• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

The words do not have to be perfect.

Authoritarian republicans are opposed to freedom for the rest of us.

Our job is not to persuade republicans but to defeat them.

They fucked up the fucking up of the fuckup!

The revolution will be supervised.

šŸŽ¶ Those boots were made for mockin’ šŸŽµ

JFC, are there no editors left at that goddamn rag?

When someone says they ā€œlove freedomā€, rest assured they don’t mean yours.

Meanwhile over at truth Social, the former president is busy confessing to crimes.

I did not have this on my fuck 2022 bingo card.

After roe, women are no longer free.

Imperialist aggressors must be defeated, or the whole world loses.

But frankly mr. cole, I’ll be happier when you get back to telling us to go fuck ourselves.

This fight is for everything.

Not all heroes wear capes.

A snarling mass of vitriolic jackals

Let me eat cake. The rest of you could stand to lose some weight, frankly.

Speaking of republicans, is there a way for a political party to declare intellectual bankruptcy?

You can’t attract Republican voters. You can only out organize them.

Motto for the House: Flip 5 and lose none.

A thin legal pretext to veneer over their personal religious and political desires

“woke” is the new caravan.

Wow, I can’t imagine what it was like to comment in morse code.

Too often we confuse noise with substance. too often we confuse setbacks with defeat.

Mobile Menu

  • Winnable House Races
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • Balloon Juice 2023 Pet Calendar (coming soon)
  • COVID-19 Coronavirus
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • War in Ukraine
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • 2021-22 Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Politics / Domestic Politics / Supreme Court Strikes Down Weakens Knock-And-Announce

Supreme Court Strikes Down Weakens Knock-And-Announce

by Tim F|  June 15, 20065:05 pm| 38 Comments

This post is in: Domestic Politics, Outrage

FacebookTweetEmail

Say goodbye to another corner of the Bill of Rights:

June 15 (Bloomberg) — Prosecutors can use evidence seized by police during a home search even though officers violated the Constitution by failing to knock or announce their presence before entering, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled.

The justices, voting 5-4 in a Michigan case, today put new limits on the so-called exclusionary rule, which in some circumstances bars prosecutors from using the product of an illegal search. The majority said the exclusionary rule doesn’t apply to violations of the “knock and announce” requirement for home searches.

Today’s ruling which weakens the exclusionary rule, established in 1961, which holds that evidence obtained in an unconstitutional search must be excluded from trial. One expects that the Supreme Court’s obvious authoritarian trajectory willmake police more aggressive in pushing the boundaries of acceptable searches but, according to NPR, Scalia disagreed, arguing essentially that today’s police force is a much more professional disciplined operation than what we had in the 1960’s.

To be frank that has to be the dumbest argument that I have ever heard a Supreme Court justice make. Of course today’s police behave more professionally than before the exclusionary rule came into effect. You don’t have to take a strict Hobbesian view of human nature to appreciate that people will behave better when there are real penalties for behaving badly. To imagine that people will go on behaving well after you take away the penalties for behaving badly seems like remarkably childish reasoning for a man of Scalia’s stature.

We can now set aside any doubts about where exactly George Bush’s chosen court nominees plan to take the country. If the police, the FBI or the NSA want to stick their nose into your personal affairs then they will have inreasing freedom to do so and there isn’t much of anything that you can do about it. But hey, 9/11.

***Update***

Title changed because I am obviously not a lawyer. You can expect that better legal minds (that is, 80% of my readers) will strike down a good portion of the text as well. Viva blogging.

***Update 2***

I should point to writers who know of what they speak:

Nathan Newman identifies an upcoming clash between two rightwing legal doctrines.

via readers, Orin Kerr and Radley Balko.

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « The Only Explanation: Arlen Specter Has Been Replaced By An Android Running Windows ME
Next Post: Nancy Pelosi Does The Right Thing »

Reader Interactions

38Comments

  1. 1.

    Steve

    June 15, 2006 at 5:08 pm

    Your title is wrong, sir.

    The Court explicitly affirmed “knock and announce” as a constitutional requirement. It merely weakened the exclusionary rule as a remedy for a violation of that requirement.

    Now, you may think that that leaves the requirement rather toothless, and I don’t disagree that this decision is a big deal, but a failure to “knock and announce” is still a constitutional violation. And in the event that violation is a “but-for” cause of evidence being obtained, that evidence will still be excluded.

  2. 2.

    Steve

    June 15, 2006 at 5:18 pm

    Orin Kerr has an interesting post, which concludes:

    Am I right that Scalia is saying that the meaning of the Fourth Amendment can change over time as the staffing of police departments and public interest law offices changes? The Constitution — It’s alive! This is a plausible view based on Fourth Amendment precedents, I should point out. Still, it’s sort of funny to read it in an opinion by Justice Scalia.

  3. 3.

    Perry Como

    June 15, 2006 at 5:18 pm

    I’ll whore for Balko’s site again:

    Just for review, those reasons would include the terror and fright associated with having once [sic] door beaten down in the middle of the night by armed, masked men; the unimaginable predicament a homeowner is unwillingly put in when he must decide if the intruders are cops or criminals, and whether to confront them or succumb to them; the injury and death that often transpires (to police, suspects, and bystanders) as a result; the right to assume one’s home is his castle and place of asylum, and the idea that one should have the opportunity to answer police and avoid the fright and property destruction resulting from a forced entry; and the fact that the perilousness of the situation can lead to police themselves mistaking harmless gestures on the part of suspects as threatening or menacing, again resulting in unnecessary death and injury.

    “Law and order” types are just authoritarians in disguise.

  4. 4.

    Punchy

    June 15, 2006 at 5:32 pm

    CANNOT WAIT

  5. 5.

    Punchy

    June 15, 2006 at 5:36 pm

    OK, that just sent prematurely, somehow by a combination of hitting several keys at once….

    Anyways…cannot wait to see how this plays out in good ‘ole Florida. See, they have a “Homestead Protection Law”, or something of that title. You can LEGALLY shoot first, ask questions later if you feel you or your homestead is threatened. It made news earlier when it was to be applied to your vehicle, and thus road rage shootings, etc….

    As I see it, One Time can now bust down your door without knocking, legally. You, the homeowner in Ft. Laud, can also legally turn around the kitchen corner with the Glock 9 ablazin’, legally. Wow, the mind boggles at the Supreme Court’s reasonings…

  6. 6.

    Perry Como

    June 15, 2006 at 5:40 pm

    I’d prefer one of these to the Glock.

  7. 7.

    The Other Steve

    June 15, 2006 at 6:02 pm

    It merely weakened the exclusionary rule as a remedy for a violation of that requirement.

    Are you saying that there may still be a violation, but you know damnit there’s some strong evidence here the guy is guilty. So let’s punish the officers in some other way than letting the bad guy go free on the street?

    I have a hard time with this one. I don’t like letting people go free because of a mistake. I want police to do everything exactly as they should, but it doesn’t seem to serve the purposes of the state to let the bad guy go.

    If you are in fact innocent, and the police bust down your door. Well you’re going to still be innocent. But what happens to the police for doing the wrong thing? Nothing, because well there’s no crime here? What?

    I just don’t think we can say “letting the criminal go free” is your punishment. I’m just saying their ought to be a better system.

  8. 8.

    Steve

    June 15, 2006 at 6:15 pm

    Well, there ought to be a better way than letting a guilty man go free because evidence was collected in some impermissible way, yes. The problem is that we don’t seem to have found a better way.

    Scalia’s policy argument is something like (1) the police sincerely try hard to follow constitutional rules; (2) police who break the rules are subject to internal discipline (“good job nailing that drug dealer, but we’re suspending you for 30 days for failing to knock and announce”); (3) there are citizen review boards; and (4) municipalities can get sued for money damages if the police violate the constitution.

    Is any of this really sufficient to ensure our constitutional protections? I dunno, seems to me the job of the police is to get the bad guy, and in furtherance of that goal they’re likely to follow the rules when it doesn’t matter and ignore the rules when it seems helpful in catching the bad guy. Even when they act in good faith, which surely isn’t always the case, I’m not sure that relying on the police to police themselves is what the Bill of Rights contemplated.

    On the other hand, the majority of countries apparently get by just fine without an exclusionary rule, so I’m left to wonder how these countries ensure that citizen’s rights are protected, assuming they recognize such rights.

  9. 9.

    Steven Donegal

    June 15, 2006 at 6:26 pm

    While I generally tend to protection of civil rights as a first priority, I don’t think this case is the end of (or even the beginning of the end of )Western civilization. First, knock and announce as a constitutional requirement has only been around since 1995, and this is the first time the Court has addressed the remedy issue. Second, in this case, the police did have a warrant to conduct the search, and did in fact conduct the search in accordance with the warrant. Third, most police departments will continue to have a knock and announce policy (and most policemen will follow the policy) because it reduces the danger of them getting shot by barging through the door. Coming from a Court that held that the US Gov’t can hold a citizen indefinitely without trial, this ruling is not all that surprising or earthshaking.

  10. 10.

    Mona

    June 15, 2006 at 7:38 pm

    You don’t have to take a strict Hobbesian view of human nature to appreciate that people will behave better when there are real penalties for behaving badly. To imagine that people will go on behaving well after you take away the penalties for behaving badly seems like remarkably childish reasoning for a man of Scalia’s stature.

    Because today’s police always behave professionally, except when you can, well, listen to them torturing a guy.(But note that article gets the entity incorrect and later issued a correction: It was not the 5 members of the Knoxville PD torturing the man it was the Campbell County Sheriffs Department .)

    Would anyone have believed the torture victim if his wife had not flipped the on switch on her tape recorder? Would any complaint to anyone have gone anywhere at all?

    Certainly Human Rights Watch does not share the SCOTUS’s Pollyannaish view of contemporary law enforcement and the supposed many remedies available to victims of brutality. From their report:

    Police officers engage in unjustified shootings, severe beatings, fatal chokings, and unnecessarily rough physical treatment in cities throughout the United States, while their police superiors, city officials, and the Justice Department fail to act decisively to restrain or penalize such acts or even to record the full magnitude of the problem…. In examining human rights violations committed by police officers and barriers to investigation, redress, and prosecution, we found common shortcomings in all of the cities we examined. These failings fall into three basic categories: lack of effective public accountability and transparency, persistent failure to investigate and punish officers who commit human rights violations, and obstacles to justice.

    I have had a love/hate relationship w/ Scalia. I can’t see the love coming back soon, and right after I post this am removing from my email sig file his quote, which reads:

    …no government official is ‘tempted’ to place restraints upon his own freedom of action, which is why Lord Acton did not say ‘Power tends to purify.'”

    Antonin Scalia

  11. 11.

    yet another jeff

    June 15, 2006 at 7:44 pm

    No no…the constitution isn’t a living document, just the amendments. At least the 1st and 4th….

  12. 12.

    Mona

    June 15, 2006 at 7:51 pm

    Why is my comment at 7:38 “awaiting moderation”?

  13. 13.

    Tim F.

    June 15, 2006 at 8:13 pm

    Any comment with multiple links automatically goes into the moderation queue. At night and on the weekends you can’t count on a blogger being awake / sober / near the computer so it’s safe to stick to two or fewer.

  14. 14.

    ppGaz

    June 15, 2006 at 8:46 pm

    I had a post go to moderation with two links. I took out one and it passed. Is it something you guys can configure?

  15. 15.

    Jill

    June 15, 2006 at 9:12 pm

    This was main reason Bush needed to be defeated in ’04, his ability to appoint Supremes. He and his ideology will slowly but surely begin to take away our basic rights and once those rights have eroded or disappeared they will be very difficult to get back.

  16. 16.

    G. Gordon Liddy

    June 15, 2006 at 9:38 pm

    Head shots, head shots….

  17. 17.

    slickdpdx

    June 15, 2006 at 10:30 pm

    Tim: I think you have some good points and I’m not going to argue. I just wanted to give the link to the opinion and make two points. 1) There is still a remedy for the violation, just not exclusion. The adequacy of a remedy without exclusion is a good topic for thinking about – does every constitutional violation result in exclusion – no. Which leads to 2) There is an interesting thread regarding the connection between the violation and it leading to the evidence (the fruit of the unlawful conduct). Whether the police knock is missing that thread (at least in this case.) The police had a warrant to go in, they just didn’t knock and yell police and count to five or whatever. I haven’t had a chance to digest it all yet but the opinion is quite readable so far and Kennedy’s concurrence addresses some of your concerns.

  18. 18.

    Keith

    June 15, 2006 at 11:02 pm

    First people who should be searched are those numbnuts who say “Well, I don’t mind being searched, because I have nothing to hide.”

  19. 19.

    Mr Furious

    June 15, 2006 at 11:20 pm

    Off topic:

    House Dems Strip Jefferson of Assignment
    By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent 1 hour, 37 minutes ago
    WASHINGTON – House Democrats, determined to make an election-year point about ethics, voted 99-58 Thursday night to strip Rep. William Jefferson (news, bio, voting record) of his committee assignment while a federal bribery investigation runs its course.

    Good for Pelosi. She tried to do this weeks ago and Jefferson was indignant. Once he realized he was going down today, he tried to go to Pelosi to quietly step aside, and she said, “Too late.” And held the vote anyway.

    Screw that guy. I hope he sees fit to step all the way down and give up his office…

  20. 20.

    The Other Steve

    June 16, 2006 at 12:00 am

    The police had a warrant to go in, they just didn’t knock and yell police and count to five or whatever.

    Right, and I guess my feeling is that I think this is wrong. I think there is an expectation that the police should knock on your door and show some respect for your property. This respect for property is the basis of our entire country.

    On the other hand, if there is a reasonable suspicion that the guy is violent and knocking is going to give him time to get his gun. Well, there ought to be a special warrant available for that situation. That is, the argument should be made to a judge. I believe they call these no-knock warrants?

    So it seems to me that we have the permission aspect in place.

    What is at issue here is the exclusionary bit. I don’t buy the 30-day suspension thing, as I have this suspicion that cops who are suspended are getting help from the fraternal order of bad police officers and they don’t really lose anything.

    But I also don’t want crooks to get away on technicalities so easily.

    Steve seems to imply that we may be the only country with this exclusionary rule. I am curious how other enlightened societies like Britain, Germany, Japan and France deal with this.

    I know how Russia deals with it, if the police are knocking down your door it’s probably because you didn’t pay your monthly bribe to the Mafia.

  21. 21.

    Salvo

    June 16, 2006 at 12:01 am

    And what punishment is there for police departments that commit consitutional violations? Lessee…..you could bring suit against the department….oh wait, no…..SCOTUS, led by Scalia, has expanded the doctrine of sovereign immunity to such a degree that it’s all but impossible to sue police departments, even if you could get a 1983 claim past the summary disposition part. You could file a complaint against the department….oh wait, no…that would immediately go in the circular file. Any other bright ideas out there? No…it seems that pretty much the only penalty for constitutional violations is the exclusionary rule, and what Scalia has just ruled is that while, yes, failing to obey knock and announce is bad, mmmmkay….there’s no real reason why you shouldn’t do it….mmmmkay?

    And even worse, he’s now laid down the precedent to start over turning every single exclusionary rule case. Scalia has a well documented history of opposition to the rule, but really, what else is there? Can somebody think of a penalty that will insure an investigation is done correctly following constitutional safeguards? Anyone? Bueller?

  22. 22.

    The Other Steve

    June 16, 2006 at 12:04 am

    Mr. Furious – Saw that on msnbc.

    I think what’s interesting is the Democratic reaction to all this, as it’s been consistently… My god, kick the guy off already.

    This in comparison to the Republicans who tried everything they could to change their own rules to keep Delay on as leader even after he’d been indicted on money laundering charges. And they’re still screaming that the charges were politically motivated.

    There was another news bit out today that Hastert apparently influenced a highway project to be built next to a large parcel of farm land he owned. And conveniently after the highway went up, he started developing his land for houses. Lucky guy… I wish I could get a job like that.

    Culture of corruption, indeed.

  23. 23.

    Steve

    June 16, 2006 at 12:50 am

    You can make a lot of money in real estate. Senator Murkowski’s mom apparently owns a nice parcel of land that will get connected to the mainland by the Bridge to Nowhere – funny how that works, huh?

  24. 24.

    Jim

    June 16, 2006 at 3:31 am

    We are on a fast pace of moving to a Police State as was the case in Hitler’s Germany!

  25. 25.

    radioleft

    June 16, 2006 at 8:30 am

    This ruling takes rights away. Yes, it reaffirms that police have to knock, but it destroys the exclusionary rule. Basically, it says to police: knock and then do whatever the hell you want to do. I’ve commented more here:

    http://blog.radioleft.com/blog/_archives/2006/6/16/2035834.html

  26. 26.

    MikeLucca

    June 16, 2006 at 9:08 am

    Was the guy in the case guilty? It sounds like he was. So justice was served. I think it is silly to get hung up on the process in a case where the end result was the right one. It’s the kind of extreme hair-splitting that the ACLU and some civil libertarians on the right, as well, seem to prefer to actual justice.

  27. 27.

    Richard 23

    June 16, 2006 at 9:34 am

    That’s right, Mike. The ends always justify the means. So what if the police kick the crap out of a guy too. As long as he was guilty of something.

  28. 28.

    MikeLucca

    June 16, 2006 at 9:53 am

    That’s right, Richard. Kicking the crap out of someone is the same thing as searching without knowing that the search might require a warrant.

  29. 29.

    D. Mason

    June 16, 2006 at 11:33 am

    Can somebody think of a penalty that will insure an investigation is done correctly following constitutional safeguards? Anyone? Bueller?

    People arming themselves.

  30. 30.

    slickdpdx

    June 16, 2006 at 12:25 pm

    Civil suits aren’t at all uncommon, despite Salvo’s remarks. Police don’t regard a suspension as anything but a public humiliation so, even if you think its inadequate, its not a joke – its a real penalty.
    Not every violation of a person’s rights implicates the exclusionary rule. Why should it implicate the exclusionary rule here? Merely because it happened in the course of a search and seizure? There is nothing about the impropriety (failure to announce) that led to the seizure. Maybe this represents setting a boundary on the exclusionary rule and preventing further expansion of it rather than a shrinking of it.

  31. 31.

    The Other Steve

    June 16, 2006 at 1:34 pm

    Even though slickdpdx is a moron, I kind of agree with him here.

    I don’t like letting obvious criminals go free on technicalities. There ought to be a different system in place to assure the police are working within the framework of the law, and the bad cops don’t stay on the streets.

  32. 32.

    LITBMueller

    June 16, 2006 at 1:43 pm

    knock and announce as a constitutional requirement has only been around since 1995

    Sorta…. Actually, the concept of requiring the police to announce their presence and provide residents an opportunity to open the door goes all the way back to English common law. Scalia acknowledges this in his opinion.

    Scalia also acknowledges that there are several exceptions to knock & announce: threat of physical violence, reason to believe evidence would be destroyed, and knocking & announcing would be “futile.” The requirement is only that police have a reasonable suspicion that one of these exceptions apply. If they DO decide to knock, they have to provide a “reasonable wait time.”

    Here’s the problem with the Court’s decision, IMHO: the cops in this case DID knock and announce – the problem was that they waited only 3-5 seconds before busting in the door. The Court could have ruled on this case in an entirely different way, but they consciously chose NOT to (i.e., the Court could have ruled that the wait was reasonable under the circumstances). But, the state of Michigan “conceded” that they violated the knock & announce rule, providing Scalia and his allies the perfect opportunity to start chipping away at the exclusionary rule.

    The exclusionary rule, while it can be very heavy handed, is incredibly important and a necessary check on the police – they are much less likely to violate someone’s rights knowing that the evidence they gather will be thrown out.

    Now, in the case of knock & announce, they don’t have to worry about that. Check out Breyer’s dissent:

    …the Court destroys the strongest legal incentive to comply with the Constitution’s knock-and-announce requirement. And the Court does so without significant support in precedent…
    Today’s opinion is thus doubly troubling. It represents a significant departure from the Court’s precedents. And it weakens, perhaps destroys, much of the practical value of the Constitution’s knock-and-announce protection.
    …the majority, as it candidly admits, has simply “assumed” that, “as far as [it] knows, civil liability is an effective deterrent,” a support-free assumption…

  33. 33.

    Perry Como

    June 16, 2006 at 1:57 pm

    The Fourth Amendment as Legal Fiction

  34. 34.

    slickdpdx

    June 16, 2006 at 3:10 pm

    Thanks Other Steve!

  35. 35.

    Par R

    June 16, 2006 at 4:46 pm

    Some nitwit writes:

    We are on a fast pace of moving to a Police State as was the case in Hitler’s Germany!

    Right. On the other hand, I note that you are still at liberty and posting every little brain fart that comes along.

  36. 36.

    Sherard

    June 18, 2006 at 6:49 pm

    I can see the argument for both sides of this. What I CAN’T see is how this erodes “a corner of the Bill of Rights”. Maybe you missed this, but you did put it right in your post, so say it again with me,

    the exclusionary rule, established in 1961

    Golly, that makes it all of 45 years old. The idea that “not being seen in your underclothes” should be a significant enough reason to exclude evidence is ludicrous, frankly.

    There is a slippery slope to be concerned with and I, for one, seriously question the power placed in the hands of police in ANY form, really, but the outrage over this is ridiculous. Maybe the pendulum had swung a little TOO far in the direction of “criminal’s rights”. Just a thought.

    But don’t mind me, keep on touting that the next step is imprisoning lefties.

Comments are closed.

Trackbacks

  1. This is rather frightening at Speedkill says:
    June 15, 2006 at 9:40 pm

    […] (via Balloon Juice) […]

  2. Badger Blues » Blog Archive » All politics is local says:
    June 20, 2006 at 9:35 pm

    […] In other local news, it’s an even-numbered year, which means that the Republicans have switched gears from privatizing Social Security to going on and on about gay marriage. Fair Wisconsin is working to defeat the amendment on the ballot this fall. Yes, that one — I still can’t come up with a good name for it. It bans marriage equality and civil unions (both of which are (sadly) already illegal in Wisconsin). It may or may not ban common-law marriages. It may or may not prevent private companies from offering benefits to domestic partners. So it’s a good thing that conservatives never, ever interpret the law. […]

Primary Sidebar

Fundraising 2023-24

Wis*Dems Supreme Court + SD-8

Recent Comments

  • Baud on Walter’s Fund – Calendars – Pet Postcards (Open Thread) (Mar 26, 2023 @ 5:53pm)
  • StringOnAStick on Walter’s Fund – Calendars – Pet Postcards (Open Thread) (Mar 26, 2023 @ 5:53pm)
  • WaterGirl on Walter’s Fund – Calendars – Pet Postcards (Open Thread) (Mar 26, 2023 @ 5:50pm)
  • Omnes Omnibus on Walter’s Fund – Calendars – Pet Postcards (Open Thread) (Mar 26, 2023 @ 5:48pm)
  • Geminid on Walter’s Fund – Calendars – Pet Postcards (Open Thread) (Mar 26, 2023 @ 5:47pm)

šŸŽˆKeep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
We All Need A Little Kindness
Classified Documents: A Primer
State & Local Elections Discussion

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Mailing List Signup
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)

Twitter / Spoutible

Balloon JuiceĀ (Spoutible)
WaterGirlĀ (Spoutible)
TaMara (Spoutible)
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
TaMara
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
ActualCitizensUnited

Join the Fight!

Join the Fight Signup Form
All Join the Fight Posts

Balloon Juice Events

5/14 Ā The Apocalypse
5/20 Ā Home Away from Home
5/29 Ā We’re Back, Baby
7/21 Ā Merging!

Balloon Juice for Ukraine

Donate

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2023 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!