Jump to content

Op-Ed: The sickening Republican smear campaign against Ketanji Brown Jackson


aubiefifty

Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

You make much sense at times. I have no problem with the ladies answer to the stupid question. Am I correct in saying the 19th admending doesn’t say “women” or “woman”.

I’m glad you think I have my “moments.” 😉 You’re correct, no mention of the word in the 19th.

Link to comment
Share on other sites





12 minutes ago, homersapien said:

I'm curious, how would you have answered?

I would have said I agree with RBG’s ruling and comments that it takes both sexes for humans to be enduring. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

No, but it shows the public that she is one.  I’m judging her on her admiration of The 1619 Projects author, saying in speeches she looked up to one of the founders of CRT, her being on the board of a private school that pushed CRT to children as early as Kindergarten, you know stuff like that.

So is Ted Cruz one of those radical leftists also? 

Cruz attacks Jackson for ‘critical race theory’ — but sends his own daughters to learn it

Sen. Ted Cruz seldom overlooks a chance to be underhanded, and, sure enough, the Texas Republican led the effort to imbue this week’s Supreme Court confirmation hearings with the latest effort by the right to make White America fear Black America.

Cruz attempted to tie Ketanji Brown Jackson, the first Black woman nominated to the high court, to the supposed menace of “critical race theory” — because, he said, this theory is taught at the private school where she serves on the board (and where she sent her daughters).

“If you look at the Georgetown Day School’s curriculum, it is filled and overflowing with critical race theory,” Cruz alleged, holding up books he said the school has on reading lists, including “Stamped (for Kids): Racism, Antiracism and You,” by Ibram X. Kendi and Jason Reynolds. “It is an astonishing book,” charged Cruz, who had found it “offensive” that President Biden had promised to nominate a Black woman to the court. “On Page 33, it asks the question, ‘Can we send White people back to Europe?’ … Are you comfortable with these ideas being taught to children as young as 4?”

Georgetown Day School, in the nation’s capital, does indeed take a strong “anti-racism” approach. So does St. John’s School, the private school in Houston where, as the New Republic’s Timothy Noah noted, Cruz sends his daughters.

As the headmaster and chair of the board of trustees at St. John’s put it in 2020: “Black lives matter. … St. John’s, as an institution, must be anti-racist and eliminate racism of any type — including institutional racism. ”

To its credit, the school has vowed to continue to “ensure that diversity, equity and inclusion are foundational aspects of our educational program,” and to “incorporate cultural proficiency, diversity, global awareness, and inclusivity into all facets of the K-12 curricula.”

A St. John’s class called “Issues of Justice and Equity in the Twenty-First Century” is labeled a “Critical Race Training Course” by the right-wing Legal Insurrection Foundation.

And there in the St. John’s library catalog is — wait for it — Kendi’s “Stamped (for Kids),” the very book Cruz demanded Jackson account for at Georgetown Day School. Cruz’s office didn’t respond to a request for comment.

Hypocrisy is in bountiful supply before the Senate Judiciary Committee this week. Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), for example, has led an attack on Jackson for being soft on pedophiles, though he had no problem approving Trump nominees who, like Jackson (and most judges), sentenced certain child-pornography offenders to below-guideline prison terms.

But Cruz has a particular skill for saying one thing and doing another. He repeatedly criticized other officials for vacationing during crises — then hopped a plane to Cancún to avoid a devastating winter storm in Texas. Now, Cruz (fresh from an altercation with airline officials in Montana during which security had to be called) scolds the “disgraceful behavior” of Democrats on the Judiciary Committee — while constantly interrupting, hectoring and sneering.

Cruz apparently was untroubled that Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin, a Republican critic of critical race theory, sat on the board of National Cathedral School which, like GDS, has an active anti-racism program; Cruz endorsed Youngkin in the primary.

But Jackson’s status as a member of the board of GDS got the full Cruz treatment, with posters and books for props on the dais. He mocked Kendi’s “Antiracist Baby,” which he said is taught at GDS, demanding of Jackson: “Do you agree with this book that is being taught with kids [at GDS] that the babies are racist?”

But at his own daughters’ school, the chair of the school’s committee on “diversity, equity, inclusion and belonging” speaks about teaching faculty and parents about “antiracism.” The school, she said, was also contemplating an educational series on “cultural competency, race thought and inclusion.”

The school’s inclusion is not just about race: The school held a “Banned Books Week” that highlighted offerings about gender identity, LGBTQ issues and sex education that are now under fire from social conservatives.

During the racial-justice protests of 2020, the St. John’s headmaster recommended as a “resource” to the school community Beverly Daniel Tatum, identified by the right-wing outlet Federalist as a “critical race theory (CRT) activist” and “author of several left-wing manifestos on race relations.”

Cruz, in his attack on Jackson, also scolded her for once referencing the “provocative thesis” of Nikole Hannah-Jones, creator of the 1619 Project. Cruz said the work, “closely intertwined” with critical race theory, had been “thoroughly refuted.” He demanded of Jackson: “Do you agree with Ms. Hannah-Jones?”

Maybe Cruz should ask his kids’ school that question. Among the offerings in the St. John’s library, along with “How to be an Anti-Racist” and three other volumes by Kendi, is “The 1619 Project.”

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, homersapien said:

So is Ted Cruz one of those radical leftists also? 

By George, I think you have stumbled onto something.  Ted Cruz is a leftist plant.  We will have to keep our eye on him.  He could turn out to be another Mitt Romney.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

I would have said I agree with RBG’s ruling and comments that it takes both sexes for humans to be enduring. 

That's all fine, but - by your own admission - the question was (supposedly) related to the legal treatment of cisgenders.  

Accordingly, I don't see where such a question - or the above response - is relevant to anything, much less a SCOTUS appointment.

 

Edited by homersapien
  • Facepalm 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/03/24/ketanji-brown-jackson-supreme-court-republican-party-decay/

It is sad and sobering to have seen the decline of the Supreme Court nomination process firsthand. I worked in the Senate in the 1980s and 1990s. When I wrote the floor statement of my conservative Republican boss Sen. Dan Coats supporting Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s nomination, we were applying an older tradition of confirmation that looked mainly at disqualifications. Did the nominee lack integrity, impartiality or a judicial temperament? Had he or she violated any ethical or professional standards? The power of appointing Supreme Court justices was generally thought to reside in the executive branch. The president was given wide latitude. The Senate acted as a filter of unfitness.

In the post-Robert Bork era — after a lot of mutual recrimination and a period of adjustment and (sometimes) inconsistency — this undoubtedly changed. The focus of conservatives turned to judicial philosophy, particularly the constraints of originalism and textualism. This was the ascent of ideology, in which Republicans grew very comfortable criticizing judicial overreach. Everyone knew the real game was Roe v. Wade. But the standard of public judgment was provided by the Federalist Society. (Rather slyly, Jackson defused this debate during her hearing. “I am focusing on original public meaning because I’m constrained to interpret the text,” she said. This “adherence to the text is a constraint on my authority.”)

What we have seen among Republican senators this time around — with a few notable exceptions — is a departure from what preceded it. And it says far more about the state of the GOP than it does about the views of the nominee.

Jackson’s main Republican questioners are not focused on qualifications, temperament or even judicial theory. Their clear objective has been to trip up the nominee by asking about the latest Republican culture-war debates. It is surprising to me how little Republicans have emphasized judicial theory. For now, the culture war is all.

 

This is not just change; it is decay. Republicans have gone from arguing about the intent of the Founders to reproducing the night’s lineup of questions from Tucker Carlson.

This has, no doubt, been favorable to the judge’s confirmation. In the comparison of intellectual seriousness, Jackson is the clear winner. She is a responsible judge of moderate temperament, as well as an admirable human being, who will often do liberal things on the high court. What else could Republicans expect in this circumstance?

 

--------------------------------------------------------

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

Ted Cruz is a leftist plant.  We will have to keep our eye on him.  He could turn out to be another Mitt Romney.

Then he'd have his own private jet to take to Cancun! At least then he could avoid arguing with airport employees.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

Then he'd have his own private jet to take to Cancun! At least then he could avoid arguing with airport employees.

There are advantages to being a left leaning politician.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

There are advantages to being a left leaning politician.

Oh sure. They all get private jets, everyone knows that.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

There are advantages to being a left leaning politician.

"Left leaning."

It's amazing to me that you actually believe Romney is an unprincipled opportunist who is only being contrarian in order to further his political career, rather than one of the few prominent Republicans that actually retains morals, decency, and dignity.

It's also hilarious that you ascribe Romney's ability to have a private jet to being a "lefty" politician, rather than amassing a fortune through his own abilities, which any other Republican would praise.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

"Left leaning."

It's amazing to me that you actually believe Romney is an unprincipled opportunist who is only being contrarian in order to further his political career, rather than one of the few prominent Republicans that actually retains morals, decency, and dignity.

It's also hilarious that you ascribe Romney's ability to have a private jet to being a "lefty" politician, rather than amassing a fortune through his own abilities, which any other Republican would praise.

I never said Mitt Romney was unprincipled, I do believe Romney believes deeply about his convictions, they just happened to be wrong. 

Now Manchin is a guy that, at times, shows true conviction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

"Left leaning."

It's amazing to me that you actually believe Romney is an unprincipled opportunist who is only being contrarian in order to further his political career, rather than one of the few prominent Republicans that actually retains morals, decency, and dignity.

It's also hilarious that you ascribe Romney's ability to have a private jet to being a "lefty" politician, rather than amassing a fortune through his own abilities, which any other Republican would praise.

i read years ago romney would take over a company and shut it down taking monies AND taking some retirements. it has been so long ago i cannot remember where i read it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, aubiefifty said:

i read years ago romney would take over a company and shut it down taking monies AND taking some retirements. it has been so long ago i cannot remember where i read it.

No, no, no Fifty.  That was the movie *Wall Street* with Mike Douglas.  He looks a little like Romney though.

  • Facepalm 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait until Republicans show up to protest and bang on the doors of the court building......maybe they will ride an elevator with Jeff Flake and get him to change his mind again...oh wait...he didn't run again.  Bork, Janice Rogers Brown (would possibly have been the first female of color on the SC but the Circuit Court vote was held up by the Dems), Clarence Thomas....the Dems own the Supreme Court confirmation process the way it is today!

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/oct/04/kavanaugh-supreme-court-protests-washington 

Edited by auburn41
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) I support Ketanji Brown, let no one tell lies and say I dont. I absolutely think she would be fine.  

2) After the Clarence Thomas, Robert Bork, Bret Kavanaugh hearings, anyone complaining about how any SCOTUS nomination is handled is just full of s***. Thomas, Bork, Kavanaugh were all smeared by half-truth and innuendo. If you cant objectively see that, you need your head fixed. 

Edited by DKW 86
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/24/2022 at 7:39 PM, auburn41 said:

Wait until Republicans show up to protest and bang on the doors of the court building......maybe they will ride an elevator with Jeff Flake and get him to change his mind again...oh wait...he didn't run again.  Bork, Janice Rogers Brown (would possibly have been the first female of color on the SC but the Circuit Court vote was held up by the Dems), Clarence Thomas....the Dems own the Supreme Court confirmation process the way it is today!

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/oct/04/kavanaugh-supreme-court-protests-washington 

They created and perfected the character assassination game played for SCOTUS nominees. Biden, Kennedy and Metzenbaum are clearly to blame here.

Edited by DKW 86
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/24/2022 at 1:49 PM, CoffeeTiger said:

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/03/24/ketanji-brown-jackson-supreme-court-republican-party-decay/

It is sad and sobering to have seen the decline of the Supreme Court nomination process firsthand. I worked in the Senate in the 1980s and 1990s. When I wrote the floor statement of my conservative Republican boss Sen. Dan Coats supporting Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s nomination, we were applying an older tradition of confirmation that looked mainly at disqualifications. Did the nominee lack integrity, impartiality or a judicial temperament? Had he or she violated any ethical or professional standards? The power of appointing Supreme Court justices was generally thought to reside in the executive branch. The president was given wide latitude. The Senate acted as a filter of unfitness.

In the post-Robert Bork era — after a lot of mutual recrimination and a period of adjustment and (sometimes) inconsistency — this undoubtedly changed. The focus of conservatives turned to judicial philosophy, particularly the constraints of originalism and textualism. This was the ascent of ideology, in which Republicans grew very comfortable criticizing judicial overreach. Everyone knew the real game was Roe v. Wade. But the standard of public judgment was provided by the Federalist Society. (Rather slyly, Jackson defused this debate during her hearing. “I am focusing on original public meaning because I’m constrained to interpret the text,” she said. This “adherence to the text is a constraint on my authority.”)

What we have seen among Republican senators this time around — with a few notable exceptions — is a departure from what preceded it. And it says far more about the state of the GOP than it does about the views of the nominee.

Jackson’s main Republican questioners are not focused on qualifications, temperament or even judicial theory. Their clear objective has been to trip up the nominee by asking about the latest Republican culture-war debates. It is surprising to me how little Republicans have emphasized judicial theory. For now, the culture war is all.

 

This is not just change; it is decay. Republicans have gone from arguing about the intent of the Founders to reproducing the night’s lineup of questions from Tucker Carlson.

This has, no doubt, been favorable to the judge’s confirmation. In the comparison of intellectual seriousness, Jackson is the clear winner. She is a responsible judge of moderate temperament, as well as an admirable human being, who will often do liberal things on the high court. What else could Republicans expect in this circumstance?

 

--------------------------------------------------------

 

I dearly love how they give reverence to the Bork Nomination hearings as though they were anything but the MOST TOXIC, EVIL, s*** SHOW ever in the history of the Senate. They forever changed the nomination process for the worse and they were made that way by the Democrats.  

Bork was by all accounts one of the most serious scholars ever nominated. He was highly respected to the point of feared. And what happened to him? The Dem Attack Machine, in what George Stephanopoulos would later coin the Verb "to Bork someone" went after rvery facet of the man. They went thru every porn video store in DC looking for dirt to drag up about Bork. They attacked and savaged his family. They attacked everything, nothing was left of his privacy nor his family. They twisted and mangled every word he ever wrote and they permanently altered how nominees are treated. And they considered themselves successful and still continue till this day. See the Kavanaugh hearings. They seem silly now. Did anyone drag up KJ's drinking in high school? Why not? It is now just part of the process.  

Edited by DKW 86
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From Bork to Kavanaugh, GOP grievances feature during Jackson hearing - CNNPolitics

From Bork to Kavanaugh, GOP grievances feature during Jackson hearing

Joan Biskupic, CNN Digital Expansion 2018

By Joan Biskupic, CNN legal analyst & Supreme Court biographer

 

Updated 9:34 PM ET, Mon March 21, 2022

Judges Brett Kavanaugh and Ketanji Brown Jackson are sworn in at their respective Senate hearings for their Supreme Court nominations.
 
Judges Brett Kavanaugh and Ketanji Brown Jackson are sworn in at their respective Senate hearings for their Supreme Court nominations.

(CNN)The Republican grievances run deep.

On the first day of hearings for President Joe Biden's Supreme Court nominee, Ketanji Brown Jackson, GOP senators went beyond complaints about the 2018 Brett Kavanaugh and 2020 Amy Coney Barrett hearings. They dredged up the 1987 Robert Bork and 1991 Clarence Thomas hearings.
It's a well-worn adage that each Supreme Court nomination picks up where the last one ended -- accompanied by all the partisan hard feelings and sense of payback. But the Jackson hearings were shadowed Monday by a long list of GOP grievances tied to past nominations.
 
Leading Republicans believe certain nominees and their backers were wronged, and they cannot close the book on that sense of injustice. The substantive probing of Jackson's record begins on Tuesday, and as Republicans foreshadowed their lines of inquiry Monday, notably related to her record on criminal defense issues, they made plain that nomination scars endure.
 
Recalling the past ordeals also may serve to get out ahead of criticism and blunt any claims that they are, in fact, smearing her as they believe past nominees were.
"No one is going to ask you with mock severity, 'Do you like beer?' " Sen. Ted Cruz, a Texas Republican, said Monday, referring to questioning after Christine Blasey Ford accused Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her at a party when they were both teenagers in suburban Washington, DC. Kavanaugh categorically denied the accusations.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, s South Carolina Republican, also referenced the Kavanaugh hearings, and he and Tennessee Republican Marsha Blackburn scoffed at scrutiny they suggested had related to Barrett's religious views.
Cruz faulted Democrats for the pattern of politically charged hearings. He referred to a commentator who insisted both sides have tried to "smear" candidates for America's highest court.
"I was forced to laugh out loud, and say, Look, I understand that's a pretty good talking point. It just happens not to be true," Cruz recalled. "It is only one side of the aisle, the Democratic aisle, that went so into the gutter with Judge Robert Bork that they invented a new verb, 'to Bork' someone."
Yet neither Cruz nor his GOP colleagues mentioned the fate of former US Appellate Judge Merrick Garland, whom the Republican-controlled Senate refused to consider in any way -- no hearings, no vote -- in 2016 for a vacancy after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. Garland, then a choice of President Barack Obama, is now attorney general, appointed last year by Biden.
The first day of the confirmation hearings provided nearly four hours of senators' opening statements before 12 minutes of remarks by Jackson, the first Black woman nominated to the high court. She spoke in personal terms of her faith and family, yet she also positioned herself in the broader canvas of American civil rights. She was born in the wake of the rights revolution that led to passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and 1965 Voting Rights Act. She said that her parents, "who had experienced lawful racial segregation firsthand," were newly empowered by the protections and freedom those laws provided.
The Bork battle has been a GOP touchstone for decades because of how vigorously Democrats who controlled the Senate attacked the late US appellate judge's narrow views of constitutional rights covering privacy and equal protection.
"Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, Blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids," said the late Democratic Sen. Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts.
Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell memorably took the floor back in 1987 to protest the Senate action against Bork and has raised it in nomination battles since. But Bork was given hearings and a floor vote, neither of which McConnell allowed Garland. Bork was defeated 58-42.
Four years after Bork, Thomas decried the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings that allowed Anita Hill to accuse him of sexual harassment from their years working together.
"This is a circus," Thomas said, denying the claims. "It's a national disgrace. And from my standpoint as a Black American, as far as I am concerned, it's a high-tech lynching for uppity Blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves." The Senate confirmed him 52-48.
Jackson's hearings "won't be a circus," Graham told the nominee on Monday. Even as he and his fellow senators recounted past ordeals, Graham said the nominee may emerge unscathed, a "beneficiary" of sorts of previous battles.
And to his Democratic colleagues, Graham declared, "Most of us couldn't go back to our offices during Kavanaugh without getting spit on. I hope that doesn't happen to y'all. I don't think it will."

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hit the Rewind - FAIR

The day after President Bill Clinton’s impeachment, George Stephanopoulos, surveying the rubble on ABC‘s This Week (12/20/98), made a bold confession: “As a Democrat, I will say the Democrats should rue the day when they made one simple act: the day they subpoenaed Robert Bork’s videos.”

Stephanopoulos was soon joined by others. Edward Rothstein, cultural critic at large for the New York Times, observed in the New Republic (1/25/99) that our national politics have long suffered from episodes of “impugning of character and morals, complete with probings about public virtues and private values.” Exhibit A: “Records of video rentals, for example, were subpoenaed in the hearings about Robert Bork’s nomination to the Supreme Court.”

On CNN‘s Inside Politics (2/16/99), a distinguished panel of talking heads was introduced by a background report on the noxious political climate from anchor Judy Woodruff, who recounted: “It is a familiar story of partisan politics turning personal. In 1987, the Democrats attacked President Reagan’s nomination of Robert Bork to the Supreme Court, going so far as to subpoena his video store rentals.”

The fact is that Bork was rejected from the Supreme Court because many people thought his constitutional views were too extreme. Liberal groups waged a no-holds-barred media campaign–taking out television ads, mailing out fliers, and generally trying to drum up opposition to Bork’s confirmation–highlighting his narrow view of the First Amendment and his support for big business, among other things. 

Anyone seen any of this with KJ's Nomination?

But following Bork’s rejection, many in the media–even those who had opposed Bork’s confirmation–evidently came to feel uncomfortable with the participation of unruly outsiders in a confirmation process that had traditionally been confined to the fraternal terrain of the Senate (not to mention the D.C. press corps). Soon, the media began to conflate contentious politics with scandal politics.

Edited by DKW 86
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To save this word, you'll need to log in.

 
\ ˈbȯrk  \
variants: or less commonly Bork
borked also Borked; borking also Borking; borks also Borks

Definition of bork

 (Entry 1 of 2)

transitive verb

US politics, informal
: to attack or defeat (a nominee or candidate for public office) unfairly through an organized campaign of harsh public criticism or vilificationIn any event, seeing one of their own being borked may itself energize the conservative base, even beyond what a conservative nomination would do.— Mark TushnetIn 1987, conservative judge Robert Bork endured such virulent criticism … that to this day, a nominee sidelined by activists is said to have been "borked."— Claire Suddath

bork

 verb (2)
borked; borking; borks

Definition of bork (Entry 2 of 2)

transitive verb

slang
: to cause (something, such as an electronic device) to stop working properly : BREAKIf your data's backed up, it won't be the end of the world if a rogue Windows update or nasty bit of malware borks your computer.— Brad Chacos— see also BORKED
 

First Known Use of bork

Verb (1)

1987, in the meaning defined above

Verb (2)

2003, in the meaning defined above

History and Etymology for bork

Verb (1)

after Robert Bork †2012 U.S. judge whose nomination to the Supreme Court in 1987 was harshly criticized

Verb (2)

perhaps alteration of BREAK entry 1 by association with BORK entry 1

 

Learn More About bork

 

Time Traveler for bork

The first known use of bork was in 1987

See more words from the same year

Dictionary Entries Near bork

bority

bork

borked

See More Nearby Entries 

Statistics for bork

Look-up Popularity

Top 2% of words

Cite this Entry

“Bork.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bork. Accessed 26 Mar. 2022.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/24/2022 at 4:24 PM, I_M4_AU said:

I never said Mitt Romney was unprincipled, I do believe Romney believes deeply about his convictions, they just happened to be wrong. 

Now Manchin is a guy that, at times, shows true conviction.

What "left leaning" convictions are you referring to?

Edited by homersapien
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/24/2022 at 4:16 PM, Leftfield said:

"Left leaning."

It's amazing to me that you actually believe Romney is an unprincipled opportunist who is only being contrarian in order to further his political career, rather than one of the few prominent Republicans that actually retains morals, decency, and dignity.

It's also hilarious that you ascribe Romney's ability to have a private jet to being a "lefty" politician, rather than amassing a fortune through his own abilities, which any other Republican would praise.

But those are "left leaning" tendencies.  ;D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, homersapien said:

What "left leaning" conviction are you referring to?

What was brought out in the confirmation hearings, going soft on child porn convictions, support of CRT being taught to Kindergarteners and believing that a woman can not be defined in terms that can be understood by anybody other than the woke left.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...