• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2015 |OT| Keep Calm and Diablos On

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Coriolanus

Banned
ivysaur12 said:
I want to know which interns.
Click to expand...

"You can't say no when your boss invites you. Danced my butt off," one former intern posted on his Instagram account with a picture of Perry at her June 2014 show. PAC records show a $1,928 expense for the ticket service StubHub.com two months later, listing it only as a "PAC fundraising event."
Click to expand...

giphy.gif
 
G

gcubed

Member
Well Christie continues his quick decline to presidential laughing stock. Should have ran in 2012, he blew his knee out when he went back for his senior year.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/02/2...ion-move-new-jersey-judge-says.html?referrer=

In a major blow to Gov. Chris Christie, a New Jersey judge ruled on Monday that he violated state law when he declined to make the full payment into the state’s pension system for public employees last year and ordered him to find a way to fund it now.

...

It came on the eve of his annual budget proposal to the Legislature, which already presented him with the challenge of finding $2.9 billion to make next year’s pension payment. The challenge is steep, with the state’s economy lagging well behind its neighbors’ and the nation’s, the state surplus dried up, and the governor loath to raise taxes.
Click to expand...
 
D

Diablos

Member
Turtleface will have a vote on a standalone bill that strips the President of his executive powers re: immigration EO.

It was nice while it lasted I guess.

I wouldn't be surprised if he changes Senate rules. Ever since Reid did they said they'd get their revenge. This is it probably.
 
G

gcubed

Member
Diablos said:
Turtleface will have a vote on a standalone bill that strips the President of his executive powers re: immigration EO.

It was nice while it lasted I guess.

I wouldn't be surprised if he changes Senate rules. Ever since Reid did they said they'd get their revenge. This is it probably.
Click to expand...

Continued diablos. That's an L for the GOP, they are going to strip the immigration stuff out seperateky to get a vote and broadcast their xenophobia without gaining anything.
 
D

Diablos

Member
gcubed said:
Continued diablos. That's an L for the GOP, they are going to strip the immigration stuff out seperateky to get a vote and broadcast their xenophobia without gaining anything.
Click to expand...
Oh really?

I didn't realize that.

More like continued Diablos is not as politically aware as usual. fml

I'm still expceting Turtleface to change Senate rules fairly significantly. No idea when that will go down but this seems like a good opportunity for them.
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
This was always going to happen. It happens every time Boehner tries this shit. The senate will pass a standalone bill, Boehner will cave, and democrats+sane republicans will pass it. The only question is whether Boehner will let the funding run out for a couple days or pass this bill before funding runs out.
 
R

RustyNails

Member
PhoenixDark said:
This was always going to happen. It happens every time Boehner tries this shit. The senate will pass a standalone bill, Boehner will cave, and democrats+sane republicans will pass it. The only question is whether Boehner will let the funding run out for a couple days or pass this bill before funding runs out.
Click to expand...
The DHS is something Bush created. There is simply no way they're gonna cut funding for DHS in light of terrorism threats and ISIS.

But I guess they really need to figure out if they hate Mexicans more than ISIS.
 
I

ivysaur12

Banned
PhoenixDark said:
This was always going to happen. It happens every time Boehner tries this shit. The senate will pass a standalone bill, Boehner will cave, and democrats+sane republicans will pass it. The only question is whether Boehner will let the funding run out for a couple days or pass this bill before funding runs out.
Click to expand...

The nice thing here is that McConnell blinked instead of Boehner. I think he'll take that W.
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
ivysaur12 said:
The nice thing here is that McConnell blinked instead of Boehner. I think he'll take that W.
Click to expand...
Honestly I don't think McConnell blinked. He knew this was a losing proposition weeks ago but played along; Boehner is in a weaker position with his caucus than McConnell, so he has to let them drive into a ditch before pulling them out again.

It makes more sense to fight Obama by slowly chipping away at regulations and the ACA through spending and omnibus bills.
 
G

gcubed

Member
PhoenixDark said:
Honestly I don't think McConnell blinked. He knew this was a losing proposition weeks ago but played along; Boehner is in a weaker position with his caucus than McConnell, so he has to let them drive into a ditch before pulling them out again.

It makes more sense to fight Obama by slowly chipping away at regulations and the ACA through spending and omnibus bills.
Click to expand...

This has how it's been since Boehner got a leadership position, magnified now because the GOP is kicking it back to the GOP. The house is insane and boehner is stuck trying to navigate the insanity... It's terrible optics now that the GOP can't agree with the GOP.
 
C

Chichikov

Member
APKmetsfan said:
lol I only have go so I might watch it later. I'll like to watch something on the topic and I just might knowing its done by people with a specific viewpoint.

I really liked we steal secrets.
Click to expand...
I bet you really liked The Fifth Estate :p
fuck, that movie was trash.

Though for real, watch that film, I think it's great and I don't think you'll have problem enjoying it even if you don't agree with Snowden's actions.
Metaphoreus said:
notsureifserious.jpg
Click to expand...
I'm never sure if benji is seriously, but he's right though.
Sure, it had been abused too (though not as much as some of its detractors claim to be) but as whole, it was used more for good.
And while I do think the process has some problems, this is merely an extension of problems that already exists with the jury system.
 
O

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
You know one of the best things about Giuliani's original comments on Obama? He attacked him for supposedly loving muslims and hating christians, and used as proof, Obama's attendance in Reverend Wright's church for 20 years.

Gotta love conservatives.
 
T

Teggy

Member
benjipwns said:
Well, I don't mean a legal crime, since it's obviously not illegal, but it's a moral crime.

Or were you wondering about the first claim.
Click to expand...

I thought he was noting that jury nullification (which is real) and the concept of a state using nullification to ignore federal law (which is afaik not real) were two totally different things.
 
benjipwns

benjipwns

Banned
Chichikov said:
I'm never sure if benji is seriously, but he's right though.
Sure, it had been abused too (though not as much as some of its detractors claim to be) but as whole, it was used more for good.
And while I do think the process has some problems, this is merely an extension of problems that already exists with the jury system.
Click to expand...
You always get the "but white bigots will exclude killing of blacks" counter-example. And well, that happened anyway, so I don't see the point of the court (state, whatever) explicitly lying to the jury about their power/right to judge both the law and fact.

And arresting people for informing juries is worse.

Teggy said:
I thought he was noting that jury nullification (which is real) and the concept of a state using nullification to ignore federal law (which is afaik not real) were two totally different things.
Click to expand...
Well, it's not "allowed" because the federal government gets the final say so. But the example Paul used (if you click through on the link posted) was changing marijuana laws. There State nullification is effectively a stalking horse for future federal policy hopefully.

Historically, Personal Liberty Laws are a good example of both State and jury nullification. Because the States ignored the Fugitive Slave Laws and granted jury trials to escaped slaves, and abolition favoring juries got the hint.
 
I

ivysaur12

Banned
I truly never understood the idea behind arresting people for informing others of jury nullification. Can I not be on a jury because I understand what jury nullification is? Would I need to say that I understand the concept of jury nullification? It's very odd.
Slash lol I would get out of that so fast when they asked me any basic questions on my thoughts on the criminal justice system.
 
benjipwns

benjipwns

Banned
It's one easy way to get stricken from the pool. Like if it's a drug case, say you don't believe it should be illegal, etc. Usually from what I've witnessed the only chance you get to bring up jury nullification is if they ask you something like "do you recognize the role of the jury is to judge the facts, the court to judge the law, blah blah blah" otherwise it's kinda clear you're using it to get off. (Dirty minds!)

I usually get struck because of my degrees I think. Never had the opportunity to say that I don't recognize the authority of the state to demand my services without negotiated compensation.

EDIT: Some have argued [who?*] that it's morally justified to lie about it so you can get on the jury to then nullify. But like I said, I never get that far.

*Like Michael Huemer in this presentation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlTyOC32-vs#t=40m30s
 
C

Chichikov

Member
Teggy said:
I thought he was noting that jury nullification (which is real) and the concept of a state using nullification to ignore federal law (which is afaik not real) were two totally different things.
Click to expand...
Jury nullification and nullification as in the nullification crisis are two very different things.

benjipwns said:
You always get the "but white bigots will exclude killing of blacks" counter-example. And well, that happened anyway, so I don't see the point of the court (state, whatever) explicitly lying to the jury about their power/right to judge both the law and fact.
Click to expand...
That argument always smelled like concern trolling to me.
Lynching was enabled by police and prosecutors, not by jury nullifications.
Yes, there were cases that this process has been abused, but the idea the southern states tried to stop lynching and it was them pesky jurors who got in their way is some crazy revisionist history (and not at all the reason why people try to undermine that process).

benjipwns said:
And arresting people for informing juries is worse.
Click to expand...
Oh man, don't get me started on that bullshit, it's also based on such shaky legal grounds.
 
C

Chichikov

Member
B-Dubs said:
All I want is something hilarious!
Click to expand...
Don't hate the playa, hate the game.

gqGOBXr.jpg


a suit under a pimp fur coat is some next level young republicanism.

Edit: no wait, moment of seriousness here, that fucking cuntface had a pretty signficant role in taking down ACORN, and organization that did a whole lot of good for a whole lot people.
Fuck him and fuck the mechanism that allowed such a turd to come to be.
Okay, resume your point and laughing now.
 
I

ivysaur12

Banned
The DCCC has released their top 60-ish targets for 2016:

http://images.politico.com/global/2015/02/05/2016_democrats_on_offense.html

To their credit, the NRCC released theirs:

Further, the NRCC is launching a marketing campaign with an Oscars theme to boost Republican support in some races. That campaign is outlined on a website, 2016donkeys.com. The website has several categories and nominees for each one, and the "winners" will be announced on the site during the Oscars broadcast Sunday.

Some of the categories include "The Brad Schneider: For most likely to be one-and-done," "The Carol Shea-Porter: For the most out-of-touch liberal record," and "The John Barrow: For the Most Two-Faced Politician."

The full list of 19 Democrats Republicans will target, according to the NRCC website: Arizona's Ann Kirkpatrick and Kyrsten Sinema; California's John Garamendi, Ami Bera, Julia Brownley, Pete Aguilar, Raul Ruiz, and Scott Peters; Connecticut's Elizabeth Esty; Florida's Gwen Graham and Patrick Murphy; Illinois' Cheri Bustos; Minnesota's Collin Peterson and Rick Nolan; Nebraska's Brad Ashford; New Hampshire's Annie Kuster; New Mexico's Ben Ray Luján; and New York's Steve Israel and Sean Patrick Maloney.
Click to expand...

The Brad Schneider
For Most Likely to Be One-and-Done
Pete Aguilar Brad Ashford
Gwen Graham

The Carol Shea-Porter
For the most out-of-touch liberal record
Ann Kirkpatrick Julia Brownley
Rick Nolan Raul Ruiz

The Tim“Mailman” Bishop
For delivering bad behavior and bad headlines
Annie Kuster Elizabeth Esty
Scott Peters John Garamendi
Sean Patrick Maloney

The John Barrow
For the Most Two-Faced Politician
Ami Bera Collin Peterson
Cheri Bustos

The Bruce“Bailey”
Most likely to run for Senate, lose, and leave an open House seat
Patrick Murphy Kyrsten Sinema

The Chris Van Hollen
The Honorary DCCC Chair Non-Achievement Award
Ben Ray Luján Steve Israel
Click to expand...

I mean, if the NRCC wishes to target someone like Elizabeth Esty, who won her district by over 7 points in a Republican wave year in a D+3 district…

giphy.gif
 
I

ivysaur12

Banned
Here's something I'm sure Mitochondrion brought up earlier (oral arguments are in a week and a half) --

Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission

The state of Arizona adopted a method of congressional redistricting where a committee of 5 draw the House lines for the state of Arizona.

From Wikipedia:

The Arizona Constitution mandates that "by February 28 of each year that ends in one, an independent redistricting commission shall be established to provide for the redistricting of congressional and state legislative districts."[9] The state Commission on Appellate Court Appointments solicits and reviews applications from the public and nominates 25 candidates--ten Democrats, ten Republicans and five independents.[10] The Constitution also specifies that "within the three years previous to appointment, members shall not have been appointed to, elected to, or a candidate for any other public office, including precinct committeeman or committeewoman but not including school board member or officer, and shall not have served as an officer of a political party, or served as a registered paid lobbyist or as an officer of a candidate's campaign committee."[9] The leaders of the two largest parties in both houses of the legislature (in practice, the Senate and House Democratic and Republican leaders) select one candidate each to be commissioners. Of the four commissioners selected by the legislature, no more than two may be from the same party or from the same county.[9] Once the four partisan commissioners are set, they then select an independent chair from the list of candidates compiled by the Commission on Appellate Court Appointments. This fifth member is not subject to the county residency limit otherwise imposed, so in practice up to three members of the AIRC may be from a single county.
Click to expand...

The Arizona State Legislature argues that this is unconstitutional, since it violates the Elections Clause:

The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators.
Click to expand...

The district court dismissed the case for failure to make a claim, though it does look at the case's merits:

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12500669603536296877&q=Arizona+State+Legislature+v.+Arizona+Independent+Redistricting+Commission&hl=en&as_sdt=20000006

Plaintiff asserts that because the word "legislature" means "the representative body which makes the laws of the people," (Doc. 12 at ¶ 37), and the Clause allows the legislature to prescribe the time, place and manner of holding elections for congresspersons, the Clause specifically grants the power to realign congressional districts to the legislature.[2] The Supreme Court, however, has at least twice rejected the notion that when it comes to congressional redistricting the Elections Clause vests only in the legislature responsibilities relating to redistricting. Both cases found that states were not prohibited from designing their own lawmaking processes and using those processes for the congressional redistricting authorized by the Clause. In subsequent cases, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed that a state can place the redistricting function in state bodies other than the legislature.

In the first case, Ohio ex. rel. Davis v. Hildebrant, the Ohio state constitution reserved to its voters the legislative power to approve or disapprove by popular vote any law passed by the state legislature. 241 U.S. 565, 566 (1916). Ohio voters used this referendum power to disapprove of a congressional redistricting plan drawn by the state legislature. Id. In response, a mandamus action was brought against state election officials to direct them to disregard that vote and proceed as if the redistricting plan passed by the legislature remained valid. Id. The petitioner's argument was "based upon the charge that the referendum vote was not and could not be part of the legislative authority of the state, and therefore could have no influence on the subject of the law creating congressional districts." Id. at 567. Specifically, the petitioner argued that to allow the referendum to block the legislature's plan would violate both the Elections Clause and the controlling act of Congress. Id. The State Supreme Court "held that the provisions as to referendum were a part of the legislative power of the state, made so by the [state] Constitution, and that nothing in the act of Congress of 1911, or in the constitutional provision, operated to the contrary, and that therefore the disapproved [redistricting] had no existence and was not entitled to be enforced by mandamus." Id.

In reviewing this decision, the United States Supreme Court first looked to the power of the state and explained that "the referendum constituted a part of the state Constitution and laws, and was contained within the legislative power," and thus the claim that the rejected plan nonetheless remained valid despite the referendum was "conclusively established to be wanting in merit." Id. at 568.

Next, the Court looked to how Congress had spoken on the issue under its own Elections Clause power to make or alter state regulations, remarking that the act of 1911 had "expressly modified the phraseology of the previous acts relating to [redistricting] by inserting a clause plainly intended to provide that where, by the state Constitution and laws, the referendum was treated as part of the legislative power, the power as thus constituted should be held and treated to be the state legislative power for the purpose of creating congressional districts by law." Id. at 568. The Court noted that while the earlier federal statute relating to apportionment had described redistricting by "the legislature" of each state, the 1911 act modified this language, describing redistricting be done by states "in the manner provided by the laws thereof." Id. The Court further noted that "the legislative history of this [1911 act] leaves no room for doubt that the prior words were stricken out and the new words inserted for the express purpose, so far as Congress has power to do it, of excluding" the argument made by petitioner. Id. at 568-69.

Finally, the Court considered whether the act of 1911 may itself have violated the Elections Clause. In doing so the Court declined to hold that the Clause granted redistricting authority uniquely to the state legislature as opposed to any other entity, including the people, which the state may have endowed with "legislative power." Thus the Court observed that the argument that Congress had violated the Elections Clause by authorizing re-districting to be accomplished "in the manner provided by the laws [of the state]" including referendum as it had been used in Ohio to reject the legislature's redistricting map, "must rest upon the assumption that to include the referendum in the scope of the legislative power is to introduce a virus which destroys that power, which in effect annihilates representative government." Id. at 569. The Court further noted that the question of whether legislative procedures such as the referendum that Ohio had adopted violated the republican guarantee clause "presents no justiciable controversy." Id. (citin Pacific States Teleph. & Teleg. Co. v. Oregon, 223 U.S. 118 (1912)).
Click to expand...

Not only was a standing question added to this brief, but SCOTUS Blog also points out that the case might be dismissed as a political question:

And, because the case reached the Court in the form of a formal appeal, the kind over which the Court has little or no discretion to bypass, there is a separate question of whether the Court did actually have to take on the case (that is, does it have formal jurisdiction). In deciding that issue, the Court may consider not only the “standing” issue but also claims by the supporters of the independent approach that the dispute is a “political question” not open at all to decision in the federal courts.
Click to expand...

It would take a very narrow reading of the Elections clause to side with the petitioners. This clause:

The state Commission on Appellate Court Appointments solicits and reviews applications from the public and nominates 25 candidates--ten Democrats, ten Republicans and five independents.
Click to expand...

Might prove tricky, but the fact that this was a referendum so similar in spirit to Davis v. Hildebrant and that the legislature actually does appoint the committee leads me to believe that this won't be struck down.
 
C

Coriolanus

Banned
benjipwns said:
It's one easy way to get stricken from the pool. Like if it's a drug case, say you don't believe it should be illegal, etc. Usually from what I've witnessed the only chance you get to bring up jury nullification is if they ask you something like "do you recognize the role of the jury is to judge the facts, the court to judge the law, blah blah blah" otherwise it's kinda clear you're using it to get off. (Dirty minds!)

I usually get struck because of my degrees I think. Never had the opportunity to say that I don't recognize the authority of the state to demand my services without negotiated compensation.

EDIT: Some have argued [who?*] that it's morally justified to lie about it so you can get on the jury to then nullify. But like I said, I never get that far.

*Like Michael Huemer in this presentation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlTyOC32-vs#t=40m30s
Click to expand...

You people find the oddest of reasons to arrest peeps.

Is what i'd like to say, buut then i went and checked how jury sovereignity was going in my country nowadays, aaand i kinda saw that it only really applied when folks got convicted, being supah easy to overturn in cases of acquitals, so fuck everything.

I need my unwarranted sense of superiority :(
 
R

RustyNails

Member
Chichikov said:
Don't hate the playa, hate the game.

gqGOBXr.jpg


a suit under a pimp fur coat is some next level young republicanism.

Edit: no wait, moment of seriousness here, that fucking cuntface had a pretty signficant role in taking down ACORN, and organization that did a whole lot of good for a whole lot people.
Fuck him and fuck the mechanism that allowed such a turd to come to be.
Okay, resume your point and laughing now.
Click to expand...
He looks like a younger Ron Paul.
 
C

Crisco

Banned
Diablos said:
Turtleface will have a vote on a standalone bill that strips the President of his executive powers re: immigration EO.

It was nice while it lasted I guess.

I wouldn't be surprised if he changes Senate rules. Ever since Reid did they said they'd get their revenge. This is it probably.
Click to expand...

This seems like a really bad idea. Is the goal to force Obama to veto a bill that blocks his executive actions? What would that accomplish exactly? This is just McConnell trying to save Boehner's ass, again.
 
T

Teggy

Member
Crisco said:
This seems like a really bad idea. Is the goal to force Obama to veto a bill that blocks his executive actions? What would that accomplish exactly? This is just McConnell trying to save Boehner's ass, again.
Click to expand...

I think the goal is to get vulnerable Democrats on record as supporting the executive actions and alternatively show some Democrats voting against the executive actions.
 
D

Diablos

Member
Teggy said:
I think the goal is to get vulnerable Democrats on record as supporting the executive actions and alternatively show some Democrats voting against the executive actions.
Click to expand...
I don't think that will carry much weight though. They're Democrats so they will likely support the President. Running from him like Grimes and co. did last year is stupid.

Besides, in 2016 they can say he's leaving town soon anyway.

I just think Mitch genuinely wants to stick it to his EO on immigration and use it as justification to start changing Senate rules.


Anyway, did anyone watch The Nightly Show? I've never heard of Tara Setmayer, but I cannot believe how incredibly dumb and ignorant she is. Please don't feed the trolls, Comedy Central.
 
J

jamesinclair

Banned
If this wont spur riots, nothing will
Capitol Police dashed the weekend fun being had by neighborhood youngsters because one congressional leader appears to be a stickler for decorum.

Following the second wave of white stuff dumped on Washington, D.C., in just a few days, an HOH tipster said sled-toting families on Feb. 21 braved the frigid temperatures for a chance to feel the sting of kicked-up slush and whipping winds while zooming down the West Front of the Capitol.

Until a Capitol Police officer begrudgingly brought the seasonal merriment to a screeching halt.

“When I questioned the officer about this, he said it has been prohibited for years, but Capitol Hill Police have been looking the other way. I asked him why they were changing now? He said Congress was insisting they enforce the ban,” the fun seeker told HOH.

..

“He replied it was the head of the appropriations committee who insisted on enforcement because he did not like the appearance of having the public sled next to the Capitol,” the distressed party shared via email.
Click to expand...

http://hoh.rollcall.com/congressional-grump-blamed-for-nixing-hillside-sledding/?dcz
 
T

Teggy

Member
Diablos said:
I don't think that will carry much weight though. They're Democrats so they will likely support the President. Running from him like Grimes and co. did last year is stupid.

Besides, in 2016 they can say he's leaving town soon anyway.

I just think Mitch genuinely wants to stick it to his EO on immigration and use it as justification to start changing Senate rules.
Click to expand...

Meh, they know if they don't fund HS they are going to take the blame so they are just looking for some way to point the finger at Democrats. Been pretty textbook for the Republicans for the last few years.

Is there really much benefit to McConnell going nuclear? I don't think Obama cares too much about potentially taking some heat for vetoes. And the downside is potentially huge looking at 2016.
 
G

gcubed

Member
Teggy said:
Meh, they know if they don't fund HS they are going to take the blame so they are just looking for some way to point the finger at Democrats. Been pretty textbook for the Republicans for the last few years.

Is there really much benefit to McConnell going nuclear? I don't think Obama cares too much about potentially taking some heat for vetoes. And the downside is potentially huge looking at 2016.
Click to expand...

Yea, there is zero upside for changing rules when you don't control the presidency. You would have a negative public perception AND get nothing from it.
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
gcubed said:
Yea, there is zero upside for changing rules when you don't control the presidency. You would have a negative public perception AND get nothing from it.
Click to expand...

It makes more sense to change it now, than to change it upon winning the presidency. Presidents have to pretend to be bipartisan during the early parts of their presidency, hence why they tend to avoid rule changes. Whereas changing it now would go under the radar. The only downside is that getting rid of the filibuster now would rob republicans of the "dems are being obstructionists" talking point. I'd imagine that's also why Harry Reid didn't do it.
 
G

gcubed

Member
PhoenixDark said:
It makes more sense to change it now, than to change it upon winning the presidency. Presidents have to pretend to be bipartisan during the early parts of their presidency, hence why they tend to avoid rule changes. Whereas changing it now would go under the radar. The only downside is that getting rid of the filibuster now would rob republicans of the "dems are being obstructionists" talking point. I'd imagine that's also why Harry Reid didn't do it.
Click to expand...

That's also making a big bet on you winning the next election
 
Metaphoreus

Metaphoreus

This is semantics, and nothing more
benjipwns said:
Well, I don't mean a legal crime, since it's obviously not illegal, but it's a moral crime.

Or were you wondering about the first claim.
Click to expand...

I meant I wasn't sure whether you were serious about conflating nullification with jury nullification. The latter is well-established in some states (such as Kansas, whose Supreme Court recently decided a case based on the jury's right to ignore the law). The former, as much as I like it, is derided even by folks like Randy Barnett. In any event, the two concepts are distinct.

ivysaur12 said:
Here's something I'm sure Mitochondrion brought up earlier (oral arguments are in a week and a half) --
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if I have, but I have been watching it. Another fun case for the term!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

GAF Museum - The Greatest OTs of All Time (or at least, some of the great ones)
|OT|
4
2K
Komatsu replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT6| Made this thread during Harvey because the ratings would be higher
338 339 340 341 342
17K
2M
UselessNapkin replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
395 396 397 398 399
20K
2M
RDreamer replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT4| The leaks are coming from inside the white house
396 397 398 399 400
20K
2M
ShironRedshift replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT3| 13 Treasons Why
393 394 395 396 397
20K
2M
Zaraki_Kenpachi replied
Top Bottom