Support NeoGAF

[CrimzonSamurai]

Figured this was his angle when he started going after entitlements. The hard truth teller who won't let political correctness or "the elites" tell him what to say!

He remains the best politician running for president in both parties IMO, but his record and temperament will fuck him. Won't make it too far beyond the early primaries IMO.

Did he even have an exploratory committee? I can't imagine that anyone could tell him in good conscience that he had a shot. Every conservative I know either doesn't like him or doesn't take him seriously or both.

 

[makingmusic476]

.8% growth per-year is still very good and would put the city on a growth level that it hasn't seen in years. It would also mean you'd hit Katrina-level population in the mid-2020s.

But that won't happen any time soon lol. (Edit: Meant to say "But that's not any time soon". )

And yeah, 1.4% growth for the city proper is pretty respectable, especially for this state.

Hopefully the cap on film tax credits won't hurt too bad.

 

[Coriolanus]

He remains the best politician running for president in both parties IMO, but his record and temperament will fuck him. Won't make it too far beyond the early primaries IMO.

Christie: this generation's Nixon.

 

[CrimzonSamurai]

"Huckabee Questions 'A Bit' of Obama's Pincnkney Eulogy"

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/...-pinckney-eulogy-reaction-119508.html?hp=r1_3

But some of it, the former pastor and Republican candidate for president said on ABC’s “This Week,” “strayed into more of a political agenda than a true eulogy.”

Bonus SSM grandstanding, with a dash of abortion:

On the Supreme Court’s decision legalizing same-sex marriage across the United States, Huckabee posed a future hypothetical situation in which a majority conservative court decides to strike down the decision in Obergefell v. Hodges and also rule that “every unborn person is in fact a person and is absolutely guaranteed due process.”

“Is the left going to be OK to let the Supreme Court make this decision? Because based on the response [last] week, I think they have to say, ‘Yes, that’s fine,’” Huckabee said, also raising the issue of potential discrimination against people of faith whose beliefs conflict with the ruling.

Huckabee just makes me want to vomit. From his arrogance, his quivering jowls, to the tacky alliteration on his pre-run book. Everything.

 

[BertramCooper]

"Huckabee Questions 'A Bit' of Obama's Pincnkney Eulogy"

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/...-pinckney-eulogy-reaction-119508.html?hp=r1_3



Bonus SSM grandstanding, with a dash of abortion:



Huckabee just makes me want to vomit. From his arrogance, his quivering jowls, to the tacky alliteration on his pre-run book. Everything.

How fucking dare he invoke Martin Luther King when talking about resistance to same-sex marriage - especially considering Coretta Scott King's support for LGBT rights.

What a truly odious human being.

 

[Diablos]

Diablos: Consider how gentrification tends to be perceived. A city goes into disrepair under a predominantly black population/leadership, then all of a sudden everything is cheap and businesses move in, white people move in, etc. The city improves across the board. And the success story is largely sold along racial lines. White people "saved" the city from black people's violence/disinterest/etc*. And politicians overly and covertly harp on that to win elections for the next 10+ years. That's what is going to happen.

It reminds me of those Kwame Kilpatrick ads that were run in 2012, linking Obama to Kwame and Detroit's decline. Republicans are great at that shit. And the young "yuppies" moving there now might be liberal now, but when they have some kids in a decade they'll be quite receptive to republican fear mongering.

*nevermind that the city was doomed decades ago by the greed of the auto industry. I don't say that to defend bad black politicians who further helped ruin the city, but the facts remain that Detroit's death was set in motion by greed and redlining 50+ years ago.

Remains to be seen. I think there will be some changes but it's not going to turn into, say, North Carolina overnight. I think it will still be regarded as a swing state at worst.

 

[Coriolanus]

How fucking dare he invoke Martin Luther King when talking about resistance to same-sex marriage - especially considering Coretta Scott King's support for LGBT rights.

Because he knows his audience, and is playing to it.

 

[TheHeretic]

The Republicans will not confront the fringe elements of their party because the fringe elements are their party. When the Republicans eventually rebound - because they will, it's a two party system - none of these jokers running for president today will be the face of the party. Sure, a lot of the operatives behind the scenes will be the same, but the current crop of candidates have so much baggage with LGBT rights and immigration issues that Democrats would have to screw up majorly to let someone like Scott Walker become president.

This isn't true. The most extreme candidates have not won the primary in the last three primary elections. On the Republican side the hard right activist base is low on votes but high on money and organisational support. There are reasons to keep them on your side, but the bulk of the Republican base is still centrist leaning.

 

[BertramCooper]

This isn't true. The most extreme candidates have not won the primary in the last three primary elections. On the Republican side the hard right activist base is low on votes but high on money and organisational support. There are reasons to keep them on your side, but the bulk of the Republican base is still centrist leaning.

It doesn't matter that the extreme candidates never win. The fringe still manages to push the eventual nominee so far to the right that he inevitably struggles with the general electorate.

 

[TheHeretic]

It doesn't matter that the extreme candidates never win. The fringe still manages to push the eventual nominee so far to the right that he inevitably struggles with the general electorate.

That only happens because of how little money and structure exists on the Republican side for more moderate candidates. On the Democratic side the opposite is true, left wing candidates have to run virtually by themselves, since the party itself rewards more centrist candidates.

 

[Manmademan]

Yeah, I can't remember who but a pundit the other day said that Christie is a really good politician but his temper and record will ultimately crush any hopes he had.

This assumes that Christie is running for President, and not Vice President.

I think the latter is much, much more likely.

 

[CrimzonSamurai]

This assumes that Christie is running for President, and not Vice President.

I think the latter is much, much more likely.

Christie: this generation's Nixon.

Chris Christie: This generation's Spiro Agnew.

 

[NeoXChaos]

Christie as VP is futile. He is not going to deliver New Jersey. The base cant stand him.

 

[Diablos]

It's gonna be one of the following: Jeb, Walker, Rubio, Christie. Fiorina as a long shot; but she would make for a great VP candidate.

 

[CrimzonSamurai]

It's gonna be one of the following: Jeb, Walker, Rubio, Christie. Fiorina as a long shot; but she would make for a great VP candidate.

I think as long as she doesn't go completely sideways she's already got the best chance at VP. They'll want her to balance charges of sexism when they're against Clinton in the general.

 

[Diablos]

I think as long as she doesn't go completely sideways she's already got the best chance at VP. They'll want her to balance charges of sexism when they're against Clinton in the general.

The top of the ticket is what matters... Carly Fiorina won't ignite the base like Palin did.

 

[CrimzonSamurai]

The top of the ticket is what matters... Carly Fiorina won't ignite the base like Palin did.

She doesn't need to, she just needs to be there to take the jabs at Clinton that Republicans don't think will be construed as sexist because it's coming from a woman.

 

[BertramCooper]

I don't think I've heard a single journalist correctly pronounce the name "Obergefell" this weekend.

 

[BertramCooper]

Politico: John Kasich to announce presidential bid July 21 at Ohio State

He's waiting waaaaaay too long. I don't get it.

Also, the fact that he's announcing on campus makes me want to barf a bit. But whatever. At least he's not a complete asshole like most of the GOP field.

 

[Jooney]

Can someone explain to me the appeal of Castro as VP? What about is CV or political style that makes him an attractive candidate? Whenever I have seen him I don't get the buzz - just seems to be another case of the worst type of democratic ID politics.

Hillary's veep will be seasoned career politician to calm any fears about having a woman in the oval office for the first time - the same rationale as having Biden for veep was for Obama.

Book it.

 

[CrimzonSamurai]

Can someone explain to me the appeal of Castro as VP? What about is CV or political style that makes him an attractive candidate? Whenever I have seen him I don't get the buzz - just seems to be another case of the worst type of democratic ID politics.

Hillary's veep will be seasoned career politician to calm any fears about having a woman in the oval office for the first time - the same rationale as having Biden for veep was for Obama.

Book it.

I don't think Biden as choice for VP had anything to do with the fact that Obama was going to be the first black President, or that the people who voted for him anyway were nervous about that for any reason.

I mean, I agree that a Castro pick would have a lot to do with the optics of having a hispanic person on the ticket, especially going against Bush or Walker in Florida, but he's also been a good politician. I don't think he'll be the final pick, though.

 

[Coriolanus]

Hillary's veep will be seasoned career politician to calm any fears about having a woman in the oval office for the first time - the same rationale as having Biden for veep was for Obama.

Book it.

Hillary is already plenty seasoned, and she's got plenty of career. Her husband covers the Male bit.

Thus, Castro, to consolidate the hispanic vote.

 

[Tamanon]

Just get Biden again!

 

[ivysaur12]

Hillary's VP will largely depend on the Republican ticket, especially since they're announcing first.

 

[NeoXChaos]

It will probably come down to Castro or Kaine. Depending on the GOP ticket and where polls are.

If Castro is ultimate chosen(which I believe will be the case) will he have to resign as HUD secretary?

 

[BertramCooper]

On a totally random note, I'd really love for Hillary to nominate Obama to the Supreme Court.

Can't imagine that he'd ever agree to it, even if she did consider him, but goddamn, it would be amazing on so many levels.

 

[Grexeno]

On a totally random note, I'd really love for Hillary to nominate Obama to the Supreme Court.

Can't imagine that he'd ever agree to it, even if she did consider him, but goddamn, it would be amazing on so many levels.

Senate Republicans would absolutely lose their shit if she did it though lol

 

[BertramCooper]

Senate Republicans would absolutely lose their shit if she did it though lol

Haha, yes, the confirmation would be a nightmare.

But if he made it on the court, he'd be an amazing justice.

I hope Bams does have big post-presidency plans. He's going to be such a young-ex pres. Lots of life left to live, god willing.

 

[T'Zariah]

Even Better if he became Chief Justice.

 

[Coriolanus]

Given how likely it'd be that new challenges would be proposed against the ACA, and that he'd most likely have to excuse himself from those... eh.

 

[Jooney]

Hillary is already plenty seasoned, and she's got plenty of career. Her husband covers the Male bit.

Thus, Castro, to consolidate the hispanic vote.

Is this really the extent of the rationalization that should go into the vp pick though?

Also what happened to the old adage of the veep not winning the election but could help to lose it?

 

[Teggy]

I wonder if Scott Walker actually knows how a constitutional amendment is passed. Because anyone who thinks they could get 3/4s of congress and the states to vote down same sex marriage probably doesn't.

Lindsay Graham is saying that Republicans shouldn't mess with same sex marriage. #notimplyinganythingtotallyimplyingsomething

 

[Jooney]

I hope Bams does have big post-presidency plans. He's going to be such a young-ex pres. Lots of life left to live, allah willing.

Ftfy

 

[Diablos]

Given how likely it'd be that new challenges would be proposed against the ACA, and that he'd most likely have to excuse himself from those... eh.

I was about to say... conflict of interest.

 

[B-Dubs]

Just get Biden again!

YES! Let him continue his GOAT VP status. Two terms isn't enough.

Haha, yes, the confirmation would be a nightmare.

But if he made it on the court, he'd be an amazing justice.

I hope Bams does have big post-presidency plans. He's going to be such a young-ex pres. Lots of life left to live, god willing.

There would be so much salt if he got confirmed

 

[NeoXChaos]

Is this really the extent of the rationalization that should go into the vp pick though?

Also what happened to the old adage of the veep not winning the election but could help to lose it?

As long as he is 1. Prepared or ready to be President if something happens to Hillary and 2. Does no harm on the ticket, he is fine.

 

[Retromelon]

Have a giggle m8s youve earned it

 

[Diablos]

So close, yet so far

Come back 2009-2010

17 pages... that's it.

 

[Coriolanus]

Is this really the extent of the rationalization that should go into the vp pick though?

Also what happened to the old adage of the veep not winning the election but could help to lose it?

You're welcome to try to rationalize further if you like. Either way, she's got the experience covered, she's got the male white dude covered, and her polling with blacks is beyond terrific and unlikely to suddenly go "hey, maybe we should start voting for those guys that are defending the racist flag and refuse to say that black lives matter". Demographic most at risk is, thus, hispanics.

Why should she prioritize going for the others? And who would suddenly not vote for her if she did in fact pick a Castro?

Have a giggle m8s youve earned it

For the love of Mara put those images in quote tags.

 

[sc0la]

Even if I agreed with everything Bernie ran on I would prefer the executive not be occupied by old white dude no. 44 for at least a few more cycles.

But thumbs up on the self avowed socialism.

 

[Retromelon]

Sorry, im not up to date with all these features

 

[PhoenixDark]

damn

 

[AnotherNils]

Just saw the Texas AG says clerks can not issue marriage licenses on religious grounds. I can't believe we're actually going down this road.

 

[CrimzonSamurai]

Just saw the Texas AG says clerks can not issue marriage licenses on religious grounds. I can't believe we're actually going down this road.

Just a faster way to establish LGBT as a protected class. If government employees are sued then surely the governments vested interest in ensuring equal treatment of citizens or even just performing its civil duties will meet the "compelling interest" standard for voiding first amendment protections.

 

[Jackson50]

Can someone explain to me the appeal of Castro as VP? What about is CV or political style that makes him an attractive candidate? Whenever I have seen him I don't get the buzz - just seems to be another case of the worst type of democratic ID politics.

Hillary's veep will be seasoned career politician to calm any fears about having a woman in the oval office for the first time - the same rationale as having Biden for veep was for Obama.

Book it.

That's his primary appeal. He represents a demographic important to Democrats. Not that he is without potential; Obama would not have chosen him to serve in his cabinet otherwise. And he will probably become a prominent figure for the party. But he lacks the experience to be considered a viable running mate. I think it's unlikely that Clinton would roll the dice on a candidate with scant national experience.

 

[HylianTom]

Just saw the Texas AG says clerks can not issue marriage licenses on religious grounds. I can't believe we're actually going down this road.

If they wanna play it this way, I say play ball.

The hot gay stove burns. And waits.

 

[ivysaur12]

Wait, I didn't know this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/28/u...-a-flag-is-not-worth-a-job.html?referrer&_r=1

In Alabama, an adult in a four-person household with an income of $4,400 a year earns too much to qualify for his or her own Medicaid benefits. In 10 Southern states, a single, childless person is not eligible for Medicaid at all.

Really great article worth the read, regardless, but, what.

EDIT: So, I just read the Obergefell opinion again now that the dust has cleared. There was a device that I thought was interesting: Kennedy hits almost every single qualification for a group to be considered heightened scrutiny, yet fails to actually deal with any scrutiny issues. It almost feels like a set up for another case down the line.

It's a little disappointing that Kennedy's opinion felt a bit... him. Purple prose, but without the very obvious textual citations to bolster his claim against those who would argue he's making up law. There were much stronger opinions at the Circuit and even district courts. Gosh, even Martha Craig Daughtrey's dissent at the 6th Circuit felt weightier than Kennedy's opinion. I'd go as far to say that Goodrige (the MA case) is the most well-constructed gay marriage opinion still. Read it. It's better than Obergefell, I think. The language near the end of Obergefell was strong, and I'm sure will be quoted ad nauseam at any gay wedding you attend in the next few years, but I sort of wish a more intellectual heavy weight had written the opinion.

That being said, holy hell at the dissents (minus Roberts'). Thomas's is bizarre (though the Left-winger chatter about him being a defender of slavery is dumb. He's just wrong in ways that the majority is pretty clear about) and Scalia's is embarrassing. It's mean spirited to the point where it seems as if he's showing his age. That "ask a Hippie" line is terrible, and the fact that he let it in his dissent does more of a disservice to the court than what he thinks about the majority's opinion. Alito continues his streak of being one of the least intellectually gifted members of the court, and you see that in this dissent as well. Utterly nothing.

Roberts is different. If you're a textualist conservative, he makes the best argument that one has against (this avenue) of to achieving gay marriage -- we shouldn't be dealing with this because nothing in the constitution say that we should, even if gay marriage is probably good public policy. He doesn't say as much, but pretty much insinuates that towards the end. I think this is wrong and that there's plenty of textual evidence to support the idea that a marriage definition that only consists of a man and woman is unconstitutional, but it would give anyone who believes in textualism pause (there's plenty of reasoning why gay marriage does not even pass a rational basis test and why it's sex discrimination, but the majority never really touches that, so shrug emoticon). The appeal to a slippery slope argument is unbecoming and disappointing.

I do wonder if Kennedy had written a stronger appeal to Roberts's instincts instead of focusing on his ephemeral notion of "dignity" that he could've made the decision 6-3. Probably not.

It's weird. The underlying legal principles are there. Kennedy comes very close to stating them. But he's remarkably obtuse. Ah, well, that's sort of just him. The ending paragraph is powerful stuff, and is as important as any. And that's the part that I guess will only really matter going forward.

EDIT 2: Also, something really disappointing I saw today at NYC Pride (wasn't there, but saw a video). Someone had put up cardboard cutouts of the 5 justices who voted for marriage equality in Obergefell. Instead of chanting something about Kennedy -- you know, the man whose entire legal legacy will rest on what he's done for LGBT people -- these people all start chanting RBG! RBG!

Yes, RBG was in the majority on all 4 of Kennedy's cases. But he authored all 4 of those opinions. That's his legacy. I don't really see why we need to venerate RBG for Kennedy's work (yes, I realize this runs a bit afoul to my previous edit, just shut up).

EDIT 3: Because it's 2:40 and I cannot sleep, here's a pretty stirring support of Kennedy's opinion by one of his former law clerks, Michael Dorf:

http://www.dorfonlaw.org/2015/06/in-defense-of-justice-kennedys-soaring.html

In the nature of split decisions, the majority opinion makes an affirmative argument and the dissent criticizes that argument, with the majority responding, if at all, in footnotes and other asides. That pattern holds in Obergefell v. Hodges. In sometimes-soaring language, Justice Anthony Kennedy’s opinion barely addresses the pointed and occasionally nasty critique leveled in four separate dissents, perhaps leaving the impression that nothing can be said in response.

That impression is false. None of the points made by the dissenters withstands critical scrutiny – not least the claim that because marriage originated as an institution to address accidental procreation by heterosexuals, a state has a rational (much less compelling) interest in forbidding gay and lesbian couples from participating in the modern institution of marriage.

Still less persuasive is the dissenters’ repeated insistence that this case differs from prior marriage cases because those cases did not involve the definition of marriage. To quote Justice Antonin Scalia’s acerbic dissent, “Huh?” Would the eight Justices who signed onto the fundamental rights portion of Loving v. Virginia have reached a different conclusion if the Virginia statute defined marriage as an institution between a man and a woman of the same race?

Chief Justice John Roberts, in the principal dissent, sets forth the most elaborate argument, but fundamentally he makes three points: (1) there is a difference between support for same-sex marriage as a policy matter and as a constitutional matter; (2) premature constitutionalization of a right that cannot yet be said to be deeply rooted in the nation’s history and traditions risks undermining long-term support for the right because defeat of the anti-same-sex-marriage position in the democratic process would be more acceptable; and (3) the majority’s logic opens the door to claims such as a right to polygamy. Beyond that, his dissent repeatedly compares the ruling to Lochner v. New York, citing the case a whopping sixteen times.

Nearly all of what the Chief Justice says would work equally well as an argument against all unenumerated rights, indeed, against all judicial decisions that draw inferences from vague language contained in enumerated rights as well. The other dissents do not fare better.

Justice Clarence Thomas (joined by Justice Scalia) is more succinct but also more radical than the Chief. He rejects substantive due process in its entirety, but then, citing Founding Era and earlier texts, provides two fallbacks. To the extent that Justice Thomas would allow any substantive due process it would be for the liberty of movement only, and failing that, for no more than negative liberties. Marriage, as state recognition, would not be a fundamental right for anyone. Recognizing that, taken at face value, his view would require overruling Loving (in its fundamental rights aspect), Zablocki v. Redhail, and Turner v. Safley, he elevates the happenstance that those cases involved criminal prohibitions into central features, concluding that “in none of those cases were individuals denied solely governmental recognition and benefits associated with marriage.” (Emphasis in original.) Thus, two Justices of the Supreme Court apparently believe that, consistent with the Constitution, a state could forbid, say, people (even of the opposite sex) over the age of fifty from marrying.

Justice Samuel Alito (joined by Justices Scalia and Thomas) is chiefly concerned about people who oppose same-sex marriage on religious grounds. Will they now be required to participate in same-sex marriages? The short answer is no. As Justice Elena Kagan noted during the oral argument, even to Justice Scalia’s evident satisfaction at the time, clergy who solemnize marriages have long been given the freedom to decide which ceremonies at which to officiate based on criteria that would be constitutionally problematic in other contexts. As for others – such as religiously scrupled bakers and florists – absent (much-needed) legislation, the state action doctrine permits them the freedom to discriminate against same-sex couples.

And then there is Justice Scalia, who professes to worry about the ruling’s implications for democracy but seems more irked by Justice Kennedy’s prose style. In perhaps the most intemperate line in the U.S. Reports, Justice Scalia mocks the opening line of the majority opinion: “The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity.”

Justice Scalia replies: “If, even as the price to be paid for a fifth vote, I ever joined an opinion for the Court that began” in this way, “I would hide my head in a bag.” This from a Justice who – just in cases that are centrally relevant to the issue in Obergefell – once began a dissent by accusing the Court of mistaking “a Kulturkampf for a fit of spite” (as though Prussian anti-Catholic policies were an appropriate model for Colorado’s treatment of its gay and lesbian minority), in another dissent compared same-sex intimacy to bestiality, and in a futile effort to read Loving as having nothing to do with evolving values, invented his very own inaccurate text of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Forget about the bag. Justice Scalia should not appear in public except in a full burka.

What bothers Justice Scalia and, to a somewhat lesser extent, his fellow dissenters, about Justice Kennedy’s soaring rhetoric? In prior gay rights cases, they have, with some justification, complained that the majority was unclear about how its holding fit with conventional constitutional doctrine, but there is little cause for complaint on that score in Obergefell. Justice Kennedy says with admirable clarity that marriage is a fundamental right and that the state has not offered a sufficient justification for denying it to same-sex couples.

Both Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Scalia are puzzled by Justice Kennedy’s invocation of “synergy” between the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses, but they ought not be. Especially not Justice Scalia, whose opinion in Employment Division v. Smith explained away prior cases that obviously contradicted the rule he announced there by describing them as resting on a “hybrid” of free exercise and other rights (including substantive due process!). Viewed from the window of Justice Scalia’s glass house, “synergy” is argle bargle but “hybrids” rest on a firm constitutional foundation.

Were the dissenters more interested in understanding than ridiculing the majority opinion, they would see that equal protection considerations help explain why a right to same-sex marriage does not necessarily open the door to polygamy, adult incest, and the other supposed horribles in their gay shame parade. With a few notable exceptions, for thousands of years people have been stigmatized, beaten, and killed for the sin of loving someone of the same sex. The dissenters regard this shameful history only as the basis for continued denial of constitutional rights. The majority, by contrast, sees in this history of subordination a special reason to be skeptical of the reasons advanced for excluding same-sex couples from the institution of marriage.

Justice Kennedy writes: “Especially against a long history of disapproval of their relationships, th[e] denial to same-sex couples of the right to marry works a grave and continuing harm. The imposition of this disability on gays and lesbians serves to disrespect and subordinate them.” It really is that simple.

Is it possible that some day we as a society will come to regard plural marriage in the same way? Sure. Just as a social and political movement led a Court whose Chief Justice once dismissed the idea of an individual right to bear arms as a “fraud” to change its mind about that constitutional right (as Reva Siegel has argued persuasively), so too a social and political movement for plural marriage could likewise succeed and if it does, the Court will follow suit.

Indeed, notwithstanding their citations of Magna Carta and The Federalist, even the dissenters appear to be evolving when it comes to gay rights. For all of his fulminating, at least Justice Scalia is no longer comparing gay sex to bestiality. Meanwhile, the Chief Justice was gracious in inviting the victors to celebrate their victory.

That is also precisely what Justice Kennedy was doing in a prose style that sometimes bordered on poetry. And as numerous pictures of celebrations around the country illustrate, it worked.

My gay and lesbian friends have no illusions that Obergefell marks the end of what one with whom I partied at a gay pride event in Brooklyn last night called their “liberation struggle.” We still need a federal antidiscrimination law. And as importantly, hearts and minds must continue to be won over.

But the Chief Justice is wrong in suggesting that only elections will do the trick. For better or worse, in the U.S., courts play a vital role in a complicated dance involving grass-roots activists, political organizers, elected officials, and ordinary citizens. Much work remains to be done with each of these constituencies but for now we can pause to celebrate a hard-won victory. Justice Kennedy’s opinion fittingly solemnized the occasion.

 

[Macho Madness]

Curious to the outcome of Glossip vs Gross.

 

[Diablos]

This is it! I'm going to go through SCOTUS withdrawal :-(

Kidding.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Don't worry, there's three more decisions today!

Edit: Oh wait, I thought you were saying your withdrawal already started. Nvm.