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

Skip to comments.

Court rules against Arizona immigration law [The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals....]
Reuters ^

Posted on 04/11/2011 10:34:07 AM PDT by Sub-Driver

Court rules against Arizona immigration law Photo 1:09pm EDT

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court upheld a preliminary injunction against parts of Arizona's controversial immigration law in a ruling released on Monday.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a lower court did not abuse its authority by enjoining key sections of the state law that were challenged by the Obama administration.

(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Front Page News; Government
KEYWORDS: 9th; aliens; az; brewer; circus; illegals; immigration; sb1070
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-104 next last

1 posted on 04/11/2011 10:34:12 AM PDT by Sub-Driver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

Nice & quick. Good.

Next SCOTUS.


2 posted on 04/11/2011 10:36:04 AM PDT by Christian Engineer Mass (25ish Cambridge MA grad student. Many conservative Christians my age out there? __ Click my name)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

The 9th Circus Court of Appeals, supporting anti-Americanism for over 20 years...


3 posted on 04/11/2011 10:36:45 AM PDT by American Quilter (DEFUND OBAMACARE.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

Never saw that one coming!!!!!!!!!!, LOL


4 posted on 04/11/2011 10:38:02 AM PDT by org.whodat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
November was amazing! I can't wait until 2012!

5 posted on 04/11/2011 10:38:35 AM PDT by I see my hands (Embrace misanthropy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals

The most widely overturned court in the land.

God forbid we should ENFORCE the law.

6 posted on 04/11/2011 10:39:09 AM PDT by Puppage (You may disagree with what I have to say, but I shall defend to your death my right to say it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

The 9th sets itself up yet again for a smack down from the Supreme court. They never learn.


7 posted on 04/11/2011 10:39:32 AM PDT by Graybeard58 (Of course Obama loves his country. The thing is, Sarah loves mine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

What do you expect from the 9th?

It is very interesting that the Pretender Executive and his lapdog Holder are on the side of the suit that prohibits AZ from enforcing a Federal Law that his Pretendess doesnt want enforced. Its the same side as Mexico which filed as a “amigo de la court”. He is avoiding performing his sworn duty...(I forgot Muslims can lie if they have to )

Obama is on the side of the illegal immigrant and putting US citizens at risk every day!

Why is this asshat Obama still strutting around the golf courses?


8 posted on 04/11/2011 10:40:55 AM PDT by texson66 ("Mr Obama, tear down this wall of bureaucratic opression of freedom!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: texson66
In the meantime thousands of illegal voters are pouring across our border.
9 posted on 04/11/2011 10:44:53 AM PDT by AEMILIUS PAULUS (It is a shame that when these people give a riot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

Completely Unexpected!!!!


10 posted on 04/11/2011 10:48:22 AM PDT by Jack Hydrazine (It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: American Quilter
The 9th Circus Court of Appeals, supporting anti-Americanism for over 20 years...

Actually, from what I've heard from my lawyer brother, on this issue the 9th Circus has typically been fairly sympathetic to the general sense of the Arizona law, so this is probably a real blow to its prospects.

That law was never going to survive the court challenges anyway, though. For as much as the Federal Gov't has failed in its duty with regard to illegal immigration, their arguments from the Supremacy Clause and the Constitutionally-mandated federal jurisdiction over immigration are valid and compelling.

It's probably much more effective to do as some states are moving to do ... and to bring suit against the FedGov to actually deal with the problem on the basis that their failure to do so is imposing large costs on the several states.

11 posted on 04/11/2011 10:50:28 AM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: r9etb

Why do we need court challenges? This is the peoples business; not the courts.


12 posted on 04/11/2011 10:52:29 AM PDT by freekitty (Give me back my conservative vote; then find me a real conservative to vote for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
Here's the actual ruling.
13 posted on 04/11/2011 10:53:49 AM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
9th Circuit...

“Good Ideas are Unconstitutional!”

14 posted on 04/11/2011 10:55:06 AM PDT by Tex-Con-Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freekitty
Why do we need court challenges? This is the peoples business; not the courts.

Because that's the way the system is set up in Article III, Section 2 of the United States Constitution.

15 posted on 04/11/2011 10:57:51 AM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Christian Engineer Mass

Yes no suprises here. 9th circuit just doing business as usual. Get thee to the SCOTUS.


16 posted on 04/11/2011 10:58:25 AM PDT by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose of a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

I’m shocked, I tell you! Shocked!...oh wait, it’s the 9th circuit...never mind.


17 posted on 04/11/2011 10:58:36 AM PDT by Castigar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
their arguments from the Supremacy Clause and the Constitutionally-mandated federal jurisdiction over immigration are valid and compelling.

I found those arguments neither valid nor compelling. The Federal Government has already passed laws requiring local law enforcement to cooperate with the Feds in enforcing immigration laws much like the Arizona law requires. States like New York that do not cooperate are actually in violation of Federal Law. That Bozo and his AG don't prosecute does not make the law invalid.

18 posted on 04/11/2011 11:00:37 AM PDT by Prokopton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Prokopton
I found those arguments neither valid nor compelling.

So?

The Federal Government has already passed laws requiring local law enforcement to cooperate with the Feds in enforcing immigration laws much like the Arizona law requires.

It doesn't work both ways, though ... and that's the essence of the decision.

We agree that the Feds have failed to properly deal with illegal immigration. The question is how best to address that fact.

Arizona's approach was never going to pass muster in the courts.

19 posted on 04/11/2011 11:04:15 AM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

Fathom the hypocrisy of a Government
that requires all citizens to prove
they are insured but not all
must prove they are citizens.


20 posted on 04/11/2011 11:05:31 AM PDT by Neoliberalnot ((Read "The Grey Book" for an alternative to corruption in DC))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: r9etb

that is good that AZ has another avenue. If the feds won’t let them pass certain immigration legislation, then sue the fed for crime and damages by illegals. If it is the fed job to do, they’re handling it quite poorly.


21 posted on 04/11/2011 11:06:47 AM PDT by No_More_Harkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

Ok, so we here in AZ take all illegals in our state, including those in prison that we are paying for and not getting reimbursed for by the feds, and give them all a one man tent. Bus them all, non stop, to DC and drop them off at the White House.


22 posted on 04/11/2011 11:11:22 AM PDT by exbrit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: r9etb; Prokopton
No, he has a valid point - those arguments are not compelling.

If they were then the states could simply stop investigating, arresting, and prosecuting for any and all Federal crimes.

The entire point is not on all fours, and as such, it is not compelling.

23 posted on 04/11/2011 11:11:42 AM PDT by bill1952 (Choice is an illusion created between those with power - and those without)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
Arizona's approach was never going to pass muster in the courts.

If SCOTUS takes the appeal, you would be advised to bet on a reversal. In 2009, the Ninth was overturned 94% of the time.

24 posted on 04/11/2011 11:16:36 AM PDT by Prokopton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
"Arizona's approach was never going to pass muster in the courts."

Let me take a passing shot at that.

Doesn't that stand for the proposition that a state can take no action and is defenseless vis-a-vis losses, even above and beyond its monetary losses, when the federal government chooses not to resist foreign invaders?

Perhaps it is not believed they are invaders?

25 posted on 04/11/2011 11:23:13 AM PDT by frog in a pot (Islamic and Communist totalitarians share the same goal - global domination via jihad.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: 1_Inch_Group; 2sheep; 2Trievers; 3AngelaD; 3pools; 3rdcanyon; 4Freedom; 4ourprogeny; 7.62 x 51mm; ..

Ping!


26 posted on 04/11/2011 11:32:25 AM PDT by HiJinx (Old Cold Warrior)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HiJinx
See also Appeals court upholds Justice challenge on Ariz. immigration law
27 posted on 04/11/2011 11:35:53 AM PDT by HiJinx (Old Cold Warrior)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: frog in a pot
Doesn't that stand for the proposition that a state can take no action and is defenseless vis-a-vis losses, even above and beyond its monetary losses, when the federal government chooses not to resist foreign invaders?

No, it merely stands for the proposition that the Constitution means what it says, when it states in Article VI that,

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

In short, that means that states cannot are not allowed to creat their own laws to supercede what the Constitution or Congress have already passed into law.

States are not totally "defenseless," because they can (and do) take cases to court against the Federal Government. Costs and damages imposed on the States by the Federal Government's failure to properly address illegal immigration, is something that can be, should be, and is being, challenged in the courts.

28 posted on 04/11/2011 11:50:15 AM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Christian Engineer Mass

YEP.

SCOTUS Time - before the Obamanation can appoint another Marxist, anti-American judge.


29 posted on 04/11/2011 11:54:47 AM PDT by ZULU (Lindsey Graham is a nanometrical pustule of pusillanimous putrescent excrement)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals

Gambling, I'm shocked.


30 posted on 04/11/2011 11:57:26 AM PDT by USS Alaska (Nuke the terrorist savages.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

I expected nothing else from the 9th. You don’t have to know any law to predict this court’s decisions.

I think I read somewhere that this court has had more reversals than any other.


31 posted on 04/11/2011 11:58:14 AM PDT by Dudoight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
No big surprise here, that the Ninth Circuit would find itself quite congenial to the original ruling against this Arizona law.

It is considerably less predictable, however, what the SCOTUS will do, once the case reaches its desk...

32 posted on 04/11/2011 11:59:22 AM PDT by AmericanExceptionalist (Democrats believe in discussing the full spectrum of ideas, all the way from far left to center-left)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
Note that the opinion was authored by the Mexican Reconquista Richard Paez, put on the 9th Circuit for his known hatred of Americans by Bill Clinton.

A predetermined result: Ju cannot stop us, Greengo!

33 posted on 04/11/2011 12:09:31 PM PDT by Regulator (Watch Out! Americans are on the March! America Forever, Mexico Never!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

We knew this was coming from the 9th. No surprise here.


34 posted on 04/11/2011 12:14:09 PM PDT by dforest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
"the 9th Circus has typically been fairly sympathetic to the general sense of the Arizona law, so this is probably a real blow to its prospects."

I said this on the other thread, but....the first thing I noticed (I haven't yet read the opinion) is that it was partly a unanimous opinion. Also, John Noonan voted to uphold the injunction. That's not a good sign. Noonan is about as conservative a legal thinker as they come and even as a sitting judge he was (and is) an OUTSPOKEN critic of Roe.

He's not a conservative shrinking violet, and the fact that he voted to uphold the injunction, probably isn't a good sing of things to come.

35 posted on 04/11/2011 12:16:56 PM PDT by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

What a shock.


36 posted on 04/11/2011 12:18:27 PM PDT by Tzimisce (Never forget that the American Revolution began when the British tried to disarm the colonists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

Reality vs. Myth: SB1070
Make it illegal in the State of Arizona for an alien to not register with the government, thus being an “illegal alien” (already the case at the federal level: 8 USC 1306a; USC 1304e)
Allow police to detain people where there is a “reasonable suspicion” that they’re illegal aliens (see the recent court case Estrada v. Rhode Island for an idea of what “reasonable suspicion” might entail)
Prohibits sanctuary cities (already prohibited at the federal level, 8 USC 1373) and allows citizens to sue any such jurisdiction
Reality vs. Myth: SB1070
Myth No. 1: The law requires aliens to carry identification that they weren’t already required to carry.
Reality: It has been a federal crime (8 United States Code Section 1304(a) or 1306(e)) since 1940 for aliens to fail to carry their registration documents. The Arizona law reaffirms the federal law. Anyone who has traveled abroad knows that other nations have similar requirements. The majority requests for documentation will take place during the course of other police business such as traffic stops. Because Arizona allows only lawful residents to obtain licenses, an officer must presume that someone who produces one is legally in the country.
Myth No. 2: The law will encourage racial profiling.
Reality: The Arizona law reduces the chances of racial profiling by requiring officers to contact the federal government when they suspect a person is an illegal alien as opposed to letting them make arrests on their own assessment as federal law currently allows. Section 2 was amended (by HB2162) to read that a law enforcement official “may not consider race, color, or national origin” in making any stops or determining an alien’s immigration status (previously, they were prohibited in “solely” considering those factors). In addition, all of the normal Fourth Amendment protections against racial profiling still apply.
Myth No. 3: “Reasonable suspicion” is a meaningless term that will permit police misconduct.
Reality: “Reasonable suspicion” has been defined by the courts for decades (the Fourth Amendment itself proscribes “unreasonable searches and seizures”). One of the most recent cases, Estrada v. Rhode Island, provides an example of the courts refining of “reasonable suspicion:”
A 15 passenger van is pulled over for a traffic violation. The driver of the van had identification but the other passengers did not (some had IDs from a gym membership, a non-driver’s license card from the state, and IDs issued from the Guatemalan Consulate). The passengers said they were on their way to work but they had no work permits. Most could not speak English but upon questioning, admitted that they were in the United States illegally. The officer notified ICE and waited three minutes for instructions.
The SB1070 provision in question reads:
“For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or agency of this state . . . where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person.”
Myth No. 4: The law will require Arizona police officers to stop and question people.
Reality: The law only kicks in when a police officer stopped, detained, or arrested someone (HB2162). The most likely contact is during the issuance of a speeding ticket. The law does not require the officer to begin questioning a person about his immigration status or to do anything the officer would not otherwise do.
Only after a stop is made, and subsequently the officer develops reasonable suspicion on his own that an immigration law has been violated, is any obligation imposed. At that point, the officer is required to call ICE to confirm whether the person is an illegal alien.
The Arizona law is actually more restrictive than federal law. In Muehler v. Mena (2005), the Supreme Court ruled that officers did not need reasonable suspicion to justify asking a suspect about their immigration status, stating that the court has “held repeatedly that mere police questioning does not constitute a seizure” under the Fourth Amendment).

Source = http://www.numbersusa.com/dfax?jid=475466&lid=9&rid=123&series=tp06MAY10&tid=999725


37 posted on 04/11/2011 12:19:31 PM PDT by WOBBLY BOB ( "I don't want the majority if we don't stand for something"- Jim Demint)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

Did you know a president can eliminate a court district?

The next non-traitor POTUS needs to eliminate the 9th district with a swipe of the pen.


38 posted on 04/11/2011 12:20:50 PM PDT by surfer (To err is human, to really foul things up takes a Democrat, don't expect the GOP to have the answer!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

39 posted on 04/11/2011 12:24:25 PM PDT by djf (Dems and liberals: Let's redefine "marriage". We already redefined "natural born citizen".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Georgia Girl 2

“Get thee to the SCOTUS”
I only hope that when this case gets to the Supremes,
the “wise Latina” recuses herself for obvious prejudice.
Otherwise, the other justices will be accused of being racist.


40 posted on 04/11/2011 12:24:37 PM PDT by Fireone (Liberals are just overschooled, undereducated, adult children.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
For as much as the Federal Gov't has failed in its duty with regard to illegal immigration, their arguments from the Supremacy Clause and the Constitutionally-mandated federal jurisdiction over immigration are valid and compelling.

It's a question of jurisdiction. While the feds can make rules for naturalization, they have no direct authority over people who do not apply for citizenship. Those people are under the jurisdiction of the State in which they reside, not the federal government.

The common law has affixed such distinct and appropriate ideas to the terms denization, and naturalization, that they can not be confounded together, or mistaken for each other in any legal transaction whatever. They are so absolutely distinct in their natures, that in England the rights they convey, can not both be given by the same power; the king can make denizens, by his grant, or letters patent, but nothing but an act of parliament can make a naturalized subject. This was the legal state of this subject in Virginia, when the federal constitution was adopted; it declares that congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization; throughout the United States; but it also further declares, that the powers not delegated by the constitution to the U. States, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states, respectively or to the people. The power of naturalization, and not that of denization, being delegated to congress, and the power of denization not being prohibited to the states by the constitution, that power ought not to be considered as given to congress, but, on the contrary, as being reserved to the states.
St. George Tucker

41 posted on 04/11/2011 12:27:25 PM PDT by MamaTexan (I am a Person as created by the Law of Nature, not a person as created by the laws of Man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: American Quilter

Bumpity bumpity bumpity Bump.


42 posted on 04/11/2011 12:32:24 PM PDT by Texas Fossil (Government, even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

The Ninth Circus Court is like a filthy rest stop on the highway to the Supreme Court. You stop there only if you must, get in and out as quickly as possible, avoid eye contact, and scrub your hands real good.


43 posted on 04/11/2011 12:33:59 PM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan
As Tucker's analysis applies in this case, we would have to conclude that immigration enforcement is a state, and not a Federal issue.

I'm pretty sure that's not correct.

44 posted on 04/11/2011 12:40:18 PM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: r9etb

So according to this court, the State of Arizona can no longer enforce federal laws against drug trafficking since this would violate the Supremacy Clause and the Commerce Clause? Idiots.


45 posted on 04/11/2011 1:05:41 PM PDT by Hoodat (Yet in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us. - (Rom 8:37))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: r9etb

That quote is not pertinent to this issue.

It is agreed the federal government has higher authority, but that does not mean the state is powerless in the face of an intentional absence of federal action. The means available to a state that wishes to defend its citizens from foreign invasion is not limited to litigating the issue in a courtroom.

To say otherwise is to say that one who perceives imminent danger or actual harm to one’s family is limited to calling 911, which may or may not decide to respond.

Bear in mind also that the legislation passed by the state of AZ was not intended to, and does not supersede the Constitution or federal law.


46 posted on 04/11/2011 1:09:37 PM PDT by frog in a pot (Islamic and Communist totalitarians share the same goal - global domination via jihad.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
I'm pretty sure that's not correct.

Actually, since national citizenship was originally derived from that of the State, it is quite correct.

Making a uniform rule is miles away from 'enforcing' anything.

-----

The mode by which an alien may become a citizen, has a specific appellation which refers to the same principle. It is descriptive of the operation of law as analogous to birth, and the alien, received into the community by naturalization, enjoys all the benefits which birth has conferred on the other class.
Until these rights are attained, the alien resident is under some disadvantages which are not exactly the same throughout the Union. The United States do not intermeddle with the local regulations of the states in those respects. Thus an alien may be admitted to hold lands in some states, and be incapable of doing so in others. On the other hand, there are certain incidents to the character of a citizen of the United States, with which the separate states cannot interfere.

William Rawle

-------

BTW - they are not 'immigrants' unless they file the paperwork. Until they do, they are resident aliens.

47 posted on 04/11/2011 1:19:06 PM PDT by MamaTexan (I am a Person as created by the Law of Nature, not a person as created by the laws of Man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

I am really shocked!


48 posted on 04/11/2011 1:19:19 PM PDT by wjcsux ("In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." - George Orwell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hoodat
"So according to this court, the State of Arizona can no longer enforce federal laws against drug trafficking since this would violate the Supremacy Clause and the Commerce Clause? "

Actually, no. That's not what the Court is saying, at all. In fact, in both the decision and concurring opinion, the Court reaffirms by citing relevant federal statutory law, the role that states and municipalities can and do play in helping to enforce existing federal law.

The Court however, takes issue with the state for passing its own law on immigration enforcement, even if that law fits perfectly within the scope of existing federal law. The state of AZ is, with the passage of the statute, getting into the foreign policy business, or so the Court opines.

I suspect, reading the opinion and knowing the bios of the two judges who found for plaintiffs (it was partially unanimous), that this will be a compelling argument to the Supreme Court. I have a feeling this won't go the way some think it will go. In fact, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a unanimous opinion, depending on who writes the opinion.

49 posted on 04/11/2011 1:20:24 PM PDT by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

50 posted on 04/11/2011 1:24:25 PM PDT by paulycy (Islamo-Marxism is Evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-104 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