Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Sotomayor, Unplugged (supports racial preferences)
Wall Street Journal ^ | FEBRUARY 4, 2011 | COLLIN LEVY

Posted on 02/05/2011 5:23:45 AM PST by reaganaut1

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor drew attention to her racial politics this week during a speech at the University of Chicago Law School, where she took issue with the positions of some of her colleagues on the bench.

Since her confirmation hearings, in which she had to explain her previous assertion that a wise Latina woman "would more often than not reach a better conclusion" than a white man in the same position, Justice Sotomayor has typically been more guarded in her public comments. But at the student forum, she criticized Chief Justice John Roberts's position in a 2007 case about whether public school admissions could be race-conscious to achieve diversity (Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1).

Writing for the court, Justice Roberts said that "the way to stop discriminating on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." Justice Sotomayor told U of C students that that formula is "too simple" for her. "I don't borrow Chief Justice Roberts's description of what colorblindness is," she said. "Our society is too complex to use that kind of analysis." She also told students that, contrary to fellow Justice Antonin Scalia, she was "not sure" whether determining the original intent of the Constitution was the most important consideration in deciding a case.

Justice Sotomayor also talked about being the first Hispanic woman on the Supreme Court. "To the extent my presence has given people of color a sense of belonging with the court, then I have made a difference," she said. The justice said that she doesn't let her racial identity affect her judgment in cases but is convinced that others pre-judge her. "People have views of me and expectations of me that are based on stereotypes," she said.

(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Extended News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: sotomayor
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-57 next last
Any sentient being (but not every Republican senator) knew these were her views before she was confirmed. Her comments prove that the "stereotypes" about her are TRUE.
1 posted on 02/05/2011 5:23:48 AM PST by reaganaut1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1
""I don't borrow Chief Justice Roberts's description of what colorblindness is," she said. "Our society is too complex to use that kind of analysis.""

This is the same ignorant horsecrap you could hear on any one of a thousand small-town community collage campuses across the nation.

The woman is a moron.

2 posted on 02/05/2011 5:28:30 AM PST by Psycho_Bunny (Hail To The Fail-In-Chief)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

Here is the solution... it could be done if the right case is built... and there are 20 million pages of evidence against this lesbian communist:

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Can_a_US_Supreme_Court_justice_be_impeached_and_removed_from_office

Under normal circumstances, a Supreme Court justice is awarded a lifetime commission.

A Supreme Court Justice may be impeached by the House of Representatives and removed from office if convicted in a Senate trial, but only for the same types of offenses that would trigger impeachment proceedings for any other government official under Articles I and II of the Constitution.

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Can_a_US_Supreme_Court_justice_be_impeached_and_removed_from_office#ixzz1D5fycsTC

Only one Supreme Court Justice, Samuel Chase (one of the signatories to the Declaration of Independence), has ever been impeached. The House of Representatives accused Chase of letting his Federalist political leanings affect his rulings, and served him with eight articles of impeachment in late 1804. The Senate acquitted him of all charges in 1805, establishing the right of the judiciary to independent opinion. Chase continued on the Court until his death in June 1811.

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Can_a_US_Supreme_Court_justice_be_impeached_and_removed_from_office#ixzz1D5gGVU4K

LLS


3 posted on 02/05/2011 5:31:02 AM PST by LibLieSlayer (WOLVERINES!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1
Gee I wonder if she also celebrates infanticide...of course she does. What a tramp/slut she is
4 posted on 02/05/2011 5:31:17 AM PST by Friendofgeorge (Sarah Palin 2012 or bust)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

Why is anyone surprised by this. It was well known long before the wise Latina’s confirmation hearing that she is in fact a person who judges people by the color of their skin or their ethnicity as opposed to the content of their character.


5 posted on 02/05/2011 5:32:22 AM PST by pnh102 (Regarding liberalism, always attribute to malice what you think can be explained by stupidity. - Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1
"When the Chief Justice read me the oath and came to the words ‘support the Constitution of the United States' I felt like saying: ‘Yes, but it's the Constitution as I understand it, flexible enough to meet any new problem of democracy -- not the kind of Constitution your Court has raised up as a barrier to progress and democracy.'"

Rat icon and superhero FDR. Not much has changed with progressive Rats.

6 posted on 02/05/2011 5:35:30 AM PST by Travis McGee (EnemiesForeignAndDomestic is now on Kindle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pnh102

The only good news coming out of that august body this week is that Ginsberg is staying through 2012. Translation, we MUST win the white house.


7 posted on 02/05/2011 5:37:01 AM PST by Mouton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee

Maybe some one should educate that lesbo this is a REPUBLIC, not a democracy.


8 posted on 02/05/2011 5:38:14 AM PST by Mouton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: pnh102

so she would not even in principle have time for martin luther king jr’s dream of skin hue ignored and merit celebrated. what a maroon, and this is why it mattered that 2008 elevated Barack Obama rather than John McCain to the White House.


9 posted on 02/05/2011 5:38:29 AM PST by HiTech RedNeck (I am in America but not of America (per bible: am in the world but not of it))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Friendofgeorge

——a tramp/slut she is——

Puta in PC lingo


10 posted on 02/05/2011 5:39:16 AM PST by bert (K.E. N.P. N.C. D.E. +12 .....( History is a process, not an event ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1
“People have views of me and expectations of me that are based on stereotypes,” she said.”

No. We have views and expectations of you because of what you've said and done, like the ‘wise Latina’ comment and this incredibly self-serving comment about different kinds of colorblindness. Actually, anyone who uses the term ‘people of color’ has pretty much self-identified as a racist.

11 posted on 02/05/2011 5:39:22 AM PST by pieceofthepuzzle (Left vs. Right = Pseudo-intellectuals vs. Grown-ups)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mouton

Even if it were a democracy, our present Rats would be getting a lot of stuff wrong with respect to a fair plebiscite, and in a leftward direction.


12 posted on 02/05/2011 5:40:24 AM PST by HiTech RedNeck (I am in America but not of America (per bible: am in the world but not of it))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: pieceofthepuzzle

If she slips into the shoe of her supposed “stereotype” and it fits, she should wear it.


13 posted on 02/05/2011 5:41:32 AM PST by HiTech RedNeck (I am in America but not of America (per bible: am in the world but not of it))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

A real team player, eh?


14 posted on 02/05/2011 5:41:45 AM PST by silverleaf (All that is necessary for evil to succeed, is that good men do nothing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1; verga
"the way to stop discriminating on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race."

WAY too complex a thought!

Supposed conservative justices turn liberal on the bench. I pray that a liberal will see the light on the bench. This one has a ways to go.

15 posted on 02/05/2011 5:42:02 AM PST by FatherofFive (Islam is evil and must be eradicated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

As a woman and as a “Latina,” she makes me want to throw up. She is an embarrassment to both categories.


16 posted on 02/05/2011 5:45:44 AM PST by La Lydia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

When you appoint a racist, Marxist bigot to the Supreme Court, you get a racist Marxist.

But then look at her racist Marxist patron.

I wonder if Obummer was ever a member of the Nation of Islam.


17 posted on 02/05/2011 5:46:51 AM PST by ZULU (No nation which ever attempted to tolerate Islam, escaped total Islamization.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

she was "not sure" whether determining the original intent of the Constitution was the most important consideration in deciding a case

I was always under the impression that this was the most important function of the SC. Silly me.
18 posted on 02/05/2011 5:49:06 AM PST by loucon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

Obama chastised the Supremes to their face in front of the world.

Supremes are now coming out against each other (liberal ones attacking others)

Sen Schumer says the Supreme court isn’t part of our government...Only the President, the House of Rep. and the Senate...

Obama administration not adhering to federal judges’ rulings.

See a pattern working here?

Obama and congress working together and no Supreme court or Federal judges, to hold them accountable with our Constitutional restraints on government. Isn’t that a dictatorship?


19 posted on 02/05/2011 5:51:38 AM PST by Freddd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee
I felt like saying: ‘Yes, but it's the Constitution as I understand it, flexible enough to meet any new problem of democracy -- not the kind of Constitution your Court has raised up as a barrier to progress and democracy.'"

I guess it's beyond her to acknowledge that the Constitution was drafted specifically to rein in the excesses of democracy - and, coming from a minority, that is a stunning viewpoint. What Sotomayor wants is a minority to have the kind of judicial power over the majority that the majority would have over the minority in an unchecked democracy. In simpler terms, she's a rank hypocrite.

She just apatly confirmed the stated fears of her critics, even as she condemned those fears as baseless.

In other words, a classic modern progressive.

20 posted on 02/05/2011 5:56:20 AM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

Sotomayer’s who being is tied into her racial identity. She is NOT a full person. This society will not survive such touchy-feely thought. A system of law can not just be “whatever feels right today”.


21 posted on 02/05/2011 5:56:45 AM PST by Clock King (Ellisworth Toohey was right: My head's gonna explode.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Freddd
Obama and congress working together and no Supreme court or Federal judges, to hold them accountable with our Constitutional restraints on government. Isn’t that a dictatorship?

I heard a Bolshecrat analyst claim that if it passes Congress and the President signs it it is Constitutional. With that attitude who needs a Supreme Court to determine what is Constitutional. The rule of law has turn to the whim of man. Until, DumBO is in prison for what he did to the Chrysler bondholders there is no rule of law.

22 posted on 02/05/2011 6:07:16 AM PST by depressed in 06 (The only thing the ZerO administration is competent at is bad ideas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

Idiot woman.


23 posted on 02/05/2011 6:10:47 AM PST by Ann Archy (Abortion is the Human Sacrifice to the god of Convenience.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Psycho_Bunny

A moron with a lifetime appointment to destroy our Constitution.


24 posted on 02/05/2011 6:19:03 AM PST by SC_Pete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

If I could I would ask her which doctor she wants performing brain surgery on her, the qualified one or the PC one.


25 posted on 02/05/2011 6:19:35 AM PST by DJ MacWoW (America! The wolves are at your door! How will you answer the knock?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

Weak, foolish republicans put her in the Supreme Court.

We will live to regret their weakness.


26 posted on 02/05/2011 6:26:40 AM PST by Iron Munro ("Our country's founders cherished liberty, not democracy." -- Ron Paul)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

Justice Sotomayor also talked about being the first Hispanic woman on the Supreme Court.......

....The justice said that she doesn’t let her racial identity affect her judgment in cases but is convinced that others pre-judge her
________________________________________________

AH maybe because you make an issue of the fact that you are “Hispanic” etc

and when has Hispanic been equated to “color”

Maybe you can get away with “minority” but the first “Hispanics” in the New World were considered white men and they were from Europe...

If your ancestors were from Spain then they were considered white...

If your ancestors were Central or South American Indians and “people of color” then they were not Hispanic at all...


27 posted on 02/05/2011 6:29:12 AM PST by Tennessee Nana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

Wasn’t she Barry’s personal eligibility lawyer?


28 posted on 02/05/2011 6:40:57 AM PST by Liberty Valance (Keep a simple manner for a happy life :o)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1
do I really have to say it???

29 posted on 02/05/2011 7:33:27 AM PST by Chode (American Hedonist - *DTOM* -ww- NO Pity for the LAZY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: depressed in 06
...if it passes Congress and the President signs it it is Constitutional.

I have not heard this progressive mantra in a public forum. It has, however, been insinuated.

30 posted on 02/05/2011 8:18:34 AM PST by Louis Foxwell (For love of Sarah, our country and the American Way of Life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Psycho_Bunny

“The woman is a moron.”

She is, but it is a refreshing change that instead of some hillbilly Klansman saying blacks & hispanics are inferior we now have a Puerto Rican woman shouting it loud & clear; there is no other meaning to be taken from the “racial preferences” debate.


31 posted on 02/05/2011 8:27:23 AM PST by kearnyirish2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Tennessee Nana

One of the problems that will eventually doom racial preferences is the fact the former president Fox of Mexico (6’+ tall, white as Ivory soap) is considered “Hispanic” in terms of college admission, racial quotas for civil service (or private industry, now that this is legislated there as well via threat of lawsuits), etc. This, combined with the fact that “Hispanics” now outnumber blacks in the US population, has taken some of the fire out of the debate; if twenty firefighter positions have to be held for “other”, and the top twenty scores go to Hispanics and/or white women, then they’ll have to go back to square one.


32 posted on 02/05/2011 8:32:23 AM PST by kearnyirish2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: pieceofthepuzzle

A wise Latina wouldn’t stoop to using the term “wise Latina”.


33 posted on 02/05/2011 8:34:48 AM PST by kearnyirish2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1
Sotomayor, Unplugged (supports racial preferences)

And this is a surprise? Too many whites are either naive, sheltered or plain stupid.

34 posted on 02/05/2011 8:39:56 AM PST by Altura Ct.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kearnyirish2

Because of junk like that for many years now on government forms when given a choice of ...

white
black
hispanic
Chinese/Asian
Pacific Islander
etc

I have chosen Pacific Islander

I was born in New Zealand...

:)


35 posted on 02/05/2011 8:46:04 AM PST by Tennessee Nana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: kearnyirish2

so what if my skin is lily white and my ancestors for 100s of years have been European...

French, Dutch, English, Scot, Irish

I’m a Pacific Islander...


36 posted on 02/05/2011 8:48:08 AM PST by Tennessee Nana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: bert

Punta in Spanish.


37 posted on 02/05/2011 8:53:17 AM PST by jmacusa (Two wrongs don't make a right. But they can make it interesting.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Tennessee Nana

They’ve already been through that in court with a South African white; he lost (apparently not “African” enough).

Good luck with that; if you don’t mind my asking, why would a Kiwi live here?


38 posted on 02/05/2011 9:01:57 AM PST by kearnyirish2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1
"To the extent my presence has given people of color a sense of belonging with the court, then I have made a difference," she said.

So it in not because of what she has achieved, it if because of what she is.

This is supposed to be about equality of opportunity. Not legislated outcomes.

39 posted on 02/05/2011 9:31:02 AM PST by FatherofFive (Islam is evil and must be eradicated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1
she was "not sure" whether determining the original intent of the Constitution was the most important consideration in deciding a case.

Yes she is. She is sure it is *not*. The most important thing is to advance the progressive agenda toward a more centrally-planned and controlled wealth redistribution utopia, with Wise Latinas and other Marxists being the cannibalistic Morlocks, and conservatives playing the role of the delicious Eloy.

We all knew this as soon as she was nominated by Pharaoh.


Today is a good day to die.
I didn't say for whom.

40 posted on 02/05/2011 9:31:47 AM PST by The Comedian (There are no unbiased media outlets. Journalists ARE combatants.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kearnyirish2

Because the ex-Kiwi had ancestors who came here in the early 1600s etc...

My gg grandfather left here (Canada) and went to NZ...

We had his Bible that contain some of his family history so we knew that we came from the US...

All I did was come back home...

Kind of like someone from here visiting Ireland to see where their forebears were from...

My Dutch Walloon new home and lands seeking ancestors arrived in NYC instead of Virginia in 1623..

My English settler ancestors arrived in Boston with Governor Wintrop in 1630..

My French Huguenot refugee ancestors arrived in NYC in 1685

My Palatine German tar for sealing English ships making ancestors arrived in the Albany area in 1710

My Irish indented servant ancestors arrived in the Albany area to work on the Livingston Manor in 1720...

My American ancestors fled north in 1776 to be among the first settlers in the newly formed country of Upper Canada under English rule...

My English ancestors who were on one of the “First Four Ships” (equal to the Mayflower in pomp and importance) arrived in Canterbury, New Zealand in 1850

The only daughter of that family on that ship married my Canadian/American ancestor whose 4 grandparents and mother were all born in the US to American parents....

My gg grandparents...

My families were among the first to the US, Canada, and New Zealand...

:)


41 posted on 02/05/2011 9:36:34 AM PST by Tennessee Nana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

I wonder if the New York Times and the Holder Justice Department considers racial discrimination against “people of color” a “complex” subject.

Somehow I doubt it.


42 posted on 02/05/2011 9:44:43 AM PST by WilliamHouston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tennessee Nana

Fascinating history!

I’ve often hiked in a former hamlet about 1 hour north of NYC that was settled by Huguenots prior to independence(Doodletown, NY - now abandoned, but the cemeteries are still there). Part of my family is from Quebec; they’re Catholic, arriving sometime I believe in the early 1900’s. Canada is beautiful to visit, but I couldn’t take the weather there (summer is too short, winter too long, and nights are cold even in the summer). It was great 15 years ago, when US$100 got you C$150+; now they are pretty much on par.

A co-worker visited distant relatives in Ireland at the height of their economic boom; people were wary of them until they were convinced they weren’t trying to press legal claims for family lands (at which point they were quite welcoming).

Can you claim NZ citizenship? I know they’re pretty selective about getting in, and I didn’t know if you had a “golden ticket”.


43 posted on 02/05/2011 9:59:55 AM PST by kearnyirish2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: kearnyirish2

Not any more...

(Obama Senior had the same nationality at birth as I did)..

I was born British in Dec 1948 but one month later in Jan 1949 when my mother registered my birth the newly legislated New Zealand citizenship had kicked in so I was registered as a New Zealander...

I had a New Zealand passport but could have qualified for a British passport due to my birthdate...

In Aug I will have been in the US for 40 years...

I became an American citizen in 1975...

Before I was sworn in as an American I had to RENOUNCE my New Zealand citizenship by raising my hand and saying so and by signing away my rights and claims and confirming the renouncement......

until one month later at the naturalization ceremony I was a citizen of no country at all...no legal passport etc..

I was legally here in accordance with my Alien Regitration Card and status but I could not have left and then come back...My NZ passport was no longer any good from the moment I renounced my NZ citizenship...

Although I had the protection and rights and privileges as a legal resident of the United States they were dependent on my appearing at the ceremony to become an American citizen...

I knew fully what was involved and I did what was necessary to become an American citizen, gladly...although it was hard to renounce the country of my birth...

But how people claim a dual citizenship is beyond both me and the American naturalization laws...


44 posted on 02/05/2011 10:18:54 AM PST by Tennessee Nana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: kearnyirish2

Yours is an interesting point. It’s patronizing to minorities tom insinuate that they need preferences. No one picks up on this. There is extremely little racism against people of color any more, especially by whites.


45 posted on 02/05/2011 10:25:29 AM PST by Yaelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Tennessee Nana
I see you have a good record of your genealogy. I certainly hope you have had your “work” done for all those speshul souls.
46 posted on 02/05/2011 10:30:07 AM PST by Utah Binger (Southern Utah where the world comes to see America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Tennessee Nana

You don’t need to “claim” dual citizenship. Sometimes you are just granted citizenship of another country. Maybe from your parents before you were of age, or through marriage. Only naturalized Americans have to give up their previous affiliations, and even then they are probably serial considered citizens from the other country still.

I believe that every American from Mexico is still considered Mexican by Mexico. There is nothing anyone can do about that.

This is why, when we finally make the definition for Natural Born Citizen a part of our Constitution, we need to be aware that if there is a clause that our President may not be a citizen of another country, it would be easy for other countries to disqualify a candidate by declaring him a citizen of their land.


47 posted on 02/05/2011 10:31:58 AM PST by Yaelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Utah Binger

I didnt need to...

some unkonown “kind soul” outside of the families already did them...

I’m “sealed” several times over...

How comforting...

:)


48 posted on 02/05/2011 10:34:33 AM PST by Tennessee Nana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Tennessee Nana

Interesting; people who claim dual citizenship often misunderstand what it means. I have family that was born in Europe; they eventually became US citizens, and the US will recognize them as nothing else. However, some countries do not force you to renounce your “other” citizenship when you take US citizenship; therefore, the country of their birth will recognize citizenship of either country, though the US does not. Whatever exceptions people claim, that is the law: the US considers your former citizenship surrendered when you take US citizenship.


49 posted on 02/05/2011 11:50:34 AM PST by kearnyirish2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Yaelle

The whole idea was that they needed a leg up a while back (not so much for “past injustices” as much as the lack of opportunities at the time); the leg up has becaome an institutionalized crutch as generations of blacks, Hispanics, and women pass through higher education and can still use what the government seems to consider their apparent genetic disability to be overcome by legislation.

It has made things difficult for those in the “disabled” classes who actually belong there; they are treated as less serious tokens who are simply hired to keep lawyers at bay. Inflating school grades or employee evaluations for this purpose, while seemingly financially beneficial to the recipient, in the long run do a lot more harm than good. When times get tough, the least productive workers are let go, and that often includes a lot of people who may not have been qualified to begin with. White males have to work harder to keep their jobs and earn their pay, and the result is a much better white male workforce than the victims of the soft bigotry of lowered expectations.


50 posted on 02/05/2011 11:58:12 AM PST by kearnyirish2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-57 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson