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

Skip to comments.

Chief Justice Roberts, You Fox You
The American spectator ^ | 7-5-12 | R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.

Posted on 07/05/2012 6:46:08 AM PDT by afraidfortherepublic

WASHINGTON -- I have a headache. I imagine you do too, if you have been trying to interpret the legalese employed by those legal sages who have pronounced on Thursday's Supreme Court decision on Obamacare. I would rather read the lyrics of a thousand rap composers than the anfractuous language of one legal sage.

Thanks, however, to Professor E. Donald Elliott of the Yale Law School I had a translator at my side, and I shall now hand down my judgment of the Court's decision on Obamacare, which all sensible Americans have abstained from reading in its entirety including B. H. Obama and the vast majority of denizens of Capitol Hill, including N. Pelosi. Some of these worthies even admitted as much. It fell to nine heroic souls garbed in black actually to read the law and to Chief Justice Roberts to write the decision for the exhausted majority.

As a result of his prestidigitation with prior precedents and with the famously vague English language, critics cannot dismiss Chief Justice Roberts as hyper-partisan. His fellow conservatives are highly agitated by his decision. His usual opponents, the Liberals, celebrate him. The Chief Justice dodged the bullet. I think you can call him crafty, as Chief Justice John Marshall was crafty all those years ago when he wrote the decision for Marbury v. Madison. Roberts' decision, the decision of the majority of the court, accomplished three things.

Firstly, it reiterated two earlier holdings of the Court that ended the expansion of the commerce clause. The expansion of the federal government's reach under the commerce clause is no longer a grave threat to limited government. This offends certain Liberals such as our friends at the New York Times. Well, you win some and lose some, indignados.

(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: commerce; emmetttyrrell; obamacare; obamacaredecision; robertsdecision; scotus; tax
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-132 next last

1 posted on 07/05/2012 6:46:18 AM PDT by afraidfortherepublic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic

Nice try, Bob Tyrrell, but I’m not buying it. Perfume on a pig doesn’t make the pig a welcome guest at High Tea.


2 posted on 07/05/2012 6:47:34 AM PDT by afraidfortherepublic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic

He must have an exemption.


3 posted on 07/05/2012 6:50:03 AM PDT by InvisibleChurch ( if you love, you will not condemn, and if you condemn, you cannot love)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic
Chief Justice Roberts, You Fox You

Fixed it.

4 posted on 07/05/2012 6:52:04 AM PDT by TruthShallSetYouFree (If a gay guy wants a man date, give him a tax.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic

I’m no attorney nor am I a constitutional scholar so I rely on my instincts and put my trust in certain people. Mark Levin says it’s “destructive to our republic” and “damaged the constitution severely”. After his “laymen terms” explanation last week, I’m satisfied with my understanding and would rather not live life with rose colored glasses.


5 posted on 07/05/2012 6:52:43 AM PDT by albie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic

Tyrell is being uncharacteristically stupid.

Roberts did nothing to enhance his credibility or the Court’s by rendering an incoherent decision.

All of the good things that that Tyrell describes could have just as easily come about from a 5-4 decision the other way, except minus the ObamaCare.

I have described this as going for the suicide squeeze in baseball instead of a home run.


6 posted on 07/05/2012 6:54:12 AM PDT by Dr. Sivana ("Stronger. You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid! "--Eros, Plan 9 From Outer Space)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic

Bob Tyrell is a genius, and American spectator is a great Conservative magazine.

Don’t dismiss him so quick. You don’t have to agree 100% with everything everyone says for them to be one your side.

anfractuous - definition of anfractuous by the Free Online Dictionary ...
www.thefreedictionary.com/anfractuous

an·frac·tu·ous ( n-fr k ch - s). adj. Full of twists and turns; tortuous. [From Late Latin anfractu sus, from Latin anfr ctus, winding :


7 posted on 07/05/2012 6:54:22 AM PDT by Mr. K (OBAMA MUST BE STOPPED ROMNEY/GINGRICH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic

According to anonymous sources, Chief Justice Roberts was for striking down the whole law before he was against it.

That sort of makes Chief Justice Roberts the John Kerry of the Supreme Court.

[What an honor.]


8 posted on 07/05/2012 6:54:45 AM PDT by TomGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic

Didn’t “Beltway Bob” expose himself as a closeted RINO earlier this year? I can’t remember the issue.


9 posted on 07/05/2012 6:54:52 AM PDT by JohnG45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic

Don’t worry — Tyrell was vague enough to be both right and wrong, simultaneously, depending on the circumstances of the future, unless, of course, someone in the future chooses, more or less, to ignore this nebulous, yet firm, precedent.


10 posted on 07/05/2012 6:54:56 AM PDT by Migraine (Diversity is great; until it happens to YOU.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic

So .....His intentions were good when he stabbed us in the back!!!!


11 posted on 07/05/2012 6:58:04 AM PDT by ontap
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. K

Very true but FR has already done its magisterial rush to judgment and quod scripsit, scripsit. The laws of the Medes and Frersians cannot be changed. From Mount Frolympus it has been decreed: John Roberts is the spawn of Satan and a demon straigt from hell. He is a traitor. He is evil incarnate.

From this rash judgment there can be no recourse. Anyone who suggests otherwise must be condemned as the spawn of Satan and a demon from hell. Worse than that, as a RINO.

FR locutus est. Causa finita est.


12 posted on 07/05/2012 6:58:17 AM PDT by Houghton M.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic


Firstly, it reiterated two earlier holdings of the Court that ended the expansion of the commerce clause.

  Roberts could have just as easily struck the law as unconstitutional and used this re-iteration in the majority opinion as supporting argument.

Secondly, for the first time since the New Deal the Court rejected a law for exceeding the spending power of Congress.

  The same point could be made had the law been found unconstitutional.

Thirdly, the Congress can now tax us for not doing something, but this power is not nearly so dangerous as the power that the Court limited, namely, the commerce power.

  It was *completely* unnecessary to grant the Congress the ability to do one evil in order to deny them another evil. The author's point is so incredibly stupid I can't believe he wasted ink on it.

All things considered we conservatives did not come out so badly

  Horse Pucky. This is lipstick on a pig. Roberts did the American citizenry no favors.


13 posted on 07/05/2012 6:59:14 AM PDT by so_real ( "The Congress of the United States recommends and approves the Holy Bible for use in all schools.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic

14 posted on 07/05/2012 6:59:30 AM PDT by afraidfortherepublic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Mr. K
Bob Tyrell is a genius,

bullc*ap. In his writings he comes across as an elitist.

This article is another brainwashing attempt by the arrogant know-it-all elitists.

Levin clearly explained there is NO silver lining.

Almost every day since this ruling Levin specifically addressed the fools who commented upon the CC aspect. Levin rightfully says the CC was not touched.

Tyrell is simply FOS.

15 posted on 07/05/2012 6:59:30 AM PDT by sand88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic

Not buying what he’s selling. The restraint on the Commerce Clause in particular is not the silver lining people have been clinging to. If I understand correctly (and I may not - this decision is so convoluted I wonder if anyone truly understands it or its ramifications), that was part of Roberts’ individual opinion, not the opinion of the court and therefore does not change a thing.

So, I’m wondering when that ‘consent of the governed’ thing kicks in?


16 posted on 07/05/2012 7:00:07 AM PDT by iceskater (The clock is ticking....November's coming.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic

First, liberals will continue to use the Commerce Clause as the basis for their socialistic policies. Liberal justices will simply ignore Roberts’ writings.

Second, there should be no need for the court to affirm state’s rights. The fact that we are having this discussion demonstrates how far away we have moved from constitutional order.

Third, affirming the right of Congress to tax the lack of activity is an insanity.


17 posted on 07/05/2012 7:01:05 AM PDT by Erik Latranyi (When religions have to beg the gov't for a waiver, we are already under socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic
The expansion of the federal government's reach under the commerce clause is no longer a grave threat to limited government.

Just wait until the health secretary starts issuing edicts restricting firearm/ammunition sales and telling grocers what products they may and may not offer for sale.

18 posted on 07/05/2012 7:02:01 AM PDT by fso301
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic

I think we need to apply Occam’s Razor here.

Either Roberts’ decision was some sort of super-complex piece of 10-dimensional chess that he was playing while making the pieces move with his mind.

Or Roberts’ decision was simply another example of a typical method by which our government has been granting itself exemptions from constitutional and other limitations for over a century.

I’m thinking it’s the latter.


19 posted on 07/05/2012 7:02:08 AM PDT by Yashcheritsiy (not voting for the lesser of two evils)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic
Sigh....

....why would Roberts go thru all the contortions of the law when simply striking down the whole OC law would have accomplished the same thing?

IMO, Roberts should be put on a suicide watch because in my 75 years, I can't remember anyone one man plunging the US into domestic chaos and misery as did Justice Roberts...he HAS to be embarrassed and ashamed.

If he has any honor or integrity he will resign the day after Romney takes the oath of office...in an attempt to rescue his reputation and more importantly,.....make amends.

20 posted on 07/05/2012 7:02:08 AM PDT by B.O. Plenty (Elections have consequences....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic

Is that the “happy dead pig in the sunshine” that I have heard so much about?


21 posted on 07/05/2012 7:02:24 AM PDT by Ditter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic

I was deemed even at a very young age to be not only illiterate but quite prone to delusions and believed strongly that Howdy Doody’s puppet was real.

I even thought that perhaps he would grow up some day to be a Supreme Court Justice and uphold an African President’s health care law, which would finally put an end to the Constitution of the United States. Even now I believe it to be true though I must be mistaken!


22 posted on 07/05/2012 7:02:34 AM PDT by IbJensen (If you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed, if you do read the newspaper you are misinformed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Houghton M.

>> Causa finita est. <<

A brilliant post!

(In fact, if you hadn’t used the novel spelling “straigt” I might have called it the best POST to date about the recent SCOTUS ruling!)


23 posted on 07/05/2012 7:05:21 AM PDT by Hawthorn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic

Another conservative decides to eat the poop cake.

http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/07/02/shut-up-and-eat-your-poop-cake/


24 posted on 07/05/2012 7:08:32 AM PDT by Little Ray (FOR the best Conservative in the Primary; AGAINST Obama in the General.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic

If it takes that much mental contortion to find the good in this horrendous decision, then there is no good.

It is destructive to our liberty. Period.

Ironic, no, that it was issued right before “Independence Day”?


25 posted on 07/05/2012 7:10:26 AM PDT by iceskater (The clock is ticking....November's coming.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic

Hey Bob, what if we all go to the polls and Obama still wins? Sorry, Roberts screwed us.


26 posted on 07/05/2012 7:10:41 AM PDT by surrey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic
Judge Roberts succumb to political correctness and considered the “image” of the court above and before the actual rule of law.
27 posted on 07/05/2012 7:11:55 AM PDT by TexasCajun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: sand88

Little Tommy Daschle must be so proud of Bob for this hugh and series effort to get that bright red lipstick on this pig and its consort, Roberts. But then globalists of a feather ... have their useful idiot sycophants.


28 posted on 07/05/2012 7:12:43 AM PDT by MHGinTN (Being deceived can be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic
The Commerce Clause is in suspension only until the 'rats get their 5th dogmatic Justice.

The Medicaid part of the ruling is not warranted as the law had no severability clause (and the anti-injunction law was turned on it's ear (it should be unconstitutional anyway)).

"Congress can now tax us for not doing something" - This is the worst affront to logic and personal Liberty in a long time. Roberts needs to resign for this alone.

29 posted on 07/05/2012 7:13:30 AM PDT by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: B.O. Plenty
...he HAS to be embarrassed and ashamed.

No, he's in Malta teaching a course. Methinks he should just stay there and apply for asylum.

30 posted on 07/05/2012 7:15:40 AM PDT by afraidfortherepublic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic
Rationalizing the vain,cowardly, and , as J Rob well knew, constitutional immunity from stupidity repercussions, CJ Robert's infamous treacherous destruction of our US Constitution is an exercise in futility from any angle...

Ben Arnold may have had more cause to be a deadly traitor to his country but John Roberts had no real cause other than self inflated self esteem yet with more real power to finish Ben's hate America agenda--God Damn his soul!!!

31 posted on 07/05/2012 7:16:55 AM PDT by Happy Rain ("With one appallingly stupid ruling SCCJ Roberts converted tax lawyers into defense attorneys.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic

The real determination of whether Roberts was crafty or sold us out will never be made if we succeed in taking the White House and both houses of Congress and the folks in Congress have the stones to pass a full repeal by using reconciliation to get it though the Senate (or mirable dictu we get 60 Senate seats), so in way, I hope we never find out.

But, while Obamacare is law, there are is still a manifestly unconstitutional provision lurking in it, but one not addressed in the suits the SCOTUS ruled on a week ago: the IPAB provision which attempts to bind future Congresses, and thus is prima facia unconstitutional. The same provision could also be challenged on the basis of the precedent in (of all things) Roe v. Wade, where the “reasoning” had nothing to do with abortion per se, but with government intrusion into the “private” patient-physician relationship. The IPAB is nothing but one huge intrusion of government into the “private” patient-physician relationship.

If a suit on either basis reaches the SCOTUS and Roberts leads a majority to invalidate Obamacare, notes it contains no severability clause and tosses the whole thing into the ashbin of history, he would indeed have out-foxed the left by establishing a precedent that limits Federal coercion of the states and the expansion of the Commerce Clause.


32 posted on 07/05/2012 7:17:17 AM PDT by The_Reader_David (And when they behead your own people in the wars which are to come, then you will know. . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic

I’m surprised that none of the source article commenters have ripped Tyrrell for buying Roberts’ dicta re: the Commerce Clause as binding precedent.


33 posted on 07/05/2012 7:18:40 AM PDT by Charles Martel (Endeavor to persevere...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic
More wishful thinking from another Roberts apologist.

Lets assume thing are as the author assumes. That would mean that every time Democrats won an election, they would pass all of these compulsion-by-tax laws requiring folks to buy "widgets." The Republicans win the next election and repeal the taxes and the compulsory buying . . . Democrats win later, etc., etc. . . . Wow! What a wonderful recipe for a completely unstable economy. Businesses wouldn't be able to forecast beyond the next election.

No, sorry Mr. Tyrrell; Roberts screwed the pooch on this one--as well as the nation.
34 posted on 07/05/2012 7:19:02 AM PDT by Sudetenland (Member of the BBB Club - Bye-Bye-Barry!!! President Barack "Down Low" Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic
Nice try, Bob Tyrrell, but I’m not buying it. Perfume on a pig doesn’t make the pig a welcome guest at High Tea.

Very well put!

35 posted on 07/05/2012 7:19:22 AM PDT by Tau Food (Tom Hoefling for President - 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Houghton M.
"John Roberts is the spawn of Satan and a demon straigt from hell. He is a traitor. He is evil incarnate."

Not only that, it's all W's fault. I'm not kidding.

36 posted on 07/05/2012 7:19:46 AM PDT by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Little Ray

Brilliant! That reminds me of Octavia Spencer’s chocolate pie in The Help.


37 posted on 07/05/2012 7:20:45 AM PDT by afraidfortherepublic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: ontap

—So .....His intentions were good when he stabbed us in the back!!!!—

I think of it as shooting a lame horse. We’ll thank him later for offing us more quickly.


38 posted on 07/05/2012 7:20:47 AM PDT by cuban leaf (Were doomed! Details at eleven.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Sivana
>>> All of the good things that that Tyrell describes could have just as easily come about from a 5-4 decision the other way, except minus the ObamaCare.

Exactly! Especially considering his third point.

“Thirdly, the Congress can now tax us for not doing something, but this power is not nearly so dangerous ....”

Tell me again, how teh “I WON” president and “We have to pass it to read it” Pelosi cheat, lie and bribe the whole time to get the bill passed against the consent of majority citizens?

And Mr. Tyrrell think they will somehow be more restrained in the future?

39 posted on 07/05/2012 7:21:00 AM PDT by Sir Napsalot (Pravda + Useful Idiots = CCCP; JournOList + Useful Idiots = DopeyChangey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic
After reading endless commentaries like this, my general sense of the ObamaCare decision is as follows:

1. The case before the Supreme Court was probably brought prematurely, since the most destructive provisions of ObamaCare aren't even in force yet (and therefore can't legally be contested).

2. The Court's ruling is actually problematic for ObamaCare in other areas. The ruling is filled with landmines that can be exploited by individuals or groups in future legal challenges. For one thing, if ObamaCare is a "tax" then by definition there are enormous loopholes that would likely apply to tax-exempt organizations (religious or not).

3. As more and more provisions of ObamaCare are implemented, there will be additional legal disputes related to specific provisions (First Amendment grounds, the ability of HHS to grant waivers in an arbitraty fashion, etc.).

4. ObamaCare is not likely to remain in its current form by 2014 anyway, since the financial numbers aren't going to work and too many members of Congress are going to be running away from it.

40 posted on 07/05/2012 7:22:24 AM PDT by Alberta's Child ("If you touch my junk, I'm gonna have you arrested.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Yashcheritsiy

It’s the latter I think too. Its as simple as this - Roberts was cowed by Obama’s threats. Period.


41 posted on 07/05/2012 7:22:48 AM PDT by atc23 (The Confederacy was the single greatest conservative resistance to federal authority ever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Houghton M.
"John Roberts is the spawn of Satan and a demon straigt from hell. He is a traitor. He is evil incarnate."

Not only that, it's all W's fault. I'm not kidding.

42 posted on 07/05/2012 7:23:16 AM PDT by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic
Thirdly, the Congress can now tax us for not doing something, but this power is not nearly so dangerous as the power that the Court limited, namely, the commerce power. Laws passed under Congress's power to tax and spend may only take our money.

"Only".

Your mere existence may now be taxed. As a "tax", ObamaCare's "individual mandate" now demands ~$3000 of you just for breathing. That the tax is curtailed in light of low income is a matter of the whim of the state; once computed, inability to pay a tax is never grounds for non-payment, a transgression where your freedom - or your life - is demanded in lieu thereof.

Bravo for limiting the Commerce Clause and General Welfare Clause.
Fie upon those who open the door to unlimited power through other means.

43 posted on 07/05/2012 7:23:51 AM PDT by ctdonath2 ($1 meals: http://abuckaplate.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: atc23

The pattern emerges: identify the key players, and ask them “how can I make you an offer you can’t refuse?”


44 posted on 07/05/2012 7:25:44 AM PDT by ctdonath2 ($1 meals: http://abuckaplate.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic

Spare us the exotic words, Bob. That’s Buckley’s schtick.


45 posted on 07/05/2012 7:26:58 AM PDT by Yardstick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: so_real

Agree, but why isn’t anyone commenting on the fact that government is now allowed to take away (shorten) my life? Roberts could have done the country a great favor by striking down the law. Instead we will now have decades of debate, higher taxation, a growing government, a more polarized congress, a shortage of physicians, and an economic system that will remain in turmoil. In the end I think SCOTUS will be held responsible for damages inflicted on all of us by virtue of a bad decision rather than a bad law forcefully passed by Democrats.


46 posted on 07/05/2012 7:27:13 AM PDT by Boomer One
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
too many members of Congress are going to be running away from it.

They may be unwilling to feed the dragon, but they are unwilling to slay it as well.

47 posted on 07/05/2012 7:27:36 AM PDT by ctdonath2 ($1 meals: http://abuckaplate.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic

The nice thing about rap lyrics is that the vocabularies are small and there is much repitition.

Romney is now saying that this is a tax. Because it was decreed by the Supreme Court to be a tax.

I think he’s right to say this because it being revealed (or decreed) as a tax will hurt Obama.

However, one wonders if the Supreme Court says grass is red, is it red? Or is it still green?


48 posted on 07/05/2012 7:27:50 AM PDT by altura
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hawthorn
As soon as there is a solidly conservative President of the United States to pick his replacement, John Roberts should resign and move to Malta where he can teach law at the University of Malta. Then he needs to convince Sotomayor and Kagan that it's so nice there that they should follow his example.

Then George Straigt, I mean Strait, can write a song for the Court: "All My Exes teach in Malta."

49 posted on 07/05/2012 7:27:50 AM PDT by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot
If I were sitting on the U.S. Supreme Court when this case came up, I would have refused to hear it at all. There's no reason for a Federal judge to waste a moment of his time reading a single legal brief in a legal challenge that is brought against a Federal statute when the Speaker of the House of Representatives openly acknowledges that she didn't even read the damn thing before voting on it.

Justice Roberts was right when he said that it's not the Court's job to protect Americans from the consequences of their political choices. The Supreme Court isn't the problem here. The real problem is that we've grown complacent with a government where a dingbat like Nancy Pelosi can rise to a prominent position of power.

50 posted on 07/05/2012 7:28:11 AM PDT by Alberta's Child ("If you touch my junk, I'm gonna have you arrested.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-132 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