May 07, 2010
— DrewM Behold the Obama administration at work...there's a leak, announcing that the pick will be leaked soon.
Look for President Obama to name his Supreme Court pick Monday, and look for it to be Solicitor General Elena Kagan, a former Harvard Law dean. The pick isnÂ’t official, but top White House aides will be shocked if itÂ’s otherwise. KaganÂ’s relative youth (50) is a huge asset for the lifetime post.
Kagan has obviously been at or near the top of everyone's list so it's not really a surprise if she's the choice.
Put aside the fact that we aren't going to like anyone Obama puts up and accept that Kagan is a liberal, this is not the hard-core lefty the base really wants. Kagan is not Diane Wood with her unabashed pro-abortion track record.
There's already some preemptive push back on Kagan for being insufficiently open to hiring women and minorities while Dean of Harvard Law. She brought in too many damn white men for some people's taste. If you follow the Politico link through to Salon, you'd get the idea that Kagan was a member of the Klan or something.
She was confirmed 61-31 to be Solicitor General last year. She got 7 Republican votes. Interestingly they included John Kyl, Orin Hatch and Tom Coburn. Strangely Specter voted against her but mostly because he thought she ducked too many questions. Expect him to flip on that in heart beat. He's principled like that. I'm not sure how Lindsey Graham voted in committee (he missed the full Senate vote) but he's made nice noises about her recently.
Unless something new and damaging comes out (and no, whether or not she's gay doesn't count), Kagan would likely win confirmation. Elections, consequences, some assembly required.
Meanwhile, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, Jeff Sessions (who voted against Kagan last year) lays out the case against Obama's judicial philosophy.
President Obama said recently that his court nominee must have "a keen understanding of how the law affects the daily lives of the American people." This is nothing more than another thinly veiled attempt to justify judicial activism. What matters is what the Constitution says, not a judge's personal take on what laws are best for the country.Consider Goodwin Liu, the University of California at Berkeley professor whom the president nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. Liu has argued that judges should treat the Constitution as an infinitely flexible document to be interpreted through nebulous "social understandings" and the consideration of foreign law. This activist philosophy led Liu to conclude that the Constitution provides a right to government health care and welfare -- a remarkable view of a document designed to curb the excess of federal power.
The American people overwhelmingly disagree with this approach to judging. So the president is playing a rhetorical game, accusing the court's conservative, or traditional, justices of being the real activists: harboring a secret bias for big businesses. It is an absurd suggestion.
This is the real value of opposition to just about anyone Obama will nominate. It's really hard to defeat a Supreme Court nomination, especially when the opposition party has 41 Senate votes. Republicans can however draw some sharp distinctions about the appropriate role of the courts and the types of justices each party supports. That's a fight I think plays well for us.
Posted by: DrewM at
09:04 AM
| Comments (110)
Post contains 574 words, total size 4 kb.
cause that's how I roll.
Posted by: Snapdragon, professional retard at May 07, 2010 09:09 AM (erIg9)
heh.
Posted by: Garbonzo the Garrulous at May 07, 2010 09:09 AM (zgd5N)
Posted by: Kratos (missing from the side of Mt Olympus) at May 07, 2010 09:10 AM (9hSKh)
Posted by: logprof at May 07, 2010 09:11 AM (Mmw0q)
Speakin of goats, have you seen my new life partner, Nibbles? He's dreamy.
Posted by: Snapdragon, professional retard at May 07, 2010 09:11 AM (erIg9)
My recommendation to the Republican Senate is to repeat the vote count for / against Sotomayor; but this time, don't threaten a filibuster.
Sotomayor was special; an anti-American mole like Obama. She should have been filibustered. And she needs to be impeached and thrown out immediately upon the first Constitutionally wrong step she makes.
Posted by: Zimriel at May 07, 2010 09:11 AM (9Sbz+)
Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at May 07, 2010 09:11 AM (F5Gxy)
Posted by: nevergiveup at May 07, 2010 09:14 AM (0GFWk)
Posted by: Committee to Appoint Justise Kagan at May 07, 2010 09:14 AM (xxgag)
Posted by: curious at May 07, 2010 09:15 AM (p302b)
Posted by: DngrMse at May 07, 2010 09:15 AM (2h8SL)
O/T: Police have evacuated a small are of Times Square by the Marriott Marquis.
DAMN those Pakistani Teabaggers!
Posted by: Dang Straights at May 07, 2010 09:16 AM (fx8sm)
Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at May 07, 2010 09:16 AM (Yq+qN)
Posted by: nevergiveup at May 07, 2010 09:16 AM (0GFWk)
Posted by: dogfish at May 07, 2010 09:16 AM (Ncv/n)
Posted by: curious at May 07, 2010 09:17 AM (p302b)
Posted by: nevergiveup at May 07, 2010 09:18 AM (0GFWk)
Not really, after Rudy Guiliani cleaned it up it has continued to improve. They are even building residential rental units in the area. Hells kitchen is no more, really.
Posted by: curious at May 07, 2010 09:18 AM (p302b)
Posted by: Secretary of Leaks at May 07, 2010 09:20 AM (F5Gxy)
Posted by: nevergiveup at May 07, 2010 09:20 AM (0GFWk)
hahahhahahahha so true, so true...
and mike is now going to close the area around macy's 34th street to all but pedestrian traffic...
if he had his way, there would never be a single car or delivery truck in the city ever..
Posted by: curious at May 07, 2010 09:21 AM (p302b)
Posted by: 1sttofight at May 07, 2010 09:23 AM (cVnTj)
Posted by: FBI Department of Leak Control at May 07, 2010 09:23 AM (F5Gxy)
Of course, I believe that Kagan's simply a stealth hard core lefty judicial activist who was smart enough to keep her mouth shut and not put anything in writing so that she was in a perfect position to get a SCOTUS nom. Once she's on the Court, away she goes.
I agree, use the hearings to set out the distinct differences in judicial philosophy between the Left and the Right. If we're going to lose anyway, get some information out there.
Posted by: alexthechick at May 07, 2010 09:24 AM (8WZWv)
Solicitor General Elena Kagan, a former Harvard Law dean
Eeeesh..these Harvard pukes are like frickin cock-roaches. Some body turn off the light already.
Posted by: dananjcon at May 07, 2010 09:25 AM (pr+up)
Posted by: 1sttofight at May 07, 2010 01:23 PM (cVnTj)
Eh...I heard Kumar is still looking for a job.
Posted by: dananjcon at May 07, 2010 09:26 AM (pr+up)
Of course it matters if Kagan's a homosexual...if THAT'S the main reason she's being nominated, which it is.
Stop being PC. Of course it matters.
Posted by: Count Chocula at May 07, 2010 09:28 AM (uFokq)
Posted by: Additonal Blond Agent at May 07, 2010 09:28 AM (PMGbu)
Posted by: evil libertarian at May 07, 2010 09:28 AM (90GMX)
Posted by: curious at May 07, 2010 01:15 PM (p302b)
Ah if truth be told, Times Square is a shit hole anyway.
Posted by: nevergiveup at May 07, 2010 01:16 PM (0GFWk)
Hope they didn't get their tip from my wifes girlfriend.
Posted by: dananjcon at May 07, 2010 09:29 AM (pr+up)
And she's a fuckin' dean? A Fucking DEAN!
We need to shut down law schools, this is embarrassing. I realize she was probably too stupid to do any math, like most people in the wussmanities and socialist sciences, but for God's sake, can she at least fake scholarship by publishing a few things?
You don't have to have a high IQ or any original ideas to write a law review article. There aren't any mathematical proofs involved. The key is to have no unexpressed thought.
Posted by: AmishDude at May 07, 2010 09:30 AM (T0NGe)
Posted by: Hussein the Plumber at May 07, 2010 09:31 AM (RkRxq)
Posted by: Pablo at May 07, 2010 09:32 AM (yTndK)
AmishDude, you ever see the movie LITTLE MAN TATE with Jody Foster?
You are the "Mathemagician" all grown up.
Posted by: Count Chocula at May 07, 2010 09:33 AM (uFokq)
Her being gay (if that's the case) is likely the ONLY reason she's being nominated. Obama is using SC appointments as payoffs to his support groups- Sotomayor was a quid-pro-quo to Latinos, and now Kagan will be likewise for the gays.
I wouldn't be surprised to see him nominate somebody with a journalism background if he gets another appointment opportunity.
I wonder who he'll nominate to pay off the stupid people as they were his biggest support block.
Posted by: Nighthawk at May 07, 2010 09:33 AM (OtQXp)
She could have, but as atc mentioned above, maybe she deliberately didn't publish much of her own thought for lib stealth purposes. Kooky thought, yes, but not outside the realm of possibility. Anything's possible with this bunch.
Posted by: Kratos (missing from the side of Mt Olympus) at May 07, 2010 09:34 AM (9hSKh)
The stupidity of her and other Ivy League law deans banning military recruiters will hurt her.
Her current position as solicitor general will do so as well, mainly because she'll have to recuse herself from a huge number of cases involving the US government for the remainder of Obama's term, if not longer, because she was arguing cases for the government.
I'm not sure how much better the alternatives are, though, so Republicans may want to keep their powder dry and wait for the Dems to start attacking her for being insufficiently leftist.
Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at May 07, 2010 09:34 AM (S/HSv)
Posted by: nevergiveup at May 07, 2010 09:35 AM (0GFWk)
Ever try to drive across it at rush hour?
Your first mistake is driving around Manhattan.
And it's not the rainbow, it's the Red Flag with Hammer and Sickle that I don't like.
Posted by: Dang Straights at May 07, 2010 09:36 AM (fx8sm)
Nah, the next nominee will be an indian.
Obama is turning SCOTUS into The Village People, what the fuck???
Posted by: Count Chocula at May 07, 2010 09:36 AM (uFokq)
Posted by: / at May 07, 2010 09:36 AM (p302b)
Posted by: the peanut gallery at May 07, 2010 09:36 AM (NurK6)
OK, I get that. So how the hell does she get to be a dean?!?!?
Posted by: AmishDude at May 07, 2010 09:36 AM (T0NGe)
He won't use a nomination for them. He'll pay them off in Funemployment.
Posted by: Buzzsaw at May 07, 2010 09:36 AM (tf9Ne)
Nah, the next nominee will be an indian.
Obama is turning SCOTUS into The Village People, what the fuck???
It's fun to work at the U-S-S-C... it's fun to work at the U-S-S-C...
Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at May 07, 2010 09:37 AM (S/HSv)
Posted by: Hussein the Plumber at May 07, 2010 09:38 AM (RkRxq)
Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at May 07, 2010 09:40 AM (Yq+qN)
No.
You are the "Mathemagician" all grown up.
Posted by: Count Chocula at May 07, 2010 01:33 PM (uFokq)
(a) I suppose that's supposed to be a dig. I have no idea. Kinda Dennis Miller on the cheap.
(b) Who says I'm grown up?
(c) What? You mean there's a bunch of people studying functional analysis saying, "Whew! I'm glad I missed all of that complicated, intellectually challenging stuff in law school! I'm sure glad I didn't have to deal with stuff like the Negative Commerce Clause. Why, I might have to pay a private tutor just to understand it."
(d) "Legally Blonde" (less obscure reference) was a documentary.
Posted by: AmishDude at May 07, 2010 09:40 AM (T0NGe)
"One of my favorite characters in the movie is an adolescent "mathemagician" with a lightning mind but an obnoxious personality, who wears a magician's cape at all times and in all places."
Posted by: Count Chocula at May 07, 2010 09:41 AM (uFokq)
I'm fighting obnoxious with obnoxious. They say Obama was brilliant because he went to Harvard Law School. It. Was. Endless. I say he's an imbecile because he went to Harvard Law School.
If I have to be a jerk to burst the bubble of the intellect ascribed to Ivy League law grads, so be it.
Posted by: AmishDude at May 07, 2010 09:43 AM (T0NGe)
Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at May 07, 2010 09:44 AM (F5Gxy)
Posted by: Mal at May 07, 2010 09:45 AM (Z+qzA)
I would nominate myself. But. I'm a bit busy fuckin all y'all right about now. Hey Joe...pass the mustard will ya!
Posted by: Barack, if your nasty at May 07, 2010 09:45 AM (pr+up)
The key is to have no unexpressed thought.
Do you have any unexpressed thoughts on lawyers? I'm curious as I'm not quite clear on your stance.
Signing off,
Legally Blonde Retardo Lawyer Lacey
Posted by: laceyunderalls at May 07, 2010 09:45 AM (pLTLS)
No, it's the math thing. I can imagine you on the Judicial Committee.
"What do you know about Calculus II?"
"Tell us about proofs. Can you show us, using an inductive proof, how a + b + .....n = (a+b)x?"
Posted by: Count Chocula at May 07, 2010 09:47 AM (uFokq)
Posted by: Bad Sneaker at May 07, 2010 09:48 AM (4Kl5M)
Posted by: Roland T. Flakfizer at May 07, 2010 09:48 AM (F5Gxy)
Well, I have lots of unexpressed thoughts on accountants. Know why? Not too many of them are Congressmen. And they don't get a third of our government all to themselves.
They also don't have a lot of overpaid academics in their schools. No other school would dare having a Dean with such a threadbare record. Hell, you can't get tenure with a record like that, except in education colleges.
Posted by: AmishDude at May 07, 2010 09:48 AM (T0NGe)
I wouldn't be surprised to see him nominate somebody with a journalism background if he gets another appointment opportunity.
I wonder who he'll nominate to pay off the stupid people as they were his biggest support block.
Charlie Gibson. Two birds, one stone.
Posted by: IllTemperedCur at May 07, 2010 09:49 AM (ZSVyF)
Thank goodness. I've been worried lately that the Ivy League is under-represented at the highest levels of our society.
Posted by: tsj017 at May 07, 2010 09:51 AM (4YUWF)
President Obama said recently that his court nominee must have "a keen understanding of how the law affects the daily lives of the American people."
And nobody has that understanding like the dean of the Harvard Law School, right?
Another Obama promise printed on toilet paper.
Posted by: rockmom at May 07, 2010 09:52 AM (w/gVZ)
OT
JWF is hot today. Whose up for a pusscookie award?
Posted by: maddogg at May 07, 2010 01:46 PM (OlN4e)
Medal for 'courageous restraint'
My god these people are relentless in the neutering of our boys...and girls!! WTF.
Posted by: Barack, if your nasty at May 07, 2010 09:52 AM (pr+up)
It's telling, though, whether someone can make it through integral calculus. It's a filter, although a weak one. Lots of kids who think they can be engineers find out that they can't. And they can't BS their way through.
It doesn't matter so much what you do, but what you can do.
"Tell us about proofs. Can you show us, using an inductive proof, how a + b + .....n = (a+b)x?"
Other than yours being a nonsensical statement, every lawyer should be required to take Introduction to Proofs. Such a course rarely requires a mathematical prerequisite, but what is required to formalize an argument into a correct proof is the kind of intellectual rigor that would be perfect in the legal profession. Well, if reason and logic were rewarded. I suppose it is in much of the law, but not in the rarefied air of Federal appellate law.
Posted by: AmishDude at May 07, 2010 09:52 AM (T0NGe)
Posted by: Roland T. Flakfizer at May 07, 2010 01:48 PM (F5Gxy)
Heh.
"You're lying."
"Of course I am, but hear me out!"
Posted by: IllTemperedCur at May 07, 2010 09:53 AM (ZSVyF)
Posted by: joncelli at May 07, 2010 09:53 AM (RD7QR)
What's to understand? It ain't long, it's written in English and I can understand it perfectly well.
Don't need 3 years of postgraduate education to understand the law anyway. If you're meant to be subject to the law, it shouldn't be the exclusive province of a priesthood.
Posted by: AmishDude at May 07, 2010 09:56 AM (T0NGe)
That outdated thing? It doesn't even have any Gaia-saving provisions, like the enlightened EU Constitution.
Who's going to be the first to quote the EU Constitution in a case?
Posted by: Kratos (missing from the side of Mt Olympus) at May 07, 2010 09:57 AM (9hSKh)
Posted by: Arlen Specter at May 07, 2010 10:03 AM (F5Gxy)
AmishDude, whenever you post, I start imagining "hypothetical mathematician politician guy" - i.e. what we'd have if we ended up with a "Gov. John Derbyshire". And then I take two Advil.
And as a patent attorney, I can say with confidence that the vast majority of so-called brainiac science and math types I used to work when I was in industry with don't have sh*t for brains when it comes to politics or history. Half of them were foreign and didn't know squat (or care to know squat) about American history. The other half were raging libtards crapping themselves over the possibility that "their" gubmint grant money would disappear.
I recall fondly a conversation with one of my brilliant physician friends about a Supreme Court decision and Clarence Thomas's contribution in particular: "Um.... who's that?"
Putting people into power who know how to solve proofs isn't going to get you a fiscally conservative debt-free body politic. I'd trust the vote of a tee-shirt vendor who runs his/her own business before I'd trust the vote of some of the Ph.D. scientists I used to work with.
But what do I know, I'm a dumb lawyer.
Posted by: La Mauvaise New Yorkaise at May 07, 2010 10:08 AM (8uZ8A)
Slight problem: Lately, when it comes to being the opposition, the Republicans can't seem to muster up enough will to fight, let alone maintain any effort. They fold much, much too quickly.
Posted by: Blacque Jacques Shellacque at May 07, 2010 10:08 AM (gjUVx)
OT
JWF is hot today. Whose up for a pusscookie award?
Posted by: maddogg at May 07, 2010 01:46 PM (OlN4e)
Medal for 'courageous restraint'
My god these people are relentless in the neutering of our boys...and girls!! WTF.
Posted by: Barack, if your nasty at May 07, 2010 01:52 PM (pr+up)
Private! Man that marshmallow cannon!
Posted by: Hussein the Plumber at May 07, 2010 10:11 AM (RkRxq)
________________
But it's written on hemp.
Posted by: Duuuuuuuude at May 07, 2010 10:12 AM (3K4hn)
Posted by: anon at May 07, 2010 10:23 AM (j/wD+)
And here's the other thing about the brilliant law school graduates. How many of them are foreign? Exactly. Competing in a pool of 300 million is a different kettle of fish from competing in a pool of 6 billion, when most other countries subsidize all education up through the undergraduate degree.
I would support quotas for foreign-born law school students and work visas when they graduate.
"their" gubmint grant money
No kidding. Of course, the grant money comes from non-science types who are obsessed with stuff like global warming and cures for cancer. But since the law is a protection racket, why shouldn't science be a con game?
I'd trust the vote of a tee-shirt vendor who runs his/her own business before I'd trust the vote of some of the Ph.D. scientists I used to work with.
So would I. But...the key to breaking the socialist hold is breaking the bubble of the superman who can solve all of life's problems. Nobody's electing mathematicians to office, so that bubble doesn't need to be burst.
But what do I know, I'm a dumb lawyer.
No, but you're not a god. Neither is any other lawyer. There might be a brilliant person who is a lawyer, but it's pure coincidence. As we see with "Dean" Kagan, there is no correlation.
"Gov. John Derbyshire". And then I take two Advil.
No argument here. Although John isn't a mathematician so much as a jock sniffer. Which is much worse.
Posted by: AmishDude at May 07, 2010 10:25 AM (T0NGe)
Posted by: anon at May 07, 2010 10:34 AM (j/wD+)
Posted by: Shooter at May 07, 2010 10:35 AM (zfRju)
Posted by: AmishDude at May 07, 2010 10:37 AM (T0NGe)
Posted by: anon at May 07, 2010 10:44 AM (j/wD+)
Gee, Amish Mathemagician, what about people who can't do math?
They shouldn't be allowed out of the house! What with all the vectors and inertia and parabolic equations* necessary for the activity of walking, let alone driving safely! Far too much power to hand over to such lowly, non-mathematical types!
*making shit up to yank chain
Posted by: s'moron at May 07, 2010 10:48 AM (UaxA0)
And your beef isn't with Harvard, Mathemagician, it's with lawyers generally.
Who should we nominate to teh Supreme Court, another Earl Warren?
Posted by: s'moron at May 07, 2010 10:51 AM (UaxA0)
Posted by: Shooter at May 07, 2010 10:53 AM (zfRju)
I see where you're coming from AmishDude. I fully agree that lawyerly interference with what are primarily technical and engineering issues is a huge problem. And that if there were more of a general understanding of the perseverence necessary to work in a scientific field, and to create, Americans hypothetically wouldn't be so down on the productive sector. I also agree that too many people see an ivy league degree and equate it with brilliance (not a Harvard grad here). But I don't think that "lawyer always equals dumb" is a great meme. I think a lot of our present state has to do with the fact that most Americans don't have a respect for history or logic. No mathematician he, but I'm consistently blown away by Scalia's grasp of historical knowledge. We need those types of lawyers and judges.
But I'll also admit to you up front that I'm skeptical of the rule of the "brilliant" - doesn't matter what field they are from. The Weekly Standard had an article on the subject a week or so ago that was a great read.
If you want us to recognize your brilliance because you're a mathematician, so be it. But if you want to impute that to politican acumen, on a political blog, that's where others might object.
Posted by: La Mauvaise New Yorkaise at May 07, 2010 10:54 AM (8uZ8A)
Posted by: Scott J. at May 07, 2010 10:55 AM (NY7mQ)
Both. I tend to work in an area close to theoretical computer science, graphs and networks, mostly but not exclusively. Some of it is highly abstract, some is very concrete. I've looked to doing more concrete problems, but many of the questions, say, biologists ask are not well-posed.
Anybody can write a computer program to work on a special case and it's usually cheaper and easier and more satisfying than trying to get a mathematician to solve it.
Posted by: AmishDude at May 07, 2010 10:55 AM (T0NGe)
polynikes,
that's absolutely right, legal logic is a strange beast. A lot (and I mean A LOT) of lawyers are mediocre intellects, even from the Ivy League. But they all had to learn to think like a lawyer, which is essential for any judge.
Posted by: s'moron at May 07, 2010 11:09 AM (UaxA0)
Agreed. I saw a "debate" between Scalia and Breyer and it wasn't even close. Scalia is a unique bird. The basic way I explain the difference between math and the social sciences is that we try to get through the haystack to find the needle. They try to pile hay on top to obscure the fact that the needle is rusty and useless.
Scalia has a problem-solver's mind. He isn't attempting to use vocabulary or specific terms in order to obscure.
The problem with trying to find Scalias is that the system is stacked up to reject them. I am more than willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater when the baby has already drowned.
But Scalia agrees with me: “I used to be disappointed that so many of the best minds in the country were being devoted to this enterprise.
“I mean there’d be a … public defender from Podunk, you know, and this woman is really brilliant, you know. Why isn’t she out inventing the automobile or, you know, doing something productive for this society?
“I mean lawyers, after all, don’t produce anything. They enable other people to produce and to go on with their lives efficiently and in an atmosphere of freedom. That’s important, but it doesn’t put food on the table, and there have to be other people who are doing that. And I worry that we are devoting too many of our very best minds to this enterprise.”The problem with what passes for intellect in this day and age is the trappings of intellect: creases in pants, cadences in speech, flourishes in writing. Because of the nature of the legal profession these things are highly-valued. They shouldn't be.
If you want us to recognize your brilliance because you're a mathematician
No, no, no. I am a hack.
I'm at best mediocre among my peers. At best. The point is that my mediocre mathematical success should still indicate that the hurdles I have jumped are higher than those "Dean" Kagan has.
Posted by: AmishDude at May 07, 2010 11:13 AM (T0NGe)
“I used to be disappointed that so many of the best minds in the country were being devoted to this enterprise.
“I mean there’d be a … public defender from Podunk, you know, and this woman is really brilliant, you know. Why isn’t she out inventing the automobile or, you know, doing something productive for this society?
“I mean lawyers, after all, don’t produce anything. They enable other people to produce and to go on with their lives efficiently and in an atmosphere of freedom. That’s important, but it doesn’t put food on the table, and there have to be other people who are doing that. And I worry that we are devoting too many of our very best minds to this enterprise.”
Posted by: AmishDude at May 07, 2010 11:13 AM (T0NGe)
Ah, clairvoyance. That's certainly a unique talent.
But who do you think is in charge of the legal profession?
Posted by: AmishDude at May 07, 2010 11:16 AM (T0NGe)
lawyers suck, and a lot of them are women now , thats not a good thing
I can hold any women to my will, how....hold their cell phones for ransom
Posted by: obama_hussein at May 07, 2010 11:54 AM (DLaJY)
106 And your beef isn't with Harvard, Mathemagician, it's with lawyers generally.
Ah, clairvoyance. That's certainly a unique talent.
It's not clairvoyance, you said it yesterday!
Posted by: s'moron at May 07, 2010 12:06 PM (UaxA0)
Posted by: mr. bitterness at May 07, 2010 01:09 PM (TL9NY)
Posted by: Shooter at May 07, 2010 01:15 PM (zfRju)
Posted by: dfcvbcb at May 18, 2010 09:21 PM (eU/Oa)
Of course, pains in the calcifying areas of the chronic rheumatic disturb us continuously. There are so many kinds orjin krem of pains that occur as a result of headache, exhaustion, hittings and immobility etc.
The colic and the leg muscles of a person who is driving are the most paining things. The ones who are working in front of computers have more complaints. There are so many ways to remove all these pains and to eliminate disturbance.
Orjin Pain & Rheumatism Cream offers you an excellent solution that does not have any side effect and it is made of 100% natural ingredients.
Posted by: orjin krem at December 16, 2010 02:53 PM (GnMF0)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.1861 seconds, 238 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
Posted by: WalrusRex at May 07, 2010 09:06 AM (xxgag)