Impeaching Chief Justice Roberts for "Judicial Activism"

The Huffington Post’s Amanda Terkel reports that Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) is so upset about the Supreme Court’s recent free speech ruling in Citizens United v. F.E.C. that he is “investigating” whether or not to impeach Chief Justice John Roberts:

"I mean, the Supreme Court has done a tremendous disservice to the United States of America," Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) told The Huffington Post on Tuesday. "They have done more to undermine our democracy with their Citizens United decision than all of the Republican operatives in the world in this campaign. They've opened the floodgates, and personally, I'm investigating articles of impeachment against Justice Roberts for perjuring during his Senate hearings, where he said he wouldn't be a judicial activist, and he wouldn't overturn precedents."

It’s true that then-nominee Roberts described himself as a precedent-respecting advocate of “judicial modesty,” a characterization that doesn’t exactly match up with Roberts’ precedent-shattering vote in Citizens United. The fact is that Roberts is trying to have it both ways, employing the usual conservative rhetoric in praise of judicial restraint while practicing an aggressive and highly selective form of judicial review. Still, as problematic as Roberts’ approach may be, it’s not the same as lying under oath. Indeed, as the liberal legal scholar Geoffrey R. Stone—who is no fan of Citizens United—told Terkel, “This is neither well-advised nor plausible...nothing in Roberts’ testimony along these lines can fairly be characterized as perjury.”

If he’s still looking for a case of dubious testimony, DeFazio should try Sonia Sotomayor’s 2009 confirmation hearings. On the topic of gun rights and the Constitution, then-nominee Sotomayor told the Senate, “I understand the individual right fully that the Supreme Court recognized in [District of Columbia v.] Heller.” She later described Heller as “settled law.” Yet when the Second Amendment came before her in the case of McDonald v. Chicago, Sotomayor joined the dissent written by Justice Stephen Breyer which explicitly rejected the Court’s precedent in Heller. As Breyer, Sotomayor, and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg asserted in McDonald, “the Framers did not write the Second Amendment in order to protect a private right of armed self defense." That’s a fairly significant contradiction of Sotomayor’s sworn testimony, though I’m guessing DeFazio won’t trouble himself "investigating" it.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • marlok||

    It's fun to watch someone completely power-drunk on the eve of losing majority power.

  • prolefeed||

    Especially when there's an outside chance they personally will be booted out of office in January.

  • marlok||

    Let's hope so. As I just looked up, his opponent Art Robinson is an old chemistry professor, consultant, and businessman (of chemistry stuff). Sounds better to me than a career Democratic party rubber stamp with no respect for the balance of powers.

  • Juice||

    DeFazio isn't all that bad. He's like a Russ Feingold in the House. Good on civil liberties stuff (mostly), but sometimes bad on, well, stuff like this.

  • Juice||

    I just looked up Art Robinson.

    If you follow the links here and there you'll find that he's quite the interesting fellow.

    A mix of smart scientist and kooky Bircher survivalist.

  • Masturbatin' Pete||

    The fact is that Roberts is trying to have it both ways, employing the usual conservative rhetoric in praise of judicial restraint while practicing an aggressive and highly selective form of judicial review

    Nothing wrong with that. Judicial review should be a "highly selective" process, especially if it is employed "aggressively."

    Although precedent has value, particularly in common law and statutory cases, there's nothing un-conservative about rejecting stare decisis in Constitutional cases. The Court's 20th century jurisprudence has rendered the document a wish-fulfillment device for the left. There's no reason for any current justice to say that the Constitution says something that it does not just because Thurgood Marshall and Earl Warren said so.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    The Court's 20th century jurisprudence has rendered the document a wish-fulfillment device for the left.


    Indeed, the Warren Court overruled many precedents, including Palko v. Connecticut.

  • ||

    Agreed, Pete. If we still honored precedent, we'd be sterilizing people (Buck vs Bell) and have different access by race (plessy vs Ferguson). I'm sure there's a bunch of other bad shit we'd still be dealing with but there are two big ones.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Agreed, Pete. If we still honored precedent, we'd be sterilizing people (Buck vs Bell) and have different access by race (plessy vs Ferguson). I'm sure there's a bunch of other bad shit we'd still be dealing with but there are two big ones.


    Buck v. Bell was never overturned.

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    Buck v. Bell was never overturned.

    Yes indeed! I was just thinking about that fact the other day (being a practicing Virginia lawyer).

    I can think of a few imbeciles who I would like to prevent from creating another generation. Good to know Buck v. Bell is still good precedent. And I'm sure Rep. DeFazio would be highly offended if the Court failed to respect such long-standing precedent!

  • Michael Ejercito||

    I can think of a few imbeciles who I would like to prevent from creating another generation. Good to know Buck v. Bell is still good precedent. And I'm sure Rep. DeFazio would be highly offended if the Court failed to respect such long-standing precedent!


    To be sure, Buck never implied that the state can always forcibly sterilize people for any reason whatsoever; it does show there is at least one situation where the forcible sterilization of a person is beyond any constitutional objection.

  • ||

    That’s a fairly significant contradiction of Sotomayor’s sworn testimony

    The mysteries of Hispanic Wisdom. (Spanish Castle Magic?) ((Racist!))

  • alan||

    We're the sezzy race, not the wise (that would be the Chinese).

    I expected her to ignore her own testimony on gun control (liberal judges seem to always be behind the curb where generic liberals are on this matter), but recall her outright characterization of Kelo as a case dealing with urban blight. If she intended to do so to allude questions of why she concurred with Kelo's alarming expansion of 'public use' beyond where previous expansions allowing urban blight to be a consideration in the legality of public purpose in her own judgment, she did not deserve the confirmation. If she just did not understand Kelo, and the decision she wrote supporting the expansion was actually written by clerks as she enjoyed the free shrimp at a conference soirée, than she also did not deserve confirmation.

  • ||

    Hey, Sonia. The ocean called. They're running out of shrimp.

  • ||

    Well the jerk store called, and they're running out of you!

  • ||

    Yeah, well I slept with...oh just stop

  • The US Constitution||

    Stupid. It's what's for dinner.

  • You are what you eat||

    You said it.

  • Colin||

    Too bad for DeFazio that he'll soon no longer have the power to set up that kangaroo court he wants.

  • ||

    I see Mr. DeFazio is unacquainted with the Iron Law:

    Me today, you tomorrow.

  • ||

    As Breyer, Sotomayor, and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg asserted in McDonald, “the Framers did not write the Second Amendment in order to protect a private right of armed self defense."

    Possibly the stupidest single sentence in a Supreme Court opinion in the last 100 years. Worse, IMO, than the "new professionalism", because that one is just factually stupid, but this one is Constitutionally stupid.

    Other nominees gratefully accepted.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Possibly the stupidest single sentence in a Supreme Court opinion in the last 100 years. Worse, IMO, than the "new professionalism", because that one is just factually stupid, but this one is Constitutionally stupid.


    Are not judges supposed to defend out rights?

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    Possibly the stupidest single sentence in a Supreme Court opinion in the last 100 years.

    I nominate: "In this context respondent's reliance upon a literal construction of §§ 703 (a) and (d) and upon McDonald is misplaced."

    Fucking Brennan in United Steelworkers of America v. Weber. When you can't rely on what the law literally says, you're pretty much fucked. If I ever get the chance to piss on his grave, I will.

  • ||

    How about this pile of stupid from O'Conner in the case upholding McCain Feingold?

    Many years ago, we observed that ''to say that Congress is without power to pass appropriate legislation to safeguard . . . an election from the improper use of money to influence the result is to deny to the nation in a vital particular the power of self-protection.'' We abide by that conviction in considering Congress's most recent effort to confine the ill effects of aggregated wealth on our political system. We are under no illusion that B.C.R.A. [Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002] will be the last Congressional statement on the matter. Money, like water, will always find an outlet.

  • ||

    "I mean, the Supreme Court has done a tremendous disservice to the United States of America," Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) told The Huffington Post on Tuesday. "They have done more to undermine our democracy with their Citizens United decision than all of the Republican operatives in the world in this campaign."

    Freedom is by its very nature massively inconvenient.

    People are always running around...saying things I don't like, doing things I don't like, spending their money in ways I don't like...

    Respecting all their rights and liberties has always been massively inconvenient.

    You'd think he'd be used to it by now.

  • ||

    "Respecting all their rights and liberties has always been massively inconvenient."

    They don't have these problems in China.

    Maybe he'd like it better over there?

  • Thomas Friedman||

    That's what I've been saying for some time now! Glad to hear I'm finally getting through to people...

  • ||

    "They have done more to undermine our democracy with their Citizens United decision than all of the Republican operatives in the world in this campaign.

    What part of "no law" don't you understand?

    Perhaps the Honorable Sheepfucker will recall an oath he took to defend the Consitution:

    “I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

    If anyone is going to be tried for perjury...

  • Brett L||

    I hereby offer my services to elected persons of any political persuasion. You pay me $100k/year to follow you around, listen to everything you want to say in front of media or recording devices and say things like: "That's fucking stupid. Don't say that out loud ever again." Way cheaper than spending millions to lose an election because of your fat mouth.

    It will be the best money you ever spent.

  • T||

    I'm thinking I'd need way than 100K for that gig, Brett. That would be painful.

  • Brett L||

    I'm hoping to franchise it after one success.

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    Sort of the opposite of the guy the Roman emperors had following them around whispering in their ear about how they were all-powerful, wise and invincible?

  • Brett L||

    I thought the guy followed them around with a flail and reminded them they were merely flesh. Huh. Your way makes their behavior more understandable. That and leaded wine.

  • hmm||

    Teh gubmint is steelin' mys elecshuns!

    wait what?

  • Jeffersonian||

    If it's in the Constitution and consistent with original intent, it's not "judicial activism."

  • ||

    The constitution is a funny thing. The words we use now are not the words they used then, so we have to "interpret".

    I vote we raise from the dead our zombie forefathers and have them settle things for us.

  • hmm||

    The pertinent part. original intent

    There is a significant body of works produced by the authors and those that signed the constitution dealing with the intent of damn near everything in the constitution.

    The semantic argument is pretty low brow and has been easily refuted.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    And besides, we've had a pretty good grasp of etymology for about 500 years now.

  • Juice||

    The thing about original intent is that the words are usually quite vague, sometimes nebulous. Maybe the intent was to leave it up to the courts and legislatures?

    Hey, they didn't write the best document, eh?

  • Wind Rider||

    Nice plan, with a fatal flaw. Zombies thrive on brains. This is DC we're talking about. They wouldn't last a week, from starvation.

  • Zombie George Washington||

    You spent a trillion dollars on WHAT now??

  • ||

    They have done more to undermine our democracy with their Citizens United decision than all of the Republican operatives in the world in this campaign.

    Yesterday, listening to the idiots on NBC huffing and puffing about this, I couldn't help noting their complete lack of interest in whether the ads funded by "shadowy" money were factually correct.

    I suspect the existing laws covering fraud would apply; what if a Congressman or Senator who won a campaign which featured untrue ads (regardless of the source) were subject to impeachment proceedings?
    Or would it not be fair to hold them accountable?

  • MattN||

    +1

    That's what I find amusing about this whole debate -- so what if anonymous donors are funding ads... if they are correct, who cares whose funding them? If they're false, well we already have plenty of our own people lying out in the open already, so what's the difference?

  • Joe M||

    Oh man, that's rich. Clearly the guy has been drinking WAY too much Kool-Aid.

  • Wind Rider||

    This guy is looking to join the Conyers "I don't like what you did, so let's impeach your ass!" Conga line. Meets in the Capitol basement on alternating Thursdays.

  • Slut Bunwalla||

    "They have done more to undermine our democracy with their Citizens United decision than all of the Republican operatives in the world in this campaign."

    I like this. There's no democrat operatives. No environmentalist operatives. No socialist operatives. Nope, just the republican ones.

  • Wind Rider||

    He may be on to something. As disastrous as the bunch that's been running the show for the last two years have proven to be, it does make you wonder if they're not really a deep cover Rovian suicide squad with the mission of discrediting "progressivism" for generations to come. Nah, too intricate. As the electorate's learning curve is actually closer to a flat line than anything else.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    It's one of those irregular verbs: "I organize grass roots", "you engage special interests", "he/she/it operates to undermine democracy", etc.

  • ||

    Peter DeFazio and all the Dems in the House -
    Please, please, please bring a bill of impeachment (probably the wrong terminology, you know what I mean) against John Roberts over Citizens United. I want to see the party of asses stand forthrightly against free political speech.

    You've only got a couple of months before the evil GOP assumes it's majority in the House so you'll have to drop everything else and concentrate on rectifying this travesty of unregulated by government speech by groups of people any time that the citizenry might be paying attention.

    Once again, this libertarian strongly encourages you and your team blue compatriots to bring impeachment charges against John Roberts.

    You know in your heart that blaming something, any-goddam-thing, other than your own party's legislation for the upcoming electoral blood bath is the right thing to do.

  • ||

    So, um, we should remove members of Congress that vote to pass bills we don't like, right? I mean, by ejecting them from Congress, not by voting them out.

  • ||

    Which button do we press to eject? The red one on the gear shift knob?

  • ||

    That works for me.

  • Wind Rider||

    Upcoming overpass. Wait for it. Wait for it. . .

  • DJF||

    Since I don’t see anything in the US constitution which allows the federal government to create or authorize limited liability corporations then the Federal Government has no say in the matter. It must be a matter for either the State governments or individuals in what such a entity can do and what its limits are.

    If it is not covered by State constitutions then limited liability corporations are something created by individuals but don’t have the force of law to give them any special rights nor personhood. The Federal Government has no right to enforce the special privileges given to limited liability corporations and their owners.

  • ||

    Sometimes a Newsweek piece is worth reading just for the comments. George Will's piece on Alan Grayson really brought out the best in some lefties that just have a complete inability to call Grayson what he is: a fucking scumbag.

  • Newsweek Commentor||

    Bullshit, George Will. YOUR the poopoo head smarmy asshole. diaf,,,,, nya nya nay

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    It always makes my brain itch to hear people scream and wave their arms around about "respecting precedent". They throw around the term stare decisis as if they actually know what it really means and understand the concept - which they pretty much never really do.

    Just because something is "long-standing precedent" doesn't mean it should be "respected"; nor does it mean it was right when it was decided; nor does it mean that circumstances have not changed such that even if it was right when decided, it is no longer right.

    As mentioned above, Plessy v. Ferguson stood for 58 years, until overturned by Brown v. Board of Ed.

    The less well-known case (except by terrified first-year law students) of Erie v. Tompkins overturned Swift v. Tyson ninety-six years after Swift had been decided. And Swift had long been criticized and questioned - it was very clear to the justices that the time finally had come for them to do something about it, and they finally had a case in front of them that squarely presented the question and enabled them to do what many had long been saying needed to be done - i.e., reverse Swift. They as much as said so at oral argument.

    Interestingly, the dissent in Erie accused the majority of engaging in judicial activism.

    Nothing new here, folks. Move along...

  • ||

    Dred Scott is settled law!

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Dred Scott is settled law!


    To the extent that it interpreted constitutional provisions and laws that existed in 1857, it still is.

    In fact, according to Dred Scott , citizens may keep and carry arms wherever they go, and that part was not superseded by constitutional amendment.

  • Juice||

  • mr simple||

    I say DeFazio doesn't go too far enough! Not only should we eject the people who disagree wig us from power, we should also throw them in jail! How dare they have differing opinions?

  • ||

    That’s a fairly significant contradiction of Sotomayor’s sworn testimony, though I’m guessing DeFazio won’t trouble himself "investigating" it.

    Exactly. What's to investigate ? The lie is right in front of everyone, and nobody says a goddam thing.

  • prolefeed||

    I suspect the existing laws covering fraud would apply; what if a Congressman or Senator who won a campaign which featured untrue ads (regardless of the source) were subject to impeachment proceedings?

    Unsurprisingly, the ONLY place where the First Amendment's "No law" wording about free speech is actually honored is in the content of electioneering materials.

    A candidate can say absolutely ANYTHING, no matter how demonstrably false and defamatory, and no one can do anything about it except not vote for them.

    If only politicians would extend that same freedom to everyone else.

  • ||

    Impeach Earl Warren!

  • ♥♥♥||

    I read the huffington post comments on this story. WOULD NOT RECOMMEND.

  • ||

    They are fantastic. You couldn't troll some of them if you tried. A couple of my favorites

    My heart skipped a beat. Rather then interpret the law, Roberts et al broke the law, and our national democracy is in jeapordy because of his decision to grant civil rights to corporations. Every time I make a political donation, I am forced to identify myself and my employer. The US chamer of commerce and its donors beleive they are above this law. How come they get to hide in secrecy when I must be identified. John Roberts. Thats why.

    I was thinking the same thing. Especially given that Thomas's wife was a lobbyist for the US Chamber of Commerce, and he should most definitely have recused himself on the Citizens United ruling, which would have meant it didn't pass. That would have meant we actually have a normal election, more or less, instead of this massive amount of cash being spent by corporations on behalf of Republicans to buy Congress. It is interesting that something like 45 people have given so many millions to Republican organizations to run ads attacking Democrats that it's now hard for Democrats to even get air time to show rebuttals. This is democracy? Republicans are stealing our democracy, and we'd better be very anxious about this and make sure we all get out and vote for anyone but a Republican, preferably Democrats since voting for a third party candidate would basically be a vote for a Republican this time.

    What can you say?

  • ||

    Especially given that Thomas's wife was a lobbyist for the US Chamber of Commerce, and he should most definitely have recused himself on the Citizens United ruling,

    Since the Citizens United plaintiff wasn't a business or a member of the Chamber, I'm having a hard time finding the conflict of interest.

  • cynical||

    No, man, see, Citizens United was where the Supreme Court turned corporations into people and people into slaves, man. See, like, all corporations are out to make money, like the Chamber of Commerce. I mean, like, if you ignore the non-profit political corporation involved in the case, or the numerous corporations that handle funds for other mainstream political groups from both sides of the aisle, and so on.

  • ||

    A+ would lol again. I think I heard this conversation in a coffee shop not too long ago. I distinctly recall the smell of patchouli and ignorance.

  • ||

    Another great one.

    "The Republicans are in the process of buying their way back into power using this very decision.
    The end of freedom and begining of Fascism is very near, and right wingnut teabagger republicans are going to vote them back in. UNLESS Democrats get out and VOTE!!"

  • Michael Ejercito||

    "The Republicans are in the process of buying their way back into power using this very decision.
    The end of freedom and begining of Fascism is very near, and right wingnut teabagger republicans are going to vote them back in. UNLESS Democrats get out and VOTE!!"


    HuffPo commenters are dumber than anything Sarah Palin has ever birthed.

  • ||

    Between activism and restraint there is a third position that the Constitution means what it says and that is all. Most of these contentious rulings concern exceedingly obvious text such as "Congress shall make no law" or a "right to keep and bear arms". This is as opposed to the other views which are essentially the Constitution means whatever empowers liberals the most.

  • Juice||

    I'm totally driving my M1 Abrams to work then.

  • Chuck||

    I don't see the problem with Sotomayor's testimony here. One can accept that the law is, in fact, "settled" in a certain way, but still think it has been settled incorrectly.

  • ||

    Oh, to be Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, so I could subpoena Soyomayor, put her under oath, and ask her to explain herself.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Peter Defazio..

    Union shill says what, now?

  • ||

    "They have done more to undermine our democracy with their Citizens United decision than all of the Republican operatives in the world in this campaign. They've opened the floodgates."

    Somebody's been listening to Th-uh Di-i-ane Re-ehm Sho-ow again.

  • MJ||

    "The fact is that Roberts is trying to have it both ways, employing the usual conservative rhetoric in praise of judicial restraint while practicing an aggressive and highly selective form of judicial review."

    Could we not have a Reason who buys into the Left's definition of "judicial activism"? Just because the Supreme Court overturns a law does not mean that it is being activist. Activism requires an interpratation that is not supported by legislative history, a plain reading of the Constitution, and then applicable precedents. Overturning a bad precedent is not in and of itself an example of judicial activism. It is disappointing to see Damon Root subscribe to the intellectually lazy definition of judicial activism.

  • MJ||

    "They have done more to undermine our democracy with their Citizens United decision than all of the Republican operatives in the world in this campaign."

    Can we get somebody to investigate impeachment against DeFazio for his demonstrated reckless contempt for the people's civil liberties? Especially their natural right to freddom of speech?

  • Tom Degan||

    Ascribing humanity to a corporation, to a company like Exxon or Disney for example, raises too many questions to even list here. But let's at least attempt to ask a few of them, shall we, boys and girls? Here goes....

    Are corporations really persons?

    Do corporations think?

    Do corporations weep?

    Do corporations fall in love?

    Do corporations grieve when a loved one dies as a result of a lack of adequate health care?

    Do corporations have loved ones?

    Are corporations even capable of loving?

    Do corporations sometimes lose sleep at night worrying about disease, violence, destruction, and the suffering of their fellow human beings?

    Do corporations feel your pain?

    Can a corporation run for public office?

    Is a corporation capable of having a sense of humor? Is it capable of laughing at itself? (EXAMPLE: "So these two corporations walk into a bar....")

    If a corporation ever committed an unspeakable crime against the American people, could IT be sent to federal prison? (Note the operative word here: "It")

    Can a corporation register to vote?

    We all know that corporations have made a shit-load of cash throughout our history by profiting on the unspeakable tragedy of war. But has a corporation ever given its life for its country?

    Is a corporation capable of raising a child?

    Does a corporation have a conscience? Does it feel remorse after it has done something really bad?

    Has a corporation ever been killed in an accident as the result of a design flaw in the automobile it was driving?

    Has a corporation ever written a novel or a dramatic play or a song that inspired millions?

    Has a corporation ever risked its life by climbing a ladder to save a child from a burning house?

    Has a corporation ever won an Oscar? Or an Emmy? Or a Tony? Or the Nobel Peace Prize? Or a Polk or Peabody Award? Or the Pulitzer Prize in Biography?

    Has a corporation ever performed Schubert's Ave Maria?

    Has a corporation ever been shot and killed by someone who was using an illegal and unregistered gun?

    Has a corporation ever paused to reflect upon the simple beauty of an autumn sunset or a brilliant winter moon rising on the horizon?

    If a tree falls in the forest, does it make a noise if there are no corporations there to hear it?

    Should corporations kiss on the first date?

    Could a corporation resolve to dedicate its life to being an artist? Or a musician? Or an opera singer? Or a Catholic priest? Or a rabbi? Or a Doctor? Or a Dentist? Or a sheet metal worker? Or a gourmet chef? Or a short-order cook? Or a magician? Or a nurse? Or a trapeze artist? Or an author? Or an editor? Or a Thrift Shop owner? Or a EMT worker? Or a book binder? Or a Hardware Store clerk? Or a funeral director? Or a sanitation worker? Or an actor? Or a comedian? Or a glass blower? Or a chamber maid? Or a film director? Or a newspaper reporter? Or a deep sea fisherman? Or a farmer? Or a piano tuner? Or a jeweler? Or a janitor? Or a nun? Or a Trappist Monk? Or a poet? Or a pilgrim? Or a bar tender? Or a tar bender? Or a used car salesman? Or a brick layer? Or a mayor? Or a soothsayer? Or a Hall-of-Fame football player? Or a soldier? Or a sailor? Or a butcher? Or a baker? Or a candlestick maker?

    Could a corporation choose to opt out of all the above and merely become a bum? Living life on the road, hopping freight trains and roasting mickeys in the woods?

    I realize that this is pure theological speculation on my part but the question is just screaming to be posed: When corporations die, do they go to Heaven?

    Our lives - yours and mine - have more worth than any goddamned corporation. To say that the Supreme Court made a awful decision last January is an understatement. Not only is it an obscene ruling, it is an insult to our humanity.

    http://www.tomdegan.blogspot.com

    Tom Degan
    Goshen, NY

  • cynical||

    Cool story, bro.

  • ||

    Good godda'mighty, y'all! These Leftist dogs sho'nuff is turnin' out to be some sick puppies. Quick! Roll up yo pantslegs! It's too late to save them shiny eye-talian shoes!

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement