The W
Views: 97654575
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
24.7.07 2251
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Let the Battle Commence Register and log in to post!
(147 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (20 total)
spf
Scrapple
Level: 132

Posts: 3487/5401
EXP: 26880165
For next: 251839

Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 13 days
Last activity: 1 day
AIM:  
#1 Posted on 24.2.06 1546.21
Reposted on: 24.2.13 1548.01
South Dakota passes near-total abortion ban (news.yahoo.com)

Well, that sure didn't take long. Be interesting to see what the landscape is at SCOTUS by the time this finally makes its way up there. Stevens is not exactly a young man, so by 2008-2009, when this has made its way through the whole system, who knows if he'll still be around. Either way, I think it's safe to say that with Roberts and Alito now sitting on the court that the battle over abortion is about to kick into a much higher gear.
Promote this thread!
redsoxnation
Scrapple
Level: 151

Posts: 5053/7534
EXP: 43296235
For next: 341

Since: 24.7.02

Since last post: 389 days
Last activity: 389 days
#2 Posted on 24.2.06 1818.40
Reposted on: 24.2.13 1820.59
Shouldn't the FBI be investigating the South Dakota legislature for bribery in regards to the anonymous $1 million dollar guarantee? That seems like vote purchasing to me.
The Save The Woman's Life provision could be used as a wide loophole, as how can someone who has not examined the woman make an accurate determination that a procedure is not a lifesaving procedure?
The Republican Party needs to get back to fiscal conservatism/cutting taxes/eliminating government bureaucracy, not creating more government bureaucracy.
ges7184
Lap cheong
Level: 76

Posts: 1208/1493
EXP: 3904623
For next: 101456

Since: 7.1.02
From: Birmingham, AL

Since last post: 81 days
Last activity: 4 days
#3 Posted on 25.2.06 1129.07
Reposted on: 25.2.13 1129.13
I don't think promising $1 million to defend a law in court is the same as offering $1 million directly to legislators. Since the legislators are not receiving any money, I don't it can be considered a bribe, or vote purchasing.

The Suprepe Court wouldn't necessarily have to hear the case, would they? They can just let the lower courts ruling (which will almost certainly overturn this law) stand, right? That's my guess of what will actually happen with this.
spf
Scrapple
Level: 132

Posts: 3489/5401
EXP: 26880165
For next: 251839

Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 13 days
Last activity: 1 day
AIM:  
#4 Posted on 25.2.06 1653.36
Reposted on: 25.2.13 1654.28
    Originally posted by ges7184
    I don't think promising $1 million to defend a law in court is the same as offering $1 million directly to legislators. Since the legislators are not receiving any money, I don't it can be considered a bribe, or vote purchasing.

    The Suprepe Court wouldn't necessarily have to hear the case, would they? They can just let the lower courts ruling (which will almost certainly overturn this law) stand, right? That's my guess of what will actually happen with this.


Takes 4 justices to hear a case. I doubt Alito, Thomas and Scalia wouldn't hear it. So unless Roberts decides he doesn't want any part of it (which would be unlikely IMO) it would almost certainly be heard.
bash91
Merguez
Level: 55

Posts: 512/711
EXP: 1283949
For next: 30249

Since: 2.1.02
From: Plain Dealing, LA

Since last post: 708 days
Last activity: 1 day
#5 Posted on 26.2.06 0655.35
Reposted on: 26.2.13 0655.38
    Originally posted by spf
    Takes 4 justices to hear a case. I doubt Alito, Thomas and Scalia wouldn't hear it. So unless Roberts decides he doesn't want any part of it (which would be unlikely IMO) it would almost certainly be heard.


I think you've got that backwards. Why in the world would those four vote to grant certiorari knowing that there are five solid votes on the court to overturn any law seeking to limit or ban abortion? I do think it'll be heard, but I really doubt that it will be the conservative side of the Court granting certiorari. Of course, if Stevens retires,as has been rumored, then all bets are off.

Tim
DrDirt
Banger
Level: 96

Posts: 1553/2690
EXP: 8760261
For next: 228558

Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 1 day
#6 Posted on 27.2.06 0723.23
Reposted on: 27.2.13 0723.58
If the pro-life advocates are not careful, they will overplay their hand and set their cause back significantly.
spf
Scrapple
Level: 132

Posts: 3490/5401
EXP: 26880165
For next: 251839

Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 13 days
Last activity: 1 day
AIM:  
#7 Posted on 27.2.06 0942.11
Reposted on: 27.2.13 0942.42
    Originally posted by bash91
      Originally posted by spf
      Takes 4 justices to hear a case. I doubt Alito, Thomas and Scalia wouldn't hear it. So unless Roberts decides he doesn't want any part of it (which would be unlikely IMO) it would almost certainly be heard.


    I think you've got that backwards. Why in the world would those four vote to grant certiorari knowing that there are five solid votes on the court to overturn any law seeking to limit or ban abortion? I do think it'll be heard, but I really doubt that it will be the conservative side of the Court granting certiorari. Of course, if Stevens retires,as has been rumored, then all bets are off.

    Tim


I would say that no one is quite sure where Kennedy will stand. It's possible that taking the case may allow, even if not for a full overturning that the language of the decision could open up new avenues for the further legislating on the margins of the issue. Yes, it is assumed that he would not want to overturn Roe, but he may be amenable to recasting it in some way.

You are right though about that it will be heard. Honestly, with a case that high-profile I suspect it would be a unanimous vote of the court to hear it as they know there's no way they could realistically ignore it.

    Originally posted by DrDirt
    If the pro-life advocates are not careful, they will overplay their hand and set their cause back significantly.

I'm curious how you see this. Only thing I could see as a possibility would be that it might give the Dems something to try and rally around in the 2006/2008 election cycle, but I don't see abortion rights as an issue that will gain much traction for them. What are you seeing as the possible consequences?

(edited by spf on 27.2.06 0944)
redsoxnation
Scrapple
Level: 151

Posts: 5056/7534
EXP: 43296235
For next: 341

Since: 24.7.02

Since last post: 389 days
Last activity: 389 days
#8 Posted on 27.2.06 1107.49
Reposted on: 27.2.13 1109.13
The granting of certiorari will be dependent upon which lower federal court judge hears the case. If he overturns the South Dakota verdict, the conservative Thomas wing probably will grant certiorari, conversely if it is upheld in the lower courts, the liberal Ginsburg wing would grant certiorari and bring it before the full Court. This of course is dependent upon the present Court being stable through probably '08 or '09, since resignations or deaths could tilt the balance to 6-3/7-2 rather than 5-4.
In terms of the '08 election cycle: Presume for a moment the Democrats don't do something crazy like nominate Kerry or Clinton or let Dean play king-maker, but go with a centrist Southern/Midwestern Democrat. You know, the only thing that has been successful for them in the past 40 years. That could throw extra states into play. At the same time, in the open Republican Primary, the Pro-Life/Religious Right faction that helped Pat Robertson actually do well in the Iowa Primary in 1988 are able to build momentum for say a Lindsay Graham. That confluence of events helps dissipate the Republican electoral college strategy that has been successful for 7 of the previous 10 Presidential elections. When you also factor in the political cycles of American History where a Party holds predominance for a large chunk of time until the cycle concludes and they end up in the wilderness for around 2 generations (Democrats 1801-60 with a few Whig Presidencies, Republicans 1861-1932 with a few Democratic Presidencies, Democrats 1933-1968 with Ike's Presidency, and Republicans 1969 through at least 2008 with only Carter and Clinton breaking it up), that cycle could be ready to flip again.
DrDirt
Banger
Level: 96

Posts: 1554/2690
EXP: 8760261
For next: 228558

Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 1 day
#9 Posted on 27.2.06 1118.41
Reposted on: 27.2.13 1119.23
Spf, two things. One, the overturning of Roe is not a done deal. Bringing it forward and then having it upheld, especially with a draconian law as the test, would be a major setback for them.

Two, This can be a lightning rod issue for the Dems if they ever get their heads out of their asses. People don't like abortion but played out wrong (for the prolifers)it will backfire. As I said before, I am anti-abortion but not in favor of making it illegal for a host of reasons. The key is making them as unnecessary as possible. However, neither side wants that as they will lose the issue. Many are like me and want it to be a rarity but not illegal.
spf
Scrapple
Level: 132

Posts: 3491/5401
EXP: 26880165
For next: 251839

Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 13 days
Last activity: 1 day
AIM:  
#10 Posted on 27.2.06 1156.32
Reposted on: 27.2.13 1158.34
    Originally posted by redsoxnation
    The granting of certiorari will be dependent upon which lower federal court judge hears the case. If he overturns the South Dakota verdict, the conservative Thomas wing probably will grant certiorari, conversely if it is upheld in the lower courts, the liberal Ginsburg wing would grant certiorari and bring it before the full Court. This of course is dependent upon the present Court being stable through probably '08 or '09, since resignations or deaths could tilt the balance to 6-3/7-2 rather than 5-4.
    In terms of the '08 election cycle: Presume for a moment the Democrats don't do something crazy like nominate Kerry or Clinton or let Dean play king-maker, but go with a centrist Southern/Midwestern Democrat. You know, the only thing that has been successful for them in the past 40 years. That could throw extra states into play. At the same time, in the open Republican Primary, the Pro-Life/Religious Right faction that helped Pat Robertson actually do well in the Iowa Primary in 1988 are able to build momentum for say a Lindsay Graham. That confluence of events helps dissipate the Republican electoral college strategy that has been successful for 7 of the previous 10 Presidential elections. When you also factor in the political cycles of American History where a Party holds predominance for a large chunk of time until the cycle concludes and they end up in the wilderness for around 2 generations (Democrats 1801-60 with a few Whig Presidencies, Republicans 1861-1932 with a few Democratic Presidencies, Democrats 1933-1968 with Ike's Presidency, and Republicans 1969 through at least 2008 with only Carter and Clinton breaking it up), that cycle could be ready to flip again.

Interesting. I've been thinking about 2008 a lot of late, trying to figure out who would be the best choices. As a Dem supporter I of course live in fear of any of the proposals you mentioned, and throw into the mix those crazies who are still holding the Gore '08 flame. I'm thinking the best hope for the Dems might be a Warner/Clark ticket, or possibly Warner/Obama. As for the GOP, I wonder what kind of traction Mitt Romney might be able to get?. He seems to be moving towards a more explicitly anti-abortion position, and he could sell himself as being able to break the Dems stronghold on the NE which would essentially cripple them electorally. You're from that part of the country, any chance of Romney going for it and getting through a primary?
redsoxnation
Scrapple
Level: 151

Posts: 5057/7534
EXP: 43296235
For next: 341

Since: 24.7.02

Since last post: 389 days
Last activity: 389 days
#11 Posted on 27.2.06 1501.51
Reposted on: 27.2.13 1504.28
I think Romney is already running, but he won't get through the primaries. Although it would seem outside of the region that a Republican being Governor of Massachusetts would be a shocking development, in truth since Dukakis left office in 1990 the Republicans have held a stranglehold on the office, winning in '90,'94,'98 and '02. I don't think the Mormon factor will help him in the Bible Belt, and I don't think he can run on promising to break the Democratic stranglehold on the northeast in Presidential elections. Numbers I saw last week had Bush with a 69% unfavorable in Mass. and a 74% in RI, and both states have had Republican Governors for over a decade. A Republican carrying those states in a Presidential is up there with a Democrat winning Kansas or Oklahoma. It's not happening outside of a massive landslide, and even then it might be the one or two states that don't follow the landslide.
Now, Romney in '96 might have proven to be a tough battle for Clinton had he finished the job and knocked off Ted Kennedy in a Senate race in '94. Republicans had all the momentum that year, and Ted was very vulnerable due to the political tide and all the family scandals. Ted somehow was able to pull off the debate performance of his life and survived by about 8 points. If Romney had won that election, he could have written his ticket in '96 just off the fact that he put Ted Kennedy out to pasture, and did it on the Kennedy's home turf. That would have meant more than any religious question.
Now, on Obama. I know you are the President of his fan club. However, before putting him up for federal office, could he beat someone slightly more difficult than Alan Keyes in '10 in his re-election bid? Do that, and he is very viable at the top in '12 or '16. But, for now, he hasn't taken a real punch yet, and it's tough to take your first punch in a Presidential race.
And, after his Saudi speech, if Gore is anywhere near the Democratic nominee in '08, the Party really has to question whether they know how to run national campaigns anymore.

(edited by redsoxnation on 27.2.06 1603)
Spaceman Spiff
Knackwurst
Level: 101

Posts: 2185/2900
EXP: 10575970
For next: 141742

Since: 2.1.02
From: Philly Suburbs

Since last post: 22 days
Last activity: 4 hours
AIM:  
#12 Posted on 1.3.06 2314.18
Reposted on: 1.3.13 2314.53
On deck: Mississippi (msnbc.msn.com)


    JACKSON, Miss. - Gov. Haley Barbour said Wednesday he would probably sign a bill under consideration in the state House that would ban most abortions in Mississippi.

    The measure, which passed the House Public Health Committee on Tuesday, would allow abortion only to save a womans life. It would make no exception in cases of rape or incest.

    Barbour, a Republican, said he preferred an exception in cases of rape and incest, but if such a bill came to his desk: I suspect Ill sign it.

    The full House could vote on the bill next week, and it would then go to the Senate.

Granted, it is not as far along as the S. Dakota bill, but it'll be worth keeping track of.
TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan
Level: 109

Posts: 1768/3419
EXP: 13539203
For next: 420487

Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 15 hours
Last activity: 11 hours
#13 Posted on 2.3.06 2318.49
Reposted on: 2.3.13 2318.53
    Originally posted by Spaceman Spiff
    On deck: Mississippi (msnbc.msn.com)


      JACKSON, Miss. - Gov. Haley Barbour said Wednesday he would probably sign a bill under consideration in the state House that would ban most abortions in Mississippi.

      The measure, which passed the House Public Health Committee on Tuesday, would allow abortion only to save a womans life. It would make no exception in cases of rape or incest.

      Barbour, a Republican, said he preferred an exception in cases of rape and incest, but if such a bill came to his desk: I suspect Ill sign it.

      The full House could vote on the bill next week, and it would then go to the Senate.

    Granted, it is not as far along as the S. Dakota bill, but it'll be worth keeping track of.


I have a few questions. First, how can these laws be passed, as they are seemingly directly against the Roe v. Wade ruling? Doesn't that make them clearly unconstitutional? I understand that one of the Supreme Courts' primary purposes is to hear cases challenging the consitutionality of laws, but how can these laws be passed in the first place, ,as this subject has already been touched upon by the Court? Furthermore, how does a case like these ones go from "Is this law that this state passed in violation of Roe v. Wade" to "Should abortions be legal?". Seems like two different issues to me.

Another, unrelated question: why should anti-abortion laws make exceptions for women who are raped? Seems to me like if an abortion really is murder, it's murder regardless of how the unborm fetus was conceived. So it's OK to kill it if it was conceived by an unwilling mother?
BigSteve
Pepperoni
Level: 64

Posts: 1042/1091
EXP: 2178050
For next: 36059

Since: 23.7.04
From: Baltimore, MD

Since last post: 2751 days
Last activity: 2479 days
#14 Posted on 3.3.06 0227.50
Reposted on: 3.3.13 0227.54
    Originally posted by TheBucsFan
    Another, unrelated question: why should anti-abortion laws make exceptions for women who are raped? Seems to me like if an abortion really is murder, it's murder regardless of how the unborm fetus was conceived. So it's OK to kill it if it was conceived by an unwilling mother?


Because right or wrong, relatively few people are on board with the pro-life claim that it's *always* a life from conception just as relatively few are on board with the pro-choice idea that there should be *no* restrictions on abortion at all. The majority don't want abortion as a form of birth control but they don't see the need for a total ban either. As DrDirt touched on, the pro-lifers cause will be hurt when they immediately push for "let's ban all abortions!" just as the pro choice cause is hurt when they fight tooth and nail over things like partial birth abortion.
spf
Scrapple
Level: 132

Posts: 3493/5401
EXP: 26880165
For next: 251839

Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 13 days
Last activity: 1 day
AIM:  
#15 Posted on 3.3.06 0934.50
Reposted on: 3.3.13 0934.59
    Originally posted by TheBucsFan
    Another, unrelated question: why should anti-abortion laws make exceptions for women who are raped? Seems to me like if an abortion really is murder, it's murder regardless of how the unborm fetus was conceived. So it's OK to kill it if it was conceived by an unwilling mother?

A long time ago, in another life seemingly, I was once a far right-wing agitator. Yes, I have gone backwards, a conservative at 18 and a liberal at 28. At that time I worked with a lot of local anti-abortion groups. And when I would have that argument I tended to really agree with what you said. I agree it is unpleasant to ask a woman who has been raped or impregnated by her father or brother to bear that child, but if you are truly of the belief that abortion is murder, and that human life truly begins at conception then there is absolutely no logical reason to have a rape or incest exception in the law except to make it seem more palatable to people you are trying to get on your side. Otherwise there is no excuse for murdering an innocent human being simply because of the circumstances of their birth. This is why in some way I can respect the movements in SD and MS, as they are putting forth a very coherent bill with only the exception that the life of the mother should be considered for possible aborting purposes. I disagree with that position, but I can at least see the clean line of logic from beginning to end with that position.
Reverend J Shaft
Liverwurst
Level: 66

Posts: 400/1134
EXP: 2429484
For next: 32380

Since: 25.6.03
From: Home of The Big House

Since last post: 15 days
Last activity: 9 hours
#16 Posted on 3.3.06 1039.13
Reposted on: 3.3.13 1039.22
    Originally posted by TheBucsFan
    I have a few questions. First, how can these laws be passed, as they are seemingly directly against the Roe v. Wade ruling? Doesn't that make them clearly unconstitutional?


I'm not quite sure on this, but I believe the first person (or entity) to sue over this would likely result in a judge placing a ban on the bill for the exact reason you mention. Since I'm sure several people are already waiting to pounce on this, it probably won't even take effect until/unless the Supreme Court rules otherwise.

I'm pretty positive the whole reason for this is to get it to the SC anyways, so I don't think lawmakers would care about a ban until it is heard by the SC.

If someone knows more than I about this, please feel free to correct me, but I think this is the reason for the bill.
AWArulz
Knackwurst
Level: 107

Posts: 1599/3336
EXP: 13011800
For next: 79553

Since: 28.1.02
From: Louisville, KY

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 7 min.
AIM:  
Y!:
#17 Posted on 3.3.06 1301.03
Reposted on: 3.3.13 1301.32
    Originally posted by TheBucsFan
    I have a few questions. First, how can these laws be passed, as they are seemingly directly against the Roe v. Wade ruling? Doesn't that make them clearly unconstitutional? I understand that one of the Supreme Courts' primary purposes is to hear cases challenging the constitutionality of laws, but how can these laws be passed in the first place, ,as this subject has already been touched upon by the Court? Furthermore, how does a case like these ones go from "Is this law that this state passed in violation of Roe v. Wade" to "Should abortions be legal?". Seems like two different issues to me.

    Another, unrelated question: why should anti-abortion laws make exceptions for women who are raped? Seems to me like if an abortion really is murder, it's murder regardless of how the unborn fetus was conceived. So it's OK to kill it if it was conceived by an unwilling mother?


First, Roe Vs. Wade made the decision that Art. 1196 of Texas Law must be abated, of which Art. 1196 said, essentially, that all abortions except those which are made to save the life of the mother as proscribed by a licensed doctor. Which was the law in the majority of states at the time. It didn't made abortion unconstitutional, it made that law unconstitutional. The interpretation of that decision was that other state's laws concerning this were struck down and mostly just not replaced. Many restrictive abortion laws since that time have passed and survived court challenges.

The thinking in Roe was that Texas law did not distinguish between various staged of pregnancy and various termination reasons and needs and was therefore too narrowly written.

Seems like the Miss Bill is close to that, but the other one isn't so restrictive. But the laws CAN be passed by the state and then it must be challenged to be overturned.

For example, back in the 60s, the Feds passed some civil rights legislation and states passed it the other way and waited until it was challenged to overturn it.

The "should abortions be legal" question is one political groups have applied to Roe, but in reality, it only has to do with the Texas law and as a guideline and history in making future decisions. But just because the SCOUSA ruled one way in 73, that doesn't mean they have to follow that.


Link to Roe
http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Roe/
redsoxnation
Scrapple
Level: 151

Posts: 5063/7534
EXP: 43296235
For next: 341

Since: 24.7.02

Since last post: 389 days
Last activity: 389 days
#18 Posted on 6.3.06 1542.20
Reposted on: 6.3.13 1542.33
This wouldn't work in the Mississippi case, but if the pro-abortion groups wanted to get cute with the South Dakota case they could force a federal policy to be developed. Planned Parenthood stated they have only 1 clinic in South Dakota. Now, rather than spending money to fight the case in court, why not cut a deal with an Indian tribe in South Dakota to establish a clinic on Indian territory, which would be subject to federal rather than state law? Say free medical screenings for children up to age 18 or something of that nature in return for having a Planned Parenthood clinic on the reservation. Still same number of clinics available for abortion as before, but the state law becomes moot unless South Dakota is going to challenge federal control of Indian territory. At the very least, this would be a creative move on the left.
Guru Zim
SQL Dejection
Administrator
Level: 138

Posts: 3744/5993
EXP: 31501192
For next: 161868

Since: 9.12.01
From: Bay City, OR

Since last post: 20 days
Last activity: 11 min.
AIM:  
#19 Posted on 6.3.06 1620.13
Reposted on: 6.3.13 1623.54
    Originally posted by redsoxnation
    This wouldn't work in the Mississippi case, but if the pro-abortion groups wanted to get cute with the South Dakota case they could force a federal policy to be developed. Planned Parenthood stated they have only 1 clinic in South Dakota. Now, rather than spending money to fight the case in court, why not cut a deal with an Indian tribe in South Dakota to establish a clinic on Indian territory, which would be subject to federal rather than state law? Say free medical screenings for children up to age 18 or something of that nature in return for having a Planned Parenthood clinic on the reservation. Still same number of clinics available for abortion as before, but the state law becomes moot unless South Dakota is going to challenge federal control of Indian territory. At the very least, this would be a creative move on the left.


I doubt the Indian tribes would go for it. Not many people are heavily against Casinos, but even if they risk alienating a few, the rewards are so great as to make it worth the risk. I don't know that the medical care would be enough of an incentive to invite the backlash against the tribes.
CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator
Level: 211

Posts: 7382/16101
EXP: 138719777
For next: 12089

Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス

Since last post: 2 hours
Last activity: 2 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#20 Posted on 6.3.06 1633.59
Reposted on: 6.3.13 1634.04
    Originally posted by redsoxnation
    This wouldn't work in the Mississippi case, but if the pro-abortion groups wanted to get cute with the South Dakota case they could force a federal policy to be developed. Planned Parenthood stated they have only 1 clinic in South Dakota. Now, rather than spending money to fight the case in court, why not cut a deal with an Indian tribe in South Dakota to establish a clinic on Indian territory, which would be subject to federal rather than state law? Say free medical screenings for children up to age 18 or something of that nature in return for having a Planned Parenthood clinic on the reservation. Still same number of clinics available for abortion as before, but the state law becomes moot unless South Dakota is going to challenge federal control of Indian territory. At the very least, this would be a creative move on the left.
This is pretty ignorant and/or insulting and may possibly already be illegal as I believe they're already covered by federal regulations - Google "IHS" "Hyde amendment" and there's a couple ACLU pages that talk about the grim situation Native Americans (and specifically those in South Dakota) already face even WITHOUT this new bill.
ALL ORIGINAL POSTS IN THIS THREAD ARE NOW AVAILABLE
Thread ahead: "Thieves" break into Democratic Party Headquarters
Next thread: Air America losing New York
Previous thread: DEVASTATING news for Republicans; Six-Hours of Tape showing Bush, Chertoff Warned Before Katrina
(147 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Let the Battle CommenceRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.184 seconds.