Judge of the Day: Ashley McKathan
Alabama state court judges: they love themselves some Ten Commandments.
Just like Roy Moore, former chief justice of Alabama, Judge Ashley McKathan thinks the “higher law” has a place in the courtroom. Four years ago, the county circuit court judge had the Ten Commandments embroidered on his judicial robe. Presumably it’s a silent reminder, to himself and to those in his courtroom, of the Really Big Judge upstairs.
Now he’s in trouble with the American Civil Liberties Union for invoking the Big Judge in the courtroom again — this time out loud. The ACLU has filed a complaint against him with the Judicial Inquiry Commission for violating ethics rules and the U.S. Constitution. From CNN:
The ACLU complaint said McKathan dropped to his knees and prayed aloud during a court hearing in February. He told the 100 people in the courtroom that he was not afraid to call on the name of Jesus Christ, witnesses said, and ordered all to join hands and pray, according to the complaint filed soon after the hearing….
In response to the complaint, McKathan told the Mobile Press-Register for a story Thursday: “Whatever comes of all that, I’ll continue to have peace.” Quoting Romans in the King James version of the Bible, the judge added: “And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them that are called according to his purpose.”
Amen.
Complaint against judge praying in court [CNN]
(112) 
Comments
The FIRST commandment: Kash shall be EIC.
ironic that no where in or around a courthouse can you display the words "thou shalt not kill" and "thou shalt not steal."
We're losing her to J school:
http://kashmirhill.blogspot.com/2008/06/introduction.html
Kash, there's nothing coital about this article. Why are you authoring it??
2, the other commandments have all been amended by state law. Eventually those two commandments will be amended as well.
2 - I think it is the other ones that create a bit of a problem...
"In trouble with the ACLU"
I lolled.
Just another attack on a judge for producing Harvard Law Review quality work.
This isn't the best argument for partisan judicial elections...
I wonder how much longer it will take for New York to develop a separatist movement (because the rest of this country is insane). . . I think it will happen 2 years into Obama's second term.
*New York City, we all know how the folks upstate feel about Jesus and all that stuff.
-10
10 - the rest of the country would love it. Take California too.
2 here. the irony still stands.
Kash - j school is completely worthless. I have newspaper/magazine editor friends--they do not give assignments based on jschool degrees, they look at your portfolio. Keep building it at ATL!
10: can we help you pack your patchouli plants and obama posters?
Oh wait, this isn't the "move to canada, we're smarter than everyone else" hippie b.s., its the "secede, we're smarter than everyone else" b.s.
Alec Baldwin, your daughter is on line one for you to verbally abuse and degrade and get away with it because you're a rich famous movie star.
2, your irony is noted for the record.
2, are you an anti death penalty troll?
Building your ATL portfolio is really useful. What a joke.
16, thank you, your honor. I was glad to preserve it for appeal.
17, eh?
2, are you an anti death penalty troll, maybe a friend of Oscar Doster?
obama is working on amending those pesky 10 commandments in his own image. Ya know, just because thou shalt not kill really doesn't jibe with his stance on abortion.
20/17: No idea who that is, or why that would make me a troll. But hey, whatever.
As a resident of California, I'd love to be annexed by Canada. Bye, Red States; find someone else to support you when you don't have the Blue States tax money to support your lameness.
as a non-resident of California, I think it would be really sad to have all the pimps, drug dealers, hippies, and pornographers of the Golden State made part of that socialist utopia that lefties constantly crow about but have never visited.
End scene.
I agree with 12. To 10: In the words of Family Guy - "New York and everyone from there can go fornicate themselves with an iron stick." Liberal ass.
Yeah, I guess it's sort of ironic, 2.
You know what else is ironic?
That right wing nutjobs like you who claim to love America don't seem to care that much for the Bill of Rights.
2 here:
26: there was no right wing implication. I actually agree with it not being there. I was just noting the irony that we can't put those words there. that is irony, whether you agree with them not being there or not.
You extreme lefties make everyone on the left look bad.
let me clarify....im #10...u can def help me pack my posters, but they are of McCain not Obama. I just believe Obama will win, twice, and then not only will we have religious nuts, we will also deal with awful economic policy.
ite, now one of you guys grab my suitcase please, thanks.
What an effings nutbag. If you want to be a preacher, be a preacher. If you want to be a judge, learn how to do your job. It's the same sort of bullshit as those pharmacists who refuse to dispense birth control. It's your JOB. No one is forcing you to do it, so if it goes against your personal beliefs to shut up about your personal beliefs for 5 fucking seconds, get a different job!
If obama wins, will his terrorist best friend william ayers be torn between murdering him with a bomb and asking him to arrest all the rich, like him?
The mind boggles at such a conundrum.
Please note: I am not encouraging attacking Obama at all--no violence. I am noting that this is William Ayers M.O. for all government employees.
29: no, it is different. I agree with you the judge is in appropos here, but it is not the pharamacists' job to give out abortion bills or birth control pills. Its their job to sell products, and they have a license so that they may do so. They don't have to sell what they don't wish. People vote with their feet on that one--you nutty socialists want to force people to do what YOU want them to do because it suits YOUR beliefs.
And does that mean a solo lawyer HAS to defend a terrorist because THAT'S HIS FUCKING JOB?
Idiot.
You realize that the Family Guy character is a parody right?
32: sometimes just because the author made something as a parody or ironic doesn't mean that he was successful, and that sometimes such creations actually embody fully the beliefs of the ones parodied and actually support their argument.
See Bunker, Archie.
33, that was excellent but it will go very hard over the heads of most of these guys.
32, that was pretty damn good...and i'm #10 haha
Besides ordering attendees at the hearing to pray to Jesus, he also ordered them to hang stockings for Santa Claus and hunt for Easter eggs left by that Wascally Easter Wabbit.
ah, 36: religious bigotry at its finest.
27 (2, etc):
Yes, it may be *technically* ironic that you can't put the words "thou shall not kill" and "thou shall not steal" in a courtroom.
It's also a blindingly STUPID observation that isn't even technically true, and not only am I dumber for having engaged in this conversation with you, everyone on this board is dumber for having read our conversation. Thanks for all that you do, 2.
Fuck it, I think I'm going to go start drinking now.
I'm not here to insult anyone, just to urge Kash not to go to journalism school (per some of the earlier comments). I used to be a reporter at a big-city daily and can say first hand that a journalism degree would be a waste of money and time. Sometimes J-school is a good idea for people with no experience who can't get a job that will let them develop a portfolio, but Kash has a portfolio and experience. More globally, it's simply not a business where people get that wrapped up in the pedigrees of the journalists or the degrees they have or lack (people who post on ATL would not do well in this environment). The best reporter I worked with had only a high school diploma. The worst went to Columbia. (The second worst had two degrees from Harvard).
Kash probably has family fundage that keeps her comfortable while she does anything she wants. Just my guess.
21, you're likely either a lawyer or a law student. You're decently educated. Why on earth would you equate abortion with murder?
1. Never let no one know how much dough you hold.
2. Never let them know your next move.
3. Never trust nobody.
4. Never get high on your own supply.
5. Never sell no crack where you rest at.
6. That goddamn credit -- dead it.
7. Keep your family and business completely separated.
8. Never keep no weight on you.
9. If you ain't gettin bags stay the fuck from police.
10. A strong word called consignment, strictly for live men, not for freshmen. If you ain’t got the clientele say hell no, cause they gon want they money rain sleet hail snow.
23, we don't want your tax money. We don't want our own tax money. The less taxes the better. That's our whole point.
41, maybe because when you have an abortion you are intentionally killing a fetus? Regardless of whether you think killing a fetus is morally acceptable or not, you are in fact actually killing a fetus when you have an abortion. Intentionally killing something is murder.
41, I know you've been brainwashed by a bunch of feminazis with little intellectual rigor behind their opinions, but please, try not to be so condescending.
Judge not lest thou be judged. Basically, if you don't want to have an abortion, don't have one. If Susie wants to have one, stay the fuck outa Susie's bidness.
Dear #3:
No, Kash will continue to blog for ATL, even though she is entering J. School in the fall.
Nor (contrary to oft expressed commenter misconception) is David Lat leaving this site.
David’s title is changing, and he will assume over-all responsibility for all three sister sites (Fashionista, Dealbreaker, Above the Law)--but he will continue to bring us his insights as a frequent ATL blogger. David will also make sure that this site continues to reflect his basic vision with a hands on role
Both current candidates for EIC where "pre-vetted" by Lat, will be supervised and guided by Lat, and this site will continue to be the #1 blawg--whomever snags the EIC slot.
Now vote!!!!!!!
38:
1. "Yes, it may be *technically* ironic that you can't put the words "thou shall not kill" and "thou shall not steal" in a courtroom."
-----I'm glad you admit that it was ironic. admitting it is the first step.
2. "It's also a blindingly STUPID observation that isn't even technically true,"
-----Contradiction. You are now impeached. Game. Set. Match.
3. It is ironic. I point it out because it is. No agenda, although I could say I can see your paranoia's initial justification, now its just plain crazy.
Hasta, moron!
44 - Hope you're a vegan, brah.
Meat is murder, by your definition. Just sayin.
Why am I now craving a steak?
44, your definition is silly. When I intentionally kill a plant (e.g., harvest a potato), a cell (e.g., cut myself shaving), or a bacterium (e.g., treat an infection), you would not call my acts killing, and would certainly not equate it with the murder prohibited by the scripture. Hell, more likely than not, you have no issues with killing large mammals for food, though that's much closer to killing a human than any of the above. What makes you think that a fetus, and especially an embryo, falls into the category of prohibited murder of humans, not of permitted intentional killing of lots and lots of things?
46:
1. It's a democracy. We decide the laws. By your argument, there should be no laws against murder, rape, theft, etc., because those are "judgments." note that weak feminist arguments don't actually work on those not brainwashed.
2. Little susie's a killer.
2, 26, & 38: None of you know what irony means. "Technically" or otherwise.
Calling a tall guy shorty is ironic. 10,000 spoons when all you need is a knife is not ironic. And neither is the fact that you can't post "Thou Shalt Not Kill" in a courtroom.
52:
it is ironic when the court's job is to instruct average citizens, through punishment, that killing and theft are wrong, and yet you cannot baldly state it on tablet.
QED.
2, 26, & 38: None of you know what irony means. "Technically" or otherwise.
Calling a tall guy shorty is ironic. 10,000 spoons when all you need is a knife is not ironic. And neither is the fact that you can't post "Thou Shalt Not Kill" in a courtroom.
50:
Because life begins at conception, because, scientifically speaking, we are the combination of the genes of our ancestors, and our lives then begin when the sperm enters the egg (the first stages of fertilization).
Dear 48:
Congratulations on a completely incoherent post.
Whatever you meant to say, a trial judge who gets down on his knees while court is in session to seek guidance from any extra-judicial-extra terrestrial force (God, bad, or indifferent) is HILARIOUS. Only in Alabama!
yes, 56, pointing out that an arguer has directly contradicted himself in two consecutive sentences is incoherent.
Did you go to an unaccredited law school or something?
55, this is bald assertion cloaked (thinly) in science. Nothing about genetics defines when life begins, and nothing about "life" beginning defines when personhood sufficiently well-defined to merit protection begins.
52: No, its not.
"Irony is a literary or rhetorical device, in which there is an incongruity or discordance between what a speaker / writer /actor says or does, and what he or she means or what is generally understood." (From our old friend, wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony )
What you've described is counter-intuitive and perhaps self-contradictory. It is not , however, irony.
Never did I say that all murder was immoral. In fact, there are many, many examples of murder that are not immoral at all. I also never said abortion was wrong.
If you look up the definition of the word (not the crime) murder you will see that it is defined as "An act of deliberate killing". You could murder a cat, flower, insect, fetus, etc. if you deliberately kill it.
59: you just cited wikipedia as a source for your argument. You lose.
58: I know your feminist masters have dictated that any argument against you is wrong and that murdering children is acceptable, even in the face of logic, but please understand: not all of us have had Glorie Steinem and her ilk implanted into our brains by force or coercion.
51:
1. Please go to a non TTT and take a course on theories of justice. You don't even understand your own comments.
2. Susie killed something that lives inside her body. Her actions cannot hurt you or anything outside her body. Murder, rape, theft, etc., can have an effect on your life and we must prevent bad Susies from doing those things to you. That's why we punish bad Susies for those crimes.
fine, 58, then since you can't define when life begins, feel free to kill any passerby on the street. They can't be proven to be alive either, by your warped standards.
The use of words expressing something other than their literal intention. Now that is irony.
- Bender
http://benderirony.ytmnd.com/
63:
1. At least you admit that its alive.
2. Murder,rape, theft. do not affect a man in Los Angeles when the murders happen to unknown people in San Francisco. So, again, we shouldn't judge, by your feminist logic.
3. Or you take the opposite approach. A murder is a heinous crime, whether you know the victim or not. It should be prevented and not allowed. Merely by dint of the child being inside as opposed to outside a woman's body makes no change to its status as being alive. Susies who abort are bad susies, just like those bad susies who murder homeless people.
64, don't be daft. We can't pinpoint when life begins, but we know that at some point it does, and the question of law is where to draw the line. Reasonable people might disagree (though I can't imagine a reasonable argument that the line should be in the first trimester), but at least they may agree on what the question is. 55's position is that genetics has resolved the question, which is nonsense.
Can somebody please tell me why 46's statement constitutes a "feminist" argument and not a libertarian one?
Anyway, 51 and 55, as I understand things, (i) abortion is still legal in this country, at least in certain stages of pregnancy (so, yeah, we live by laws) and (ii) with the possible exception of late-term abortions, abortions are only performed while the fetus is not viable, that is, unable to live outside the womb.
I'm sure we'd all love to have a civilized Friday afternoon discussion about how to define "life," and when it begins (is it viability? the instant of conception? is it the potential for fertilization, such that Onanism is murder? (guilty as charged!)) but people who throw around "feminist" as a perjorative are more likely to throw around screed and ad hominem attacks than have a principled argument.
67: Genetics has resolved the question, except that feminists refuse to allow scientific arguments when they contradict feminist dogma, like murder=great! See the feminist reaction to reports that bearing children later in life is risky and dangerous. the response: stifle the source.
Don't be obtuse. Sticking your head in the sand and merely saying, "we disagree, therefore, kill them until proven alive" is the weakest argument abortionists use to justify this heinous act.
All pro-abortion arguments start and end with feminism. Libertarians who espouse pro-abortion views are parroting feminist bullet points and trying to fit it in with the contradicting libertarian ethos of "first, do no harm to others."
HEY ALL - THERE WERE OTHER COMMANDMANTS EMBROIDERED ON THAT ROBE!!!! For example, I'm guilty of coveting my neighbor's ass.
feminist is a perjorative, because feminism is based on the conspiracy theory that all men and mother nature everywhere are working to make women subhuman and that women have to murder children to somehow overcome this vast conspiracy.
45, 51, 62, is the best answer that you have to the distinction between (a) potential life, (b) living cells, (c) living human cells that are not a person, and (d) people really "FEMINISM FEMINISM FEMINISM! BOOGEDY BOOGEDY BOO! FEMINISM!" ?
68: the viability argument is a red herring, because, if applied to other humans, it becomes so ludicrous a notion that it is unpalatable.
Take a person who is conscious and functioning, but needs a respirator to live. That person is not "viable" for life without the medical help he has. Yet if someone took away his respirator deliberately, that would be an act of murder. Viability is an invention of a bunch of abortion lovers to somehow cloud the issue.
Speaking of non-viable fetuses that should have been aborted, I think we have witnessed the birth of the newest ATL meme: Angry Anti-Feminist Troll.
73, i gave you the scientific argument, and of course, like a true feminist, you rejected it and ignored it and are now just stamping your foot like an imbecile. It would be funny if it weren't costing millions of lives every year.
Ah, like a true modern left winger, 75 calls for the murder of his opponents. how sweet.
73, AKA Anti-feminist troll:
are you a woman or man?
Whether or not a fetus can survive outside the mother can't be the test for when life begins. There are plenty of organisms (certain bacteria, tapeworms, viruses, etc.) that could not survive outside of the human body, but no one argues that they aren't "alive". A fetus is a separate organism from the moment of conception and is therefore "alive" at conception.
That doesn't mean that you have to protect it at that point. As a society we have decided you can kill that fetus up until a certain point in its development, and it isn't against the law. Just don't try and justify that killing by saying it isn't "alive" yet. It is obviously alive.
Anti-Feminist Troll probably goes to Regent Law School. It is a TTT where they train the new breed of neo-conservative hypocrites.
77 - chillax, dude. I think the meme should be euthanized, not the people employing it. When you resort to what is essentially name-calling, you take away from what otherwise might be a cogent argument. Ad hominem is a disease that affects left and right alike. Ah, fuckit, this is ATL on a Friday afternoon. Why even try to be levelheaded and somewhat rational.
Hugs and kisses,
75
Life doesn't begin at conception. As everybody knows, life begins at 40!
It's amazing how, for people who don't believe in God, abortion supporters are so confident that women have a magical (I guess it can't be God-given) right to choose what they want to do with their bodies, even if it means killing a human being who is living in it, which THEY voluntarily created.
Look, whether you are pro-life or pro-choice, whether you are liberal or conservative, a femisit or anti-feminist, one thing ALL reasonable people can agree on is that once a baby is fully born, it should be treated as a complete human being and the law should prohibit anyone from killing it. Heck, even NRLC and NARAL agree on that much!
In fact, I'd venture to say that no one is so extreme as to oppose such a common sense proposition as this.
Oh, wait: http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NzE1Y2MyMmFjMWYzNmUwYTA4NGUwNmJmYzY1MzQyMGQ=
Who cares about babies? Let's stop this bickering and focus on what really matters....money. I say we concurently push laws to outlaw abortion and legalize Ebay baby trading. This really solves all the problems.
31: No, pharmacists are there to dispense drugs ORDERED by a physician for a patient. It is not their right to decide which drugs they will dispense, despite some religious belief.
What if your pharmacist decided not to dispense your Viagra because, obviously, God does not want you to breed?
What if your nurse in the hospital decided that keeping you on a feeding tube was against God's plan and disconnected you?
What if the EMT at your auto accident decided not to treat you because they found a Star of David around your neck and believed that saving your life would be supporting the Anti-Christ?
Health care professionals should not be allowed to make those decisions.
84: What about the baby that is being aborted due to severe handicaps?
Uh, there is no law that says a pharmacy has to carry every drug known to man. A business can decide to sell or not sell any product that it chooses for whatever reason it chooses. Would you say a convenience store that doesn't sell condoms is breaking the law? What about a jewish grocery store that doesn't sell cheese? What about a Wal-Mart that doesn't carry [insert some product that only a certain race or religion uses]? None of these things are crimes, nor should they be.
87: Once its born - I mean FULLY born, cause we aren't talking about partial birth stuff here - once it's born, its a human being with all the rights and privileges thereof.
So - what difference does it make it the baby is handicaped? Do you think its ok to murder handicapped adults? This is no different.
Again - here is a law that is so common-sense that even NRLC and NARAL can agree on it. But not Obama.
I'd say that makes him pretty extreme.
Wait, 76, where was the argument? Spell it out for the dumb abortionists in the room who haven't had a chance to learn God's science.
Is your argument (from 55): "Because life begins at conception, because, scientifically speaking, we are the combination of the genes of our ancestors, and our lives then begin when the sperm enters the egg (the first stages of fertilization)." ?
Cause that's conclusory and silly. The fact we are, as you say, the combination of the genes of our ancestors does not imply that our lives begin when the sperm enters the egg. That, in fact, is the question.
A new cell is created, with unique genetic make-up, at the instant of fertilization. Groovy. What is it?
Is it
(a) a potential new life / person (akin to sperm, which are [almost] just as unique in their genetic make-up)
(b) part of the life and person of the mother
(c) a living organism distinct from the mother with the potential to become a person, or
(d) a distinct living person?
If you believe science has told us definitively which one it is, please give a source. Otherwise, accept that there is ground for disagreement.
After you decide which it is, decide which of those you are willing to have society protect. Accept that this is a judgment of personal morality (occasionally deriving from an old man on a cloud), and so another area for reasonable disagreement.
89, it's really easy: an embryo is not a baby.
88, your argument depends on drugs being indistinguishable from other products. However, as a society, we have chosen to regulate medicines, and to license people to dispense them. These licenses may be conditioned on (almost) any requirement, and may certainly be conditioned on a requirement to dispense all legally prescribed drugs.
The question is simply whether such a requirement is worthwhile.
90, your first question is irrelevant and only serves to confuse the issue. No matter what you call it, the thing that is created when a sperm and egg combine is a living organism. It might be an embryo, or a zygote, or a fetus, or a person, but no matter what it is "alive".
The only real question is at what point do you start to protect it. There are plenty of living organisms that we don't protect at all (insects, bacteria, arachnids, most plants, etc.). Then there are some that we assign some low level of protection to (like pets). Finally, there are some that we protect to a much greater level (like endangered species). Finally, there are humans to which we assign the absolute highest level of protection to.
For some reason we have decided that a developing embryo/zygote/fetus deserves no protection until the point that we consider them humans, and then they get the ultimate protection. I'm not saying whether that is right or wrong, just that it is the truth.
92:
No pharmacy carries every single legally prescribable drug. I am sure that no mainstream pharmacy in California carries marijuana (which is legally prescribable). Many pharmacies don't carry high level narcotics like Oxycontin or morphine.
Plus, if you apply your argument to other licensed businesses you would require every barber to offer perms, every doctor to offer boob jobs, and every lawyer to handle divorces.
Hey 10 and 11, don't hate on upstate NY. People that diss upstate cities have obviously never been to flyover country; if they had, they would realize how much better anywhere in NY, or the rest of the Northeast for that matter, is than the South. Bottom line...stop creating divisions, we are all New Yorkers, from Montauk to Mayville and Manhattan to Malone.
Hey T14 grads, don't hate on AU grads. People that diss AU students have obviously never been to federal prison; if they had, they would realize how much better anywhere in the legal profession, or the rest of the unincarcerated world for that matter, is than Sing Sing. Bottom line...stop creating divisions, we are all lawyers, from Chicago to Chicago-Kent and Columbia to Cooley.
Freedom isn't free.
94: A pharmacy may not have every drug in stock, but they can order any drug.
An embryo is not a baby, unless the mother wants it, in which case it is.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.......................
98: Many pharmacies refuse to carry certain drugs for a variety of reasons. Many other pharmacies specialize in certain areas and only carry a limited selection of drugs.
99: Well that's a criteria I've never heard before!
Dear god,
Hope you got the letter,
And I pray you can make it better down here.
I dont mean a big reduction in the price of beer,
But all the people that you made in your image,
See them starving on their feet,
cause they dont get enough to eat
From god,
I cant believe in you.
Dear god,
Sorry to disturb you,
But I feel that I should be heard loud and clear.
We all need a big reduction in amount of tears,
And all the people that you made in your image,
See them fighting in the street,
cause they cant make opinions meet,
About god,
I cant believe in you.
Did you make disease, and the diamond blue?
Did you make mankind after we made you?
And the devil too!
Dear god,
Dont know if you noticed,
But your name is on a lot of quotes in this book.
Us crazy humans wrote it, you should take a look,
And all the people that you made in your image,
Still believing that junk is true.
Well I know it aint and so do you,
Dear god,
I cant believe in,
I dont believe in,
I wont believe in heaven and hell.
No saints, no sinners,
No devil as well.
No pearly gates, no thorny crown.
Youre always letting us humans down.
The wars you bring, the babes you drown.
Those lost at sea and never found,
And its the same the whole world round.
The hurt I see helps to compound,
That the father, son and holy ghost,
Is just somebodys unholy hoax,
And if youre up there youll perceive,
That my hearts here upon my sleeve.
If theres one thing I dont believe in...
Its you,
Dear god.
The people who say "we have decided" are being disingenious. "We" haven't decided any such thing. Five unelected activist judges have decided for us.
104 -
(i) "Activist judge" doesn't mean much. It's just shorthand for "judge with whom the speaker disagrees."
(ii) Their choice is supported by the electorate, both empirically (the majority doesn't want to overrule Roe) and politically (there has never been momentum to pass a constitutional amendment to overrule Roe).
(iii) Their unelected status shouldn't bother you if you believe that the constitutional appointment process properly vests them with the authority to decide questions of law that properly come before them, as this one did. The constitution, which I've no doubt you revere, never suggests that your opinion should be taken into account on all issues. While it might be true that "we" didn't personally decide Roe, our legitimate government did.
Sewed the 10 commandments on his robes. It's like "Gunners for God."
Why is it that dudes like this seem to totally miss the love & humility part of Jesus' whole schtick? That's in the Bible, too, from my reads.
Canada or Alabama? Is that really an option? Larry the Cable Guy or Mike Myers? I really can't compare anything else because I am not sure what else comes out of Alabama. Lynard Skynard?
1. Since when did the abortion crazie hijack this web site? Go back to harassing scared women outside Planned Parenthood and get off this web stie.
2. If you were a man who had to go through life with the name "Ashley" you probably would do weird sh** too.
1. Since when did the abortion crazies hijack this web site? Go back to harassing scared women outside Planned Parenthood and get off this web stie.
2. If you were a man who had to go through life with the name "Ashley" you probably would do weird sh** too.
1. Since when did the abortion crazies hijack this web site? Go back to harassing scared women outside Planned Parenthood and get off this web site.
2. If you were a man who had to go through life with the name "Ashley" you probably would do weird sh** too.
Imagine if Judge Ashley McKathan had verses from the Koran embroidered on his robe and had ordered the group to get down on their knees, face Mecca, put their heads on the floor and praise Allah.
111 - or better yet, wiccan...