| Author |
Message |
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
 Wed May 25, 2005 12:16 am Deal Reached to Avert Judicial Showdown |
|
| FOX News wrote: | Deal Reached to Avert Judicial Showdown
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
WASHINGTON � Averting a showdown, moderates on both sides of the aisle in the Senate reached a compromise late Monday clearing the way for the confirmation of many of President Bush's stalled judicial nominees, leaving others in limbo and preserving filibuster rules.
"We have reached an agreement to try to avert a crisis in the United States Senate and pull the institution back from a precipice," said Sen. John McCain (search), R-Ariz., standing with a group of 13 other senators, seven from each party. McCain added that the deal was based on "trust, respect and mutual desire to .... protect the rights of the minority."
"We have lifted ourselves above politics," agreed Sen. Robert C. Byrd (search), D-W.Va., "And we have signed this document ... in the interest of freedom of speech, freedom of debate and freedom to dissent in the United States Senate."
Under the terms, Democrats agreed to allow final confirmation votes for Priscilla Owen (search), Janice Rogers Brown (search) and William Pryor (search), named to appeals court seats. There is "no commitment to vote for or against" the filibuster against two other conservatives named to the appeals court, Henry Saad (search) and William Myers (search).
The agreement said future judicial nominees should "only be filibustered under extraordinary circumstances," with each Democratic senator holding the discretion to decide when those conditions had been met.
"In light of the spirit and continuing commitments made in this agreement," Republicans said they would oppose any attempt to make changes in the application of filibuster rules � a pledge that Sen. Mike DeWine (search), R-Ohio said at the news conference was conditional on Democrats upholding their end of the deal.
While the agreement was signed by only 14 senators, they held the balance of power in a sharply divided Senate.
And Republicans said they would seek to confirm Owen as early as Tuesday, with other cleared nominees to follow quickly.
Even so, Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., noted he had not been a party to the deal, which fell short of his stated goal of winning yes-or-no votes on each of Bush's nominees. "It has some good news and it has some disappointing news and it will require careful monitoring," he said.
Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada seemed more receptive � although he hastened to say he remains opposed to some of the nominees who will now likely take seats on federal appeals courts.
"Checks and balances have been protected. The integrity of the Supreme Court has been protected from the undue influence of the vocal, radical right wing," Reid said.
The White House said the agreement was a positive development.
"Many of these nominees have waited for quite some time to have an up-or-down vote and now they are going to get one. That's progress," press secretary Scott McClellan said. "We will continue working to push for up-or-down votes for all the nominees."
Earlier Monday, Bush repeated his demand that his judicial nominees get an up-or-down vote by the full Senate.
"My job is to pick people who will interpret the Constitution, not use the bench from which to write laws," Bush said from the White House. "And I expect them to get an up-or-down vote, that's what I expect. And I think the American people expect that as well � people ought to have a fair hearing and they ought to get an up-or-down vote on the floor."
The deal was sealed around the table in McCain's office, across the street from the Capitol where senators had expected an all-night session of speech-making, prelude to Tuesday's anticipated showdown.
Nominally, the issue at hand was Bush's selection of Owen, a member of the Texas Supreme Court, to a seat on the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans.
In fact, as the rhetoric suggested, the stakes were far broader, with Republicans maneuvering to strip Democrats of their right to filibuster and thus block current and future nominees to the appeals court and Supreme Court.
There currently is no vacancy on the high court, although one or more is widely expected in Bush's term. Chief Justice William Rehnquist's coincidental presence in the Capitol during the day was a reminder of that. At age 80 and battling thyroid cancer, he entered the building in a wheelchair on his way to the doctor's office.
Under a complicated situation in effect on the Senate floor, an agreement among six senators of each party was sufficient to avert the showdown. Six Democrats agreeing not to filibuster assured judicial nominees of a yes-or-no vote. Six Republicans signing the accord meant Frist and other GOP leaders would not have the votes to strip Democrats of their ability to filibuster.
The agreement came as Frist, R-Tenn. and Reid, D-Nev., steered the Senate toward a showdown on Bush's nominees and historic filibuster rules, under which a minority can prevent action unless the majority gains 60 votes.
For decades, Senate rules have permitted opponents to block votes on judicial nominees by mounting a filibuster, a parliamentary device that can be stopped only by a 60-vote majority.
But Republicans, frustrated by Democratic filibusters that thwarted 10 of Bush's first-term appeals court nominees and prepared to block seven of them again, threatened to supersede that rule by simple majority vote.
In classic Senate style, the agreement was followed by a rush of self-congratulatory speeches � and disagreement over what it meant.
Democrats, pointing to a slight change in wording from an earlier draft, said the deal would preclude Republicans from attempting to deny them the right to filibuster. Republicans said that was not ironclad, but valid only as long as Democrats did not go back on their word to filibuster only in extraordinary circumstances.
One official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the issue had been discussed at the meeting in McCain's office, and was "clearly understood" by those in attendance.
Apart from the judicial nominees named in the agreement, Reid said Democrats would clear the way for votes on David McKeague, Richard Griffin and Susan Neilson, all named to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Democratic officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, suggested that two other appeals court nominees whose names were omitted � White House staff secretary Brett Kavanaugh and Pentagon lawyer William Haynes � would be jettisoned. Republicans said they knew of no such understanding.
Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, who had supported invoking the so-called "nuclear" or "constitutional" option � by which filibusters on nominees would have been banned for good � told FOX News early Monday: "The Senate does not require 60 votes to become a judge, only 51 votes. ... We're talking about keeping a supermajority from overriding the will of a constitutional majority that has been that way for 214 years."
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Source |
I say that this is a LOSS for the Republicans and that the Republicans who have made this deal have BETRAYED the President, the other and future nominees, the country, the Republicans, and most of all, the Constitution. It's unconstitutional to have filibusters of judicial nominees--and it must be stopped! "Extraordinary circumstances?" How do you define that? Hmmm...Maybe when the person's a CONSERVATIVE, hmmm? Doesn't flow with abortion and gay marriage, hmmmm? Have to have them pass this litmus test, hmmm? This is bad news, not good, what will the Democrats do in the future? I feel as though I have been betrayed...It's a victory for the Democrats, and the Republicans let that victory occur.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Zeke Zabertini
Captain
Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 4832
|
| Wed May 25, 2005 7:02 am |
|
It's not unconstitutional. Show me where it's unconstitutional. Where in our constitution are the rules of the House and Senate mentioned beyond 1.5.2: "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings"? Where is the word filibuster? Where is the implication? Defend this argument of yours.
|
|
|
webtaz99
Commodore
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 1229
Location: The Other Side
|
| Wed May 25, 2005 12:51 pm |
|
One of the flaws in the founding of our government is the form of representation.
When the Constitution was written, representatives had real jobs. They ran farms and businesses when they were away from the Congress. This meant they didn't have time to waste with things like filibusters, and also when they were home their constituents could come face-to-face with them.
-------signature-------
"History is made at night! Character is who you are in the dark." (Lord John Whorfin)
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Wed May 25, 2005 5:08 pm |
|
| Zeke Zabertini wrote: | | It's not unconstitutional. Show me where it's unconstitutional. Where in our constitution are the rules of the House and Senate mentioned beyond 1.5.2: "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings"? Where is the word filibuster? Where is the implication? Defend this argument of yours. |
There are SEVEN instances of a super-majority, and the filibuster of judicial nominees is NOT one of them. It is NOT one of the instances in which a filibuster can occur, and it IS unconstitutional. That's why I support the CONSTITUTIONAL option, and wish that these Republicans did not derale it.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Zeke Zabertini
Captain
Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 4832
|
| Wed May 25, 2005 5:33 pm |
|
That wasn't my request, RM. Show me where it's unconstitutional. I know there are instances where a supermajority is required, but there is nothing there that states that additional supermajorities cannot be required in House and Senate rules. Furthermore, filibusters are not even mentioned in the constitution, much less are they forbidden in any instance.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Wed May 25, 2005 7:10 pm |
|
Some facts are included in this opinion piece I found. Please read it 
| Quote: | Enough: End Unconstitutional Judicial Filibusters
CHRONWATCH.COM ^ | APRIL 16, 2005 | JOE MARIANI
Posted on 04/16/2005 8:21:27 PM PDT by CHARLITE
When some members of Congress violate the Constitution, how can we have any confidence in their leadership? Yet that is precisely the effect these unlawful filibusters of judicial nominees are having -- undermining confidence in the Senate. Instead of voting yes or no on President Bush's picks for certain federal judgeships, Democrats are refusing to allow a vote to even take place, using a Senate rule that no motion may come to a vote while still under discussion.
The filibuster, as it's called, has been used by both sides for over a century and a half to delay votes while opinions are changed by argument and deal-making. Its original intent was somewhat more noble: to make sure all sides had their say during a debate. It was also supposed to mean that the subject at hand was actually being discussed, in an effort to convince some of the majority to change their minds. In reality, filibusters have included Senators reading phone books and even the Bible while simply holding the floor in the effort to prevent a vote from taking place. Senator Huey Long (D-LA) famously regaled the Senate with Shakespeare readings and favorite recipes in the 1930's (your grandpa's tax dollars at work).
This rule created reverse pressure on those doing the talking, since no further Senate business could be transacted while a filibuster was in effect. The only way to end it is to get three-fifths (originally two-thirds) of the Senators to vote, called a cloture vote. In theory, as Senate business piled up, Senators would eventually feel the pressure to vote to allow the process of voting to continue. All a Senator has to do now is announce that a vote will be filibustered, and the Senate moves on to other business. It effectively gives any Senator the power to force any measure to take 60 votes to pass instead of 51, just by saying so.
That's all well and good for bills and motions, since the Constitution deliberately left the Senate free to write its own rules of operation. In general, the less the Senate does, the better off we all are, anyway. The Constitution specifically calls upon the Senate to perform certain functions, however. Using the Senate "house rules" to play political games with those duties subverts the purpose behind calling for Senate participation in the first place. The Senate's role in Presidential nominees to federal courts is one of those functions.
He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.
- Constitution of the United States, Article II, Section 2
The "advice and consent of the Senate" is being withheld by the actions of the Democrat minority. The Senate is not being allowed to vote either for or against some of the President's judicial nominees, by a fake filibuster during which no one is speaking, and while other business comes and goes on the Senate floor. While the Republicans are trying to end this abuse of the filibuster, the Democrats are clinging to their obstructionist ways with all their waning might. Opponents of the proposed rule change, which would prevent judicial nominations being filibustered as though they were common bills or motions, call it the "nuclear option." Its supporters refer to it as the "constitutional option." The nicknames alone pretty much summarise the arguments from each side.
Democrats and Liberals are trying to confuse regular filibusters with unconstitutional ones in the minds of the public, suggesting that all filibusters are in danger of being halted. One television commercial "defending the filibuster" shows a clip from Frank Capra's 1939 movie, "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington." The clip is supposed to remind us how the brave, idealistic and honest Smith used a filibuster to convince the heartless politicians to do the right thing, until he collapsed from exhaustion. Can we afford to let the time-honored tradition of the filibuster be destroyed, the ad asks? In fact, this sort of truth-twisting provides more evidence for the theory that Liberals believe that movies are more realistic than real life -- or that the public can't tell the difference. They don't seem to realise that we're not fooled by their Hollywood depictions of reality anymore... not when we can turn to CSPAN to see the real Senate in "action." The commercial, by the way, neglects to mention that the fictional Mr. Smith was filibustering a bill, not a judicial nominee.
It doesn't matter who sits in the White House, or who holds a majority in the Senate -- violations of the Constitution by those sworn to uphold it cannot be allowed to stand unchallenged. If Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) thinks he has the necessary votes to stop unconstitutional filibusters, he ought to do so without further hesitation. If not, perhaps those who don't want the Constitution violated ought to contact their Senators and tell them to stop these unlawful filibusters. Source |
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Wed May 25, 2005 7:13 pm |
|
Why don't you just change the rules so the filibuster cannot be something inane, such as Shakespeare readings? I know that it wouldn't be as fun, but that's the price we pay these days. 
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Wed May 25, 2005 7:15 pm |
|
| Hitchhiker wrote: | | Why don't you just change the rules so the filibuster cannot be something inane, such as Shakespeare readings? I know that it wouldn't be as fun, but that's the price we pay these days. |
Because the fight is against the unconstitutional judicial filibusters.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Wed May 25, 2005 7:17 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | | Because the fight is against the unconstitutional judicial filibusters. |
If one removed inane filibusters as an option, would not reasonable filibusters mean that the topic is still being discussed? Discussion is good.
|
|
|
Zeke Zabertini
Captain
Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 4832
|
| Wed May 25, 2005 7:43 pm |
|
RM, that article doesn't make any better a case than you. So the legislature has duties. Duh. Every piece of legislation they pass is a part of their duties as... well... legislators. Just because deciding on Supreme Court nominations happen to be mentioned specifically as a duty can't be legally construed to mean that the House and Senate can't still make their own rules on voting for them. Now, while the argument for changing the rules of filibusters is valid, I see no constitutional basis for preventing them in any instance. Joe Mariani, and you, are relying on an implication of your own creation. I see absolutely no subtantive text, either explicit or implicit, that indicates that the current Senate rules regarding filibusters are unconstitutional.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Wed May 25, 2005 9:19 pm |
|
Filibusters are only supposed to be used in the instances of a supermajority, and legislation. Not in this case. It's not constitutional to filibuster JUDICIAL nominees--the constitutional option IS to make filibustering judicial nominees incorrect. It's a misuse of the filibuster rule--which is for LEGISLATION, NOT judicial nominees.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Zeke Zabertini
Captain
Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 4832
|
| Wed May 25, 2005 9:47 pm |
|
Do you have any actual constitutional text to back this up? Because if you do, I want to see it. Your current argument relies on a made-up correlation between two seperate parts of the Constitution. What evidence do you have that it's even implied that judicial nominees should be exempt from filibustering in the Constitution? And don't just say it is again, quote constitutional text.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Wed May 25, 2005 10:47 pm |
|
I will find it for you, where the Constitution discusses the 7 instances of supermajority, which is where filibusters can be used. Judicial nominees is NOT one of those instances, therefore it is unconstitutional.
And besides, when the filibuster itself was adopted in around 1850, it was meant for LEGISLATION, NOT for judicial nominees, and yet for the FIRST TIME IN HISTORY, this debate has occurred. The democrats are misusing the rule, and now this deal is only allowing them to continue with this.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Zeke Zabertini
Captain
Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 4832
|
| Thu May 26, 2005 6:59 am |
|
Hush and go find the text.
|
|
|
borgslayer
Rear Admiral
Joined: 27 Aug 2003
Posts: 2646
Location: Las Vegas
|
| Thu May 26, 2005 1:18 pm |
|
I think all the presidents nominees should be appointed and if one of those nominees makes a mistake the Democrats can blame the president. 
|
|
|
Zeke Zabertini
Captain
Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 4832
|
| Fri May 27, 2005 9:50 pm |
|
Last call for constitutional text making judicial filibusters illicit.
|
|
|
Starbuck
faster...
Joined: 19 Feb 2003
Posts: 8715
Location: between chaos and melody
|
| Sat May 28, 2005 12:58 pm |
|
alright the seven instances of supermajority are convicting an impeachment, exuplsion of a member of one house of congress, override a presidential veto, ratify a treaty, passing of a constitutional amendment by congress, calling for a constitutional convention, ratifying a constitutional amendment, restore the ability of certain rebels to serve in the government, and apporoval of removal of the president from his position after the vice president and the cabinet approve such a removal after the president contests the removal. It says nothing about how those are the only instances that a filibuster should be used, infact, the constitution has nothing about filibusters in it at all.
|
|
|
Zeke Zabertini
Captain
Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 4832
|
| Sat May 28, 2005 1:03 pm |
|
RM is making the argument that it is implied, which does not require that it be specifically mentioned. I am awaiting his reply with constitutional text that makes that implication.
|
|
|
Starbuck
faster...
Joined: 19 Feb 2003
Posts: 8715
Location: between chaos and melody
|
| Sat May 28, 2005 1:18 pm |
|
There is none.
|
|
|
Zeke Zabertini
Captain
Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 4832
|
| Sat May 28, 2005 1:35 pm |
|
As you are taking my side of the debate anyway, I'm not going to accept that answer from you. RM made the assertion, and I will give him the chance to support it.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sat May 28, 2005 1:51 pm |
|
Yes, the constitution does not have filibusters, and through my own research I have come to realize that even LEGISLATION is not one of the 7 instances of supermajority. It came through the clause that discusses how the House and Senate can make their own rules, and so they made, from that clause, their own rules on what was later called, in the 1850s I believe, a filibuster. However, when it was originally created, it was NOT intended for a filibuster of judicial nominees. It has been used once, only for an attorney general during the Johnson Administration (only that was a different case, far different from judicial filibusters, and I'll find out why...and I do oppose that, for the record, though), and was attempted to be used in 2000 on one judge, I believe, by 14 or so Republicans, including Bill Frist (whom I'm glad is now taking a stand for what's right now), but it was unable to occur for too few votes.
Here's where I say the constitutionality comes in: Yes, advice and consent. The Senate is supposed to give the President its advice and consent on judicial nominees, as Article 2 Section 2 Clause 2 of the Constitution states "and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law..." And these judges WOULD get through if not for filibusters. The Democrats were threatening to filibuster judicial nominees, which is a MISUSE of the filibuster rule and violates advice and consent. They would have (and still may) prevented the President from getting his nominees--which would otherwise pass--through the system, because they do not CONFORM TO THEIR VIEWS--as they are MOST DEFINITELY QUALIFIED, thereby violating advice and consent, which is intended for a simple majority vote, NOT for 2/3, which would be necessary with a filibuster. Is THAT exactly stated in the Constitution (the very last part)? It may be, but I have yet to find the simple majority vote, however it IS implied and has been in such a way since the DAWN of this country. Never have Judicial nominees actually been [successfully] filibustered--never in our 200+ year history.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Zeke Zabertini
Captain
Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 4832
|
| Sat May 28, 2005 2:11 pm |
|
2.2.2 simply gives the executive the right of appointment. Those appointments still must be confirmed by the legislature as provided in the same clause. Nowhere in the clause does it mention that the consent must be obtained from a simple majority.
As far as I can tell, your argument regarding the Senate rules themselves is valid. Your constitutional argument though, is unsubstantial. You'll have to do better if you want to make the case for unconstitutionality.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sat May 28, 2005 4:00 pm |
|
| Zeke Zabertini wrote: | 2.2.2 simply gives the executive the right of appointment. Those appointments still must be confirmed by the legislature as provided in the same clause. Nowhere in the clause does it mention that the consent must be obtained from a simple majority.
As far as I can tell, your argument regarding the Senate rules themselves is valid. Your constitutional argument though, is unsubstantial. You'll have to do better if you want to make the case for unconstitutionality. |
I will submit to you that the case for unconstitutionality is not as solid as Conservatives have lead me to believe (I believe that they have exaggerated somewhat and not explained the supermajority stuff in enough detail), however I still see unconstitutionality there, just not enough to convince you--because it's not as solid of an argument as I once thought.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Zeke Zabertini
Captain
Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 4832
|
| Sat May 28, 2005 11:42 pm |
|
Perhaps. I can see how it may be construed by the mentioning of the particular instances of supermajority and inferring that those were meant to be the only instances. However, I believe it is a case of construing the text to mean what one wants it to mean; much like Roe v. Wade. How the Constitution forbids abortion remains beyond my grasp. Just as the liberals got that from the constitution to serve their ends, I believe that the current argument against judicial filibusters is an example of the conservatives using the same tactics.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sun May 29, 2005 2:41 pm |
|
| Zeke Zabertini wrote: | | Perhaps. I can see how it may be construed by the mentioning of the particular instances of supermajority and inferring that those were meant to be the only instances. However, I believe it is a case of construing the text to mean what one wants it to mean; much like Roe v. Wade. How the Constitution forbids abortion remains beyond my grasp. Just as the liberals got that from the constitution to serve their ends, I believe that the current argument against judicial filibusters is an example of the conservatives using the same tactics. |
Nope. We're just trying to do the constitutional thing 
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Star Trek �, in all its various forms, are trademarks & copyrights of Paramount Pictures
This site has no official connection with Star Trek or Paramount Pictures
Site content/Site design elements owned by Morphy and is meant to only be an archive/Tribute to STV.com
|
Search
FAQ
Log in
