with, "They make various arguments, from…"

  • 17. Hanou  |  March 7, 2011 at 3:47 pm

    I'm hopeful that someone with a greater familiarity with the studies involved will take apart the "Moral Law" brief.

    Also, given the dates on some of those studies, it seems like they must be arguing that initially there was a rational basis, so we have to uphold it, would that work, or do we assess whether there remains a rational basis today?

  • 18. Kathleen  |  March 7, 2011 at 3:56 pm

    The question of whether the law must be reviewed under rational basis or heightened scrutiny will be one of the questions of law we can expect the 9th Circuit judges to address. I seem to recall the district court judge subjected the policy to heightened scrutiny (but it's late and I might be wrong about that)…. but I think she applied the Witt Standard (heightened scrutiny), which applies in the 9th Circuit.

    It might be naive of me, but I consider that brief the least relevant of the three (mostly irrelevant) briefs.

  • 19. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  March 7, 2011 at 4:22 am

    Thanks Kathleen for always keeping the P8TT file cabinets in order for us 🙂
    You are awesome!!

  • 20. Ronnie  |  March 7, 2011 at 4:32 am

    (sighs) …… = …..<3…Ronnie

  • 21. Kathleen  |  March 7, 2011 at 5:13 am

    UPDATE: Perry

    Appellees' (Plantiffs') Opposition to Imperial County's Motion to Intervene

    For those who missed it, Imperial County is trying again to intervene, this time with the newly elected County Clerk:

  • 22. Alan E.  |  March 7, 2011 at 5:21 am

    but he barely mentions Article III in his mo-tion, and certainly does not explain how he meets that burden.

    Winning statement. They're playing in the big leagues now, and have to meet those standards.

  • 23. Kathleen  |  March 7, 2011 at 5:29 am

    Here's one of my favorite lines: "Further, Mr. Storey’s claim that Proponents do not adequately represent his interests because they may lack standing to appeal is irrelevant. Mr. Storey himself lacks standing to appeal… and the absence of a party to prosecute an appeal does not confer standing upon the first willing volunteer." (pdf pg 11)

  • 24. Kathleen  |  March 7, 2011 at 5:30 am

    And this: "The fact that no parties willing to appeal the district court’s order have standing to do so only underscores the truth of the district court’s finding that no one suffers an injury if same sex marriage is allowed."

  • 25. be[4]marriage  |  March 7, 2011 at 5:28 am

    The response has a bit of the "we are annoyed that we even have to respond to this ridiculous crap" air about it.

  • 26. Mark  |  March 7, 2011 at 6:22 am

    After the trial is over, and Prop 8 is ruled unconstitutional, and same sex marriages are allowed to resume in the State of California, let’s not give one thin dime of revenue to this county. Go to neighboring Riverside or San Diego counties, and get married there. Imperial County doesn’t want to allow same sex marriages, but I am sure they want the marriage license fees. Don’t give it to them!

  • 27. gaydadtobe  |  March 7, 2011 at 6:24 am

    If I recall correctly, they voted overwhelmingly Democrat in the last election. That helped push Harris into AG (and Brown wasn't even close, but every bit still helps)

  • 28. Kathleen  |  March 7, 2011 at 6:39 am

    Yes, they did. Jerry Brown got nearly 60% of the vote and Kamala Harris ~49% to Cooley's 41%. Both Brown's and Harris's position on Prop 8 was front and center during the election. So, either the electorate has shifted position on Prop 8 since 2008, or this wasn't a big enough issue to them to allow it to override other reasons they had to support Democrats.

    This is a very impoverished area (Imperial County had the lowest median income of any county in the state in 2009) and I consider it outrageous that even one moment of the county officials' time is being devoted to this appeal.

  • 29. Elizabeth Oakes  |  March 7, 2011 at 4:05 pm

    Delores wouldn't do it to them. I say, Recall Storey and Reinstate Delores!

  • 30. Cat  |  March 7, 2011 at 10:26 am

    Wow, that's quite a legal response.

    1. You're not injured
    2. You must do as the Governor/AG tell you
    3. You're citing cases that contradict your claim
    4. You're not addressing the requirements for standing
    5. You're too late

  • 31. Kathleen  |  March 7, 2011 at 10:51 am

    That sums it up, Cat.

  • 32. Straight Ally #3008  |  March 7, 2011 at 5:29 am

    "Foundation for Moral Law" and "Church of God of Prophecy Chaplaincy Ministries?" Gee, it's hard to tell whose side they're on. They're just missing "family" in their names.

  • 33. DaveP  |  March 7, 2011 at 5:36 am

    HAA! I had a few spare minutes so I went ahead and read the one from "Church of God of Prophecy Chaplaincy Ministries". I chose that one based on the name of the organization. It just spoke to my sense of morbid curiosity.

    What a mess! Lots and lots and LOTS of remarks about 'open homosexual behavior', as if repeal of DADT had anything at all to do with that. It doesn't. Clearly, ANY kind of 'open' sexual behavior (meaning, I guess, boinking in clear view of other members of the armed forces) would be against all sorts of regulations regardless whether it was straight sex or gay sex. It's an embarassingly lame attempt at sensationalizing the issue with a meaningless argument.

    And then there's all sorts of ridiculous nonsense about how repeal of DADT would "inhibit the religious liberty" of chaplains and other folks who don't like gays. Huh??? Nope, after DADT is repealed you can still belong to a religion that condemns people for being gay. (You shouldn't, because it's wrong for lots of reasons, but that's another issue.) So what the hell are they trying to imply? Troops with anti-gay religious views are not going to be questioned by their superiors: "Are you now, or have you ever been a person who thinks gay sex is sinful?" and then get kicked out of the miltary if they answer 'yes'. Repealing DADT does not harm people who hold anti-gay views in any way whatsoever.

    And of course, they conveniently ignore the fact that there are LOTS of priests and chaplains and rabbis etc who are completely OK with gay people. As usual, they make no acknowledgement of the fact that THEIR views are not the ONLY views, even within their own religion.

    As annoying as these jerks are, I actually LIKE the fact that this is the kid of stuff being submitted to the courts. It only helps us.

  • 34. Bob  |  March 7, 2011 at 6:31 am

    Regarding Religiious Liberties,,,, during the repeal pocess,,, there was a brief filed by a joined group of pastors reperesenting,,, different churches,,,,, the reason I bring this up is because the arugment they made was the same,,, i.e. that repeal would curtail the chaplains ability to preform their job……

    I specifically remember writing a letter to my church Lutheran Church regarding this issue,,,, and sorry to mention (Canada) but in researching the changes to our military in my letter to the Church I pointed out that a chaplains mission could not be hampered by knowing the truth,,, and treating all members equally,,, in fact I was able to back that point up by finding a case of a Chaplain from the Lutheran Church who actuallly won awards for his tour in the military under the open policy,,,, so in fact doing ministry with actively serving gay members, did not hamper his work,,,, he won an award for it……

  • 35. Steve  |  March 7, 2011 at 7:42 am

    For Christian nutjobs freedom of religion means "freedom to force my crap on everyone else" and "freedom to oppress whoever I want" and "freedom to discriminate".

    It's a very common theme. They don't see it as merely being allowed to belong to whatever sect they wish and not be punished for that.

  • 36. JoeRH  |  March 7, 2011 at 5:46 am

    Are amicus briefs an individual or group's personal complaint, or is it supposed to be based in law/logic? These seem to be moral condemnations against gays rather than facts of the actual situation. Would these briefs be taken into account despite them being based on personal "moral beliefs" and not necessarily based in reality? Some of the arguments the groups raise actually claim to speak for other groups, which makes me wonder if that would prevent them from holding up since they're most likely wrong (especially regarding "public acceptance").

  • 37. Alan E.  |  March 7, 2011 at 5:51 am

    It's supposed to be based on law and logic, but they tend to be the latter.

  • 38. Kathleen  |  March 7, 2011 at 6:06 am

    They're meant to provide perspective that parties in the case might not focus on. So they might, for example, flesh out discussion about potential policy implications of the court coming to a particular conclusion, but that in itself is not dispositive of the case. Ultimately, the judges must base their decision on the relevant law and the facts in the case.

    I also agree with DaveP; the more overt the prejudice and bigotry these amici exhibit, the more it makes the point that these discriminatory laws do not further a legitimate governmental interest.

  • 39. Richard A. Jernigan  |  March 7, 2011 at 5:58 am

    And don't tell me, let me guess. All three of these briefs rely upon the Bible in its most common mistranslation for their basis of fact as to why DADT should NOT be repealed.

  • 40. Carpool Cookie  |  March 7, 2011 at 6:12 am

    I like that the one for Imperial County is by "Advocates for Faith and Freedom".

    Faith in what? Freedom for who?

  • 41. Straight Ally #3008  |  March 7, 2011 at 6:15 am

    Easy! Their faith, and their freedom to push it on others!

  • 42. Straight Ally #3008  |  March 7, 2011 at 6:14 am

    I know, Richard – I deeply appreciate Kathleen's making these documents handy, but I can't deal with several briefs of "ARRGH! SCARY SCARY GAYS!"

  • 43. Rhie  |  March 7, 2011 at 6:20 am

    Yup, they do. How can the Bible actually be condemning homosexuality when the first English translation with that word didn't exist until 1974?

    And that's not even the best argument.

  • 44. fiona64  |  March 7, 2011 at 8:06 am

    1947 (New International Version).



  • 45. Rhie  |  March 7, 2011 at 6:08 am


  • 46. Alan E.  |  March 7, 2011 at 6:27 am

    From the "Church of God of Prophecy" brief, how are "coercive homosexual acts" different from coercive heterosexual acts?

  • 47. Alan E.  |  March 7, 2011 at 6:30 am

    It also sounds like they are claiming that private homo sex, however disgusting, is ok as long as each case is brought individually, and sex on base (even in base housing?) is bad and wrong, therefore DADT should be left in place for that interest only.

  • 48. Alan E.  |  March 7, 2011 at 6:43 am

    The current Congressional action regarding § 654 will create a significant conflict between many chaplains and the military’s new approach towards sexual behavior.

    There are already many conflicts between religious beliefs and behavior, the most notable of which is THOU SHALT NOT KILL.

  • 49. fiona64  |  March 7, 2011 at 8:07 am

    Well, here's the sticking point. It's actually "Thou shalt not murder." There is a difference, even under the law nowadays.

    Fiona (who understands the point you are trying to make, but is in a nit-picky mood at the moment)

  • 50. Alan E.  |  March 7, 2011 at 6:47 am

    And then the kicker, which will surely help us the most:

    This understanding is consistent with millennia of orthodox Christian theology.
    See, e.g.
    , Catechism of the Catholic Church § 2357: “Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,tradition has always declared that ‘homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.’”
    See also
    the Southern Baptist Convention: “Homosexuality is not a valid alternative lifestyle. The Bible condemns it as sin.”, Position Statement on Sexuality, (last visited Feb. 15,2010).

  • 51. Richard A. Jernigan  |  March 7, 2011 at 6:52 am

    And both of these positions are based on the very first instance of misinterpretation, misquoting, mistranslating, and redacting in the history of the church, and that particular instance of it originated with Saul of Tarsus.

  • 52. Steve  |  March 7, 2011 at 7:46 am

    Who was clearly either gay or asexual

    Christianity should be renamed to "Paulinianism". That's really where most of its teachings originate

  • 53. Cat  |  March 7, 2011 at 9:57 am

    "Millenia of orthodox Christian theology"

    That's the same theology that states that the Earth is flat, and it's perimeter is guarded by great sea monsters… (Job 41). How convincing.

  • 54. PoxyHowzes  |  March 7, 2011 at 12:42 pm

    Given that even one millennium ago, the Southern Baptist Church didn't exist, it is hard to see how the cite to an SBC position statement squares with "orthodox" xian theology.

  • 55. NetAmigo  |  March 7, 2011 at 6:32 am

    The usual right wing religious nuts pushing a mythology of human sexuality.

  • 56. Kate  |  March 7, 2011 at 6:53 am

    Kathleen, you are truly a rock star.

  • 57. Kathleen  |  March 7, 2011 at 7:17 am

    Scott Lively's at it again–bringing his particularly deadly version of homophobia to another country:

  • 58. gaydadtobe  |  March 7, 2011 at 7:22 am

    Break out your pink browncoats and swastika ephemera to prepare for the march. Scott is on to us again!

    (gentle reminder, Lively wrote The Pink Swastika in which he claims that the Nazis weren't anti-gay)

  • 59. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  March 7, 2011 at 7:38 am

    Tell that to the 50,000 gay men who died during WWII
    Dr. Lively!!
    (Lesbians were rarely killed just raped repeatedly to try and make them straight again)

    50,000 Pink Triangles

  • 60. Steve  |  March 7, 2011 at 7:48 am

    Lesbians were sometimes lumped into the "asocial" group with prostitutes and other women with a low moral reputation

  • 61. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  March 7, 2011 at 7:50 am

    Indeed they were.
    They were considered somewhat useful, since they could if need be, be used as baby factories.

  • 62. Richard A. Jernigan  |  March 7, 2011 at 7:50 am

    I am still wondering what Scott LIvely's rent boy is going to look like, when they will get busted together, and if maybe this time, it will be in a more than just slightly compromising situation. And will Scott LIvely's rent boy, like George Rekers', be young enough to be Scott's son?

  • 63. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  March 7, 2011 at 7:51 am

    Any idea what he's a Dr. of????

  • 64. Straight Ally #3008  |  March 7, 2011 at 8:00 am

    When is this man going to be brought up on charges of crimes against humanity? This is ridiculous.

  • 65. Straight Ally #3008  |  March 7, 2011 at 8:03 am

    Scott Lively interviewed on The Daily Show. A much-needed laugh.

  • 66. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  March 7, 2011 at 8:25 am

    Thank you for that….I so needed a good laugh!
    (at HIS expense LOL )

  • 67. Russell Manaois  |  March 7, 2011 at 8:09 am

    NOM vs HRC on C-Span, Maggie Gallagher and Brian Moulton

  • 68. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  March 7, 2011 at 9:41 am

    That was fun to watch…Brain Moulton handled Mags very very well 🙂

  • 69. Tasty Salamanders  |  March 7, 2011 at 8:22 am

    I was actually think about this last night. I was just wondering: If the court overthrows DADT that means it becomes unenforceable but still on the books but if the repeal is certified then it is taken off the books?

    I was wondering that because I was thinking about the possibility of the repeal being certified and the appeal being finished both happening. eg. The appeal court overthrows it (again) and then it is certified (as a symbolic act I guess) to remove it from the books.
    Or; the Appeal gets to the end and the court has scheduled a date for a verdict and before the verdict is released the certification is signed. I was wondering with this one if that was to happen would the court shuffle everything up again or being so close to the end would it just go through and release the verdict (which could at the very least effect the 60 day waiting period).

  • 70. Kathleen  |  March 7, 2011 at 8:37 am

    Once DADT is no longer the law, this case becomes moot. So at the end of certification and the 60 day waiting period, if this case is still active, I expect the government to file a motion to dismiss and would expect the court grant it.

    However, if DADT is still being enforced when the 9th Circuit comes to a decision, I expect the losing party to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Whether or not the Supreme Court grants review might depend on the state of the repeal process at that time. If it looks like the repeal process has stalled, I would think the Supreme Court would be more likely to grant cert.

    I suspect that DADT repeal will be complete before this case completes its course through the courts. But it's hard to know and I do believe that it's been important to keep this case going. I have little doubt that the pressure of this court case had a lot to do with getting Congress to act on repeal when it did.

  • 71. Bill in San Diego  |  March 7, 2011 at 8:48 am

    The San Diego Union Tribune published a preview of the Navy's training on LGBT issues a few days ago. Click this link to read the story.

  • 72. Tasty Salamanders  |  March 7, 2011 at 9:09 am

    I do believe that the certification will be done long before the appeal is completed. I was more wondering if hypothetically the appeal got right up to the day before the verdict and suddenly the certification was signed.

    (It would certainly be an odd move by the administration to do that though)

  • 73. Kathleen  |  March 7, 2011 at 9:14 am

    Thing is, you never know when the decision is going to be issued. Oral arguments haven't even been scheduled yet.

  • 74. Tasty Salamanders  |  March 7, 2011 at 9:25 am

    I'm fairly sure the court gives a notice in advance of a verdict?

  • 75. Kathleen  |  March 7, 2011 at 9:42 am

    Not really. Sometimes in high profile cases, they'll give the media a bit of advance warning. Sometimes a day, sometimes a matter of hours, but other times not at all. This isn't a "verdict" the way you think of in a jury trial. It's simply a written decision published by the court when it's ready to release it.

  • 76. PoxyHowzes  |  March 7, 2011 at 12:48 pm

    I think there may be something of a gap in your analysis, but IANAL. If the situation is that Congress could re-enact the law at any time, then the courts might not treat completed repeal as mooting the case. They might just go ahead and rule it unconstitutional so as to forestall re-enactment at a later time.

  • 77. Kathleen  |  March 7, 2011 at 12:58 pm

    Our federal courts don't give advisory rulings. There has to be an actual "case or controversy." As I understand it, the only remedy plaintiffs are asking for is an injunction against enforcement of DADT, and if DADT no longer exists, there is no longer a controversy. It's possible if there was some investigation into a specific discharge that wouldn't be halted by repeal, that specific case might continue under the court procedure, but in general, without DADT, there is no case.

    If a subsequent administration were to reinstate it, someone would have to bring a new court challenge.

    The same will happen with the Perry case if Prop 8 is overturned through another voter initiative before the case resolves.

  • 78. Richard A. Jernigan  |  March 7, 2011 at 8:26 am

    I have applied for a DFA scholarship to Netroot Nation, which will be in Minneapolis this year. Here is the link for anyone here who wants to cast a vote to help me make it to Minneapolis. And yes, I mention my P8TT family in my application, because it was you who helped reawaken my activist side.

  • 79. fiona64  |  March 7, 2011 at 9:30 am

    Voted — and shared on my Twitter stream. 🙂


  • 80. Richard A. Jernigan  |  March 7, 2011 at 12:26 pm

    Thanks, Fiona. And you can also share it on FB.

  • 81. LCH  |  March 7, 2011 at 11:50 am


    Voted! Good luck.

  • 82. Richard A. Jernigan  |  March 7, 2011 at 12:26 pm

    Thanks! And for any of the P8TT family who are in my FB circle, there is also a link posted there. Feel free to share it on your own page. I am just glad that any votes I get between now and March 21 will roll over into Round two if I don't get a Round One scholarship.

  • 83. Ronnie  |  March 7, 2011 at 11:14 am

    Hey NOM, Protect ALL of the children…..just saying…..

    16-Year-Old Arrested for Antigay Beating

    A 16-year-old high school student from southern Indiana was arrested and is facing charges that he brutally attacked his gay classmate.

    According to Indiana NBC affiliate WAVE, the student — who isn’t named in the report — lured Silver Creek High School sophomore Rito Osorio to the bathroom during lunch by saying the two needed to talk.

    "I followed him in there and when I got in there it was pretty much packed," Osorio told WAVE. "It was full of eyes just watching."

    Osorio told Sellersburg, Ind., police that the boy started punching him and calling him names, leaving him with several face fractures and a broken nose.

    "He had a piercing under his lip, and that had been pushed up into the maxilla bone and chipped it, so it is stuck up there and is going to have to be surgically removed," Rito’s mother, Andrea, told authorities.

    The student was arrested and taken to the Clark County Juvenile Detention Center.

    Osorio, who is out at school, told the authorities students have been telling the attacker “that I've been talking about him, saying that he was gay or something, but I haven't been saying that.”

    Sellersburg police chief Russ Whelan says that's what pushed the boy over the edge.

    "He was upset with the rumors that were going around the school about him that were coming from this other boy and he decided to take matters into his own hands," said Whelan.

    (me) So you beat him, putting several fractures in his face & break his nose based on a rumor that this kid was spreading rumors?…..Shame on the parents that raised this pathetic homophobic bully who thinks with his fists instead of his brain……

    Interview with the kid that was attacked & his mother attached to the article……

    : ( ….Ronnie

  • 84. Jim P  |  April 5, 2011 at 10:52 pm

    This train has left the station. More and more people support same sex unions, hate crimes laws, and anti-discrimination laws. While it is absolutely necessary for people to push. Change will likely be slower than we would like, given that the vast majority of states prohibit same sex marriage or "equivalent relationships. Unfortunately, Sandra Day O'Connor is no longer on the bench, giving Bush the opportunity to may the 5/4 split lean more conservatively. The key is in Kennedy's hand.

    Remember, he gave us a victory in Lawrence v. Texas. I was in SF the day the decision was handed down, my birthday. It was the best present ever.

  • 85. car battery replacement&hellip  |  May 11, 2011 at 9:55 am

    How to car repair…

    […]below you’ll find the link to some sites that we think you should visit[…]…

  • 86. Almighty Cleanse Reviews&hellip  |  May 11, 2011 at 11:46 am

    Colon Cleanse Reviews…

    […]below you’ll find the link to some sites that we think you should visit[…]…

Having technical problems? Visit our support page to report an issue!