- Home
- About Us
- Contributors
- Departments
- Topics
- Back Issues
- Weekly Archives
- AmSpecBlog
- Subscribe
- Newsletter
- Advertise
- Donate
- Contact Us
- Daily Digest
- Templeton Essays
search
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Special Report
Sonia the Player Umpire
The 2005 nomination hearings for Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts provided a moment of unifying clarity for our politically and ideologically riven nation. Roberts explained the role of a judge as like an umpire in a baseball game. The umpire is supposed to call balls and strikes and fairly and objectively apply the rules of the game. The umpire is not supposed to get in the game and play for one team or another, whatever his personal "empathies" might be. This immediately calmed the nomination atmosphere, as the entire nation, including liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans, seemed to join in saying "Amen," that is exactly what a judge is supposed to do.
But that was not good enough for then Senator Barack Obama, the ultraliberal from Illinois, who voted against the overwhelmingly confirmed Roberts. He did that because the explanation Roberts gave above does not reflect Obama's judicial philosophy, as Obama has forthrightly told us. Obama does not want judges to objectively apply the law to the facts of each case, without favoritism. What Obama has said is that he wants judges who will decide which side in a case deserves their "empathy" based on the judge's personal morality, and then favor that party regardless of what the law or even the facts say. We will see below how that "empathy" works in a couple of particular cases.
So if the umpire has empathy for the team in the field, and the batter hits a tapper in front of the plate, and the catcher trips and falls in trying to field it, Obama wants the umpire to field the ball and throw the runner out at first. This is also the judicial philosophy of Obama's first Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor.
Sotomayor's Experimental Law
Sotomayor helpfully explained her legal philosophy in an article published in the Suffolk University Law Review in 1996 entitled "Returning Majesty to the Law and Politics: A Modern Approach." Sotomayor warms up saying in the second paragraph, "The public expects the law to be static and predictable. The law, however, is uncertain and responds to changing circumstances." She quotes approvingly former Second Circuit Judge Jerome Frank, founder of the school of "Legal Realism," who wrote in "his classic work, Law and the Modern Mind," in 1930, that the law is "uncertain, indefinite, (and) subject to incalculable changes." In taking us back to the 1930s for her "modern" ideas, Sotomayor is the perfect soulmate for Obama, whose so badly retro economics from the 1930s has the dumbstream press so breathless in anticipation.
Sotomayor then uncorks this beaut:
The constant development of unprecedented problems requires a legal system capable of fluidity and pliancy. Our society would be strait-jacketed were not the courts, with the able assistance of the lawyers, constantly overhauling the law and adapting it to the realities of ever-changing social, industrial and political conditions; although changes cannot be lightly made, yet law must be more or less impermanent, experimental and therefore not nicely calculable. Much of the uncertainty of the law is not an unfortunate accident; it is of immense social value." [Emphasis added.]
In other words, a legal system that empowers Sotomayor to impose from the bench her exciting, new, experimental ideas from the 1930s is just of such immense social value to the rest of us. But Sotomayor continues:
Frank believed that in the complex, fast-paced modern era, lawyers do themselves a disservice by acceding to the public myth that law can be certain and stable….[C]hange -- sometimes radical change -- can and does occur in a legal system that serves a society whose social policy itself changes. It is our responsibility to explain to the public how an unpredictable system of justice is one that serves a productive, civilized, but always evolving, society….Frank's point that the public fails to appreciate the importance of indefiniteness in the law must be addressed through better education of the public by lawyers and others, including government officials.
Silly public, Trix are for self-reverential judges, wisened by their life experiences, about which we all need to be schooled by lawyers and government officials in the know.
James Bopp, General Counsel of the James Madison Center for Freedom of Speech, explains best what this means, writing:
She calls it a "public myth" that law can be stable, or provide predictable results. Instead, she suggests that the law is in such a constant state of flux that one can never be sure what the law is, or what one's rights or obligations under it are. What we have, she writes, is an "unpredictable system of justice." And she believes this "continually evolving legal structure" which leads to what she calls "the uncertainty of the law" is a good thing for society.
This is a wrong understanding of the role and function of law in our society. Law is not to be uncertain and arbitrary. Rather, it is to provide rules that all must live by, and guidance whereby we can structure our lives. Sotomayor's position, though, is that such certainty is a bad thing, and uncertainty in the law is the desired result.
This philosophy opens the door for Sotomayor, and judges who believe similarly, to avoid following what the law actually says. It allows them to place "empathy" above impartiality. After all, if the law is uncertain and constantly changing, why shouldn't a judge rule in favor of the party that she likes best or agrees with most? Sotomayor's philosophy facilitates the type of judicial activism and legislation from the bench that decides cases according to what the judges personally believe should be the correct result, instead of what the law actually says should be the correct result. It destroys any confidence Americans might have in the law's fairness, if judges are free to make rulings which go against what the law says in order to benefit parties they like or agree with.
Change for Thee, Not for Me
Comments
Leave a Comment
Related Articles
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Obama's Foreign Policy Problems, Personified
- ‘Call Fox’
- An American Tragedy
Are you in a mob?
The Democrats say Obamacare opponents are a mob. Are they right?
Participating in this survey will subscribe you to the American Spectator email newsletter. You may unsubscribe at any time.
ADVERTISEMENT
Marc Jeric| 6.3.09 @ 6:38AM
La Sotomayor is a typical product of affirmative action (just like Obama), nurtured by tenured marxists at Princeton and Yale (just like Obama). Both of them intend to impose a marxist state on us by finding more of those emanations from the penumbras of the Constitution.
For example, if a tenant does not pay his rent, punish the apartment owner. If a worker is fired for laziness and lateness and frequent errors, punish the business owner. If states do not have enough money to pay government unions, impose sufficient taxes to do so. Find any excuse to nationalize every business in the name of fairness. Outlaw all radio and TV that do not follow the government direction, and subsidize those that follow the directives of our socialist government. Rule all voter frauds aimed at disenfrachising the conservatives as legal, and throw out all complaints about voter fraud committed by the ACORN brownshirts. Etc., etc.
NoToObama| 6.3.09 @ 6:46AM
the republicans need to grow some and keep this harpe out of the supreme court of the united states. but they won't and we will continue on our downhill slide into marxism. they are a bunch of pasty soft pansies too afraid to stand up to this woman and she and her man barry know it.
Paul torsiello| 6.3.09 @ 7:20AM
Hang them all!
Doorgunner| 6.3.09 @ 7:21AM
BAN DAVID MATHEWS
El Rey| 6.3.09 @ 7:29AM
It is self-annointed elitists like B. Hussein Obama and this Sotomayor who will destroy the Republic.
And the ironic part is that they are both from minorities which, in the history of the world, have never been treated so preferentially as they have been in America since the 1970's.
For example, both Obama and Sotomayor have Ivy League educations thanks to affirmative action and racial quotas. (If you doubt it, try to get either one's SAT scores. You can't; they're locked away like national secrets least they prove the point.)
But destroying the rule of law -- which is what Sotomayor's judicial philosophy would do -- and it will be Hispanic and black minorities who will eventually suffer the most.
Big J| 6.3.09 @ 7:38AM
Excellent article, Mr. Ferrara.
Let's see if I have this somewhat covered:
He was indoctrinated in a Muslim school in Indonesia, his father was Muslim, and his name is Barrack Hussein Obama.
Still haven't seen a birth certificate yet.
Raises more money during the campaign than anyone in history, with questionable ties to ACORN (who is under investigation for voter registration fraud in 14 states).
Sat in an anti-American church for 20 years with "no knowledge" of his pastor's hate for this country.
After the G20 summit, does the "trash talk tango" across Europe, calling America arrogant, derisive and dismissive, and not a Christian nation.
Sends the FBI to negotiate with Somali terrorists for 5 days before the Navy took over and saved an American hostage.
Buddies up with South American dictators, listening to a 45 minute tirade against America, an accepting an anti-American book from Hugo Chavez.
Has proposed astronomical government spending that will cripple our economy for years to come, while taking over the banking and auto industries.
Has all but shunned Israel in favor of radicals like Hammas and Hezbolah.
I left A BUNCH out, but I think you get the message.
Yep, he's right on track with this radical SCOTUS nomination.
God help this country and her soldiers.
drudge ette obama| 6.3.09 @ 7:50AM
From the nonLatina female lawyer (my race hasn't been established yet), it is apparent that Little Sonia doesn't appreciate that we are supposed to be a nation of laws, not men. This means that laws are static and dependable until changed by the legislature, not the judiciary. Then checks and balances comes into play. A nation of men results in the Little Sonias making up the rules as we go along. A nation of laws provides an expectation of what is expected. First year law school concept.
Little Sonia also doesn't know how to dress for the most important honor of her life. No collar, loud tube-topped Sonia looked ordinary. She didn't even get her hair done unless matted crop is a new style in Newyorican. The men around her dressed appropriately for the occasion. She was outclassed, even by Biden. Dear god, why do some women lose points on the easy parts? If she had worn a classic suit with collared shirt, as well as decent-looking pumps, she could have given the impression of a serious professional.
Dave, you voted? Was it one of those hanging chad ballots? Where's your address and telephone number? Someone is trying to call you but doesn't have your contact information.
stu.b.con| 6.3.09 @ 7:55AM
BAN DAVID MATHEWS
Normally I would not feel this way, spririted debate can be fun, edifying, and healthy. The ad hominem rants of this pre-adolescent jackass, however don't fall into this category. They are tiresome and frankly pathetic. Enough.
True Conservative| 6.3.09 @ 8:07AM
It seems that all is lost!
How Dave Mathews can be allowed to vote and not be out of diapers yet is troubling.
drudge ette obama| 6.3.09 @ 8:26AM
Be careful, Dave, what you blog. It's not a good idea (for you and your own afterlife) to speak for Jesus or to assume that you are on the "good side".
In all seriousness, you seem to like nature and its beauty as I can see from your photos. Lighting and scale are a little off, but I notice from your choices of subjects that the world's creatures are important to you. This mitigates some of the bad things you write about others. Unless you eat them after you take their picture?
Darin| 6.3.09 @ 8:33AM
Ignore David Mathews. Treat his remarks as you would treat those of a 2-year-old, for the validity level is about the same. He's good at saying a lot yet actually saying nothing. When/if he has something valid to say and can back it up, no problem. Otherwise, ignore him.
Jack| 6.3.09 @ 8:34AM
Please ban David Mathews.
Encouraging personal attacks raging on every commenter surely isn't the purpose of this comments section. If discourse is lost among disagreeing users, what's the point.
I agree that the best way to feature Obama's intention and viewpoint is to paint Sotomayer as being his legal clone.
John W.| 6.3.09 @ 8:44AM
David! Little buddy! How ya doin?
See what you've done? Look, it's nice your mommy let's you get on the interweb thingy. It's a good thing, I suppose, that you're spending time on the kind of "adult" site where grownups discuss grown up business, instead of spending all your time on the pother kind of adult sites. (Do you come to these sites when mommy's watching?)
BUT...
Kid, I hate to be the one to break it to you, but you've gotten to be a boring pest. Not just here, but every place you visit on the Internet (that's the real name for it). "Republicans are stupid," "Republicans are racist," "Republicans are losers," blah, blah, blah. Yeah, we all get it, you hate Republicans. David, you never say anything else.
If you want to hang out with the grownups, and have them pay attention to you need to learn a couple of things:
1. Follow the thread of the discussion.
2. Take a course in logic, or ask mommy to buy you a copy of Copi's "Introduction to Logic." Mommy will have to find you a tutor to explain the big words, but at least try to read it.
3. After you learn a little bit about how to think, you'll understand that insults aren't arguments.
Nothing personal, David, but children should be seen and not heard. At least not until they can at least try to act like grown ups.
Joe the Plumber| 6.3.09 @ 8:51AM
Notice how the moron, DM, refuses to debate the issues raised in the article. This terminally stupid prick is incapable of analytical thought. Every response consists of regergitating the same 3 or 4 things ("I hate Conservatives", "Republicans are stupid", "Mean Republicans", "Did I say I hate Republicans"). My guess is the child, DM, is just another out of work leftist Neanderthal nose picker, obsessive masturbator, about 5' 8" 350 lbs living in mommy's basement. That about right Davey boy?
2Anglico| 6.3.09 @ 9:00AM
Hey Sonia, so you like ever evolving, living and changing rules, eh? Let's me and you play some poker, MY rules will be "living" in your honor. Cash only.
ncatty| 6.3.09 @ 9:28AM
My clients do not expect the local courthouse, or any court, to be a casino, but rather a place where the law is impartially and predictably administered. If this is not the standard, then let's stop wasting our time, and let the law of the jungle prevail.
Bob Miller| 6.3.09 @ 9:36AM
If the Obamans don't seat one tool of the regime on the Supreme Court to improvise the law, they'll find another. The Court is the one remaining institution that can thwart their lawless, statist designs, if it so chooses. If Republicans take these hearings seriously, they will use them to highlight the perversion-in-progress of Constitutional law.
Bill| 6.3.09 @ 9:44AM
If Ms. Sotomayor's legal philosophy as outlined in "Returning Majesty to the Law and Politics: A Modern Approach" does not disqualify her from the Supreme Court then I am not sure what does disqualify her.
I am glad that the woman has been nominated for at least it bring out into the broad daylight the philosophy of so many legal philosophers who are reluctant to be so transparent.
What Ms. Sotomayor's legal priniple's amount to is a legal tyranny. This is not an exaggeration. If people do not know how to behave so as to avoid breaking the law (because of law uncertainty) then what prevents any of us fom going to jail if some judge decides arbitrarily that we have broken the law?
Who in a senior business role has not spent hundreds of hours and hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees attmpting to determine how the courts MIGHT rule if they take a certian course of action. We live not under the Rule of Law but under the Tyranny of Judges. Sotomayor will only continue (and probably make worde) this sad state of affairs.
Michele San Pietro| 6.3.09 @ 9:48AM
Sonia Sotomayor may be a good judge, but she sure didn't deserve to be nominated for the Supreme Court to my way of thinking.
Gill O’Teen ✝✡| 6.3.09 @ 10:10AM
I recall, and my memory may not be too reliable here, that the 2000 Florida Presidential election was settled by the courts. I was bothered that it was thought necessary to even take the matter to court. But I was even more bothered that it seemed to me that every judge decided his or her vote primarily on political affiliation. Florida had a set of playing rules which had been agreed to in advance by both political parties, but in particular, the dumbocrats were concerned that the rules were so unfair because just maybe they might lose those precious electoral college votes. obumassiah, being every bit as expert in U.S. history as he is in The Constitution of the United States, surely knows that saint sonia gives him a fifth ace up his sleeve if the 2012 election gets decided by a poker game in a backroom of the Supreme Court Building. But we need not be troubled. The RINOs in con-gress have our backs. I think that when obumassiah gets another supreme court nomination opportunity, he’ll select an Islamic cleric who has great empathy for Sharia Law.
Blaine Fallis| 6.3.09 @ 10:48AM
Great article by Peter Ferrara. Sadly the comments have descended to the level of David Mathews, whose words reveal the type of self-interested motives that are helping Obama drive his followers (and our country with him) into the ground. DM and the like could be eating from food stamps getting rationed health care, but it would still be worth it in their minds to say "the Republicans lost." Check your bank account. Note that you're unemployed. Then realize we've all lost. Even if you work for the government (and who doesn't these days?), you're sucking money from a dwindling vine.
Deidra| 6.3.09 @ 10:49AM
Why doesn't the Contentions blog at Commentary trade their trolls, lester and fuster, with Dave Mathews? I think Dave would like it there because he would find many similar-minded trolls and wouldn't be lonely. They rarely ban trolls on the left.
Doorgunner| 6.3.09 @ 11:41AM
David Mathews @ 9:13am
"I may be a coon but at least I'm not a poor conservative loser. "
hmm,
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dmathew1/3578860185/
That doesn't look like a small, furry, nocturnal mammal to me. That looks like a pasty, never-worked-day-in-his-life little white boy.
A. Men| 6.3.09 @ 12:09PM
We are doomed unless we impeach Obama.
Oldefarte| 6.3.09 @ 12:12PM
Outstanding article, Peter Ferrara----simply brilliant. Thank you!!!!!!!!!!!!
Peter Moon| 6.3.09 @ 12:29PM
Maxim Gorky denounced the Russian peasants as having 'animal-like individualism' and wished they would all die out and be replaced by a race of 'literate, rational, energetic people.'
Lenin's view of the peasant he supposedly cared so much for was that they were 'far from being an instinctive or traditional collectivist, but in fact fiercely and meanly individualistic.'
Now Sotomayor similarly chides us that the public
is misbehaving by wanting judges to simply read what is written.
NED| 6.3.09 @ 12:34PM
I concur - BAN DAVE MATHEWS - soon
Kathryn | 6.3.09 @ 12:37PM
Liberals have little use for the Constitution. Would that Republicans would not be fearful about saying so.
Join me in urging RINOs and Doormat Republicans to DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION, not cower at the feet of liberals:
http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/we-demand-true-conservative-leadership.html
Stan Redmond| 6.3.09 @ 12:48PM
It is frightening Sotamayor is a reflection of Obama and the likes of DM. Constitutional law is evolving by Obamas blatant unconstitutional violation of contract law as displayed with the GM debaucle. Free speech limitations by "hate" thought crimes. And, Obama is a flat out liar and blames whitey for many of the world's problems as does Sotamayor.
"DM the Coon." Too damned funny that picture with your lilly white hands. Talk about race baiting. Have some bait if you're going to try to rile up us poor conservatives. No one cares what color you are and you failed that little test.
1Freeman| 6.3.09 @ 1:04PM
BAN DAVID MATHEWS
Quotas Now While We Can| 6.3.09 @ 1:31PM
I wonder how many so called "Obama Supporters" will come running to Republicans for help when they realize what it use to mean to be free. The analogy that Mr. Ferrara draws regarding the Muslim Judge in Michigan is perfect. Will these so called liberals be willing to live by Sharia Law in the name of politcal correctness?
Tony in Central PA| 6.3.09 @ 1:47PM
A country with as many ethnicities as ours needs a clear and consistent law that is equally applied all the more. The law should be bigger than the judges intepreting it. Its apparent that the Administration doesn't believe these things and that it favors increasing the power of judges and creating different levels of protection under the law based around group identity.
Clinton at least had the sense to recognize Lani Guinier's similar judicial philosophy as being at odds with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. We'll have no such luck with Obama.
DAM| 6.3.09 @ 2:04PM
So Sotomayor and Obama want to return us to the 1930's, to the era of "Progressive" fascination with Fascism. Only now the fascination has become an obsession, but the "F" word will never be used.
Maybe that predicted Yellowstone super volcano eruption will occur and prevent the ACORN Brownshirts from completing the re-education camps...
ds80| 6.3.09 @ 2:31PM
IHMO the most cogent point made by the author and others here is that Sotomayor = Obama in terms of legal philosophy. What is most evident is that Sotobamayor does NOT care for Constitutional law and equal justice.
Central Coast| 6.3.09 @ 4:21PM
Dave Mathews is like Nancy Peoisi: Conservatives urgently need you both to destroy Liberalism!!! Never leave us as you give us comfort why ignorance isn't taught, but learned. You are the reason why "we" unite rather than implode on your rants. That's why you rode the short bus to school in your helmet!
Joe B| 6.3.09 @ 4:23PM
Wanna bet term limits for POTUS get challenged during Blunderboy's reign? He is exacting revenge on white America: reparations can only mean destroying wealth and property rights, then driving Europeans into tax slavery to support the coming minority majority of third world losers.
Thom| 6.3.09 @ 6:35PM
If words in the law don't mean something non ambiguous and have to be “judged” on a case by case basis, which is what those that favor a living Constitution want, then who benefits with no clear understanding of the law by non lawyers? A hint, those that write the laws and use the law to make a living from it. By what ever name you call anarchy, this is what you will get. You see this on a micro scale in most inner city areas because the population there has little or no respect for the Rule of Law and seeks to create laws tailored just for their special circumstance. Who does anarchy benefit? A would be dictator who sees every crisis real or imagined as something to not go to waste. The law either applies to all or it does not; words in the law either mean what they say or they don’t. The course we are on has some pretty ugly side effects that clear thinking Americans should get a real clear grasp of pretty soon or such events tend to run their course with what consequences may come. We are seeing the beginning of fringe lawlessness and a selective government response to it for political purposes. You can’t reason with a MOB and that is exactly what we are inviting with this relative law crap.
Mary| 6.3.09 @ 6:46PM
It strikes me that the image of justice blindfolded, by necessity, creates an image of thoroughness which taxes both reason and time.
Her take on the meaning of the ugency of the Law is rather easy, and quite close to an outlook based on the path of least resistance. It's Law on the cheap, requiring neither much time nor effort.
Her style of questioning reflects this too.
I think this is really a hill the Republicans need to take.
The malign quality of the Ricci decision presents a great opportunity that won't come again any time too soon.
Taking this hill doesn't necessarily mean she won't be confirmed. This is about dealing a debilitating blow to affirmative action as it's practiced in the Ricci case. Moreover, it provides the likelihood of spectacle produced by the incoherence of competing interests of race and disability (Ricci's dyslexia). Without a doubt, disability will win.
It's also about asserting a right long past due: we will no longer be cowed by the democrats and their "prescriptive," and by default autocratic, use of language.
From what I've read about Jeff Sessions, he's a man who was burned by their "prescriptive" privilege. I think he's honor bound to give Sotomayor a fair hearing because it's exactly what he was denied. And I think that if the Republicans understand the purpose of the fight here, even if she's confirmed, they win.
I would also like to see no deference paid to Obama regarding the pick. This isn't a cabinet appointment who'll take her leave of us when the president does. This is a lifetime appointment. If any Republican believes what she's written should disqualify her, they should vote to deny her a seat on the Court.
Maybe if this deference wasn't some sort of entitlement, presidents would actually have to look beyond ideology.
Thom| 6.3.09 @ 7:11PM
I was taught two fictions in my 1970 Government class. One that we have three branches of co-equal government that provide “check and balance” on each other and the other that the Bill of Rights was incorporated into all State Constitutions to provide “equal protection under the law”. The latter is blatantly false and never been practiced in my life time. Try traveling around this country from state to state, county to county, and City to City and see if the first ten Amendments to the Constitution apply everywhere equally or even at all in some places. The former has not revealed itself regarding unelected and unaccountable Judges acting as legislatures. The prescribed method to amend the Constitution has been avoided like the plague by Democrats because it requires a virtual super majority and a considerable deliberation by the elected representatives of the “several States”. No such hurdle exists for an unelected unaccountable simple majority rule legislature like the Supreme Court and no Executive Branch has shown the courage to tell the Supreme Court when it legislates from the bench to take a hike….thus both purported foundations of our Constitutional Republic don’t actually exist in practice and given the time this has been allowed to go on it has become the defacto truth regardless of what the enumerated law actually say. We are ripping what has been sewed…..
Old Texican| 6.3.09 @ 7:42PM
Thanks Guys
Ya'll just tickled a thought in my mind. Let's see if I can articulate it.
"I went to The Soviet Union to help them build the trans-Siberian pipeline.
When I got off the plane and went through customs, I got a lecture from the customs, (KGB), guy.
"We already gotcha'." What he was telling me is that they could change the rules any tme they wanted to. Thje "laws" were written so that if you obeyed one...you already broke another one, and off to jail in Siberia.
This is what Obama is all about.
Sadly, when you truly think about it...the second amendment protects all the rest of the "rights" we all talk about.
The problem is that standing up for the second amendment will pit YOU and I against all of the millions of technologies and powers of a really powerful country...that used to be ours.
Frightening.
Joe B| 6.3.09 @ 8:16PM
If she is as stupid as she looks, we're in big trouble.
Thom| 6.3.09 @ 8:34PM
Old Texican, from a purely statistics point of view you can’t have a full time legislature for a couple hundred years and not have essentially made everything unlawful under some circumstance(s). Hence, the best and brightest the Democrats have to offer can’t figure out or get someone else to figure out their own tax laws. To pile on a bit, if the President of the United States doesn’t know when life begins (or ends by extension) or what the definition of “sex” is then what does that say for the people that voted for them? All collectives seek to control the production of goods and services (wealth), the distribution of information (the Media), the production and care of children (future slaves) and disarm the population. Which one of these have they not acquired for the most part?
DaveS| 6.3.09 @ 9:32PM
Getting back to the article at hand: though the entity of interest (Indian Point nuclear power plant) is not mentioned by name, I recommend all read the Scalia majority opinion in Riverkeeper v. EPA. He makes mincemeat of JP Stevens's dissent. And if any reader wants to know something about the most important nuclear power plant in the world, please message me: I have worked there for 25 years as a radiation safety expert and quality assurance auditor.
Pingback| 6.3.09 @ 10:10PM
BO's Supreme Court Candidate - Page 3 - OKCTalk links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Trackback| 6.4.09 @ 2:32PM
Online Poker Guide, on Online Poker Guide, links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
l4k| 6.11.09 @ 8:16AM
Here is a link to a children's story about Sonia the Umpire: http://liberty4kids.blogspot.com/2009/05/lemonade-chronicles-sonia-umpire.html
Here is an excerpt:
One day as Barry and Little Timmy were "working" at the Lemonade Stand a couple of the neighborhood boys came by to see if Barry and Little Timmy would like to play some baseball. While Barry was quite good at basketball (just ask him), he wasn't particularly good at baseball. Little Timmy was even worse as he was very clumsy and, therefore, couldn't hit or catch. But Barry was very persuasive and talked Little Timmy into playing.
The neighborhood boys said they would get Ole Mr. Madison to be the umpire but Barry didn’t like that idea. He told them he would ask his friend Sonia.
s| 8.20.09 @ 3:58AM
Cheap Jordan,Cheap Jordan shoes,Retro Jordan,Air Yeezy Shoes,Supra shoes,Kanye West ShoesJordan shoes,New Jordans,Air Yeezy,Air Force Ones,Nike Dunks,Retro Jordan, Cheap Jordan Shoes,Nike Dunk High,True Religion Jeans,New Air Force OnesAir Yeezy Shoe,Supra Shoes,Retro Jordan,Creative Recreation,Nike DunksNike Air YeezyTrue Religion,Air Jordan Shoes,Air Shox,Air Max,Dunk Shoes.Air Jordan,Cheap Jordans,Jordan Shoes,Cheap Air Jordans,Air Jordan Shoes
Wedding Dresses| 9.10.09 @ 2:39AM
Very good article written byWedding Dresses
Designer Wedding Gowns
ah
Chukka Boots| 9.21.09 @ 12:31PM
Chukka Boots
Waterproof Boots