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

Skip to comments.

The Chief Justice's Gambit (Not as bad as we think??)
Rea Clear Politics ^ | June 27,2012 | Sean Trende

Posted on 06/28/2012 2:37:54 PM PDT by Hojczyk

But I think if you scratch the surface here, Roberts embarked upon a gambit much like Marshall did 200 years ago. For the results-oriented -- which is to say, most observers on both sides who have been ranting about the Constitution for the past few months -- this is a clear win for the Obama administration, at least in the short term. By removing most legal impediments to the implementation of the law, the odds that the president’s signature legislation will eventually be implemented have risen.

1. The law still has a good chance of not being implemented.

2. Doctrinally, The Federalist Society got everything it wanted.

But judicial conservatives who are not just concerned about the outcome got more than they could have reasonably hoped for. Doctrinally speaking, this case will likely be remembered as a watershed decision for conservatives.

Five justices just signaled to lower courts that, but for the unique taxation power argument, they were prepared to rule that a major act of Congress that plainly touched upon economic activity exceeded Congress’ commerce powers. Right now, liberals are seemingly too busy celebrating their win, and conservatives bemoaning their loss, to realize the significance of this.

3. The chief justice has built up some political capital.

Roberts has basically done what John Marshall did: Insulate the court from criticism of bald partisan bias and infidelity to, as he once put it, calling balls and strikes. He’s earning plaudits from the left. Though the right is grumbling, I suspect they won’t be doing so for long

4. This matters in the long run -- a lot.

All told, it is easier for the conservative wing of the court to make some significant rulings in some other policy areas.

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


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Editorial; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: obamacaretax
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-127 next last

1 posted on 06/28/2012 2:38:00 PM PDT by Hojczyk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Hojczyk

I think this guy has to much hope....but with out hope what???


2 posted on 06/28/2012 2:39:30 PM PDT by Hojczyk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hojczyk
Ha! Ha!...and all those Conservatives thought I would walk the line...
3 posted on 06/28/2012 2:41:58 PM PDT by AngelesCrestHighway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hojczyk

bottomline - Elections matter


4 posted on 06/28/2012 2:42:12 PM PDT by Perdogg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Hojczyk

Why was Obamacare pushed forward so early in his presidency? I’ll tell you why. The feds have had 2 1/2 years to begin implementing it. The underlying foundation is there, and it’s too late to undo it. That’s what they were counting on.

As soon as it was passed, a friend of mine whose family owns one of the biggest companies in the state said their HR people were called in to a meeting within a week of the bill’s passage and given instructions for its initial implementation.


5 posted on 06/28/2012 2:44:48 PM PDT by ChocChipCookie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hojczyk
I'm sitting here on the couch and need to use the can. I know, I'll take a flight to Holland. That way I can fly back and then use the can. Brilliant.

6 posted on 06/28/2012 2:45:16 PM PDT by I see my hands (As Islamists perpetrated 9/11 so SCOTUS perpetrated 6/28)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hojczyk

Here’s the flaw in the Roberts-cut-down-the-Commerce-Clause meme - it is entirely dependant on other judges interpreting the law that way. Liberal judges won’t. One thing can be said for lib judges, the left can always count on their vote no matter what. Too bad we can’t say the same thing about our so-called conservative judges.


7 posted on 06/28/2012 2:45:38 PM PDT by Lou Budvis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

Bottom line: Electing RINOs like the Bushes is a disaster.


8 posted on 06/28/2012 2:45:43 PM PDT by Kazan (Mitt Romney: The greater of two evils)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Hojczyk

I don’t exactly follow this.

He says that doctrinally conservatives got a restriction on the commerce clause.

But they would have gotten that as well if he had just sided with the 4 good guys/dissenters, and wrote a strong opinion.


9 posted on 06/28/2012 2:46:15 PM PDT by ConservativeDude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hojczyk

This will be a long, hot summer. There are new unemployment numbers due next week. This decision only adds more depression to unemployment. Who will be left to pay for this trillion dollar Obamination?

The cloak of fraud that allowed this monstrosity to be concealed under Interstate Commerce is stripped away. It is now the most gigantic tax increase and government rule that has been hoisted on the public, ever.

The liberals forced this through under a cloud of Hopey Changey, Stimulus, Bailouts and all the liberal crap that added $5T to the debt. Meanwhile we have more people out of work than before this disaster passed. If we can’t turn this into an electoral repeat of 2010 and take the presidency, nothing will get us out of it. Time to fight - that is the result of this decision!


10 posted on 06/28/2012 2:46:57 PM PDT by untwist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hojczyk

It’s over, they won, we lost. People can’t face reality so they are trying to spin this as some kind of “win” for us....there is no “win” here.


11 posted on 06/28/2012 2:47:12 PM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg
bottomline - Elections matter

Exactly

Fair, honest....(or otherwise).

12 posted on 06/28/2012 2:48:08 PM PDT by RckyRaCoCo (I prefer liberty with danger to peace with slavery, IXNAY THE TSA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Hojczyk

based upon what i have read, the sledgehammer that the libs have been using against us since rooselvelt has been reduced to a one ounce nail tack..

they can no longer use the commerce clause, or that other feel good clause to ramrod their agenda through,,

they will have to spell it out clearly, and we all know libs are deathly afraid of the light..

roberts got it right with arizona..

it would appear he just struck a death blow to the libs...

I will be reading the entire ruling tonight, but based upon the first 4 pages, constitutionalists win, socialists and libs lose, BIG TIME


13 posted on 06/28/2012 2:49:25 PM PDT by joe fonebone (I am the 15%)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lou Budvis

Well said.

It would have been better just to cram the whole thing down their throats. obamacare is unconstitutional, and by the way, the commerce clause is restricted.

He had the votes to do that.

To suggest that he has some brilliant master plan is just reaching. Psychologically, I understand it.

But it seems wrongheaded to me.

(A lot of us were wary of Roberts the day he was appointed, even though we were glad to see Harriet Meirs gone. He showed some initial promise, surprisingly, early on. But when it counted, like this week, he has turned into Earlwarrenwilliambrenondavidsouter all over again.)


14 posted on 06/28/2012 2:49:43 PM PDT by ConservativeDude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator
Exactly. I wasn't surprised. I won't be surprised when Obama wins in November either.
15 posted on 06/28/2012 2:50:11 PM PDT by throwback (The object of opening the mind, is as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: joe fonebone

Bull.


16 posted on 06/28/2012 2:51:27 PM PDT by securityman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Hojczyk

From what I understand ( and that aint much), the bill says “Penalties”, now Roberts says it can’t be a “Penalty”, but it can be a “Tax”. Does the bill have to be corrected and voted on once more?, and if not why not ?
And isn’t there some special procedures a “tax” bill has to under go??????
Your humble Freeper


17 posted on 06/28/2012 2:54:20 PM PDT by Robe (Rome did not create a great empire by talking, they did it by killing all those who opposed them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeDude
He says that doctrinally conservatives got a restriction on the commerce clause.

It doesn't matter that the court said that the commerce clause has limited power because the court also said that taxation IS unlimited power.

18 posted on 06/28/2012 2:54:53 PM PDT by Drill Thrawl (Another day. Another small provocation. Another step closer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: AngelesCrestHighway
Yeah...HA HA. Where are all those Freepers who were wishing me ill 5-7 years ago when I kept telling them Bush was not as conservative as they thought?

I would be willing to wager they are the same ones bashing him today.

19 posted on 06/28/2012 2:55:41 PM PDT by NELSON111
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Hojczyk
Five justices just signaled to lower courts that, but for the unique taxation power argument, they were prepared to rule that a major act of Congress that plainly touched upon economic activity exceeded Congress’ commerce powers

Five Just-uses have signaled that the federal government can impose anything it wants on American citizens and use it "taxing power" to turn us all into serfs.

He also, has created a new definition of what a tax is- which used to be solely for revenue raising. This definition will be used widely and wildly by the left to impose it will on Americans and the lower courts will ratify the left by pointing to this decision.

Roberts fate is sealed forever. No matter how many times he nominally votes conservative in the future, this insidious treachery will define him forever.

20 posted on 06/28/2012 2:57:04 PM PDT by CharacterCounts (A vote for the lesser of two evils only insures the triumph of evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: joe fonebone

It’d be great if you were right.

But: It is Justice Thomas who has been calling for a clawback on the Commerce Clause for twenty years now. If this decision was really the opportunity to kill the expansive reading of the Commerce Clause, then why wouldn’t Thomas join in the fun?

So, we are supposed to believe that Alito, Thomas and Scalia are wrong here? And that somehow Roberts seduced the two lesbian justices, the ACLU hag, and Breyer to join into what will eventually kill socialism?

Damn, that would be good. Talk about making lemons out of lemonade, but that just seems far-fetched.

Again, though, we all hope you are right!!!


21 posted on 06/28/2012 2:57:31 PM PDT by ConservativeDude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Drill Thrawl

Good point.


22 posted on 06/28/2012 2:59:18 PM PDT by ConservativeDude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: CharacterCounts
Coming Soon to Your State!

Speedy Light Rail Access
to the Much Awaited
Obama-Roberts Health Spas and Seminar Centers

Individual and Family Plans Available


23 posted on 06/28/2012 3:02:12 PM PDT by Covenantor ("Men are ruled...by liars who refuse them news, and by fools who cannot govern." Chesterton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: joe fonebone
Wrong.

Roberts has just expanded the power of the Federal government beyond the liberals' wildest dreams. His decision to limit the Commerce Clause is vacuous, because the Commerce Clause is no longer required: his decision finds that absent any specifically enumerated power, or power implied by the common law, the taxing authority of Congress is in and of itself a sufficient justification of the law.

People who actually understand that the Constitution requires Congress to act within its mandate grasped at the Commerce Clause as a desperate straw they could claim for the mandate's justification. Now Roberts has told them that no justification for any law is required, as long as it has tax consequences.

It's not a victory. It can't be twisted into one. It is the most staggering defeat of conservatism and the most vicious betrayal of the Constitution in the history of the Republic.

It would have been FAR BETTER for Roberts' to simply assert that the Commerce Clause obtained. He didn't. It's effectively the end of Constitutional government.

Read the decision tonight, and weep; because America is gone.

24 posted on 06/28/2012 3:02:56 PM PDT by FredZarguna (The justification for a tax cannot be the authority to tax in and of itself.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Hojczyk

What Roberts facilitated...

Contempt for the SCOTUS
Assurance that some form of government health care is assured
Businesses will dump employee insurance en mass
The populace will mistakenly think it’s okay for the government to be a nanny cradle to grave
The impression that Republicans who oppose government health care are evil

I’m sure I missed a number of other issues, but this is good for starters.

Roberts has no idea how badly this screwed our nation over


25 posted on 06/28/2012 3:03:01 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (Remove all Democrats from the Republican party, and we won't have much Left, just a lot of Right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Drill Thrawl

hey buddy... news flash..

the congress has always had the power to tax anydanmthing it pleases..

this ruling gave them nothing extra..

It took away their so called right to use the commerce clause any damn way they please..


26 posted on 06/28/2012 3:03:56 PM PDT by joe fonebone (I am the 15%)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: joe fonebone
It took away their so called right to use the commerce clause any damn way they please..

BFD, as if that was going to stop them.

27 posted on 06/28/2012 3:05:57 PM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: throwback
I won't be surprised when Obama wins in November either.

Go sit in a corner and talk to yourself. Nobody wants to hear that.

28 posted on 06/28/2012 3:06:14 PM PDT by afraidfortherepublic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Hojczyk

I’m just glad they used the word TAX. It has opened some eyes of some people who thought it was free....


29 posted on 06/28/2012 3:06:53 PM PDT by Fawn (DEAR JESUS....PLEASE LET OBAMA LOSE.....AMEN.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Drill Thrawl

you know the other thing that is troublesome about this “Roberts has a Master Plan” mentality is that no master plan matters now. This was a fundamental dividing point in American history.

The way he mis-reads the Constitution allows for the fundamental transformation into the totalitarian democracy that the left has always wanted. Roberts, of course, would say that he isn’t for that, that he wanted to decide on narrow grounds, blah blah blah...to avoid partisanship blah blah blah...all that amounts to nothing and even the Constitution amounts to nothing when the country itself has been fundamentally altered in how it relates to the federal government.

Its like saying “no” to chemotherapy when your body is riddled with cancer, and saying, “oh, now, I have a wellness plan here in my pocket which includes diet and exercise...and chemo is dangerous anyways”.


30 posted on 06/28/2012 3:07:22 PM PDT by ConservativeDude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

“bottomline - Elections matter”

Recent rulings have made it clear. In the eyes of the Supreme Court individuals and states are now subservient to the power of the federal government. Equally clear is the fact that the USSC can’t save us from our stupidity. Its up to us now. We have one more chance. Let’s get ready to rumble.


31 posted on 06/28/2012 3:07:38 PM PDT by Starboard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Hojczyk
 

In 1803, the chief justice of the United States had a problem. His hated cousin, Thomas Jefferson, had won the last presidential election. But the outgoing Federalists opted not go gentle into that good night. The one branch of government they controlled was the judiciary, and they meant to keep it. They had passed the Judiciary Act of 1801, which allowed for several new judicial appointments.

President Adams did a remarkable job filling the appointments and getting them hastily confirmed. The so-called “Midnight Judges” by and large received their commissions. But not all of them did. Incoming President Jefferson then instructed his secretary of state not to deliver the remaining ones.

Unsurprisingly, litigation ensued. One of those who was to receive a commission, William Marbury, filed a petition directly in the Supreme Court under a provision of the Judiciary Act of 1789. He requested a writ ordering the secretary of state to deliver his commission.

But Chief Justice John Marshall was a staunch Federalist. The republic was young, the court’s legitimacy fragile, and the ability of the nation to endure the peaceful transfer of power between parties uncertain. It was also unclear how Marshall’s ordering the newly installed Jeffersonian Republican secretary of state to do something would go over.

So the chief justice did something very clever. He found that Marbury was entitled to his commission, bestowing legitimacy on those Midnight Judges who had received theirs. But he didn't stop there -- to Marbury's detriment. He then ruled that the Constitution only gave the court so-called “original jurisdiction” over a small number of cases. The provision of the Judiciary Act of 1789 bestowing the court with original jurisdiction over writs of the type Marbury sought was therefore unconstitutional.

Jefferson had won, nominally. Madison didn’t have to deliver the commission, Marbury didn’t refile in the lower courts, and he never became a justice of the peace. But history remembers the case as a huge, perhaps decisive, blow against those Jeffersonians who viewed the Constitution as nothing more than a glorified Articles of Confederation.


32 posted on 06/28/2012 3:08:24 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeDude

There are multiple parts to the decision. Roberts sided with Alito, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas on the limitations to the Commerce Clause.


33 posted on 06/28/2012 3:09:19 PM PDT by bigdaddy45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Hojczyk

More turd polishing.


34 posted on 06/28/2012 3:10:19 PM PDT by GlockThe Vote (The Obama Adminstration: 2nd wave of attacks on America after 9/11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FredZarguna
This is unbelievable. We are no longer a free country. Our only hope is those in the military who have sworn to protect the Constitution can save us.
35 posted on 06/28/2012 3:10:41 PM PDT by RavenLooneyToon (Tail gunner Joe was right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Hojczyk

This is on the copyright list.

Read the rest of page 1, page 2 and page 3 here.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/06/28/the_chief_justices_gambit_114646.html


36 posted on 06/28/2012 3:13:55 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hojczyk
This is flaming nonsense. The power to tax as defined in this decision is the power to destroy. Rush Limbaugh has it right - see here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2900617/posts

37 posted on 06/28/2012 3:16:13 PM PDT by Thud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeDude

>> But they would have gotten that as well if he had just sided with the 4 good guys/dissenters, and wrote a strong opinion.

Exactly how I see it.

I think this article, as with many that have appeared today, is just pundits putting conservative spin on a disappointing decision.

The ‘rats would have done the same, had Roberts voted with the real conservatives.


38 posted on 06/28/2012 3:16:41 PM PDT by Nervous Tick (Trust in God, but row away from the rocks!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Hojczyk

You should tune into Mark Levin’s show.
He will explain why this writer has it wrong.


39 posted on 06/28/2012 3:16:46 PM PDT by tennmountainman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: FredZarguna

Hey fred...

As I said before, the congress had always had the power to tax anydamnthing it pleases...

congress got no new powers in this decision..

congress got STRIPPED of powers given to it during the communist roosevelt administration.

states rights were reaffirmed by removing any and all penalties against states that choose to “opt out”..

some are crying about fubocare and that the court should have just overturned it. I beleive a golden opportunity was laid at the feet of roberts.

the libs wanted this thing as law no matter what. Roberts wanted the slow creep of socialism, with the commerce clause and that other “feel good” clause that the communists have been using for over 70 years reduced back to original intent.

The libs took the bait.

Now, like what has been said, it is up to us to elect the government we want, and FORCE them to do OUR bidding.

gonna be tough with the socialists that have infiltrated the republican party, but it can be done.

and as a side note, the tax thing does not start until 2014. With so many organizations exempt from the tax, do you really think this tax upon certain people will stand as constitutional?

If this thing is allowed to stand ( and romney already said that he wants to keep parts of it ) then in 2014, the unions and everyone else that thought they had an exemption will be in for a rude awakening...

just my thoughts


40 posted on 06/28/2012 3:18:15 PM PDT by joe fonebone (I am the 15%)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Hojczyk

All this time, I’ve been bumfuzzled that people used the conservative appointees argument for nominating Mitt. Souter, anyone?

I have a dumb question. Is there absolutely *no* constitutional mechanism for having a referendum re 0bamacare on the November ballot?

“but with out hope what???” Goood question. I’m about there.


41 posted on 06/28/2012 3:18:17 PM PDT by KGeorge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: joe fonebone
You are wrong. Prior to this decision, a tax was for the purpose of raising revenue.

Today, Roberts expanded that definition to call all the use of a tax to control personal conduct.

42 posted on 06/28/2012 3:18:36 PM PDT by CharacterCounts (A vote for the lesser of two evils only insures the triumph of evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: joe fonebone
No.

Before today the Congress only had the authority to lay certain kinds of taxes and only in circumstances "necessary and proper" to effect those things pursuant to its Constitutional Authority.

As for legal challenges, read my previous post which quotes the decision. The Court has already signaled it will NOT entertain Constitutional challenges to the tax.

Levin is discussing it right now.

43 posted on 06/28/2012 3:27:15 PM PDT by FredZarguna (The justification for a tax cannot be the authority to tax in and of itself.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator
they are trying to spin this as some kind of “win” for us....there is no “win” here.

You're being too pessimistic.

Remember back when there were jumpballs in basketball.

Roberts threw the ball back up and it is up to us to snare it for our team.

At least that's better than the referee just giving the ball to the liberals.

44 posted on 06/28/2012 3:27:35 PM PDT by eddie willers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

Your absolutely right neighbor! There is no win here whatsoever!!!


45 posted on 06/28/2012 3:29:00 PM PDT by Halls (Jesus is my Lord and Savior)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

We have a choice - we can surrender or re-group and counter-attack. Counter-attacks frequently lead to victory.

I am ready to reload and advance forward!


46 posted on 06/28/2012 3:32:52 PM PDT by TNoldman (AN AMERICAN FOR A MUSLIM/BHO FREE AMERICA.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: KGeorge
No referendums...we get to vote...our founders never though we would elect such fools...they were afraid of referendums... people would vote for free stuff..

The only hope is November and after that we have the hope for Mittens...I really do not have much hope...to many people want fee stuff..and the GOP never has done much....Reagan got stuff done with the help Southern Democrats and they are all gone..think Zel Miller..Rinos like Dole were no help..

47 posted on 06/28/2012 3:36:42 PM PDT by Hojczyk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: FredZarguna

I’ve wept all day. I see it how you see it. Nothing good happened for the US today!


48 posted on 06/28/2012 3:39:38 PM PDT by Halls (Jesus is my Lord and Savior)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: joe fonebone
HorseCrap! They will not only STILL use the commerce clause they will also cloak everything they want to do as a Tax. An illegal and unconstitutional tax, but a tax none the less. He just made taxes on NON action TAXABLE. He has opened the door to all they will ever want to do. There is no constitution at all. He twisted and twisted in order to ‘find’ a new tax capability.

This ruling deserves nothing less than civil disobedience by a vast majority of the states. The ruling is incoherent at best. It is not a direct tax, it is not an apportioned tax, it is not an income tax. He totally ignores the taxing ability of the Federal Government in the constitution & decides that since HE THINKS IT ACTS like a tax IT IS A TAX!

This type of logic can only show dementia and he should be removed for his own good, so he can seek the help he so desperately needs!

49 posted on 06/28/2012 3:44:15 PM PDT by Jim from C-Town (The government is rarely benevolent, often malevolent and never benign!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

11 posts before someone stated the facts.


50 posted on 06/28/2012 3:52:56 PM PDT by bigfootbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-127 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