DOCSLIB.ORG

An Analysis of the Role Stare Decisis Plays in Supreme Court Jurisprudence

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
An Analysis of the Role Stare Decisis Plays in Supreme Court Jurisprudence Claremont Colleges Scholarship @ Claremont CMC Senior Theses CMC Student Scholarship 2020 Principle or Partisanship: An Analysis of the Role Stare Decisis Plays in Supreme Court Jurisprudence Clare Burgess Claremont University Consortium Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.claremont.edu/cmc_theses Part of the Supreme Court of the United States Commons Recommended Citation Burgess, Clare, "Principle or Partisanship: An Analysis of the Role Stare Decisis Plays in Supreme Court Jurisprudence" (2020). CMC Senior Theses. 2416. https://scholarship.claremont.edu/cmc_theses/2416 This Open Access Senior Thesis is brought to you by Scholarship@Claremont. It has been accepted for inclusion in this collection by an authorized administrator. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Claremont McKenna College Principle or Partisanship: An Analysis of the Role Stare Decisis Plays in Supreme Court Jurisprudence Submitted to Professor George Thomas and Professor Shanna Rose By Clare Burgess For Senior Thesis Spring 2020 11 May 2020 ABSTRACT In this thesis, I analyze the reasons that Supreme Court overturns precedent, and how, if at all, does the doctrine of stare decisis impact those decisions. The Supreme Court’s decisions are often politicized and viewed as a result of the Supreme Court Justices’ ideological views. Simply, they abide by precedents they agree with and abandon ones they do not. While the impact of ideology on Supreme Court decisions is unclear, I find that the doctrine of stare decisis plays an important role in their jurisprudence. In fact, the doctrine of stare decisis has increasingly dominated cases that reverse a prior Supreme Court decision. Modern iterations of the Supreme Court discuss stare decisis in more detail than their predecessors. The Supreme Court’s treatment of precedent varies over time; however, its general reverence for stare decisis will likely persist in the future. 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................. 6 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 7 CHAPTER 1 History of Stare Decisis ............................................................................. 9 CHAPTER 2 Theories of Stare Decisis ......................................................................... 12 Theories in Favor of Strong Horizontal Judicial Precedent ........................................ 12 Theories Against Strong Horizontal Judicial Precedent .............................................. 16 CHAPTER 3 Methodology............................................................................................. 21 CHAPTER 4 The Marshall – Vinson Courts (1810-1953) .......................................... 23 Abandoning Erroneous Decisions ................................................................................ 23 Obeying the Intention .................................................................................................... 26 Obeying Federalism ...................................................................................................... 28 Abandoning Nonaccepted Decisions ............................................................................ 29 Abandoning Decisions that Cause Social Detriment .................................................... 32 Obeying Congressional Power ..................................................................................... 33 Obeying Stability ........................................................................................................... 36 Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 38 CHAPTER 5 The Warren Court (1953-1969).............................................................. 40 3 Obeying Tradition ......................................................................................................... 41 Abandoning Eroded Decisions ..................................................................................... 44 Abandoning Poor Policy ............................................................................................... 48 Obeying Public Opinion ............................................................................................... 51 Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 52 Abandoning Poor Policy ............................................................................................... 53 Obeying Congressional Power ..................................................................................... 54 Abandoning Eroded Decisions ..................................................................................... 56 Obeying Tradition ......................................................................................................... 58 Abandoning Equal Treatment Between Constitutional and Statutory Cases ............... 59 Obeying Societal Change .............................................................................................. 60 Obeying Public Opinion ............................................................................................... 62 Abandoning Decisions that Could Cause Social Detriment ......................................... 63 Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 65 CHAPTER 7 Rehnquist Court (1986-2005) ................................................................. 67 Obeying Tradition ......................................................................................................... 67 Abandoning Eroded Decisions ..................................................................................... 69 Abandoning Equal Treatment Between Constitutional and Statutory Cases ............... 71 Obeying Congressional Power ..................................................................................... 74 4 Obeying Public Opinion ............................................................................................... 77 Obeying Reliance Interests ........................................................................................... 78 Obeying Societal Change .............................................................................................. 80 Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 81 CHAPTER 8 Roberts Court (2005-present)................................................................. 83 Obeying Settled Expectations ....................................................................................... 83 Abandoning Equal Treatment Between Constitutional and Statutory Cases ............... 86 Obeying Societal Changes: Technology ....................................................................... 87 Obeying Public Opinion ............................................................................................... 89 Obeying Tradition ......................................................................................................... 90 Abandoning Eroded Decisions ..................................................................................... 92 Abandoning Decisions that Cause Social Detriment .................................................... 92 Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 94 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................... 95 BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................................................... 97 5 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First and foremost, I would like to thank my thesis readers, Professor Thomas and Professor Rose, for their guidance, expertise, and advice. Professor Thomas inspired my passion for constitutional law, and his encouragement of my academic pursuits have been crucial to my education over the last four years. My thesis would not have been completed without Professor Rose’s weekly meetings and her invaluable counsel throughout the year-long process. Her constant support and patience both as my professor and as my academic advisor have positively shaped my experience at Claremont McKenna College. I would also like to thank all of my friends, who have supported and challenged me intellectually. Taylor Hughes and Joel Krogstad have unceasingly supported my research and listened to my rough ideas about American constitutionalism for the last year. I want to thank the students and staff at the Salvatori Center, who have encouraged me and provided me with the sanctuary filled with endless snacks and coffee, which has been instrumental throughout this process. Lastly, I would like to thank my family. My sisters have always pushed me to fulfill my potential, and I would not be here without them. Casey, Sarah, and Julia, your friendship, humor, and championship have grounded me for the last 21 years. My parents, Jim and Elizabeth Burgess, have encouraged my educational pursuits more than I will ever know. They provided an environment that has allowed me to grow intellectually and to reach for opportunities beyond belief. Thank you for believing in me. 6 INTRODUCTION In 2016, Donald Trump won the presidential election in what
Load more

Recommended publications
  • CRITICAL THEORY and AUTHORITARIAN POPULISM Critical Theory and Authoritarian Populism
    CDSMS EDITED BY JEREMIAH MORELOCK CRITICAL THEORY AND AUTHORITARIAN POPULISM Critical Theory and Authoritarian Populism edited by Jeremiah Morelock Critical, Digital and Social Media Studies Series Editor: Christian Fuchs The peer-reviewed book series edited by Christian Fuchs publishes books that critically study the role of the internet and digital and social media in society. Titles analyse how power structures, digital capitalism, ideology and social struggles shape and are shaped by digital and social media. They use and develop critical theory discussing the political relevance and implications of studied topics. The series is a theoretical forum for in- ternet and social media research for books using methods and theories that challenge digital positivism; it also seeks to explore digital media ethics grounded in critical social theories and philosophy. Editorial Board Thomas Allmer, Mark Andrejevic, Miriyam Aouragh, Charles Brown, Eran Fisher, Peter Goodwin, Jonathan Hardy, Kylie Jarrett, Anastasia Kavada, Maria Michalis, Stefania Milan, Vincent Mosco, Jack Qiu, Jernej Amon Prodnik, Marisol Sandoval, Se- bastian Sevignani, Pieter Verdegem Published Critical Theory of Communication: New Readings of Lukács, Adorno, Marcuse, Honneth and Habermas in the Age of the Internet Christian Fuchs https://doi.org/10.16997/book1 Knowledge in the Age of Digital Capitalism: An Introduction to Cognitive Materialism Mariano Zukerfeld https://doi.org/10.16997/book3 Politicizing Digital Space: Theory, the Internet, and Renewing Democracy Trevor Garrison Smith https://doi.org/10.16997/book5 Capital, State, Empire: The New American Way of Digital Warfare Scott Timcke https://doi.org/10.16997/book6 The Spectacle 2.0: Reading Debord in the Context of Digital Capitalism Edited by Marco Briziarelli and Emiliana Armano https://doi.org/10.16997/book11 The Big Data Agenda: Data Ethics and Critical Data Studies Annika Richterich https://doi.org/10.16997/book14 Social Capital Online: Alienation and Accumulation Kane X.
    [Show full text]
  • Two Cheers for Judicial Restraint: Justice White and the Role of the Supreme Court Justice White and the Exercise of Judicial Power
    University of Chicago Law School Chicago Unbound Journal Articles Faculty Scholarship 2003 Two Cheers for Judicial Restraint: Justice White and the Role of the Supreme Court Justice White and the Exercise of Judicial Power Dennis J. Hutchinson Follow this and additional works at: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/journal_articles Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Dennis J. Hutchinson, "Two Cheers for Judicial Restraint: Justice White and the Role of the Supreme Court Justice White and the Exercise of Judicial Power," 74 University of Colorado Law Review 1409 (2003). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Chicago Unbound. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal Articles by an authorized administrator of Chicago Unbound. For more information, please contact [email protected]. TWO CHEERS FOR JUDICIAL RESTRAINT: JUSTICE WHITE AND THE ROLE OF THE SUPREME COURT DENNIS J. HUTCHINSON* The death of a Supreme Court Justice prompts an account- ing of his legacy. Although Byron R. White was both widely admired and deeply reviled during his thirty-one-year career on the Supreme Court of the United States, his death almost a year ago inspired a remarkable reconciliation among many of his critics, and many sounded an identical theme: Justice White was a model of judicial restraint-the judge who knew his place in the constitutional scheme of things, a jurist who fa- cilitated, and was reluctant to override, the policy judgments made by democratically accountable branches of government. The editorial page of the Washington Post, a frequent critic during his lifetime, made peace post-mortem and celebrated his vision of judicial restraint.' Stuart Taylor, another frequent critic, celebrated White as the "last true believer in judicial re- straint."2 Judge David M.
    [Show full text]
  • Constitutional Avoidance and the Roberts Court Neal Devins William & Mary Law School, [email protected]
    College of William & Mary Law School William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository Faculty Publications Faculty and Deans 2007 Constitutional Avoidance and the Roberts Court Neal Devins William & Mary Law School, [email protected] Repository Citation Devins, Neal, "Constitutional Avoidance and the Roberts Court" (2007). Faculty Publications. 346. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/facpubs/346 Copyright c 2007 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/facpubs CONSTITUTIONAL A VOIDANCE AND THE ROBERTS COURT Neal Devins • This essay will extend Phil Frickey's argument about the Warren Court's constitutional avoidance to the Roberts Court. My concern is whether the conditions which supported constitutional avoidance by the Warren Court support constitutional avoidance by today's Court. For reasons I will soon detail, the Roberts Court faces a far different Congress than the Warren Court and, as such, need not make extensive use of constitutional avoidance. In Getting from Joe to Gene (McCarthy), Phil Frickey argues that the Warren Court avoided serious conflict with Congress in the late 1950s by exercising subconstitutional avoidance. 1 In other words, the Court sought to avoid congressional backlash by refraining from declaring statutes unconstitutional. Instead, the Court sought to invalidate statutes or congressional actions based on technicalities. If Congress disagreed with the results reached by the Court, lawmakers could have taken legislative action to remedy the problem. This practice allowed the Court to maintain an opening through which it could backtrack and decide similar cases differently without reversing a constitutional decision. In understanding the relevance of Frickey's argument to today's Court, it is useful to compare Court-Congress relations during the Warren Court of the late 1950s to those during the final years of the Rehnquist Court.
    [Show full text]
  • Dead Precedents Riley T
    Notre Dame Law Review Online Volume 93 | Issue 1 Article 1 8-2017 Dead Precedents Riley T. Svikhart Notre Dame Law School Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndlr_online Part of the Jurisprudence Commons, and the Supreme Court of the United States Commons Recommended Citation 93 Notre Dame L. Rev. Online 1 (2018) This Essay is brought to you for free and open access by the Notre Dame Law Review at NDLScholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Notre Dame Law Review Online by an authorized editor of NDLScholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ESSAY DEAD PRECEDENTS Riley T. Svikhart* INTRODUCTION Shaun McCutcheon’s was the “next big campaign finance case to go before the Supreme Court.”1 When the Alabama GOP warned the conservative businessman that his 2010 federal campaign contributions might soon exceed a congressionally imposed limit, he decided to “take a stand.”2 Together, McCutcheon and the Republican National Committee (RNC)—which “wish[ed] to receive the contributions that McCutcheon and similarly situated individuals would like to make” in the absence of such aggregate contribution limits3—challenged the responsible statutory regime4 on First Amendment grounds and attracted national attention en route to a victory before the Supreme Court.5 But while McCutcheon and the RNC prevailed in their case, they failed in another noteworthy regard—Chief Justice Roberts’s controlling opinion declined their request to squarely overrule a relevant portion of the landmark campaign © 2017 Riley T. Svikhart. Individuals and nonprofit institutions may reproduce and distribute copies of this Essay in any format, at or below cost, for educational purposes, so long as each copy identifies the author, provides a citation to the Notre Dame Law Review Online, and includes this provision and copyright notice.
    [Show full text]
  • The Warren Court and the Pursuit of Justice, 50 Wash
    Washington and Lee Law Review Volume 50 | Issue 1 Article 4 Winter 1-1-1993 The aW rren Court And The Pursuit Of Justice Morton J. Horwitz Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/wlulr Part of the Constitutional Law Commons Recommended Citation Morton J. Horwitz, The Warren Court And The Pursuit Of Justice, 50 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 5 (1993), https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/wlulr/vol50/iss1/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Washington and Lee Law Review at Washington & Lee University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington and Lee Law Review by an authorized editor of Washington & Lee University School of Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE WARREN COURT AND THE PURSUIT OF JUSTICE MORTON J. HoRwiTz* From 1953, when Earl Warren became Chief Justice, to 1969, when Earl Warren stepped down as Chief Justice, a constitutional revolution occurred. Constitutional revolutions are rare in American history. Indeed, the only constitutional revolution prior to the Warren Court was the New Deal Revolution of 1937, which fundamentally altered the relationship between the federal government and the states and between the government and the economy. Prior to 1937, there had been great continuity in American constitutional history. The first sharp break occurred in 1937 with the New Deal Court. The second sharp break took place between 1953 and 1969 with the Warren Court. Whether we will experience a comparable turn after 1969 remains to be seen.
    [Show full text]
  • Oppose Judge Amy Coney Barrett's Nomination to the Supreme Court
    TAKE ACTION TO SAVE ROE: Oppose Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s Nomination to the Supreme Court With the death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the American people lost a champion for gender equality and reproductive rights. President Trump’s nominee to replace her, Judge Amy Coney Barrett, has the most extreme anti-reproductive rights record of any Supreme Court nominee since the rejected nomination of Judge Robert Bork over 30 years ago. Reproductive rights should not be open for debate. The ability to make these highly personal decisions is central to a person’s dignity and liberty and to gender equality. Take action today to make your voice heard about why Judge Barrett’s nomination must not proceed. PRESIDENT TRUMP’S NOMINEE: WHAT CAN I DO TO STOP THIS NOMINATION AND JUDGE AMY CONEY BARRETT HELP SAVE ROE? Senators need to hear directly from their constituents President Trump has made reversing Roe v. about why abortion rights and this nomination matters Wade a litmus test for his Supreme Court to you. nominees. Judge Barrett’s record supports that test. Her approach to constitutional 1. Tell your Senators to vote NO on Judge Barrett’s interpretation, opinions as a federal appellate confirmation and urge them to vocally stand up for judge, and vitriolic public advocacy disparaging reproductive rights and the ACA. Click here to send a contraception, opposing abortion, and message or call 202-224-3121. defending “the right to life from fertilization” 2. Share your story or viewpoint on why access to lay bare a deep disagreement with the abortion is important to you by publishing op-eds, established constitutional protections for letters to the editor, and social media posts.
    [Show full text]
  • AP Government: Due Process & Roe V. Wade
    Social Studies Virtual Learning AP Government: Due Process & Roe v. Wade April 13, 2020 AP Government Lesson: April 13, 2020 Objective: LOR 3.B Explain the extent which states are limited by the due process clause from infringing upon individual rights. Warm Up: Write down your answer the following question. There are no right or wrongs here, but this is the focus of the lesson today! What is the right to privacy? What are 3 aspects of everyday life that it includes? Lesson: Roe v. Wade As this is a required case for the test, there are some ideas that are important to remember. Please write these down in your own words so you know what they are. Term Definition Due process The 14th Amendment clause guaranteeing that no state clause shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” The Supreme Court has interpreted the due process clause to provide for “selective incorporation” of amendments into the states, meaning that neither the states nor the federal government may abridge individual rights protected by the Constitution. Term Definition “Penumbra Derived from the Latin for “partial shadow.” The Supreme of privacy” Court has ruled that several amendments in the Bill of Rights cast a “penumbra” of the right to privacy, although the right to privacy itself is never explicitly named. For example, the Court has interpreted that the 4th Amendment right of the people to be secure in their houses from unreasonable searches and seizures implies a right to privacy in the home. Right to The right to be “left alone,” or to be free of government privacy scrutiny into one’s private beliefs and behavior.
    [Show full text]
  • Earl Warren: a Political Biography, by Leo Katcher; Warren: the Man, the Court, the Era, by John Weaver
    Indiana Law Journal Volume 43 Issue 3 Article 14 Spring 1968 Earl Warren: A Political Biography, by Leo Katcher; Warren: The Man, The Court, The Era, by John Weaver William F. Swindler College of William and Mary Follow this and additional works at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ilj Part of the Judges Commons, and the Legal Biography Commons Recommended Citation Swindler, William F. (1968) "Earl Warren: A Political Biography, by Leo Katcher; Warren: The Man, The Court, The Era, by John Weaver," Indiana Law Journal: Vol. 43 : Iss. 3 , Article 14. Available at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ilj/vol43/iss3/14 This Book Review is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School Journals at Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Indiana Law Journal by an authorized editor of Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. BOOK REVIEWS EARL WARREN: A POLITICAL BIOGRAPHY. By Leo Katcher. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967. Pp. i, 502. $8.50. WARREN: THEi MAN, THE COURT, THE ERA. By John D. Weaver. Boston: Little. Brown & Co., 1967. Pp. 406. $7.95. Anyone interested in collecting a bookshelf of serious reading on the various Chief Justices of the United States is struck at the outset by the relative paucity of materials available. Among the studies of the Chief Justices of the twentieth century there is King's Melville Weston, Fuller,' which, while not definitive, is reliable and adequate enough to have merited reprinting in the excellent paperback series being edited by Professor Philip Kurland of the University of Chicago.
    [Show full text]
  • Reflections on Russell Kirk Lee Trepanier Saginaw Valley State University
    Russell Kirk: A Centennial Symposium Reflections on Russell Kirk Lee Trepanier Saginaw Valley State University A century has passed since the birth of Russell Kirk (1918-94), one of the principal founders of the post-World War II conservative revival in the United States.1 This symposium examines Kirk’s legacy with a view to his understanding of constitutional law and the American Founding. But before we examine these essays, it is worth a moment to review Kirk’s life, thought, and place in American conservatism. Russell Kirk was born and raised in Michigan and obtained his B.A. in history at Michigan State University and his M.A. at Duke Univer- sity, where he studied John Randolph of Roanoke and discovered the writings of Edmund Burke.2 His book Randolph of Roanoke: A Study in Conservative Thought (1951) would endure as one of his most important LEE TREPANIER is Professor of Political Science at Saginaw Valley State University. He is also the editor of Lexington Books’ series “Politics, Literature, and Film” and of the aca- demic website VoegelinView. 1 I would like to thank the McConnell Center at the University of Louisville for sponsoring a panel related to this symposium at the 2018 American Political Science Conference and Zachary German for his constructive comments on these papers. I also would like to thank Richard Avramenko of the Center for the Study of Liberal Democracy at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and Saginaw Valley State University for supporting my sabbatical, which enabled me to write this article and organize this symposium for Humanitas.
    [Show full text]
  • Sara E. Barnett
    Sara E. Barnett Sara E. Barnett [email protected] (731)265-4123 Secretary Donna Schulz [email protected] (731)265-4122 Paralegal Robyn Ryan [email protected] (731)265-4139 Sara E. Barnett is a Member with Spragins, Barnett & Cobb’s Litigation Department, practicing on behalf of plaintiffs and defendants in various areas of litigation including family law, divorce, adoption, child custody and child support, employment discrimination, overtime claims, worker’s compensation, personal injury, premises liability, products liability and wrongful death. Ms. Barnett joined Spragins, Barnett & Cobb in 2001 and has fifteen years of experience in its litigation section. She practices with her father, Charles Barnett, who leads the litigation section. Ms. Barnett has been given Martindale-Hubbell’s highest peer review rating of AV, which is the group’s highest honor and is a testament to the fact that Ms. Barnett’s peers rank her at the highest level of professional excellence and ethical standards. Ms. Barnett is dedicated to the success of the Firm’s clients and has a variety of practice areas which enhance her knowledge in the most complicated of cases. Ms. Barnett is a 1997 graduate of Union University where she was awarded a Bachelor of Science Degree and is a 2001 graduate of the University of Memphis, Cecil C. Humphreys School of Law where she was awarded a Doctor of Jurisprudence. While at the University of Memphis, Ms. Barnett was a member of the University of Memphis Law Review where she served as Articles Editor. In addition, Ms. Barnett was a research assistant and participated in moot court and mock trial.
    [Show full text]
  • First Amendment Tests from the Burger Court: Will They Be Flipped?
    FIRST AMENDMENT TESTS FROM THE BURGER COURT: WILL THEY BE FLIPPED? David L. Hudson, Jr. † and Emily H. Harvey †† I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................ 52 II. THE LEMON TEST ..................................................................... 53 III. THE MILLER TEST .................................................................... 58 IV. THE CENTRAL HUDSON TEST ..................................................... 63 V. CONCLUSION ........................................................................... 66 I. INTRODUCTION When scholars speak of the Burger Court, they often mention the curtailing of individual rights in the criminal justice arena, 1 federalism decisions, 2 its “rootless activism,” 3 a failure in equal † David L. Hudson, Jr., is a Justice Robert H. Jackson Legal Fellow with the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) and the Newseum Institute First Amendment Fellow. He teaches at the Nashville School of Law and Vanderbilt Law School. He would like to thank his co-author Emily Harvey, the student editors of the Mitchell Hamline Law Review , and Azhar Majeed of FIRE. †† Emily H. Harvey is the senior judicial law clerk for the Hon. Frank G. Clement, Jr., of the Tennessee Court of Appeals. 1. See Yale Kamisar, The Warren Court and Criminal Justice: A Quarter-Century Retrospective , 31 TULSA L.J. 1, 14, 44 (1995); Steven D. Clymer, Note, Warrantless Vehicle Searches and the Fourth Amendment: The Burger Court Attacks the Exclusionary Rule , 68 CORNELL L. REV . 105, 129, 141, 144–45 (1982). 2. See David Scott Louk, Note, Repairing the Irreparable: Revisiting the Federalism Decisions of the Burger Court , 125 YALE L.J. 682, 686–87, 694, 710, 724–25 (2016); Lea Brilmayer & Ronald D. Lee, State Sovereignty and the Two Faces of Federalism: A Comparative Study of Federal Jurisdiction and the Conflict of Laws , 60 NOTRE DAME L.
    [Show full text]
  • The Wit and Wisdom of Donald J. Trump - Volume One : 8X10 College Ruled - 200 Blank Notebook Pages Pdf, Epub, Ebook
    THE WIT AND WISDOM OF DONALD J. TRUMP - VOLUME ONE : 8X10 COLLEGE RULED - 200 BLANK NOTEBOOK PAGES PDF, EPUB, EBOOK Buckskin Creek Journals | 202 pages | 11 Aug 2018 | Createspace Independent Publishing Platform | 9781725123359 | English | none The Wit and Wisdom of Donald J. Trump - Volume One : 8x10 College Ruled - 200 Blank Notebook Pages PDF Book Molly Olmstead: Conservatives are already playing up hypothetical anti-Catholic bias against Amy Coney Barrett : Because we all know how concerned conservatives are when it comes to prejudice against minorities? Matties, You are not suspicious of Biden and all the other globalist but suspicious of Trump? Most of them lack context, and may err by omission, but they're not fake news. Romney too wants to reach across the aisle. As former KGB and Washington swamp know now. I have a sister who now is looking for work in Canada because of this election, as well as many other twitter people I follow. The communities welcomed him. Dollar Index at that time, I suggest. To Mr. Read the thread!! But minority rule is on the ballot. The illusion of governance overshadows the chaos in the nuts and bolts of implementation situated in the agencies charged with making it happen. The decision is simple for me. Ever since, the right has mounted an hysterical campaign to take away the rights granted by the Court -- especially abortion, but also the constitutional right to privacy free choice is based on -- and to secure ever greater privileges for the rich as evidenced most clearly by the Court's recent claim that unlimited campaign spending is protected "free speech".
    [Show full text]