Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Recent Noteworthy SCOTUS cases and verdicts

Recent Noteworthy SCOTUS cases and verdicts (Page 4)
Thread Tools
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 30, 2016, 12:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Bumping this thread for the inevitable crippling of public unions in a few months
Scalia died to prove me wrong.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 31, 2016, 10:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Ah, I see. So essentially the question is whether ACA can mandate coverage for contraception. For instance, if the company had the choice between ACA and another, more expensive insurance without contraception coverage, would it be reasonable to force the company to choose the more expensive insurance?
It doesn't work like that, for the most part (I think). Contraceptive coverage is mandated by the ACA. I think if an insurance plan was offered by a religious group it could be absent (if such a thing exists). I was listening to a podcast on this and one way of framing the question is whether the government is offering the least intrusive option while declaring contraceptives a compelling interest.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 4, 2016, 01:38 PM
 
One of the two Texas voting cases came back, 8-0. It feels like a very, very, sketchy 8-0. Two concurrences by Alito and Thomas which leaves me feeling that if Scaliahad been there it'd be at least 6-3 and maybe 5-4 once the veneer of unanimity had disappeared.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 20, 2016, 10:56 AM
 
Another unanimous decision in the Arizona redistricting case.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 20, 2016, 11:06 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
One of the two Texas voting cases came back, 8-0. It feels like a very, very, sketchy 8-0. Two concurrences by Alito and Thomas which leaves me feeling that if Scaliahad been there it'd be at least 6-3 and maybe 5-4 once the veneer of unanimity had disappeared.
Do you really think SC justices are that fickle?
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 20, 2016, 11:54 AM
 
I don't think fickle is the right word. I think Scalia held a lot of sway and the CJ does as well. The concurrences speak volumes to me.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2016, 11:31 AM
 
The contraceptive mandate got side-stepped and sent back to the lower court for compromise.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2016, 05:32 PM
 
Supreme Court today ok'd a form of police fishing expeditions today. Thanks, Breyer.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/21/us...tops.html?_r=0
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2016, 05:50 PM
 
Yeah I'm really perplexed about Justice Breyer going along with this ruling. At least Justice Sotomayor wrote a really scathing dissent.

In a dissent that cited W. E. B. Du Bois, James Baldwin and Ta-Nehisi Coates, Justice Sotomayor said the court had vastly expanded police power.

“The court today holds that the discovery of a warrant for an unpaid parking ticket will forgive a police officer’s violation of your Fourth Amendment rights,” she wrote. “Do not be soothed by the opinion’s technical language: This case allows the police to stop you on the street, demand your identification and check it for outstanding traffic warrants — even if you are doing nothing wrong.

“If the officer discovers a warrant for a fine you forgot to pay,” she continued, “courts will now excuse his illegal stop and will admit into evidence anything he happens to find by searching you after arresting you on the warrant.”

Justice Sotomayor added that many people were at risk. Federal and state databases show more than 7.8 million outstanding warrants, she wrote, “the vast majority of which appear to be for minor offenses.” There are, she added, 180,000 misdemeanor warrants in Utah. And according to the Justice Department, about 16,000 of the 21,000 residents of Ferguson, Mo., are subject to arrest warrants.


Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined most of Justice Sotomayor’s dissent, along with all of a separate dissent from Justice Elena Kagan. But Justice Sotomayor reserved her most personal reflection for a part of her dissent in which she wrote only for herself, setting out in detail the dangers and indignities that often accompany police stops.

“For generations,” she wrote, “black and brown parents have given their children ‘the talk’ — instructing them never to run down the street; always keep your hands where they can be seen; do not even think of talking back to a stranger — all out of fear of how an officer with a gun will react to them.”

“We must not pretend that the countless people who are routinely targeted by police are ‘isolated,’” she wrote. “They are the canaries in the coal mine whose deaths, civil and literal, warn us that no one can breathe in this atmosphere. They are the ones who recognize that unlawful police stops corrode all our civil liberties and threaten all our lives. Until their voices matter, too, our justice system will continue to be anything but.”


Justin Driver, a law professor at the University of Chicago, said Justice Sotomayor’s dissent was remarkable. It is, he said, “the strongest indication we have yet that the Black Lives Matter movement has made a difference at the Supreme Court — at least with one justice.”
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2016, 06:56 PM
 
This one torqued me up too. We're getting small victories, like needing a warrant for some obvious searches. Then we get big setbacks, like Citizens United and this latest. We're losing rights faster than we're gaining them.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 27, 2016, 10:16 AM
 
Texas' bullshit abortion regs got knocked down.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 27, 2016, 10:51 AM
 
Yep, no need to perform them in clean places when you can get one in a gas station bathroom style place.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 27, 2016, 11:25 AM
 
No need to have more stringent requirements than for any other similar procedure, more like it.

And while this is being reported as a 5-3 decision, it was really only Thomas who wanted to affirm on the merits. Roberts and Alito got hung up on a technicality (basically that the plaintiff in question had sued before over a similar thing, so the case would have to be redone with a different plaintiff) and seemed to want to remand even if that issue could be solved.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 27, 2016, 02:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by P View Post
No need to have more stringent requirements than for any other similar procedure, more like it.
"Similar procedures" have tougher health standards, abortion doesn't need it for some reason. Essentially all you need is a nurse and a plunger. (Exaggerating, but not by much.) I disagree with Texas' stance and said it was too far, but so is what it was like before the measures they enacted.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 27, 2016, 04:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Texas' bullshit abortion regs got knocked down.
The ban after 20 weeks was left in place.
     
Hawkeye_a
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 27, 2016, 06:36 PM
 
I'm not well versed with the separation of powers, and the checks and balances in the system in this country.

As a foreign observer, it seems like the SCOTUS governs from the bench, serving as a "tie breaker" of sorts and this seems like there might be too much power concentrated in too few. One step away from the pulpit IMHO.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 4, 2016, 10:58 AM
 
I don't have a better place to put this.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 4, 2016, 12:57 PM
 
So why are you showing us some opinion-like evaluation of what he said, instead of what he actually said. The writer seems to be opinioning too much and assuming too much.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 22, 2017, 11:06 AM
 
US Border Patrol shooting of Mexican national goes to Supreme Court - CNNPolitics.com

I can see the argument against but the situation is way too ****ed up for me to be comfortable with.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 22, 2017, 02:43 PM
 
Hot take.

I think the lower court decision would be correct for a criminal case, but with a civil case I'm not so sure.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 13, 2017, 04:08 PM
 
Warrants needed to search phones, 8-0
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 13, 2017, 04:57 PM
 
Sounds great, got a link? I'm not seeing any news stories about that.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 13, 2017, 05:23 PM
 
Not ATM saw it on ze twitter
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 13, 2017, 05:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
Sounds great, got a link? I'm not seeing any news stories about that.
Ha, the decision was from 2014. Not sure how that slipped into my timeline.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 22, 2017, 10:52 AM
 
This Gorsuch dude is smooooth.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 22, 2017, 10:57 AM
 
Unless they find a body in the trunk of his car, he's in.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 22, 2017, 11:05 AM
 
He seems like less of an asshole than Scalia, which I think is a good thing.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 22, 2017, 06:27 PM
 
There's a scrappiness to him though, I like that.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 23, 2017, 11:04 AM
 
Oh, no no no no no no. Don't do this Chuck. Do not do this.

God, this will bite you in the ass.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 23, 2017, 11:25 AM
 
Wow, Schumer is about to screw the pooch royally.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 23, 2017, 12:07 PM
 
That is short-sighted. The GOP could trigger the nuclear option now, saying that it is in support of a highly qualified and well-regarded candidate that does not shift the balance of the court. If one of the octogenarians on the court dies or retires in the next four years, they can then wave through whoever, no matter how loud the protests. Dems are not taking back the Senate in -18, not with 24 of their own up for re-election with only 10 from the GOP.

But then, Schumer is very well aware of this, so I wonder what he's thinking. Does he think the GOP would push through the nuclear option anyway in the event of a contentious candidate? Does he feel that it is more important to keep the base fired up?
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 23, 2017, 12:12 PM
 
It better ****ing be he has dirt.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 23, 2017, 12:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by P View Post
That is short-sighted. The GOP could trigger the nuclear option now, saying that it is in support of a highly qualified and well-regarded candidate that does not shift the balance of the court. If one of the octogenarians on the court dies or retires in the next four years, they can then wave through whoever, no matter how loud the protests. Dems are not taking back the Senate in -18, not with 24 of their own up for re-election with only 10 from the GOP.

But then, Schumer is very well aware of this, so I wonder what he's thinking. Does he think the GOP would push through the nuclear option anyway in the event of a contentious candidate? Does he feel that it is more important to keep the base fired up?
The base will revolt if the Dems roll over on this. The GOP stonewalled a legitimate pick and the Dems are the bad guys for filibustering? Especially when the GOP showed many signs of wanting to keep the seat empty if Hillary won?

Anyway, I seem to recall the Dems were the bad guys for their tactical nuke, so I'm curious how they would be the bad guys here if they got nuked for acting like the GOP.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 23, 2017, 12:58 PM
 
^^^

This! Absent the GOP shenanigans over Garland I would have no issues with Gorsuch. He strikes me as about as reasonable a jurist we would get from any GOP president. But this isn't about qualifications ... as the GOP made abundantly clear with their unprecedented obstruction of the Garland nomination. The GOP essentially stole a SCOTUS seat from Obama for no other reason than because they could. And that BS simply can't go unanswered on general principle alone! Otherwise you just tell the GOP that they can defy all political norms with impunity. The bottom line is this ....

If you are afraid to use the filibuster because you fear it will be taken away ... then it is already lost.

And FTR ... I'm not even advocating that the Dems use the filibuster to PREVENT a vote. Or even a HEARING as the GOP did. I'm just saying allow the vote but deny the 60-vote threshold. And demand that the GOP accept Sen. Udall's proposed deal that trades Dem support for Gorsuch in exchange for GOP support for Garland.

OAW
( Last edited by OAW; Mar 23, 2017 at 07:15 PM. )
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 29, 2017, 12:08 PM
 
Opinion analysis: A victory for intellectually disabled inmates in Texas - SCOTUSblog

I don't think the matter is cut and dry, but I find it harder to be sympathetic to Texas' position when it looks like they were looking for excuses to find him fit to be executed.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 29, 2017, 01:20 PM
 
"unprecedented obstruction of the Garland nomination"

Its called politics. Works BOTH WAYS.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 29, 2017, 03:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
"unprecedented obstruction of the Garland nomination"

Its called politics. Works BOTH WAYS.
No. It doesn't. Something like that has NEVER happened before. Hence the term "unprecedented".

OAW
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 29, 2017, 05:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
No. It doesn't. Something like that has NEVER happened before. Hence the term "unprecedented".

OAW
Seems to be working that way now.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 30, 2017, 08:45 AM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Seems to be working that way now.
Not really. Gorsuch is getting a hearing. Garland did not.

OAW
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 6, 2017, 01:21 PM
 
Is that a mushroom cloud I see? Called it.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 6, 2017, 08:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
^^^

This! Absent the GOP shenanigans over Garland I would have no issues with Gorsuch. He strikes me as about as reasonable a jurist we would get from any GOP president. But this isn't about qualifications ...
See here, this is your problem and why you keep losing elections.
as the GOP made abundantly clear with their unprecedented obstruction of the Garland nomination. The GOP essentially stole a SCOTUS seat from Obama for no other reason than because they could. And that BS simply can't go unanswered on general principle alone! Otherwise you just tell the GOP that they can defy all political norms with impunity. The bottom line is this ....
There you go basing your political strategy on emotion again instead of at least keeping the facade of the welfare of the nation.

If you are afraid to use the filibuster because you fear it will be taken away ... then it is already lost.
It was already lost.

And FTR ... I'm not even advocating that the Dems use the filibuster to PREVENT a vote. Or even a HEARING as the GOP did. I'm just saying allow the vote but deny the 60-vote threshold. And demand that the GOP accept Sen. Udall's proposed deal that trades Dem support for Gorsuch in exchange for GOP support for Garland.

OAW
But the dems don't hold enough seats to do that. You can't really negotiate if the only leverage you have is a sense of entitlement from the opposing majority party. Case and point, we've gone nuclear.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 6, 2017, 08:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Not really. Gorsuch is getting a hearing. Garland did not.

OAW
That was my point.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 7, 2017, 07:48 PM
 
Having given this thought, I think the filibuster died with Scalia. I mean, the GOP didn't even hesitate to nuke it. There was no hemming and hawing, no rumination (outside of McCain's crocodile tears), no real negotiation, no waiting. Just BAM! Gone.

Several scenarios have since gone through my mind:

Our 2017 Timeline – Dems allow Gorsuch through. A court liberal dies. Dems filibuster. With the opportunity to swing the court wildly in their favor the GOP surely nukes filibuster.

Alternate 2016 Timeline – Dems have a senate majority. Scalia dies, but GOP filibusters under the same reasons given this past year. Do the Dems nuke it? I think they painfully mull it over. If they decide to keep the filibuster, it's only on the assumption that Hillary will win and the GOP will live up to their word.

Alternate 2017 Timeline – Hillary wins. True to their insinuations during the election, the GOP filibuster Hillary's nominee. Having already punted once, the filibuster gets nuked for continuing obstruction.


Anyway, it makes sense, as its just a continuing sign of the polarization in congress and the US. SCOTUS nominee votes have been getting increasingly partisan for the past two administrations. This is the next logical degredation.

*I haven't been able to verify this, but I read the last time a GOP congress voted on a Dem SCOTUS nominee was around 1896. That's incredible, if true.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2017, 07:01 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
*I haven't been able to verify this, but I read the last time a GOP congress voted on a Dem SCOTUS nominee was around 1896. That's incredible, if true.
This appears to be true. At the very least it is the last time anyone succeeded, and if the GOP had run out the clock on a Dem nominee any other time, I think we would have heard of it in the news recently.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2017, 04:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by P View Post
This appears to be true. At the very least it is the last time anyone succeeded, and if the GOP had run out the clock on a Dem nominee any other time, I think we would have heard of it in the news recently.
It's a statistical anomaly that's amazing to consider. I'd have to wonder how a SCOTUS fight would have gone down during the later Clinton years.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 22, 2017, 11:35 AM
 
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN18I1SZ

In an 8-0 decision, SCOTUS has decided that patent suits have to be filed in the district where the defendant is incorporated, instead of all of them being filed in East Texas.

This is huge. It has the potential to kill patent trolls completely.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 22, 2017, 11:41 AM
 
It's a smart verdict because it pushes off any questions if patent reform by eliminating the judicial loophole of east Texas.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 22, 2017, 12:22 PM
 
This is big enough it starts me wondering why it took until now. It sounds like they were probably ready to kill this a decade ago (going by the unanimity).
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 22, 2017, 05:31 PM
 
I also note with curiosity that the liberal justices were joined by none other than Clarence Thomas in delivering a 5-3 verdict telling NC to give it up with the gerrymandering already.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 22, 2017, 06:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by P View Post
I also note with curiosity that the liberal justices were joined by none other than Clarence Thomas in delivering a 5-3 verdict telling NC to give it up with the gerrymandering already.
This is more a situation of "A broken clock is right twice a day." Justice Thomas generally objects to congressional districts that are intentionally drawn up to be "majority-minority". Even when that is done to empower the community politically. In this instance existing "majority-minority" congressional districts where intentionally made even more so in order to limit minority voting strength by excluding them from nearby districts. So to put it another way Justice Thomas simply objects to the WHAT ... not the WHY.

OAW
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:39 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,