Sun Nov 6, 2022, 06:04 PM

vlyons (9,374 posts)

Judiciary Act adds four seats to the Supreme Court

Expand the Supreme Court: Senator Markey and Reps., Nadler, Johnson, and Jones Introduce Legislation to Restore Justice and Democracy to Judicial System

https://hankjohnson.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/expand-supreme-court-senator-markey-and-reps-nadler-johnson-and-jones

73 replies, 9260 views

Thread info Bookmark this thread Trash this thread

Reply to this thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

73 replies	Author	Time	Post
Judiciary Act adds four seats to the Supreme Court (Original post)	vlyons	Nov 6	OP
Desperately needed to restore justice. nt	SunSeeker	Nov 6	#1
And does anyone believe this will pass a Republican road block?	packman	Nov 6	#2
Nothing ventured, nothing gained	vlyons	Nov 6	#3
Amen	packman	Nov 6	#14
There is that.	calimary	Nov 6	#20
Yup. 👍	electric_blue68	Nov 7	#46
No, it won't pass Republicans, but I'm glad it was put out there anyway.	panader0	Nov 6	#6
The only raod blocks are the filibuster and a few rogue Democrats in the Senate.	Mr.Bill	Nov 6	#8
One other important thing too	InstantGratification	Nov 6	#18
Judicial nominees only need 51 votes in the Senate...right? n/t	Prairie_Seagull	Nov 6	#19
Correct.	Mr.Bill	Nov 6	#36
If we gain only 2 senate seats, no.	ColinC	Nov 6	#25
Assuming the usual two problem Senators won't vote yes and vote no,	Mr.Bill	Nov 6	#38
Biden said on June 25th that he opposes adding more Justices	Polybius	Nov 7	#40
June 25th is eons ago	Mr.Bill	Nov 7	#41
But he said it the day after Dobbs was decided	Polybius	Nov 7	#42
And watch them give state legislatures	Mr.Bill	Nov 7	#43
Well, we need to pick up two Senate seats and hold the House	Polybius	Nov 7	#44
Vote!	Mr.Bill	Nov 7	#45
I will on Tuesday	Polybius	Nov 7	#48
Yes, basically I feel	Mr.Bill	Nov 7	#49
I hope you're right	Polybius	Nov 7	#50
1850's that is.	electric_blue68	Nov 7	#47
This current court wants to take this country into a dictatorship.	Dark n Stormy Knight	Nov 7	#64
We don't have 48 votes now	Zeitghost	Nov 7	#71
True, but the landscape may look	Mr.Bill	Nov 7	#73
And what if this passes	SCantiGOP	Nov 7	#62
About the same	inthewind21	Nov 7	#65
Any bill(s) that ultimately pass will be under the auspices of	Hortensis	Nov 6	#4
K&R	spanone	Nov 6	#5
President Biden and Democrats in Congress have to realize	Mr.Bill	Nov 6	#7
The theft of those two SC seats was the most nakedly undemocratic act of MConnell's career.	sop	Nov 6	#10
+1,000,000	wnylib	Nov 7	#59
I would argue it was 3 seats.	AllyCat	Nov 7	#61
You are correct, but who knew at the time about Manchin & Siema? This is not an autocracy and with	Hestia	Nov 7	#60
Just wish this happened a month ago	vlyons	Nov 6	#9
It happened 18 months ago.	former9thward	Nov 6	#31
Id imagine its an incentive for democrats to get out and vote	Mr. Sparkle	Nov 6	#11
It was introduced 18 months ago.	former9thward	Nov 6	#32
Good to know, thanks!	Mr. Sparkle	Nov 7	#54
When was the last time the SCOTUS was expanded? I'm thinking FDR but not sure.	Evolve Dammit	Nov 6	#12
FDR threatened to do it...	reACTIONary	Nov 6	#15
The largest court was 10 justices...	reACTIONary	Nov 6	#16
And FDR's plan backfired so badly	Wednesdays	Nov 6	#37
Thanks very much!	Evolve Dammit	Nov 7	#55
An even number could be a good idea	iemanja	Nov 7	#68
I think a super majority for any constitutional decision...	reACTIONary	Nov 7	#70
It's about time!	Liberty Belle	Nov 6	#13
I see a much needed case that must go to this new USSC.	jaxexpat	Nov 6	#17
Ho-LEE-CRAP!	lindysalsagal	Nov 6	#21
That would	inthewind21	Nov 7	#66
I like it	republianmushroom	Nov 6	#22
From 2021.	SuperCoder	Nov 6	#23
not a biggie	NJCher	Nov 6	#29
Yeah, why is this being reported here like it's actual news?	ShazzieB	Nov 6	#30
Love it!	Sogo	Nov 6	#24
Hallelujah!	catrose	Nov 6	#26
Introduced a year ago. Referred to Committee. Hasn't even gotten a hearing.	onenote	Nov 6	#27
Introduced a year ago. Referred to Committee. Hasn't even gotten a hearing.	onenote	Nov 6	#28
This was introduced in 2021. Is something new going on	KPN	Nov 6	#33
Pack the supreme court?	markodochartaigh	Nov 6	#34
Yes, please	Warpy	Nov 6	#35
Meh...	brooklynite	Nov 6	#39
You should state up front that this is from over 18 months ago. It is not new news at all.	Celerity	Nov 7	#51
what can go wrong?	rampartc	Nov 7	#52
Even if four seats were added, it might not help.	JustABozoOnThisBus	Nov 7	#53
I completely argee with this and it should be done with new judges seated before the new year.	cstanleytech	Nov 7	#56
Is there a danger that the senate may place additional repubs if it flips?	Willis88	Nov 7	#57
Of course	inthewind21	Nov 7	#67
in my mind, we need a ground swell both in citizenry and in congress.	Prairie_Seagull	Nov 7	#58
Couldn't they have waited until...Wednesday?	Grins	Nov 7	#63
This is many months old	iemanja	Nov 7	#72
This should have been shouted all over for the last 18 months by every Democrat.	Autumn	Nov 7	#69

Response to vlyons (Original post)

Sun Nov 6, 2022, 06:07 PM

SunSeeker (48,689 posts)

1. Desperately needed to restore justice. nt

Reply to this post

Response to vlyons (Original post)

Sun Nov 6, 2022, 06:32 PM

packman (16,184 posts)

2. And does anyone believe this will pass a Republican road block?

Reply to this post

Response to packman (Reply #2)

Sun Nov 6, 2022, 06:34 PM

vlyons (9,374 posts)

3. Nothing ventured, nothing gained

Reply to this post

Response to vlyons (Reply #3)

Sun Nov 6, 2022, 07:07 PM

packman (16,184 posts)

14. Amen

Reply to this post

Response to vlyons (Reply #3)

Sun Nov 6, 2022, 07:54 PM

calimary (73,906 posts)

20. There is that.

There DEFINITELY is that.

Reply to this post

Response to vlyons (Reply #3)

Mon Nov 7, 2022, 12:37 AM

electric_blue68 (10,306 posts)

46. Yup. 👍

Reply to this post

Response to packman (Reply #2)

Sun Nov 6, 2022, 06:40 PM

panader0 (25,310 posts)

6. No, it won't pass Republicans, but I'm glad it was put out there anyway.

It will certainly get their attention.

Reply to this post

Response to packman (Reply #2)

Sun Nov 6, 2022, 06:45 PM

Mr.Bill (19,542 posts)

8. The only raod blocks are the filibuster and a few rogue Democrats in the Senate.

Both of those can be overcome if we pick up a few seats in the Senate.

Reply to this post

Response to Mr.Bill (Reply #8)

Sun Nov 6, 2022, 07:43 PM

InstantGratification (44 posts)

18. One other important thing too

It would also require holding the House. Changing the filibuster rules just needs 51 votes in the Senate. Adding to the Supreme Court requires legislation that passes both houses of Congress and gets signed by the President.

So it would take holding the House with enough of a majority to overcome any democrats that oppose expanding the SC and it would take picking up enough seats in the Senate to overcome Manchin, Sinema and any other Dem that might be opposed to ditching the filibuster. Get those done on Tuesday and you get the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

Reply to this post

Response to Mr.Bill (Reply #8)

Sun Nov 6, 2022, 07:51 PM

Prairie_Seagull (965 posts)

19. Judicial nominees only need 51 votes in the Senate...right? n/t

Reply to this post

Response to Prairie_Seagull (Reply #19)

Sun Nov 6, 2022, 09:26 PM

Mr.Bill (19,542 posts)

36. Correct.

That's why it's important to hold the Senate. If we lose the senate, Joe Biden has appointed hos last judge for this term. And we need 52 seats because we have a few Senators that like to go against their party when it's most important.

Reply to this post

Response to packman (Reply #2)

Sun Nov 6, 2022, 08:11 PM

ColinC (7,121 posts)

25. If we gain only 2 senate seats, no.

If we gain maybe 3-5, then there’s a better chance

Reply to this post

Response to ColinC (Reply #25)

Sun Nov 6, 2022, 09:30 PM

Mr.Bill (19,542 posts)

38. Assuming the usual two problem Senators won't vote yes and vote no,

That means a 50-50 tie with the VP casting the tie-breaking vote. That's assuming we hold 52 seats. Of course more would be better.

Reply to this post

Response to Mr.Bill (Reply #38)

Mon Nov 7, 2022, 12:12 AM

Polybius (11,883 posts)

40. Biden said on June 25th that he opposes adding more Justices

I have no reason to think that he's lying.

Biden doesn't support expanding the Supreme Court, White House says

Reply to this post

Response to Polybius (Reply #40)

Mon Nov 7, 2022, 12:23 AM

Mr.Bill (19,542 posts)

41. June 25th is eons ago

in today's political climate. No one will criticize him for changing his opinion. This current court wants to take this country and people's rights back to the 50s.

Reply to this post

Response to Mr.Bill (Reply #41)

Mon Nov 7, 2022, 12:26 AM

Polybius (11,883 posts)

42. But he said it the day after Dobbs was decided

If ever there was a time ripe for supporting adding Justices, it was then. Maybe wait to see if he's re-elected?

Reply to this post

Response to Polybius (Reply #42)

Mon Nov 7, 2022, 12:31 AM

Mr.Bill (19,542 posts)

43. And watch them give state legislatures

the right to name any electors they want? Watch them take away same sex marriage? Even inter-racial marriage? That's exactly what these six Cristofascists intend to do. We may never have this chance again. We may never have elections again. It's time to play hardball or wake up two years from now in a Theocracy.

Reply to this post

Response to Mr.Bill (Reply #43)

Mon Nov 7, 2022, 12:32 AM

Polybius (11,883 posts)

44. Well, we need to pick up two Senate seats and hold the House

How are we going to do that?

Reply to this post

Response to Polybius (Reply #44)

Mon Nov 7, 2022, 12:35 AM

Mr.Bill (19,542 posts)

45. Vote!

I'm actually pretty optimistic.

Reply to this post

Response to Mr.Bill (Reply #45)

Mon Nov 7, 2022, 12:49 AM

Polybius (11,883 posts)

48. I will on Tuesday

I think that if everything goes our way, we can maybe gain one seat. You think two is possible?

Reply to this post

Response to Polybius (Reply #48)

Mon Nov 7, 2022, 12:53 AM

Mr.Bill (19,542 posts)

49. Yes, basically I feel

like there.is a surprise or two out there. Can't be specific, just a feeling I have.

Reply to this post

Response to Mr.Bill (Reply #49)

Mon Nov 7, 2022, 12:54 AM

Polybius (11,883 posts)

50. I hope you're right

Three will be even better!

Reply to this post

Response to Mr.Bill (Reply #41)

Mon Nov 7, 2022, 12:44 AM

electric_blue68 (10,306 posts)

47. 1850's that is.

GOOOOOOOO, DEMS

👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍
🗳️ 🗳️ 🗳️ 🗳️ 🗳️ 🗳️ 🗳️ 🗳️

Reply to this post

Response to Mr.Bill (Reply #41)

Mon Nov 7, 2022, 01:54 PM

Dark n Stormy Knight (9,628 posts)

64. This current court wants to take this country into a dictatorship.

Failure to recognize that fact and act on it is helping the Nazi/fascist takeover.

Reply to this post

Response to Mr.Bill (Reply #38)

Mon Nov 7, 2022, 06:49 PM

Zeitghost (2,190 posts)

71. We don't have 48 votes now

Manchin and Sinema are not the only obstacles.

Reply to this post

Response to Zeitghost (Reply #71)

Mon Nov 7, 2022, 07:47 PM

Mr.Bill (19,542 posts)

73. True, but the landscape may look

a little different as time goes on.

Reply to this post

Response to packman (Reply #2)

Mon Nov 7, 2022, 12:27 PM

SCantiGOP (13,048 posts)

62. And what if this passes

And the GOP Senate turns down all of Biden’s nominees and then they win the White House in 2024?
How long would it take to change the 10-3 hard right majority that would result?

Reply to this post

Response to SCantiGOP (Reply #62)

Mon Nov 7, 2022, 02:29 PM

inthewind21 (2,233 posts)

65. About the same

amount of time it will take to change the 6-3 we have now,

Reply to this post

Response to vlyons (Original post)

Sun Nov 6, 2022, 06:38 PM

Hortensis (55,030 posts)

4. Any bill(s) that ultimately pass will be under the auspices of

party leaders and have developed a critical mass of house and senate support. It's not time yet because we just don't have the power in either chamber to pass it. So, no critical mass of Democratic congressmen passionately insisting on passage now!

It's so hard waiting for time and other critical factors to come together. If only we at least still had the large Democratic house caucus of 2018 to build on. And more senators of course.

But re-touting this Judiciary Act of (April) 2021 will get some media attention right before election day and hopefully help some who are issuing public statements and not hurt others.

Tuesday! We'll get see what we'll have to work with for the next two years.

Reply to this post

Response to vlyons (Original post)

Sun Nov 6, 2022, 06:39 PM

spanone (132,847 posts)

5. K&R

Reply to this post

Response to vlyons (Original post)

Sun Nov 6, 2022, 06:42 PM

Mr.Bill (19,542 posts)

7. President Biden and Democrats in Congress have to realize

that the bullshit McConnell pulled with the Supreme Court is a big part of why we voted for them and allowed them to control both houses in Congress. The fact they have not fixed this yet is shameful, even if the blame can only be placed on a few of them. They know who they are. If we lose one or both houses, it will be part of the reason why. We elected you to do something. Do it.

If you don't, and we lose Congress, this country is over.

Reply to this post

Response to Mr.Bill (Reply #7)

Sun Nov 6, 2022, 06:53 PM

sop (8,927 posts)

10. The theft of those two SC seats was the most nakedly undemocratic act of MConnell's career.

It must be set right.

Reply to this post

Response to sop (Reply #10)

Mon Nov 7, 2022, 11:17 AM

wnylib (16,422 posts)

59. +1,000,000

Reply to this post

Response to sop (Reply #10)

Mon Nov 7, 2022, 11:42 AM

AllyCat (13,864 posts)

61. I would argue it was 3 seats.

He colluded with the orange anus to get Kennedy to retire and appoint the 3rd.

Reply to this post

Response to Mr.Bill (Reply #7)

Mon Nov 7, 2022, 11:25 AM

Hestia (3,636 posts)

60. You are correct, but who knew at the time about Manchin & Siema? This is not an autocracy and with

the numbers in both chambers so close, we have to wait. We need at least 5 more senators, 61 would be fantastic. Even if filibuster isn't overturned, then number holds in our favor. Last time was the 5 months in 2010 when we did have the senate majority.

(Remember when Al Franken won but his opponent kept filing lawsuit after lawsuit to overturn that vote? THAT is why we had senate majority for 5 months, then everyone started losing their teabagger minds and GQP won majority.)

Reply to this post

Response to vlyons (Original post)

Sun Nov 6, 2022, 06:51 PM

vlyons (9,374 posts)

9. Just wish this happened a month ago

So Dems would have time to make it a talking point for the mid-term election. Especially in light of SCOTUS gutting Roe. Oh well ---

Reply to this post

Response to vlyons (Reply #9)

Sun Nov 6, 2022, 08:31 PM

former9thward (28,122 posts)

31. It happened 18 months ago.

The link is from April, 2021. That should tell you something...

Reply to this post

Response to vlyons (Original post)

Sun Nov 6, 2022, 06:57 PM

Mr. Sparkle (2,618 posts)

11. Id imagine its an incentive for democrats to get out and vote

Their saying, give us the numbers and we will pass the legislation. Though they should have announced it earlier so more people can hear about it.

Reply to this post

Response to Mr. Sparkle (Reply #11)

Sun Nov 6, 2022, 08:38 PM

former9thward (28,122 posts)

32. It was introduced 18 months ago.

The link is from April, 2021.

Reply to this post

Response to former9thward (Reply #32)

Mon Nov 7, 2022, 07:57 AM

Mr. Sparkle (2,618 posts)

54. Good to know, thanks!

Reply to this post

Response to vlyons (Original post)

Sun Nov 6, 2022, 07:01 PM

Evolve Dammit (13,432 posts)

12. When was the last time the SCOTUS was expanded? I'm thinking FDR but not sure.

Reply to this post

Response to Evolve Dammit (Reply #12)

Sun Nov 6, 2022, 07:14 PM

reACTIONary (5,356 posts)

15. FDR threatened to do it...

... but didn't. The threat helped, though. They started to moderate their decisions.

Reply to this post

Response to Evolve Dammit (Reply #12)

Sun Nov 6, 2022, 07:23 PM

reACTIONary (5,356 posts)

16. The largest court was 10 justices...

The U.S. Constitution established the Supreme Court but left it to Congress to decide how many justices should make up the court. The Judiciary Act of 1789 set the number at six: a chief justice and five associate justices. In 1807, Congress increased the number of justices to seven; in 1837, the number was bumped up to nine; and in 1863, it rose to 10. In 1866, Congress passed the Judicial Circuits Act, which shrank the number of justices back down to seven and prevented President Andrew Johnson from appointing anyone new to the court. Three years later, in 1869, Congress raised the number of justices to nine, where it has stood ever since. In 1937, in an effort to create a court more friendly to his New Deal programs, President Franklin Roosevelt attempted to convince Congress to pass legislation that would allow a new justice to be added to the court—for a total of up to 15 members—for every justice over 70 who opted not to retire. Congress didn’t go for FDR’s plan.

https://www.history.com/news/7-things-you-might-not-know-about-the-u-s-supreme-court

Reply to this post

Response to reACTIONary (Reply #16)

Sun Nov 6, 2022, 09:29 PM

Wednesdays (15,824 posts)

37. And FDR's plan backfired so badly

it (along with the 1937 dip in the economy) helped the GOP to make significant gains in the 1938 elections.

Reply to this post

Response to reACTIONary (Reply #16)

Mon Nov 7, 2022, 08:45 AM

Evolve Dammit (13,432 posts)

55. Thanks very much!

Reply to this post

Response to reACTIONary (Reply #16)

Mon Nov 7, 2022, 02:37 PM

iemanja (52,302 posts)

68. An even number could be a good idea

That would avoid split decisions by only one justice and would require more compromise.

Reply to this post

Response to iemanja (Reply #68)

Mon Nov 7, 2022, 06:44 PM

reACTIONary (5,356 posts)

70. I think a super majority for any constitutional decision...

.... would be a big improvement, regardless of the number.

Reply to this post

Response to vlyons (Original post)

Sun Nov 6, 2022, 07:03 PM

Liberty Belle (9,330 posts)

13. It's about time!

Let's hope the elections go well for Dems so that there will be enough votes to actually get this passed and save our democracy.

Reply to this post

Response to vlyons (Original post)

Sun Nov 6, 2022, 07:39 PM

jaxexpat (4,876 posts)

17. I see a much needed case that must go to this new USSC.

Let them rule on the motion to remove judges who have betrayed their testimony before the senate. An 8-10 member majority in a 13 member court should work wonders.

Reply to this post

Response to vlyons (Original post)

Sun Nov 6, 2022, 07:55 PM

lindysalsagal (18,476 posts)

21. Ho-LEE-CRAP!

WOW! Now, let's eliminate the electoral college!

Reply to this post

Response to lindysalsagal (Reply #21)

Mon Nov 7, 2022, 02:32 PM

inthewind21 (2,233 posts)

66. That would

require a constitutional amendment. Good luck with that.

Reply to this post

Response to vlyons (Original post)

Sun Nov 6, 2022, 07:56 PM

republianmushroom (3,661 posts)

22. I like it

Reply to this post

Response to vlyons (Original post)

Sun Nov 6, 2022, 08:02 PM

SuperCoder (214 posts)

23. From 2021.

Sadly.

Reply to this post

Response to SuperCoder (Reply #23)

Sun Nov 6, 2022, 08:24 PM

NJCher (31,849 posts)

29. not a biggie

lots of bills sit around for just the right time.

I am glad these elected representatives have this ready to go.

Reply to this post

Response to SuperCoder (Reply #23)

Sun Nov 6, 2022, 08:27 PM

ShazzieB (9,651 posts)

30. Yeah, why is this being reported here like it's actual news?

I had a reply all ready to go, based on this being current news. Then I noticed that the article is dated April 15, 2021, and went "Wtf?"

Expanding the Supreme Court is something I think desperately needs to happen, but this article is more than a year and a half old. Don't tantalize me like this, doggone it!

Reply to this post

Response to vlyons (Original post)

Sun Nov 6, 2022, 08:03 PM

Sogo (4,100 posts)

24. Love it!

Reply to this post

Response to vlyons (Original post)

Sun Nov 6, 2022, 08:15 PM

catrose (4,746 posts)

26. Hallelujah!

Reply to this post

Response to vlyons (Original post)

Sun Nov 6, 2022, 08:20 PM

onenote (39,030 posts)

27. Introduced a year ago. Referred to Committee. Hasn't even gotten a hearing.

Don't hold your breath.

Reply to this post

Response to vlyons (Original post)

Sun Nov 6, 2022, 08:22 PM

onenote (39,030 posts)

28. Introduced a year ago. Referred to Committee. Hasn't even gotten a hearing.

Don't hold your breath.

Reply to this post

Response to vlyons (Original post)

Sun Nov 6, 2022, 08:51 PM

KPN (14,525 posts)

33. This was introduced in 2021. Is something new going on

with it now?

Reply to this post

Response to vlyons (Original post)

Sun Nov 6, 2022, 08:54 PM

markodochartaigh (364 posts)

34. Pack the supreme court?

The supreme court has already been packed. Since the Republicans showed the way to zip through justice Barrett, the Democrats should pass the Judiciary Act and approve four more justices before the end of November. They should try and get the most qualified people, but they also should not worry about setting the bar too high. If justice Kavanaugh can be poured over the bar, almost anyone should qualify.

Reply to this post

Response to vlyons (Original post)

Sun Nov 6, 2022, 09:24 PM

Warpy (105,737 posts)

35. Yes, please

There are now 13 district courts instead of the nine when the number was last modified. There is nothing in the constitution that limits the USSC to a set number of seats, only that each Justice oversees a district court.

Wingnuts will scream, they hate change of any type. Even ifBiden pledges to appoint only 2 Justices this term, the court will be a little less skewed toward the theocratic/fascist far right.

It's overdue, WAY overdue.

Reply to this post

Response to vlyons (Original post)

Sun Nov 6, 2022, 09:44 PM

brooklynite (84,369 posts)

39. Meh...

Biden, Pelosi and Schumer don’t support it. Not going to go anywhere.

Reply to this post

Response to vlyons (Original post)

Mon Nov 7, 2022, 12:57 AM

Celerity (34,243 posts)

51. You should state up front that this is from over 18 months ago. It is not new news at all.

Reply to this post

Response to vlyons (Original post)

Mon Nov 7, 2022, 05:09 AM

rampartc (4,752 posts)

52. what can go wrong?

we expand to 13 justices (not unreasonable 1 per judicial district) but not effective until trump "47" picks the new justices

Reply to this post

Response to vlyons (Original post)

Mon Nov 7, 2022, 06:58 AM

JustABozoOnThisBus (22,589 posts)

53. Even if four seats were added, it might not help.

With only 48 reliable Senate votes, we wouldn't be able to seat four justices of the stature of RBG. The seats would remain open, and the next senate may not be as favorable as the current one. If the Reps take the senate, no Biden candidates will have a hearing.

We could end up with an additional four Barretts and Cavanaughs. Maybe eve a Thomas or two. Herschel Walker may be available. Or Sidney Powell.

Reply to this post

Response to vlyons (Original post)

Mon Nov 7, 2022, 09:08 AM

cstanleytech (24,547 posts)

56. I completely argee with this and it should be done with new judges seated before the new year.

At least then we will have some reassurance that the Supreme Court will not be a court made up of justices that render rulings based on their personal political views.

Reply to this post

Response to vlyons (Original post)

Mon Nov 7, 2022, 09:19 AM

Willis88 (90 posts)