The lawyers for the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund Inc. From left, Louis L. Redding, Robert L. Carter, Oliver W. Hill, Thurgood Marshall and Spottswood W. Robinson III.
Robert L. Carter, leading strategist and persuasive voice in the legal assault on racial segregation in 20th-century America died Tuesday morning in Manhattan. The former federal judge in New York was 94.
The cause was complications of a stroke, said his son John W. Carter, a justice of the New York Supreme Court in the Bronx.
Judge Carter presided over the merger of professional basketball leagues in the 1970s and was instrumental in opening the New York City police force to more minority applicants.
Mr. Carter’s greatest impact came in the late 1940s and 1950s as a lawyer with the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund Inc. The Legal Defense and Educational Fund was led by Charles Hamilton Houston. Thurgood Marshall succeeded Houston who went on tackle desegregation of the U.S. Armed Forces.
Often laboring behind the scenes, Judge Carter had a significant hand in many historic legal challenges to racial discrimination in the postwar years. None was more momentous than the landmark case known as Brown v. Board of Education. Decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Brown abolished legal segregation in the public schools throughout the United States.
Mr. Carter’s well-honed argument that the segregation of public schools was unconstitutional on its face became the Supreme Court’s own conclusion in Brown. The decision swept away half a century of legal precedent that the South had used to justify its “separate but equal” doctrine decided in its’ 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson decision.
Underpaid and overworked, Mr. Carter and his Legal Defense Fund colleagues argued before the court that the South’s schools rarely offered anything like equal opportunities to black children. Segregation itself, they contended, was so damaging to black children that it should be abolished, on the ground that it was contrary to the 14th Amendment, which guarantees equal rights to all citizens.
Mr. Carter spent years doing research in law and history to construct that legal theory before it reached the Supreme Court. Though aspects of segregation law had been struck down before World War II, Mr. Carter’s task was still daunting. His challenge was to persuade the Supreme Court to overturn, finally, a looming obstacle to equal rights, the court’s 1896 decision in Plessy v. Ferguson. That ruling upheld a Louisiana law requiring racial separation on railroad cars. The South used that decision to justify a wide range of discriminatory practices for years to come.
“We have one fundamental contention,” Mr. Carter told the court. “No state has any authority under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to use race as a factor in affording educational opportunities among its citizens.”
Mr. Carter insisted on using the research of the psychologist Kenneth B. Clark to attack segregated schools, a daring courtroom tactic in the eyes of some civil rights lawyers. Experiments by Mr. Clark and his wife, Mamie, showed that black children suffered in their learning and development by being segregated. Mr. Clark’s testimony proved crucial in persuading the court to act, Mr. Carter wrote in a 2004 book, “A Matter of Law: A Memoir of Struggle in the Cause of Equal Rights.”
As chief deputy to the imposing Mr. Marshall, who was to become the first black Supreme Court justice, Mr. Carter labored for years in his shadow. In the privacy of legal conferences, Mr. Carter was seen as the house radical, always urging his colleagues to push legal and constitutional positions to the limits.
Mr. Marshall had encouraged him to play the gadfly: “I was younger and more radical than many of the people Thurgood would have in, I guess. But he’d never let them shut me up.”
Robert Lee Carter was born in Caryville, in the Florida Panhandle, on March 17, 1917, the youngest of nine children. The family moved to New Jersey when he was 6 weeks old, and his father, Robert L. Carter, died when he was a year old. Annie Martin Carter, his mother, took in laundry for white people for 25 years.
Mr. Carter recalled experiencing racial discrimination as a 16-year-old in East Orange, N.J. The high school he attended allowed black students to use its pool only on Fridays, after classes were over. After he read in the newspaper that the State Supreme Court had outlawed such restrictions, he entered the pool with white students and stood up to a teacher’s threat to have him expelled from school. It was his first taste of activism, he said.
Judge Carter attended two predominantly black universities: Lincoln University in Pennsylvania, where he enrolled at 16, and Howard University School of Law in Washington. Enrolling in Columbia University as a graduate student, he wrote his master’s thesis on the First Amendment. Parts of the thesis was used in preparing for the school segregation cases in the 1950s.
Mr. Carter joined the Army a few months before the United States entered World War II. That experience made a militant of him, he said, starting with the day a white captain welcomed Mr. Carter’s unit of the Army Air Corps at Augusta, Ga. The captain, Mr. Carter states in his memoir, “wanted to inform us right away that he did not believe in educating niggers.”
“He was not going to tolerate our putting on airs or acting uppity,” Mr. Carter said.
In spite of repeated antagonisms, Mr. Carter completed Officer Candidate School and became a second lieutenant. He was the only black officer at Harding Field in Baton Rouge, La., and promptly integrated the officers’ club, arousing new anger. The determined Mr. Carter was soon transferred to a training base in Columbus, Ohio, where he continued to face racial hostility.
After leaving the service in 1944 he was hired as a lawyer at the Legal Defense and Educational Fund. The organization was then the legal arm of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. It later became an independent organization. By 1948, he had become Marshall’s chief deputy and soon became active in the school segregation cases. One notable case was Sweatt v. Painter, in which the Supreme Court ruled in 1950 that the University of Texas Law School had acted illegally in denying admission to a black applicant.
Mr. Carter was also involved in housing discrimination cases, the dismantling of all-white political primaries in several Southern states and the ending of de facto school segregation in the North.
Mr. Carter was disappointed when Marshall passed him over and chose a white staff lawyer, Jack Greenberg, to succeed him as director-counsel of the fund in 1961. Considering it as a demotion, Mr. Carter moved to the N.A.A.C.P. as its general counsel. By then the NAACP was a separate entity. Mr. Carter resented what he considered as Mr. Greenberg’s undercutting him.
Mr. Carter resigned in protest from the N.A.A.C.P. in 1968 when its board fired a white staff member, Lewis M. Steel, who had written an article in The New York Times Magazine critical of the Supreme Court. After a year at the Urban Center at Columbia, he joined the New York law firm of Poletti, Freidin, Prashker, Feldman & Gartner. President Richard M. Nixon nominated him to the federal bench for the Southern District of New York in 1972 at the recommendation of Senator Jacob K. Javits, Republican of New York.
On the bench, Judge Carter became known for his strong hand in cases involving professional basketball. He oversaw the merger of the National Basketball Association and the American Basketball Association in the 1970s, the settlement of a class-action antitrust suit against the N.B.A. brought by Oscar Robertson and other players, and a number of high-profile free-agent arbitration disputes involving players like Marvin Webster and Bill Walton.
In 1979, his findings of bias shown against black and Hispanic applicants for police jobs in New York City led to significant changes in police hiring policies and an increase in minority representation on the force.
Mr. Carter, who lived in Manhattan and died in a hospital there, married Gloria Spencer of New York in 1946. She died in 1971. Besides his son John, Judge Carter is survived by another son, David; a sister, Alma Carter Lawson; and a grandson.
Well into advanced age, Mr. Carter retained the fire of a civil rights fighter who believed that much remained to be done in the pursuit of racial equality.
“Black children aren’t getting equal education in the cities,” he said in an interview with The Times in 2004. “The schools that are 100 percent black are still as bad as they were before Brown. Integration seems to be out, at least for this generation.”
“I have hope” he went on to say.
“In the United States, we make progress in two or three steps, then we step back,” he added. “And blacks are more militant now and will not accept second-class citizenship as before.”
If you wish to hear about the Brown decision in his own words, you can view the Febone1960.net Black History Month Calendar video clip which includes Judge Robert L. Carter.
Febone1960.net extends its’ condolences to the family of this legal genius and fellow Howard Law Alum.
What’s Your Take On The Matter? Register and/or sign in and sound off!
On March 16, 1948 local Attorney Harold Bouleware together with Thurgood Marshall filed in U.S. District Court the case of Levi Pearson v. Board of Education. The case was dismissed on a technicality. The Court ruled that Mr. Pearson had no legal standing because he paid taxes in District 5 and his children attended school in District 21 and 26. The dismissal did discouraged a determined Reverend Delaine and by 1949 he had obtained enough signatures to file a second case.
The national office of the NAACP agreed to sponsor their case. Now the Clarendon county African American community was not just seeking buses, but educational equality. In May of 1950, with the help of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, the case of Briggs v. Elliott was filed. Two months later, the plaintiffs’ attorney moved from simply pursuing equalization of facilities and obtaining buses to attacking segregation.
The lead plaintiff in that case was Harry Briggs a WWII naval veteran. Harry had volunteered and risked his life abroad to fight for the double victory. Harry fighting side by side with the other U.S. forces defeated the enemy without, but the enemy within was still pounding him economically and emotionally. He must now continue his battle against Jim Crow in a court system, a court system that gave birth to Jim Crow when it upheld Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896.
In 1939, as part of Mamie Clark’s research for her master’s degree at Howard University, the husband and wife team of Mamie and Kenneth Clark designed a study using dolls to test black children’s ego and self-esteem. In there study, they showed black and white dolls to children to test whether they would respond differently to dolls of different races by asking them which dolls were pretty and nice and which ones were bad. Not surprisingly, the white children included in the study overwhelmingly preferred the white dolls. The Clarks found that two thirds of the black children also preferred the white dolls saying that they were nice and pretty and the black dolls were bad and ugly. When the Clarks asked the black children which doll looked more like themselves, some chose the white dolls, some couldn’t answer and some just broke down in tears. The Clarkes’ concluded from their studies years of existing under the black codes through racial segregation and negative images had damaged many black children’s sense of identity and self esteem.
Thurgood Marshall wisely solicited the Clarks as expert witnesses in Briggs v. Elliott. To prepare for his expert testimony, Kenneth Clark traveled to Summerton, S.C. Using dolls of different colors, he tested the children of Scott’s Branch school to measure how they felt about themselves. He asked the children to show him the nice doll, the bad doll, and the doll that look just like you. Ten of the 16 children said that the brown doll looked bad. The results of these strongly suggested that forced segregation damaged the self-image of African American children in Clarendon County, S.C.
On May 28, 1951, Thurgood Marshall along with Robert Carter, and Spotswood Robinson brought the case before a three-judge panel at the Federal Court house in Charleston, S.C. The lawyers presented the Clarks study and argued that segregated schools harmed black children psychologically and violated the fourteenth Amendment guarantee of equal protection under the law. The three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court found that the schools designated for African Americans were grossly inadequate in terms of buildings transportation and teachers’ salaries when compared to schools provided for whites.
However, two of the judges citing Plessy v. Ferguson held that Separate but equal facilities were constitutional and ruled against the plaintiffs.
The dissenting judge Julius Waring adamantly opposed segregation in public schools. In his dissent he wrote: I am of the opinion that all of the legal guide posts, expert testimony, common sense, and reason points unerringly to the conclusion that the system of segregation in education adopted and practiced in the state of South Carolina must go and go now. Segregation is per se inequality.
Harry Briggs fight against Jim Crow was far from over. Thurgood Marshall and his legal team filed an appeal with the U.S. States Supreme Court.
I’m Julianne Malveaux, President of Bennet College. Joins us tomorrow as we continue to explore standing the shoulders of unsung heroes.
FEBONE1960.NET IS EXPERIENCING TECHNICAL PROBLEMS WITH THE HEARING IMPAIRED AND SPANISH VIDEOS. TO COVER THOSE AREAS WE HAVE PLACED THE WRITTEN TEXT ON THE BLOG IN ENGLISH AND SPANISH. WE WILL WORK TO GET THE VIDEOS BACK ON TRACK AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. WE APOLOGIZE FOR YOUR CONVENIENCE.
What’s Your Take On The Matter? Register and/or sign in and sound off!
While in D.C., Clarence Mathews became acquainted with Charles Hamilton Houston. Houston the Dean of Howard University School of Law is recognized as the architect behind the extermination of the separate but equal doctrine.
Houston was born in Washington, D.C. on September 31, 1895 to William Lapre Houston and Mary Hamilton Houston. Houston’s roots can be traced to his maternal great grandfather Jesse Hamilton, a free black. Jesse Hamilton and Houston’s grand- father, Ray Hamilton had neighboring farms near Stephen Williamson in Rock Hill, S.C. Stephen Williamson was the maternal great grandfather of Alice Webb Bailey, Curtis and Mariah’s daughter in law.
Houston completed high school at the age of 15 and graduated as one of six valedictorians from Amherst College in Massachusetts in 1915. He then taught at Howard University in Washington, D.C., for two years until the onset of World War I. Houston enlisted in the U.S. Army and served in Europe in World War I as a second lieutenant in field artillery.
As a result of some of his experiences in the segregated and racist army, Houston decided that he needed to become an advocate to enforce the legal rights of the oppressed. In pursuit of this, following his honorable discharge from the army in 1919, Houston enrolled at Harvard Law School from which he earned his Bachelor of Laws in 1922 and a doctorate in 1923. Houston was a stellar student and became the first black editor of the Harvard Law Review. He studied law at the University of Madrid until 1924 when he returned to Washington, DC, and joined his father’s law practice.
In 1924 he also began to teach part time at Howard University School of Law, then a part-time night school. Through that time Howard University School of Law had trained approximately three fourths of the approximately 950 African American lawyers practicing in the United States.
At the urging of Houston, the Howard University Trustees recreated Howard University School of Law as a full-time day school and in 1929, Houston was placed in charge with the title of Resident Vice-Dean.
During Houston’s six year tenure as vice-dean, Howard University School of Law was training almost a quarter of the nation’s black law students. Houston also oversaw the dramatic change which led to Howard University School of Law being accredited by the American Bar Association and meeting the standards for being admitted to the Association of American Law Schools.
Together with a select group of mostly Howard lawyers, including future U.S. Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, and working through the NAACP and later the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Houston created a number of precedents that ultimately led to the dismantling of de jure discrimination after Brown v. Board of Education in 1954.
Among the major steps were Pearson v. Murray (1936) and State ex rel. Gaines v. Canada (1939). In Pearson Houston and Thurgood Marshall established in the Maryland highest court that the University of Maryland could not exclude African Americans as it had excluded Marshall just a few years earlier. In Gaines this principle was extended to the entire country when the U.S. Supreme Court held that Missouri could not exclude blacks from the state law school since there was no comparable, and could be no comparable school for African Americans because of the unique intangibles of a legal education, in Missouri. Ultimately this precedent was extended to other schools and ultimately down to public primary and secondary education.
Between the Murray case and the Gaines case, Houston and Marshall successfully attacked the un-equalization of teachers’ salaries. Before the legal challenge, white teachers were paid more than black teachers.
Eventually, Houston left the NAACP whereupon, Thurgood Marshall, became his replacement. Marshall continued down the path he and Houston had stamped out. Marshall decided to attack Jim Crow in his own backyard, the south. In the meantime, Houston turned his attention to public accommodations, transportation, housing, labor, and the integration of the armed forces and defense industry.
Charles Hamilton Houston wrote: “A lawyer’s either a social engineer or he’s a parasite on society.”
While serving as vice dean, Howard University School of Law, Houston use to greet his future social engineers. He would then ask them to look to left and to their right. The people to your left or right may not be here to graduate with you for academic reasons. Please remember, you are sitting to someone’s left and/or someone’s right.
Curtis and Mariah’s granddaughter Valerie would hear these words out of the mouth of Dean Wiley Branton on her first day of Howard’s Law School. Wiley Branton, an Arkansas native, served on the NAACP Legal Defense team with Thurgood Marshall and Charles Hamilton Houston.
Star Jones narrated the clip. Please join us tomorrow as we continue to explore standing on the shoulders of unsung heroes.
U.S, Supreme Court Sonia Sotomayer During Confirmation Hearings
By James Oliphant and David G. Savage
July 19, 2009
Reporting from Washington — Two months ago, Sonia Sotomayor’s Latino heritage was viewed as an overwhelming asset. And though history will be made if she becomes the Supreme Court’s newest justice, there wasn’t much talk about that during three days of grueling testimony last week. For some, her confirmation hearings left a bitter taste.
“This is a great first, but we are not being allowed to celebrate it in the way we are allowed to celebrate Thurgood Marshall as the first African American on the court,” said Laura Gomez, a University of New Mexico law professor.
That’s because Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee attempted to shine a negative light on Sotomayor’s earlier statements about what she as a Latina could bring to judging and on her connections with a Latino advocacy group. In wave after wave of questions, they suggested that statements by the New York federal appellate judge indicated an inability to remain impartial on the bench.
Sotomayor had given them ammunition: speeches in which she said she hoped that “a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male.”
By the end of the week, however, she had forcefully rejected that notion — along with the idea that her diverse background meant she would judge with “empathy,” a quality President Obama had said was important for a high court justice.
She also denied being involved in abortion-rights lawsuits filed by the Puerto Rican advocacy group whose board she served on for 12 years.
Even though Sotomayor is almost certain to be confirmed, some Republicans considered their bid to root out what they saw as potential prejudices as a kind of victory.
What Sen. Jeff Sessions calls an ‘honest discussion’ on race, some observers say is an attack on ethnic pride.
“We had a more honest discussion of some of the complexities and sensitivities of the race question in this hearing than in the 12 years I have been in the Senate,” said Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the ranking Republican on the committee, whose own bid for a federal judgeship was blocked because of racially insensitive remarks he had made in the past.
Sotomayor’s supporters, however, viewed the questioning another way.
“It was extremely disappointing and a walk backward from the point of diversity,” said Sherrilyn Ifill, a law professor at the University of Maryland. “This was not a productive conversation. It was unfortunate posturing by the Republicans.
“This was an all-white judiciary committee asking condescending questions. And it was an unequal power situation. She was not in a position to honestly engage with them, because she needed their votes.”
What last week’s public exercise illustrated was the nature of questions of race and identity in America: Ethnic pride to some is identity politics to others.
At the heart of the Republican questioning was a sense of mistrust that they said was based on a notable difference between the probity of Sotomayor’s decisions as a judge and the more liberal tone of her speeches. Some senators were convinced she was masking her true nature — and that it would be revealed once she was given a lifetime post on the Supreme Court.
To put a human face on their concerns, they invited a white firefighter and a Latino firefighter from Connecticut to testify on Sotomayor’s ruling in their discrimination case, Ricci vs. DeStefano.
“I think we all want a justice who is neutral and impartial,” said Jenny Rivera, a law professor at the City University of New York, who once clerked for Sotomayor. But Republicans, she said, maintained that “when you put on the robes, you put on the shelf your sense of history and identity and heritage.”
Conservatives, however, said that the GOP senators had succeeded in forcing Sotomayor to distance herself from her earlier statements about ethnicity and gender swaying her decisions.
“It seems conservatives are winning the larger war over the judiciary, even if losing the battle over this nomination,” Jonathan Adler, a law professor at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, wrote in the Washington Post.
Sotomayor “ended up disavowing many of her previous statements or trying to reinterpret them,” said Ilya Somin of George Mason University School of Law.
“More significantly, she ended up publicly rejecting the president’s view that empathy should often guide judicial decision-making,” he said.
Democrats on the judiciary committee seemed to go out of their way to avoid the issue of Sotomayor’s heritage, focusing instead on her 17-year judicial record, one that even some Republicans conceded contained little to fight about.
And Sotomayor herself was forced to step lightly around the subject, disavowing her “wise Latina” comment as a “rhetorical riff” that had the opposite meaning than she had intended.
“Her selection by the nation’s first black president is a testament to the advances in diversity and tolerance that we have made as a nation,” said Rachel Moran, a law professor at UC Irvine.
But, Moran noted, Sotomayor “made no explicit reference to her personal story as the daughter of Puerto Rican parents who moved to New York. Instead, she described her life as ‘uniquely American.’ ”
Several GOP senators cast their line of questioning in terms of achieving a goal laid out by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who has said: “The best way to stop discriminating based on race is to stop discriminating based on race.”
Their actions had an effect.
“I think, before the hearings, we were seeing a discussion that diversity can enrich any institution,” said Victoria DeFrancesco Soto, a political science professor at Northwestern University. But that talk “became too radioactive,” she said.
The GOP senators “were playing to the angry white male voter. Some of the remarks were clearly about saying that ‘you’ can say things that ‘we’ can’t,” said Julian Zelizer, a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University.
“These kinds of comments attacking ethnic pride and the benefits of diversity in any institution — which is really what her remark was about — combined with the Ricci case looked like backlash politics, pure and simple.”
Despite the hearings, Sotomayor’s Puerto Rican heritage and Bronx upbringing will have an effect inside the Supreme Court, legal experts said.
“Thurgood Marshall’s presence changed the Supreme Court in profound ways, and I do not doubt that Judge Sotomayor will also have a significant impact on the court,” said John Payton, president of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund.
“She is a powerful personality. She is extremely thoughtful and self-reflective. . . . She will be the second woman, the second nonwhite member and the first Latina. All of these will certainly matter.”
What’s Your Take On The Matter? Register and/or sign in and sound off!
Last month history was made again when this country’s first African American President nominated a Latino woman to serve on the High Court.
Federal Appellant Judge Sonia Sotomayor was named by President Barack Obama to replace retiring Justice Souter.
No sooner than she gave a touching acceptance speech where she gave thanks to her hard working mother, the mudslingers were in full force.
Activist judge they called her in referring to the above Youtube clip.
We heard that term during the Bush administration, and the recent Presidential campaign.
What is the definition of an activist judge? It is said that an activist judge is one who legislate from the bench. As quiet as its kept, Judges have a duty to legislate or make law from the bench.
In order to understand this fully, we must look at the function of not only the judiciary branch, but all branches of government.
As you may or may not know, the United States Constitution mandates as a matter of checks and balances that our federal government be divided in three branches: the Legislative, Executive and the Judiciary branches.
The legislative branch creates federal law in the Senate and the House of Representatives. The executive branch, i.e. the president, cabinet members, and staff, enact and enforce the laws that Congress passes.
The function of the judicial branch is to interpret the law when it is unclear or in question. In instances where the laws or rulings of lower courts are challenged, the Supreme Court justices must examine the law and determine if the intention of the law has been upheld. Often, justices must determine whether federal or state laws are constitutional, or if Congress has passed a law without any constitutional authority to do so. Unless they are unanimous, Supreme Court rulings have two parts, the majority opinion and the dissenting opinion, wherein the justices explain their reasoning and their interpretation of the law.
Judicial rulings become the basis for future legal arguments. This is known in legal parlance as a legal precedent, or “case law.” In essence, law is created by the legislature in the form of a statue and by the judiciary in the form of case law.
Sometimes, the legislature codifies the case law or adopt it in the form of a statute.
Far too often, the legislative branch for political reasons fail to legislate on behalf of their constituents who fall into the minority.
This is not the case with the judiciary branch. The framers of the Constitution recognized the importance of the judiciary branch and differentiated it from the other two branches in several significant ways. For instance, Supreme Court justices are appointed for life. The reasoning behind lifetime tenure is that sometimes justices must make decisions that are unpopular or counter to the will of the majority. Because they are not elected, they are free to uphold the law in spite of potential political fallout.
It can be argued that the actions of the federal judiciary have the greatest impact on the daily lives of citizens, and that Supreme Court rulings shape the fabric of American society more than the legislative or executive branches ever could. The landmark ruling in Brown v. Board of Education is a prime example.
You can see the influence of Brown not only in class rooms in primary/secondary public schools and college campuses, but also on the tennis courts, golf courses, basketball courts, football fields, in board rooms, Armed Forces, The White House, and yes, the Supreme Court itself.
Brown has opened doors for such people as Barack Obama, our current President, who is the first African American President, First Black Joint Chief of Staff and Secretary of State Retired General Colin Powell, First black ad female national security adviser Condoleezzi Rice, Sandra Day O’Connor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the first women to sit on the High Court, Thurgood Marshall, our first Black Supreme Court Justice, and even if he won’t admit it, Clarence Thomas. Soon Brown will have another accomplishment when the first Latino is confirmed to sit on the Supreme Court.
I as well as many Americans are thankful for these so called activist judges for doing their job.
In essence, the more educated the American public becomes about its judiciary, the less politicians will be able to scream “activist!” and get away with it. As shown in the last Presidential election, Americans are tired of politics as usual. Knowing what is going on behind the smoke-screen is the first step toward holding politicians accountable for name-calling, mud-slinging, and counter-productive dialogue.
Maybe these politicians will wise up, stop blowing big smoke out of their butt holes and do their jobs. If not, then we should tell them on no uncertain terms to hit the road Jack, and don’t you come back no more, no more, no more, no more! Otherwise it will be the same ole schickardy just a different butt hole.
What’s Your Take On The Matter? Register and/or sign in and sound off!