Donald Trump

Trump vs. the Judiciary

Trump attacks "so-called judge" who issued nationwide temporary restraining order against travel ban.

|

Gage Skidmore

Power-hungry American presidents inevitably come into conflict with the judicial branch of the U.S. government.

President Franklin Roosevelt, for example, grew so aggravated after watching his New Deal agenda lose repeatedly at the Supreme Court (including several 9-0 defeats), that he tried in 1937 to give himself the power to pack the Court with as many as six new justices who were ready and willing to side with his administration in future cases. Thankfully, FDR's blatant attempt to interfere with a co-equal branch of government failed miserably.

What form will President Donald Trump's inevitable clash with the courts take? We are getting some indication. On Friday Judge James Robart of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington at Seattle, a George W. Bush appointee, issued a temporary nationwide restraining order that blocks the U.S. government from enforcing President Trump's executive action banning immigrant and nonimmigrant travelers from seven majority-Muslim countries.

Robart's order came in response to a legal challenge filed by the state of Washington against Trump's travel ban. "The Executive Order has both the intent and effect of discriminating based on national origin and religion, in violation of the Constitution," the state argues. "While preventing terrorist attacks is an important goal, the order does nothing to further that purpose by denying admission to children fleeing Syria's civil war, to refugees who valiantly assisted the U.S. military in Iraq, or to law-abiding high-tech workers who have lived in Washington for years."

According to the state, to allow Trump's executive order to go into effect while this legal challenge is proceeding would cause irreparable harm to lawful permanent residents, to businesses, and to families in Washington. The state also maintains that it is likely to prevail on the merits of its case. Judge Robart agreed. It now falls to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit to give full consideration to whether or not Judge Robart's order should remain standing.

In response to this preliminary victory for Washington state, President Trump lashed out on Twitter. "The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned!" Trump declared. A day later, Trump tweeted this: "Just cannot believe a judge would put our country in such peril. If something happens blame him and court system. People pouring in. Bad!"

Back in April 2012, most conservatives were outraged when President Barack Obama saw fit to give a press conference in which he lectured the Supreme Court about why it would be "judicial activism" for the Court to strike down Obamacare on constitutional grounds. Those conservatives were right to be outraged. The Supreme Court was then in the midst of its Obamacare deliberations and the president was clearly trying to influence the outcome of the case by throwing some executive weight around.

The same conservatives who were outraged by Obama's actions then should be outraged by Trump's actions now. Trump, just like Obama before him, is seeking to undermine the independence of the judicial branch because it threatens to rule against him. Judge Robart is not a "so-called judge." He was duly nominated by a U.S. president and duly confirmed by a Senate vote of 99-0. Trump may not like it, but as president he is constitutionally bound to obey federal court orders.

It remains to be seen how Trump will react when he loses in higher court.

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.

357 responses to “Trump vs. the Judiciary

  1. “The same conservatives who were outraged by Obama’s actions then should be outraged by Trump’s actions now.”

    That politicians would use political rhetoric to object to court rulings on political matters that they disagree with is hardly surprising. I have plenty to say about a number of especially shitty court decisions, starting with the Dred Scott decision, going through Filburn v. Wickard, and continuing through to Gonzales v. Raich and the “penaltax” decision on the ACA.

    All the justices involved in those decisions should all be ashamed of themselves, and any presidents or politicians who called the judges out for those awful decisions should be proud of themselves for doing so.

    The question isn’t whether it’s appropriate to criticize judges or their decisions, the question is whether the judge or decision is worthy of criticism.

    . . . and in this case, the decision is worthy of criticism if it applies to people who don’t already have legal residency or green cards. While it’s true that the Trump administration is likely to lose on due process grounds for people who already have green cards, the Trump administration is likely to prevail on the part of the order that applies to people who don’t yet have green cards. That part of the executive order should not have been subject to a TRO.

      1. None in Washington State or on 9th Circuit, I guess.

        1. Hopefully none anywhere else either. In New York we already have our hands full with the unpresidented “First Amendment dissent” of a single, isolated, so-called judge in America’s leading criminal “satire” case ? see the documentation at: http://raphaelgolbtrial.wordpress.com/. Hopefully we can get this sort of nonsense banned from law libraries around the country before any more damage is done to the executive branch.

      2. The Left has been lawless ever since they came up with “Living Constitution”.

        A concise summary of the Living Constitution

      3. Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, Section 2a can be read to limit the section quoted above. Hopefully this links:

        http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-…..-Pg911.pdf

    1. I would think the outrage at Obama would have been for the hypocrisy of a liberal criticizing judicial activism when it fits his agenda to do so. Unfortunately neither this article nor the Obama article it links provides any details regarding the outrage.

    2. My last month paycheck was for 11000 dollars… All i did was simple online work from comfort at home for 3-4 hours/day that I got from this agency I discovered over the internet and they paid me for it 95 bucks every hour… This is what I do

      =========================== http://www.4dayjobs.com

  2. U STUPID LIBS GONNA GET US ALL KILLED UR MORE DANGEROUS THAN THE TERRISTS

    1. I thought dajjasshole was an AmSoc Sock, but here he is clearly pushing the Addition Myth theme.

      1. Umm, I’ve been telling everyone here for months that shreek (butthead), AddictionMyth, and dajjal are the same person. He fucking admitted it, for Crikey sake and he has a blog where the three of them fake arguing with each other. All of them type the exact same bullshit over and over here, my little trumpelstiltkins, Jill Stein approves of this message, etc, etc, etc. I’m not sure how it could be more obvious. Also, I’ve busted the fuckhead several times when he forgets which sock he’s logged in as. I busted shreek’s AddictionMyth sock less than 10 minutes after he created it.

        1. Each of you is completely convinced I’m the alter-ego of your own personal arch-nemesis – yet only some of you question how that could be possible. It’s all very funny.

        2. He’s the (acceptable but unfortunate) price we pay for a largely unmoderated comment section.

          1. It’s really great how we have a perfect example in our midst of how staying true to your principles requires tolerating an utter moron from time to time.

            1. I hear you but I wish he’d take his meds for his own sake as well as for ours.

              1. I have chosen to not read their posts. In point of fact, there are a few regular commentators whose posts I do not read on H&R in addition to the ones mentioned above.

                In addition, I am sure other readers of H&R ignore my posts. You gentlemen or gentle ladies might consider simply ignoring the posts of those who seem to offer you nothing (or extremely little) of value.

                (Obviously you have to begin ignoring me after this particular post of mine, unless you are temporally flexible in an Agile Cyborg type of manner)

                1. I’m sorry….what was that? I wasn’t listening.

                2. *Reasonabled*

                  Nah, just kidding, you’re alright.

                3. Did somebody say something?

        3. And, as if you needed any more proof, I’ve got them all on my reasonable block list. COINCIDENCE?

      2. Yeah, they’re all Shrike.

        1. Bullshit. I told everyone when I lost my “shrike” email account. And I use the same unique vocabulary.

          The amazing thing is that you Peanuts cannot admit that there are people on a libertarian board who don’t adhere to your Paleo-conservative viewpoints.

          1. What a shithead!

          2. And I use the same unique vocabulary.

            PB,

            Even so, would you agree with me that it is possible for some of us to use new monikers and remain undiscovered for quite some time, if not indefinitely?

            I believe that I am a poor example, for I am confidant that if you, Hyperion, and many other similarly observant individuals would visit the other websites upon which I comment, most of you would quickly identify my posts as being… well, posts of mine.

            Personally I think it is my use of commas and (predominately) civil commentary, although it might be something of which I am unaware.

            Regardless, my question to you remains.

            1. would you agree with me that it is possible for some of us to use new monikers and remain undiscovered for quite some time, if not indefinitely?

              Sure, and most likely probable.

              Why would one want to though? I have been contacted via email because of what I have written here. Positive communication too.

              Plus I am going to stand behind what I write. For instance, when the goldbugs were predicting HYPERINFLASHION! here back in 2009 I laughed at their naive, arcane beliefs and correctly predicted the ensuing strength of the USD.

              1. PB,

                Thank you for answering my question.

                I have been contacted via email because of what I have written here. Positive communication too. I am glad to read this.

              2. $400/oz! Eat it goldbugs!

                Then there was that time you used that same keen market insight to lose a bet you never paid.

                1. Is this another internet feud, Pat, the origins of which I not only missed yet would (in either your or BP’S opinion) be better suited to not involve myself in learning the details?

                  Perhaps there is a “definitely not-soccer” type of sporting event being played out today in the United States?

                  Unless I am incorrect in this regard, the two of you would call that sporting event “foot ball”, yes?

                  So in this particular you two would be in agreement.

                  1. Long story short, buttplug proposed a wager with Playa Manhattan regarding the market performance of a series of financial instruments over a period of time, the stakes of which were a $20 donation to Reason. To say that buttplug did not accurately predict the market performance of his financial instruments would be an understatement. Playa Manhattan’s picks outperformed buttplug’s at the end of the wager period. Buttplug therefore lost the wager. However, he has thus far provided no evidence that he made the $20 donation to Reason to satisfy the wager.

                    Also, “football” is a European arena game played with feet and a ball. There is an American game often called by the same name, but played with hands and an egg, and I therefore resolutely refuse to refer to it as “football”. Ergo, buttplug and I agree on nothing.

                    Also, sometimes I say things with tongue firmly in cheek.

                    Also, I forgot that I’m supposed to be boycotting Reason.

      3. yeah, I think this turd forgot which handle he was using.

    2. U STUPID LIBS GONNA GET US ALL KILLED UR MORE DANGEROUS THAN THE TERRISTS

      The Left is *much* more dangerous than the terrorists

      Western Civilization was hosed. The Left would import Leftist voting blocs for permanent political power, and that would be the end of us. Divided by identity politics, muzzled by “hate speech” laws, and caught between the violence of a police state and an imported criminal class. It was over.

      Western Civilization actually fought back before the end. Now the outcome is at least in doubt.

  3. I heard they were going to play a football game today, maybe in Texas? Anybody hear anything about that?

    1. My internet is broken so I cant find out.

      1. Nice.

        There is also this… I mentioned an idea before and I shall mention it again today: It can seem unsettling how a few of us who comment on H&R have very similar reactions.

    2. Today is Puppy Bowl Sunday

    3. Why would you have a football game in Texas? They don’t know anything about football.

    4. I don’t know anything about that, but I have some chicken wings and pizza dough prepped and waiting for preparation until later when I check what is on the TV.

    5. Wait, *foot* *ball*? That doesn’t make any damn sense.

      1. It’s three hours of commercials with the occasional tossing of a ball in between and a large chunk of celebrity worship in the middle. Yeah, I don’t get it either.

    6. If it’s not PeeWees, I’m not interested.

    7. I believe Bremen lost 2:3.

      1. That was an awesome result.

  4. I for one cheer when our branches of government fight amongst each other. It means they are less productive in seeing over the common man (usually)

    1. That’s a feature, not a bug. /no sarc

  5. Back in April 2012, most conservatives were outraged when President Barack Obama saw fit to give a press conference in which he lectured the Supreme Court about why it would be “judicial activism” for the Court to strike down Obamacare on constitutional grounds. Those conservatives were right to be outraged. The Supreme Court was then in the midst of its Obamacare deliberations and the president was clearly trying to influence the outcome of the case by throwing some executive weight around.

    I don’t remember conservatives being outraged about that press conference. Is the president not allowed to make a case in public as to why he thinks his law or EO is constitutional? Doesn’t sound like “throwing executive weight around” when all he was doing was expressing his opinion. If Johnson had been elected president and got one of his pro-liberty EOs or laws slapped down by SCOTUS, would you consider it an outrage for him to criticize the court then?

    If I was going to choose an inappropriate Obama vs SCOTUS moment, I would have chosen the State of the Union address where he ripped into them for Citizens United after he had invited them to attend. Even that wasn’t an outrage really, just an inappropriate act.

    1. Didn’t Obama take a pot shot at SCOUTS during one of his State of the Union speeches? And his supporters were horrified that Roberts shook his head and dared to openly disagree with His Lightness’ Truth as it was being spoken?

      1. While Obama was scolding the SCOTUS for Citizens United, Alito mouthed “not true” and the prog’s heads all collectively exploded because Alito did such a disrespectful thing.

        1. I know, right? Disrespecting the President… what kind of monster would do such a thing?

          On a related note, “obstructionism”, “eliminiationist rhetoric”, etc., etc., etc.

        2. Alito probably said it out loud. Obviously the SCOTUS justices weren’t miked (an oversight I hope they’re correcting).

  6. “The same conservatives who were outraged by Obama’s actions then should be outraged by Trump’s actions now.”

    We shouldn’t criticize bad decisions because Obama criticized good decisions?

    Miserable fail.

    1. Well said.

      How about those who never heard of Obama’s actions because so many in the media ignored them? I’ll guess that if anybody reported it at all it was Reason.

      Then again, I didn’t bitch about Obama restrictions on immigration from the countries Trump is restricting now, and I am not going to suddenly decide to complain now just because someone else I never voted for is doing it.

    2. The political class in this country has been captured by high function aspies, who think human interactions can be driven hard hard rules and that all elements of a group are exactly alike.

      So they see Obama criticizing good judicial decisions the same as another president criticizing bad decisions.

      Obama illegitimately attacking SCOTUS at a state of the union being the same as Trump tweeting about a bad ruling by a district judge.

      Etc. and so on.

  7. Trump, just like Obama before him, is seeking to undermine the independence of the judicial branch because it threatens to rule against him.

    Undermine it via Twitter? Have at it. When he starts going down FDR’s path is the time I’ll actually find some concern.

    1. I still think it’s hilarious that the White House press corps has been reduced to covering Trump’s tweets.

      That might never get old.

      Why shell out for a subscription to the Washington Post when you can just subscribe to Trump’s twitter feed instead?

      1. Glenn Greenwald had an excellent observation on that topic in the middle of his article on the media hysteria over that fake electrical grid hacking story.

        A large percentage of journalists sit on Twitter all day. It’s their primary window into the world.

        A major effect of news orgs becoming less profitable — they can’t afford to do real reporting, so they just report on stuff they find on social media and repeat government press releases.

        1. they can’t afford to do real reporting, so they just report on stuff they find on social media and repeat government press releases.

          absolutely true.

          especially anything to do with foreign policy/intl news. the Ben Rhodes piece @ the NYT mentioned it, but its absolutely true – the major papers basically shitcanned 90% of their foreign correspondents, and hardly do more than repeat govt press-releases/spin from the State dept, plus have a handful of 20-something stringers who struggle to even get basic facts right (much less speak languages/can translate foreign-press reporting)

          as Rhodes said – its basically been a “sea change” in the way news is reported. but its all happened behind the scenes so most people haven’t really noticed (other than a growing general awareness that new quality has declined)

    2. Undermine it via Twitter? Have at it. When he starts going down FDR’s path is the time I’ll actually find some concern.

      Perhaps twitter is this president’s preferred means of changing hearts and minds, Fist.

      When he starts going down FDR’s path….

      Did you intend to imply Trump doing things like interning/imprisoning United States citizens of Japanese ancestry or something else here Fist, or did you simply imply preventing any more of “them” coming over here while the country is at war*?

      *Having read many of your comments, Fist, I am sure that you are cognizant that the “War on Terror” is, by its very nature, unending.

      1. I think he’s talking about when FDR (if memory serves) wanted to pass social security and couldn’t get it to pass the courts so he floated a bill to force all SCOTUS judges to retire over a certain age. In order to save themselves they found the decoder ring making SS constitutional.

        1. Click on the link in Root’s story and you can read what happened.

          Unfortunately for the president, the plan backfired spectacularly. Brandeis, offended at both the personal insult and the frank attack on the independence of the judiciary, maneuvered behind the scenes to bring about the bill’s defeat

          1. M not sure it backfired spectacularly.

            Despite the intense controversy the court-packing plan provoked, and the divided loyalties it produced even among the President’s supporters, the legislation appeared headed for passage, when the Court itself made a sudden shift that took the wind out of the President’s sails. In March 1937, in a pivotal case, Justice Roberts unexpectedly changed his allegiance from the conservatives to the liberals, shifting the balance on the Court from 5-4 against to 5-4 in favor of most New Deal legislation. In the March case Justice Roberts voted to uphold a minimum wage law in Washington state just like the one he had earlier found to be unconstitutional in New York state. Two weeks later he voted to uphold the National Labor Relations Act, and in May he voted to uphold the Social Security Act. This sudden change in the Court’s center of gravity meant that the pressure on the New Deal’s supporters lessened and they felt free to oppose the President’s plan. This sudden switch by Justice Roberts was forever after referred to as “the switch in time that saved nine.”
            https://www.ssa.gov/history/court.html

            He pushed it to get his legislation passed, and it worked.

            1. I stand corrected. Thanks for the history lesson.

              Also; Justice Roberts becomes the suprise swing vote on a liberal presidents society changing pet legislation. That story line sounds familiar for some reason

        2. Good point and thank you, Lurkster.

          (hopefully I do not offend here by referring to you thus)

          1. I come back to see everything sorted itself out. I don’t care what they say, the internet is self correcting.

            1. I come back to see everything sorted itself out. I don’t care what they say, the internet is self correcting.

              I’ve an impression that you or another individual reading the H&R comments this day may not only appreciate this link, yet will watch the attached movie in its entirety .

  8. LIBS LOVE VIOLENCE NEXT TERROR ATTACK ON US KILLERS IS THEIR FAULT

  9. Every day I’m amazed at the lefts short memory.

    They are actually freaking out over their own positions and deeds of only a few months ago.

    1. The same action can be right or wrong depending on whether it is done by the right or wrong people.

      How? I don’t know, but it seems the other at least 95% of people on Earth agree.

  10. Thankfully, FDR’s blatant attempt to interfere with a co-equal branch of government failed miserably.

    The way I heard it, the Court got the message and decided, discretion being the better part of valor, they should maybe start keeping their private opinions to themselves and make their public opinions agree with FDR. “A switch in time saves nine” I believe was the common expression.

    1. Damon knows this quite well. To the point that I’m shocked that his name is on the byline.

      I continued to be amazed by how twitter snippets are interpreted as definitive evidence of the coming Dictatorship. So a President is engaging in name calling. Big deal. Get back to me when it’s a substantive action.

    2. There’s that word again. “Interfere”.

      The same word the leftists used to claim that any anti-Hillary website was a tool of the Russians, and Trump’s election was illegitimate, now found on the keyboard of a Reason writer claiming that Trump is threatening separation of powers. Hmmm.

  11. Did shit its pants when Obama called out the Supreme Court over their decision in Citizen’s United in the middle of a state of the union speech?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k92SerxLWtc

    Nope.
    https://reason.com/blog/2010/04…..citizens-u

    1. Nah, but lately they’ve been striving to be the libertarian BuzzFeed.

    2. Love that footage. So good, thanks for the link.

  12. Damon knows this quite well. To the point that I’m shocked that his name is on the byline.

    I continued to be amazed by how twitter snippets are interpreted as definitive evidence of the coming Dictatorship. So a President is engaging in name calling. Big deal. Get back to me when it’s a substantive action.

    1. Damn squirrels in my browser!

      1. What form will President Donald Trump’s inevitable clash with the courts take? We are getting some indication.

        It remains to be seen how Trump will react when he loses in higher court.

        Did you sleep through the last year? You know damn well how Trump’s gonna react, like a petulant spoiled-brat 8-year old shaking his tiny fists and squalling about how unfair it is that a bunch of stupid loser poopy-heads are saying mean things about him. It’s how he’s acted the whole campaign despite the fact that we were told he was just in “campaign mode” and any minute now we would start seeing “Presidential” Trump, the private guy only a few knew who was sober and serious and thoughtful and not at all like the character we saw on TV. You know, the Trump character Trump has been playing for 70 damn years.

  13. “The Executive Order has both the intent and effect of discriminating based on national origin and religion, in violation of the Constitution”

    Is this in the Constitution? I don’t recall anything there covering immigration based on religion or national origin.

    1. good thing someone like this judge is around to explain it to us proles, isn’t it.

    2. Didn’t you hear? The US Constitution covers every human being on the planet. Soon we will bring suit against Saudi Arabia for murdering women in the street for the crime of being raped. District judges now have jurisdiction over the world.

    3. “The Executive Order has both the intent and effect of discriminating based on national origin and religion, in violation of the Constitution”

      This is garbage.

      The standard is the 1951 Refugee Convention.

      “A person who owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it..”[10]

      —-1951 Refugee Convention

      http://tinyurl.com/gvbq7z8

      Minority status speaks to the legitimacy of a persecution claim. Rightly or wrongly, this is practically taken for granted in American jurisprudence in all sorts of ways–from affirmative action and housing discrimination to voter ID laws and southern states not be allowed to change voting districts without a court approving the change.

      1. “All minorities are by definition persecuted” is the fundamental principle of American left wing politics.

        1. If there was a minority that was not persecuted would they then still be a minority?

        2. “The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.” –Ayn Rand

    4. Donald Trump’s order doesn’t name any particular minority. Given the way I understand the asylum treaty, an executive order that denied process to minorities would be in violation of both the asylum treaty and U.S. law since, once again, minority religious status speaks to the veracity of a religious persecution claim.

      That is not discrimination. That is abiding by the asylum treaty. Why wouldn’t being the member of a religious minority speak to that claim of religious persecution?

  14. I’m issuing green cards with both hands!

  15. According to the state, to allow Trump’s executive order to go into effect while this legal challenge is proceeding would cause irreparable harm to lawful permanent residents, to businesses, and to families in Washington.

    From the Emergency motion for stay of the blocking decision:

    Exceptions to the Order’s suspension of the entry of aliens from the seven countries identified under ? 1187(a)(12) can be made on a case-by-case basis. Order? 3(g). The suspension of entry does not apply to lawful permanent residents of the United States (i.e., an immigrant admitted with the privilege of residing permanently
    in the United States, 8 U.S.C. ? 1101(a)(20)). Feb. 1, 2017 Memorandum (Exhibit D).

    I am no lawyer, and at the risk of being told I am talking out my ass, it sounds to me like WA is arguing “permanent harm” on behalf of people who are not effected by the EO.

    1. Yeah it looks like it.

      1. But I’m also not a lawyer

  16. So, the new england patriots are playing the Atlanta falcons in the Superbowl today. Gentlemen, your predictions, please.

    1. Tom Brady drains a last-second three to put the Patriots up two goals, then strikes out the side to clinch the victory.

      1. “Gentlemen, your predictions, please.”

        I will have consumed these four growlers of delicious beer by 10:00 pm?

        1. The only growler I’ve held Wiz (during a brewery visit) was quite large and looked much like this.

          If memory serves, Wiz, it was many beer’s in the holding.

          I do no expect you to be coherent by 10:00 pm, Sir, nor do I envy your tomorrow and necessary recovery.

          1. Chuck; while growlers are typically 64 ounces, they also come in the size of 32 ounces and even more petite sizes are available. And of course, the potency of the liquid therein can vary dramatically.

            1. Thank you, MIke.

              Not only am I more educated with regards to growlers, I am also much more hopeful for the Wiz’s recovery.

              1. go falcons! bitches!

                1/2 growler– Even more Jesus
                1/2 growler– Interrogator
                1 – Moniker Oatmeal Stout
                1 – honey mead

                I love me some Even more Jesus! Fredricksburg! Fuck, yeah!

    2. 36-24 NE.

    3. First I’ve heard of this.

    4. Sweaty men grabbing each other wearing skintight homoerotic spandex costumes? No idea what you’re on about.

    5. The Hyperbole doesn’t hit on the square board. 8 and 2, g*ddammit.

    6. Whoever’s leading 21-0 at the end of the first quarter wins. Probably New England – Matty can spread the ball around like nobody’s business and pick apart New England’s defense and the Pat’s have a better run defense than a pass defense, but the Falcons are going to have to gamble a bit if they want to win because their defense can keep them in the game but it ain’t gonna win it for them and a couple quick INTs will be a huge hole to dig themselves out of.

      1. This is pretty much what’s happening, except Atlanta is in the lead 21-0.
        That. Is. Uncanny.

        12 seconds left in the first half

        1. 21-3

          So, not quite as you predicted.

    7. I’m actually gonna say Falcons by 4. The way I see it, the Falcons don’t have the ‘been there’ thing going for them, but they are the much stronger team and have been playing out of their minds lately.

      However, there is a reason I don’t gamble (a couple actually).

    8. Patriots 17
      Falcons 23
      Mini Ditka 187

    9. I think the team that scores the most points will win.

      1. John Madden, is that you?

        1. Oh jeezus I am so happy he’s off the air.

          1. BAM! POW!

          2. He’s kind of entertaining when you’re stoned.

    10. My prediction, somebody gets deflated.

    11. As always, I predict Hitler will rise from the dead to enslave us all. I think this year might be the year.

      1. Well he did literally just get elected President. So you may be right.

  17. There are a lot of killers. You think our country’s so innocent?

    Trump is basically admitting we’re terrorists. It’s self-defeating because the the CIA needs American self-righteousness for their propaganda. You can almost hear the chorus of groans coming out of the Pentagon.

    1. Pro-tip: If you’re going to escalate a war you have to insist that your motives are pure and your enemy is pure evil.

    2. the CIA needs American self-righteousness for their propaganda

      Can you expound on this? It sounds like an interesting point and I think we all want to hear it explained in excruciating detail.

    3. He was pointing out that nation states use politically directed military force to further national interests, and that involves people dying.
      Terrorists use terror to further their political goals, which may not be aligned with a specific nation state. This is the difficulty in using the military against terrorists; they refuse to wear uniforms that distinguish themselves from civilians.
      Absent a nation state, military actions are against persons without uniforms, which makes the distinction of “civilian” a moot point. The Geneva conventions, applying to international conflicts including a signatory nation (article 2), or to conflicts within a signatory nation (article 3) do not seem to apply to the war on terror, as the terrorists do not function as a nation state, and have no territorial boundaries beyond temporary military occupation within another nation state.
      Absent the convention, the deaths result not from murder, but from killing. The actions of a nation state are not terrorism.

  18. Why would FOX give any time to Harry Belefonte?

    1. Something about Mr. Taliban tallying his bananas?

    2. Because fuck you, that’s why?

  19. Just defy the court order and do whatever you want. Worked for Obama.

    1. Black guys get to do whatever they want in this country.

  20. Thankfully, FDR’s blatant attempt to interfere with a co-equal branch of government failed miserably.

    It succeeded in intimidating the courts to support much of FDR’s agenda. We’re still living with the aftermath.

    1. FDR: Big fuckstick POTUS of biggest fuckstick POTUS?

        1. Woodrow Wilson is the biggest fuckstick. FDR is a contender for second place.

          1. I would give it to FDR, but Wilson definately up there.

          2. Lincoln beats both.

            1. Lincoln led the way.

              I think he regretted it all, at the end, though.

              1. As the .44 caliber ball passed through his head…

      1. Yes, biggest fuckstick for sure

  21. If something happens blame him and court system.

    Trump is painting himself into a corner. If there is a terrorist attack, people will quickly trace it back to the FBI. And if there is no attack then his extortion attempt will be discredited. The same thing happened after the police strike in NYC – they had hoped to ‘prove’ that they were needed but in fact there was no spike in crime and people realized that the police were just a mafioso style protection racket. Trump is destroying faith in the federal government. Libertarians should be cheering but instead they say:

  22. Hopefully this game can match or exceed the absolute frenzy of entertainment that was the Pro Bowl.

    1. But there is no way it could ever be as good as Tecmo Super Bowl

      1. I second this motion, Mr. President.

  23. Joe Buck might be drunk.

    1. This is an evergreen post.

    2. Joe Buck might be is drunk with love for Troy Aikman.

      FIFY

      1. Joe Buck is still mourning his late friend Ratso Rizzo.

        1. +1 I’m walking here

      2. Make me ache, man!

    3. Taking after Pat Summerall.

  24. “It remains to be seen” but 3 to 2 odds sez he changes the subject when/if the court on “good behavior” lets people disagree, be groped and proctologized by the Transport Sozialist Arbeiterpartei and board planes. “Look! A deer!” or “Look! Hidden WMD.” Both are reliable stand-bys for God’s Own Prohibitionists, and Creation Science yokels will lap it up.

  25. I don’t think those coke/Budweiser commercials are any different than the bland, “patriotic” commercials we get every year (now that airbnb one, that’s a different story). Somehow I don’t think they’re going to be seen that way (by either side)

    1. I’m listening to the game on the radio. What was the Airbnb commercial about?

    2. They made sure only brown skinned people were in the commercial because any non-racist knows the most important thing is to make sure there’s people with the right skin color.

  26. Robart’s order came in response to a legal challenge filed by the state of Washington against Trump’s travel ban. “The Executive Order has both the intent and effect of discriminating based on national origin and religion, in violation of the Constitution,” the state argues. “While preventing terrorist attacks is an important goal, the order does nothing to further that purpose by denying admission to children fleeing Syria’s civil war, to refugees who valiantly assisted the U.S. military in Iraq, or to law-abiding high-tech workers who have lived in Washington for years.”
    According to the state, to allow Trump’s executive order to go into effect while this legal challenge is proceeding would cause irreparable harm to lawful permanent residents, to businesses, and to families in Washington

    The order does not have the intent of discrimination based on religion.
    The order is not a travel ban, it is a delay in processing of applicants for admission from certain countries already identified in legislation not struck down by any court.
    The order does not deny admission, it has specific provisions for each of the classes the judge says are denied.
    None of the groups the judge says will suffer irreparable harm are subject to the order.

    Other than that, good job judge!

    1. How does the State of Washington have standing to sue?

  27. Refs blow a call.

  28. A Handjob’s Tale? I’ll watch from my bunk.

    1. One count of harassment? Given what could be in blood isn’t there something stronger she could be charged with?

      1. I suppose. Here in Japan, they always charge killers with illegal disposal of a corpse while they build the murder charges.

  29. fuuuuuuck
    theeeeee
    Paaaaats

    1. This is what happens when they can’t cheat.

      1. I’m at work and can’t watch. Could I get an allegorical play by play analysis? Maybe along the lines of Helm’s Deep?

        1. Brady, while the walls fell

          1. Siege engines have breached the pocket?

            1. They attacked the National Endowment for the Arts?

              Oops, wrong Helms.

              1. Trump could make up for all the hitlery by killing that agency, among others.

  30. Y U got be a dick Humpty?

  31. “Thankfully, FDR’s blatant attempt to interfere with a co-equal branch of government failed miserably.”

    Apparently there are others who noticed this – FDR didn’t get his court-packing plan passed, but he ended up outliving most of the Court and appointing New Dealers to the vacancies, establishing nationalistic economic dogma as the law of the land and pretty much ending the idea of economic rights (at least as conventional liberals understand economic rights).

    I bet he cried all the way to the bank.

    1. I should say “traditional liberals,” not “conventional liberals,” since the new convention is for liberals to be *against* liberty.

  32. I think this silliness may lead to a bill by congress controlling immigration.

    1. What a novel idea!

    2. I think Lady Gaga was born in the US.

      1. All we hear is, Lady-o Gaga,
        Lady-o Goo Goo, Lady-o Gaga

        1. I would buy all her albums if she had performed that.

  33. Federal litigation to which the states are party are under the U.S. Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction. I’d think that would mean, at minimum, that the Trump administration can get this case removed out of the district court and taken up to the Supreme Court. But what do I know?

    1. They’ve said that with the speed of the responses the Ninth has asked for, it’s just as quick to let it play out as move it to SCOTUS. They’re pretty sure they’re going to get the ruling they want, which shows how ignorant they are. Flipping a coin is just as good a way of guessing how the courts are going to rule as doing any of the fancy-shmancy “analysis” stuff, looking at the laws, previous court rulings and what-not. Nobody knows what they’re going to decide and they can decide anything they want. The rule of law is just a cruel joke, a chump’s game.

    2. It’s going to be a 4-4 split at best in SCOTUS.

      No way any of the liberal justices side with Trump, regardless of the merits of the case.

  34. Is it Lady Gaga time?
    *Slips into Meat Dress, looks in mirror*
    Eeeew. I wouldn’t f*** me.

  35. Lady Gaga is a hack who ripped off Roisin Murphy’s aesthetic. There is no justice in this jackass universe.

    1. No idea who that is but if L. G. is gonna portray herself as all rebely she and her music could be a little less boring.

      Note: I have seen her do some stints on reality competitions and she seems like a perfectly nice girl. I just don’t care for her main line of work, at all.

      1. Here’s one of her solo tracks, but perhaps you’d be more familiar with her as part of Moloko?

        1. Nope but the Moloko track is pretty good. Didn’t care for the solo one.

    2. True. But everyone ripped off Kate Bush, so I mean…

      Gaga’s new album was awful country-side/southern-rock pastiche. Like a parody of that kind of music.

  36. Good ol’ fashioned family entertainment with plenty of God and Patriotism. Lady GaGa delivers…

    1. I thought it was funny that they had to bus in an audience (I assume because almost no one who can afford Super Bowl tickets knows who she is and the few who know…don’t care).

    2. I’m watching the game at church, so they turned off the halftime show. Several people in twitter were saying gaga was doing well.

      Did she really do a good job?

      1. It was perfectly serviceable, what I saw (cooking). It’s hard to judge since I hate the music.

        1. Spirit cooking?

          1. Well, there was spirit mixing.

        2. If you hate a lot of popular music, check out Postmodern Jukebox. Watching the halftime show, i realized i only know Gaga’s song through the PMJ covers

          1. Is that anything like Richard Cheese? That would be a go.

      2. Performed well, good choreography and effects, no political content. The best you could hope for in a halftime show i guess.

      3. decent pyrotechnics, pretty lights, dance numbers mostly in time, serviceable lip-synching, no overt politics.

        Nothing objectionable, nothing memorable.

      4. She did a great job. Very entertaining. There would have been nothing objectionable to a church crowd.

      5. She killed it. The drones were amazing. I couldn’t help but imagine those drones armed with weapons. The days of the human soldier are numbered.

  37. That’s it Atlanta!! Stick with that tight man to man defense you’ve been using all game.

    Shockingly, Belicheat hasn’t run an illegal pick play all game, but look for them to roll it back out in the second half.

    1. And right on cue….

  38. Wait, are you telling me Lady GaGa is a “she”? I’ve always been under the impression that he was a drag queen.

    1. Howard Stern ran with that theory for a long time but sadly I think he was wrong.

    2. Last Gaga is actually Gwen Stefani pretending to be a man in drag.

    3. I for one would have more respect for her if she was. I may be getting old but I find her very annoying. I would throw shit while yelling if she was on my lawn.

  39. I think it’s entirely possible that FDR’s court packing scheme could come back to life.

    Imagine the Dems filibuster Gorsuch, the GOP nukes the filibuster, and Kennedy resigns and Ginsberg dies. That gives conservatives a 6-3 majority on the SCOTUS.

    Then, the next time the Dems have the Senate and the White House, they add 5 more SCOTUS justices, to give the liberals an 8-6 majority.

    And then when the GOP takes back the Senate and the White House, they add 4 more justices, to get to a 10-8 conservative majority.

    Pretty soon the SCOTUS has dozens of members, growing every time there’s a major power shift in DC.

    1. That could actually end up being a good thing in the long run. It would, once and for all, end the illusion that the Court is anything other than a political body. Maybe it could eventually be (metaphorically) blown up and pared back to a more ‘constitutional’ form.

      1. Once you blow it up, though, the Bill of Rights and any other Constitutional limits on government power are toast, and you end up with a pure majoritarian democracy…

  40. Erin Andrews has freaky eyes.

  41. Yo Audi! Fuck you!

    1. Yeah, that was hilarious. I guess they know their customer base, though.

      1. Maybe, I find proggy’s usually can’t help themselves though. Last I saw the DEM majorities ware the lowest income levels and two highest. Not sure that’s the Audi people, but maybe it is,

        1. Every time VW pisses me off, i just subtlety rant on social media about how the company was literally a Nazi creation.

        2. Audis are pretty expensive, aren’t they? There’s no shortage of rich liberals.

          1. They’re on the high sides. My wife bought a 4 yo A6 about 2 years ago for around 18k. The whole family drives them. They’re pretty nice and they do well in the snow.

      2. Was the Audi commercial the one that was a long masturbatory stream of virtue-signaling (that didn’t even involve TRYING to sell anything), followed by some stupid hashtag?

        1. “Imagine having to tell your daughter that she’s worth less than every man she will ever meet.”

          1. I do this everyday with my daughters.

            1. There’s always “supermodel”. Male models make shit.

    2. Missed that one as I’m fast forwarding through most of them. Loved the TMoblie pot and s&m ones though:)

  42. Cheatriots come out to start the half a little chippy, didn’t they? Mugging receivers and throwing people around after the whistle.

    Goodell obviously told the zebras to keep their hankies in their pockets.

      1. It’s not like they have a long history of cheating or anything

        1. They really don’t.

          Spygate was hardly anything, and didn’t deliver much advantage or any to the Pats. Plus that sort of thing was routine throughout the league.

          And Deflategate was nothing at all.

    1. Goodell obviously loves the Patriots. /sarc

  43. Okay, I’m going to formally request those trying to talk about the article to take ity to another thread.

    There is American football being played right now.

    1. How many players were kneeling or fisting during the SSB?

      1. Like anyone watches that.

        1. Dammit, I almost sprayed amaretto sour.

    2. The season ended two weeks ago.

  44. Yo Bill Nye! Fuck you!

  45. Someone please send a tape of this game to every idiot head coach and defensive coordinator in the league. These bitches can’t handle that tight man coverage.

    1. Dom Capers wouldn’t use it.

  46. Yo Melissa McCarthy! Fuck you!

  47. The Pats have to score four times while getting three to four stops in 20 minutes of game time.

    1. Well now they only need to score 2 TD + 1 FG, but they have to get 2’s on both TDs to tie.

      1. Yup four scoring plays from scrimmage. Maybe they’ll get a return TD.

        1. And they did it. Incredible.

  48. Never seen two helmets get stuck together before. Were those players trying to kiss?

    1. That’s why I avoid the ‘big game.’ Too much faggotry.

      1. + ass slapping. And what’s the qb doing to the center?

        1. At least there haven’t been any butt fumbles.

  49. Miss the extra point, then hit yourself with the ball on the onside kick. Not a good day for Gostkowski.

  50. Looks like Ryan’s mike isn’t working. Damn Cheatriots.

    1. I’m not sure he knows how sports work.

      1. “…an athlete cannot receive the winner’s crown except by competing according to the rules.” – 2 Timothy 2:5

        “Do you not know that the runners in the stadium all run in the race, but only one wins the prize? Run so as to win. Every athlete exercises discipline in every way. They do it to win a perishable crown, but we an imperishable one.” – 1 Corinthians 9:24-25

        1. Tell that to Brady & Belicheat.

  51. Wait a minute…. the clock isn’t supposed to run after a penalty, is it?

    1. I mean if that’s allowed, why doesn’t every team trying to run out the clock on fourth down just get called for delay of game over and over until they’re back to their own 10?

      1. The second time you do it you lose down but not distance.

  52. Huffpo has new poll showing the Pats have a 92% chance of winning.

    1. ROFLMAO.

  53. Yo Spuds McKenzie! Fu….nah you’re awesome. Your beer sucks but I loved the campaign.

  54. They killed Coleman.

    1. They extinguished his mantle.

  55. Oh, well. So much for that game.

  56. Tuck Rule !!1

    Tuck Rule for Atlanta !!!11!1!!!!

  57. Damn. If Atlanta loses this game….

  58. The Pats rookie didn’t catch the ball.

    The game is moving so fast that no one looked at it. TV cameras cut off the replay just when the ball got loose.

    Not a conspiracy. Just a bad call in a fast game.

  59. Unbelievable catch by JJ.

    aaTHAT WAS INSAN.E

    1. That catch was even greater than JJ’s earlier.

  60. How was that not intentional grounding and a safety?

  61. You gotta be fucking kidding me with that catch by Edelman.

    1. Repost: That catch was even greater than JJ’s earlier.

    2. Yeah that was great but all I know is I don’t see any way one of my squares will win.

  62. Unbelievable catch.

  63. 2 minutes is too much time left on the clock.

    Pats gotta eat up the clock before TD

    1. But 2 pt not a given.

    2. No Super Bowl has ever gone into OT.

  64. Slow down Tom.

    Don’t leave the Falcons field goal tiem.

    Uuuuups too late,

  65. OMFG.

    1. I’m not a big fan but this game has been fun.

  66. Win lose or draw.

    Brady is the GOAT.

  67. Thanx for ruining my Huffpo joke, Pats.

    1. They might only win the popular vote.

  68. HOLY SHIT!

  69. Why in the world do you take the kickoff out of the end zone?

  70. Does this mean Trump is a Patriot?

        1. Nega, please.

          1. IIRC that was originally your joke from a couple years back on a thread.

            1. It’s a clip some rapper said that Howard Stern played all the time.

  71. Like Clinton, ATL deserves to lose; they worked for it as much as did NE.
    Hit to QB: throw it to your damn COACH to avoid a sack!

  72. What a game.

    What a efing game.

  73. First OT in SB history.

    1. Welcome to hellhole of #trumpsamerica.

  74. LOL at the final Pats play call

  75. Arthur had a blank look on his face.

    1. /narrows gaze.

      In honor of Swiss.

  76. Im a life long Cowboy fan.

    They’ve won five Superbowls.

    I’ve watched every one.

    This is the best SB evvvvvaaaa !!1!!1!

    Somebody bring me another beer.

    1. Viking fan here. I demand redistribution of SB rings.

  77. In the second and mostly the 3rd quarter Brady was shook up for a while and missed some throws.

    Now, in OT, he is once again the GOAT.

    Superb performance in OT,

    Flagg !1!111
    .

  78. Game over

  79. OMFG.

  80. He is GOAT.

    Greatest comeback in SB History.

  81. GREATEST SUBERBOWL EVER!

  82. GOAT.

    Period.

    1. Not sure about that.

      They had a shitload of breaks go their way in the 4th quarter.

      1. Dude.

        1. Where was he during the first 40 minutes of the game?

          People overemphasize comebacks.

          1. Except this one was one for the ages.

            And who cares where they were in the 1st half? They made their adjustments and took the game.

            Sure the Falcons as you pointed out, but what they did was just….wow.

            1. falcons choked as you pointed out.

  83. That’s a good question…. what would have happened if the booth review overturned the TD after there was confetti all over the field and everybody was out shaking hands already?

    1. Jill Stein would have been vindicated.

    2. They still had one or two more shots at it.

      1. True, but I’m just wondering what they would have to do logistically.

        Do they have a giant Zamboni-esque vacuum cleaner to remove all the confetti?

        I remember that one game where the game-tying field goal attempt was ruled no good, then a few minutes later the refs changed their mind and said it had gone through, and had to call the teams back from their locker rooms.

        1. Yeh.

  84. I’m not even a fan of him or the team or Belichick. But Brady is the best QB in the history of the NFL and Belichick is the best coach in the history of the league.

    1. Looks like Bill’s halftime call to Lucifer paid off.

    2. As far as the greatest coach of all time, don’t forget about Paul Brown.

      But great game.

  85. Well, give credit where credit is due. Greatest comeback in NFL history.

    1. Down 28-3.

      Unreal.

  86. One would think that the GOAT would play more than one quarter.

    It was an amazing comeback, but the Falcons just choked. If they had taken a knee on that one drive when they were in FG range, they would have won the game.

    1. I see the opposite. The Pats went and took the game.

      And that OT march…the Nazis would be proud. Talk about efficient.

      1. No, they got very lucky. It’s admirable that they took advantage of the breaks they got, but it would be amiss to say they willed themselves to victory.

        1. I’m beginning to think that tiddlywinks is about as athletic as you have ever been.

          1. Jesus fucking christ, OneOut. Is Tom Brady your son or something?

        2. You could just as easily say NE choked the first half.

    2. After the 2nd drive of the 2nd half, the Falcons did nothing offensively. Teams rarely win going 1 for 8 on 3rd downs.

      Falcons didn’t do what they needed to win.

  87. The Steelers lead the league with six SB wins, Tom Brady has five.

    1. He has more playoff wins than half the teams in the league probably.

      1. That’s what happens when you play 16 years for a great coach and front office and only get injured a couple of times.

        Also helps to play in a division with 3 basketcase franchises.

    2. OK yeah right.

      You wish to compare an entire teams history to one individual player”s achievements .

      Good call Warren.

    3. NE hasn’t gotten tired of the winning, yet.

    4. Bradshaw had 4, with none of the QB-protective rules that Brady has taken advantage of.

  88. And they did it without Gronk.

    1. Best organization in pro sports.

      And I’m an Eagles fan from Montreal since 1980.

      1. Best organization in pro sports

        Without a doubt. And not just the Superbowls, but winning consistently for so long is extremely tough.

        1. I’m much more familiar with Euro football, where you just throw money at a team and watch it win year after year.

  89. Will Kraft shove the trophy up Goodell’s ass?

  90. Brady is 39, he only has a few more years. What do you look for in a replacement? When do you start looking?

    Love Goodell being booed.

  91. I almost freaked out when I opened the fridge and there was no more beer.

    The I took a puff and remembered that I put the last 2 in the freezer.

    Trump almost won.

    1. There’s always Listerine or NyQuil.

  92. Jobs were done.

  93. Terrible game.
    ATL handed it to them on a platter with all the trimmings. Looked like the 9ers with Harbaugh and Kaepernick; bone-headed play-calling and a QB not smart enough to simply preserve the win.
    ATL is within FG range to ice the game, so they hand it off to the running back 10 yards behind the line; he gets nailed for a loss of 8 or so, nearly taking them out of range.
    Next play, the QB runs around the backfield for an eternity, gets sacked, still carrying the ball around as if it’s his first-born, taking them well out of FG range; game over.
    Here NE, would you like it gift-wrapped?

    1. Yuh, it was a wickid pissah, bruh.

      1. Fucking awesome game, though.

  94. I’ve made $64,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student. Im using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. Heres what I do,
    ============> http://www.moneytime10.com

  95. My last month paycheck was for 11000 dollars… All i did was simple online work from comfort at home for 3-4 hours/day that I got from this agency I discovered over the internet and they paid me for it 95 bucks every hour… This is what I do

    =========================== http://www.4dayjobs.com

  96. I looked at the check for $8628 , I didnt believe that…my… father in law was like actualie taking home money in there spare time on there computar. . there sisters roommate haz done this for under 17 months and just cleard the morgage on there apartment and got a gorgeous Chevrolet Corvette . go to website

    =============================== http://www.cash-review.com

  97. I looked at the check for $8628 , I didnt believe that…my… father in law was like actualie taking home money in there spare time on there computar. . there sisters roommate haz done this for under 17 months and just cleard the morgage on there apartment and got a gorgeous Chevrolet Corvette . go to website

    =============================== http://www.cash-review.com

  98. Hey Damon – are you seriously comparing the legalities and significance of the constitutionality of Obamacare to Trump pausing immigration from a few countries??? Is this what passes for journalism today? There are plenty of much better arguments right in the Comments section than in the original article. This is exactly why there is such an outcry over Fake News these days – and I’d like to nominate this article to be included in the library of Fake News articles.

  99. “Thankfully, FDR’s blatant attempt to interfere with a co-equal branch of government failed miserably.”

    Huh?

    FDR’s attempt was to get SCOTUS to stop striking down his New Deal agenda. Threatening to pack the court ultimately generated the “switch in time to save nine” whereby the existing court began upholding FDR’s initiatives, rendering it unnecessary for him to pack the court.

    So exactly how do you conclude that he “failed miserably?”

  100. I see what you mean… Jesse `s postlng is neat… on monday I bought a top of the range Jaguar E-type after I been earnin $7477 this-last/4 weeks and-even more than, 10-k last-munth . no-doubt about it, this really is the most comfortable job Ive had . I started this seven months/ago and right away was making more than $73 per-hr . go right here…
    ………….. http://www.cash-review.com

  101. Facebook gives you a great opportunity to earn 98652$ at your home.If you are some intelligent you makemany more Dollars.I am also earning many more, my relatives wondered to see how i settle my Life in few days thank GOD to you for this…You can also make cash i never tell alie you should check this I am sure you shocked to see this amazing offer…I’m Loving it!!!!
    ????????> http://www.moneytime10.com

  102. My best friend’s ex-wife makes Bucks75/hr on the laptop. She has been unemployed for eight months but last month her income with big fat bonus was over Bucks9000 just working on the laptop for a few hours. Read more on this site…..
    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.cash-review.com

  103. My last month paycheck was for 11000 dollars… All i did was simple online work from comfort at home for 3-4 hours/day that I got from this agency I discovered over the internet and they paid me for it 95 bucks every hour… This is what I do

    =========================== http://www.4dayjobs.com

  104. I’m making $86 an hour working from home. I was shocked when my neighbor told me she was averaging $95 but I see how it works now. I feel so much freedom now that I’m my own boss. This is what I do>>

    ======== http://www.centerpay70.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.