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

Skip to comments.

U.S. Supreme Court Limits Punitive-Damage Awards
Bloomberg ^ | 4/7/3 | Greg Stohr and Laurie Asseo

Posted on 04/07/2003 10:44:25 AM PDT by WaveThatFlag

Edited on 07/19/2004 2:11:11 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

The U.S. Supreme Court put new limits on punitive damages, striking down a $145 million award State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. was told to pay a Utah couple in a dispute over an accident claim.

The 6-3 ruling said the U.S. Constitution in most cases limits punitive damages to 10 times the harm suffered by the plaintiff. The punitive award against State Farm was 145 times the $1 million the couple had won for mental anguish they suffered when the insurer wouldn't settle a claim against them.


(Excerpt) Read more at quote.bloomberg.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: insurance; punitivedamages; ruling; scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-140 next last

1 posted on 04/07/2003 10:44:25 AM PDT by WaveThatFlag
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: WaveThatFlag; Poohbah; Chancellor Palpatine; Congressman Billybob; Miss Marple; Howlin
Wow, that's pretty nice.

We now have a limit on punitive damages, to be specific, 10 times actual harm.

Wonder what Scalia and Thomas were thinking when they dissented, though.
2 posted on 04/07/2003 10:47:59 AM PDT by hchutch ("But tonight we get EVEN!" - Ice-T)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WaveThatFlag
Justices Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Antonin Scalia dissented.

What a peculiar alliance. I wonder why Thomas and Scalia dissented..

3 posted on 04/07/2003 10:50:43 AM PDT by PoisedWoman (Fed up with the liberal media)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
Ten times actuals is pretty reasonable.
4 posted on 04/07/2003 10:53:13 AM PDT by Chancellor Palpatine (going into an election campaign without the paleocons is like going to war without the French)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Chancellor Palpatine
And the trial lawyers cannot appeal THIS one. :)

This is shaping up to be a pretty good Monday.
5 posted on 04/07/2003 10:54:49 AM PDT by hchutch ("But tonight we get EVEN!" - Ice-T)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
Maybe I missed it. Where exactly does it say what the SC reduced the damaged to?
6 posted on 04/07/2003 10:55:17 AM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (Even if the government took all your earnings, you wouldn’t be, in its eyes, a slave.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: PoisedWoman
They probably dissented because the Constitution says nothing about limiting punitive damage awards.
7 posted on 04/07/2003 10:55:31 AM PDT by GnL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
What they were thinking is that it is not right for the Supreme Court to be making up rules like this with highly suspect at best constitutional grounding.

Even if it is a good and logical rule.

8 posted on 04/07/2003 10:56:41 AM PDT by The Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
Wonder what Scalia and Thomas were thinking when they dissented, though.

States rights , and nothing specific in the constitution granting the feds authority to set arbitary limits comes to mind.

9 posted on 04/07/2003 10:56:42 AM PDT by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: PoisedWoman
I imagine they dissented because there is no textual basis in the constitution for limiting punitive damages awards in state courts. The state legislatures or courts should be free to make such determinations and not have them imposed by unelected, life-tenured federal judges. While I may favor the result, the process by which the result was arrived at may be as illegitmate as Roe- v. Wade. Scalia and Thomas are ususally right.
10 posted on 04/07/2003 10:56:51 AM PDT by Capt. Jake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: WaveThatFlag
Good deal, I hope this can be made retroactive--the kind of news that will further help the economy
11 posted on 04/07/2003 10:58:03 AM PDT by KansasCanadian (Baghdad Bob on Comedy Central)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
Wonder what Scalia and Thomas were thinking when they dissented, though.

Maybe, that this isn't addressed in the Constitution, and right or wrong it isn't their call to make?

ML/NJ

12 posted on 04/07/2003 10:58:13 AM PDT by ml/nj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: PoisedWoman
From the article, it seems clear that Thomas and Scalia find it inappropriate for the federal judiciary to determine that a state court damage finding invalidates "due process" simply because of the size of the judgement.

Seems like they're both very consistent. Given their brilliance, I'd bet they could convince me of the rightness of their position, though as a stockholder in Altria Corp, this is welcome news for me!

I'm sure Scalia would tell you that court judgements are often insane, and many lawsuits are without merit. But he would likely say that the proper way to address this is for more judges to apply strict legal standards. He's certainly right "in theory." But I don't have the patience for this theory to play out just now...
13 posted on 04/07/2003 10:59:26 AM PDT by ER_in_OC,CA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj; hchutch
Eighth Amendment regarding excessive bail or fines comes to mind.

The question is "What is excessive?"
14 posted on 04/07/2003 10:59:57 AM PDT by Poohbah (Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
Not surprisingly, the nitwits that wrote this article again screwed up the opinion of the Court. The Court stated:

"With regard to the second Gore guidepost, the Court has been reluctant to identify concrete constitutional limits on the ratio be-tween harm, or potential harm, to the plaintiff and the punitive damages award; but, in practice, few awards exceeding a single-digit ratio between punitive and compensatory damages will satisfy due process. See, e.g., Gore, supra, at 581."

Note that this is the same thing that's been happening for the past 7 years, since Gore was decided.
15 posted on 04/07/2003 11:00:30 AM PDT by Viva Le Dissention
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: WaveThatFlag
Democratic party lobbyist trial lawyers across the country along with their titular leader, Senator John Edwards(NC) and Democrat Presidential candidate ,are throwing and breaking things across their offices right now, IMO.
16 posted on 04/07/2003 11:01:58 AM PDT by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Viva Le Dissention
Since there is so much discussion, I am posting the full text of Scalia and Thomas's opinions.

JUSTICE SCALIA, dissenting.
I adhere to the view expressed in my dissenting opinion in BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U. S. 559, 598-99 (1996), that the Due Process Clause pro-vides no substantive protections against “excessive” or “‘unreasonable’” awards of punitive damages. I am also of the view that the punitive damages jurisprudence which has sprung forth from BMW v. Gore is insusceptible of principled application; accordingly, I do not feel justified in giving the case stare decisis effect. See id., at 599. I would affirm the judgment of the Utah Supreme Court.

JUSTICE THOMAS, dissenting.
I would affirm the judgment below because “I continue to believe that the Constitution does not constrain the size of punitive damages awards.” Cooper Industries, Inc. v. Leatherman Tool Group, Inc., 532 U. S. 424, 443 (2001) (THOMAS, J., concurring) (citing BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U. S. 559, 599 (1996) (SCALIA, J., joined by THOMAS, J., dissenting)). Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.
17 posted on 04/07/2003 11:02:33 AM PDT by Viva Le Dissention
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: PoisedWoman
Without more information, I think Scalia and Thomas were probably concerned with the state's rights issue. I would disagree with that argument in this case, in that the plaintiff invoked the federal issue by using the defendants practices in other states to attempt to prove their case, and by basing their claim for damages upon the defendant's assets in other states. But in general, I am in favor of deferance to the state courts where there is no federal issue (in this case, interstate commerce).
18 posted on 04/07/2003 11:03:11 AM PDT by CA Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: GnL
Here is the text of Thomas dissent: "I would affirm the judgment below because 'I continue to believe that the Constitution does not constrain the size of punitive damage awards.'"

Here is Scalia's: "the Due Process clause provides no substantive protections against 'excessive' or 'unreasonable' awards of punitive damages."

19 posted on 04/07/2003 11:03:57 AM PDT by GnL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: WaveThatFlag
Interesting, our state legislature just refused to even consider a Republican tort reform proposal.
20 posted on 04/07/2003 11:07:45 AM PDT by Eva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CA Conservative
People keep talking about what is not in the constitution,is their anything in the constitution about so called punitive damages. I just dont ever remember reading that anywhere.
21 posted on 04/07/2003 11:11:12 AM PDT by cksharks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: GnL
Here is the text of Thomas dissent: "I would affirm the judgment below because 'I continue to believe that the Constitution does not constrain the size of punitive damage awards.'"

Here is Scalia's: "the Due Process clause provides no substantive protections against 'excessive' or 'unreasonable' awards of punitive damages."

I have read that after every case(Gore vs. Bush being the exception) heard before SCOTUS all nine justices have lunch and basically discuss the case and vote there. A Justice is then decided to write the majority opinion and a Justice is decided to write the dissenting opinion.

Scalia and Thomas's dissent can placate the absolutist word "Constitutionalist" Libertarians, while Ginsburg dissent placates the activist left.

And all in all, SCOTUS strikes down the economic damage done to this country by trial lawyers.

22 posted on 04/07/2003 11:14:38 AM PDT by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: GnL
Bookmark this decision. It is a perfect way to disprove standard liberal assumptions about conservative justices (i.e., that they are activists advancing a "conservative" or GOP agenda.) Clearly, what you have here are 2 justices (Scalia and Thomas) who favor a certain interprative standard, and 7 others--including Ginsberg--who either never follow a standard, or, like GInsberg in this case, only do so when it is convenient.
23 posted on 04/07/2003 11:15:04 AM PDT by Huck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: cksharks
Amendment VIII to the US Constitution:

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

24 posted on 04/07/2003 11:16:01 AM PDT by Poohbah (Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: WaveThatFlag
Let me see if I understand this:

If you're a big company and commit an horrendous multi million dollar fraud of widows and orphans, you are protected from the persons you defrauded because the Court says the punishment has to be proportional to the actual damages.

But, as we learned from the Court last week, if you're a poor dumb crook, who swipes a few CDs three times, the Court says the punishment of life imprisionment does *Not* have to be proportional to the actual damages, under the three strikes laws.

So an individual is not protected from the State to the same extent that Dewey Cheatem and Howe is protected from an individual.

25 posted on 04/07/2003 11:21:24 AM PDT by APBaer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
Yes, but the number 10 is not in the Constitution, it's just an arbitrary rule Kennedy cited. Not the Supreme Court's place to determine a numerical threshold, legislatures should do that.
26 posted on 04/07/2003 11:21:25 AM PDT by VeritatisSplendor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Dane
I have read that after every case(Gore vs. Bush being the exception) heard before SCOTUS all nine justices have lunch and basically discuss the case and vote there. A Justice is then decided to write the majority opinion and a Justice is decided to write the dissenting opinion.

That's more or less right. After the initial vote is taken, The Chief, assuming he is in the majority, assigns the opinion to a certain Justice, who proceeds to write it. Dissenting opinions are usually not assigned; the Justices decide on their own whether to write one or not.

Regardless, once the opinions are drafted, they are circulated amongst the Justices who comment on the substance or whatnot. The other Justices decide if they want to join or concur and it also gives the opposing sides and opportunity to critique the other side's opinion--which produces the occasional (and often entertaining) "Battling Footnotes."

27 posted on 04/07/2003 11:22:45 AM PDT by Viva Le Dissention
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: VeritatisSplendor
Yes, but the number 10 is not in the Constitution, it's just an arbitrary rule Kennedy cited. Not the Supreme Court's place to determine a numerical threshold, legislatures should do that.

They SHOULD do that.

But they haven't. They have REFUSED to do that.

Absent legislative action, the judiciary has to act, or the intent and letter of the Eighth Amendment is subverted.

28 posted on 04/07/2003 11:24:28 AM PDT by Poohbah (Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
" the judiciary has to act, or the intent and letter of the Eighth Amendment is subverted."

Too late on that, they okayed the three strikes laws recently, without regard to any proportionality between the coonduct and the life sentences.
29 posted on 04/07/2003 11:26:02 AM PDT by APBaer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: APBaer
Please explain how life in prison is cruel and unusual punishment.
30 posted on 04/07/2003 11:29:07 AM PDT by Poohbah (Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
Didn't you ever wonder why the majority didn't cite the 8th Amendment in its decision? Why it wasn't even argued?

It's not relevant. The 8th Amendment is a prohibition on government action, as in criminal cases. Like being convicted of shoplifting and getting a million dollar fine.
A civil case, however, we don't have government action. The case is wholly outside the scope of the government, since the judiciary, in theory, is only a neutral arbitrator. The jury imposes the fine, and the jury is not an agent of the government.
31 posted on 04/07/2003 11:30:12 AM PDT by Viva Le Dissention
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Huck; BlackElk; Congressman Billybob; Poohbah
Considering I disagree with their dissent, I agree. It helps us on one front.

I also wonder if it might not be a bad idea to start considering judicial activism on our side. That genie is out of the bottle to an extent. Judicial activism could be a LOT more fun if TWO sides of the political spectrum got involved.
32 posted on 04/07/2003 11:31:48 AM PDT by hchutch ("But tonight we get EVEN!" - Ice-T)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
It is disproportionate to the actual damages ( the CDs).

The Court has now held in the punitive damage case that the Constitution forbids punishment that is disproportionate to damages. Beats Hell out of me where they found it in the Constittuion, but it seems that they found it and applied it, but not for individuals whom the State wants to punish.
33 posted on 04/07/2003 11:33:20 AM PDT by APBaer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: WaveThatFlag
Opinion: State Farm v. Campbell
34 posted on 04/07/2003 11:34:58 AM PDT by Stay the course
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dane
Agreed. I consider this a victory, and quite frankly, limiting the trial lawyers and their efforts to serve as a furth branch of government is a good thing.

It is not as far as I would go, but we have struck a blow to the trial lawyers that they CANNOT recover from.
35 posted on 04/07/2003 11:36:10 AM PDT by hchutch ("But tonight we get EVEN!" - Ice-T)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: PoisedWoman
What a peculiar alliance. I wonder why Thomas and Scalia dissented..

There is nothing in the Constitutional about limiting punitive damages, so there really is not much for the SCOTUS to rule on. Ten times actual damages sounds fair, but has no basis in established law.

MJ

36 posted on 04/07/2003 11:41:13 AM PDT by mjustice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
Yeah, because it's not that we would want to actually be able to punish companies for flagrant violations of the law or anything.

I mean, heck, if you're a Fortune 500 company, you should be above the law, right?

Today's affirmation (and I stress "affirmation," since this has been the law since 1996) serves to do nothing but further insure that big companies are completely insulated from their wrongdoing.
37 posted on 04/07/2003 11:43:01 AM PDT by Viva Le Dissention
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Viva Le Dissention
A civil case, however, we don't have government action. The case is wholly outside the scope of the government, since the judiciary, in theory, is only a neutral arbitrator. The jury imposes the fine, and the jury is not an agent of the government.

Wrong. The jury IS an agent of the government; they are paid by the government, and their decision is backed up by the force of the government.

38 posted on 04/07/2003 11:48:29 AM PDT by Poohbah (Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
Agreed. I consider this a victory, and quite frankly, limiting the trial lawyers and their efforts to serve as a furth branch of government is a good thing.

It is not as far as I would go, but we have struck a blow to the trial lawyers that they CANNOT recover from.

John Edwards and his cronies are not happy campers today.

SCOTUS just filed a decision against the economic terrorism of trial lawyers.

39 posted on 04/07/2003 11:49:42 AM PDT by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: APBaer
It is disproportionate to the actual damages ( the CDs).

How so?

Trying to steal CDs from my residence can get you thoroughly deceased. Life in prison is much milder by comparison.

40 posted on 04/07/2003 11:49:52 AM PDT by Poohbah (Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: APBaer

If you're a big company and commit an horrendous multi million dollar fraud of widows and orphans, you are protected from the persons you defrauded because the Court says the punishment has to be proportional to the actual damages.

No. You can be sued for the multi million dollars you got through fraud and made to pay every cent of that back to the widows and orphans. This decision just says that the jury can't then decide they don't like you and fine you 145 times the actual damages.

41 posted on 04/07/2003 11:50:25 AM PDT by BruceS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
Because the government enforces the decision of the jury doesn't mean that they are an agent of the government, sorry to tell you.

They are citizens, no more, no less. The Government is not a party to such a lawsuit and has no interest in its outcome. The citizens of the State of Utah have cast judgment against the actions of the company, under the laws of Utah, and that decision is enforced by the laws of Utah. Today's Supreme Court decision undercuts the sovereignty of both state law and the jury system.

Again, the Court did not rely on the 8th Amendment, and the petitioners did not argue there was an 8th Amendment prohibition, since it simply doesn't apply here.
42 posted on 04/07/2003 11:51:26 AM PDT by Viva Le Dissention
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Viva Le Dissention; Congressman Billybob; BlackElk; holdonnow; Luis Gonzalez; JohnHuang2; ...
Seems to me that all SCOTUS did was expand the protection against excessive fines and cruel and unusual punishment to include civil cases, which is quite reasonable given the fact that the standard of proof is much lower than in a criminal case.

The trial lawyers have imposed a hidden "lawyer tax" on this economy, often by running up punitive damages to an obscene amount. That's not provided for in the Constitution, by any stretch of the imagination.

So it took what some might consider judicial activism. Big deal. SCOTUS has just cut the lawyer tax on the American economy and that is a good thing. Don't look this gift horse in the mouth.
43 posted on 04/07/2003 11:51:39 AM PDT by hchutch ("But tonight we get EVEN!" - Ice-T)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: APBaer
You're just a libertarian extremist, expecting justice to be rational.

;^)
44 posted on 04/07/2003 11:53:01 AM PDT by headsonpikes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: headsonpikes
"You're just a libertarian extremist, expecting justice to be rational."

LOL
Oh, *rational* is too high a standard.
I'd be pleased and more than a little surprised if those justices could just be *consistent*
45 posted on 04/07/2003 11:55:29 AM PDT by APBaer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: BruceS
No. You can be sued for the multi million dollars you got through fraud and made to pay every cent of that back to the widows and orphans. This decision just says that the jury can't then decide they don't like you and fine you 145 times the actual damages.

Ok, but what are the practical applications of this? First of all, the widows and the orphans don't get back every cent. Going to court costs money. Besides attorney's fees, which can't be considered in rendering a damage award, juries, as a rule, tend to undercompensate.

But besides this, what about the practical implications? Even though it's nothing but dicta, let's say that the 10x damage rule applies. Punitive damages, which are intended to be a disincentive to abhorant conduct, have been reduced to nothing but a chimera. What this decision tells me as a Fortune 500 Company, is that we can continue to defraud and bilk and scam and injure consumers, just as long as less than 1 out of 10 who are injured win a judgment against us. Frankly, I think those are pretty good odds. Where is the disincentive?

46 posted on 04/07/2003 11:55:45 AM PDT by Viva Le Dissention
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: cksharks
The 8th Amendment prohibits excessive fines. Since punitive damages are, by definition, a form of punishment imposed on the defendant by a court (a branch of the government), this prohibition would be applicable, I would think. You might disagree, but the question is open to argument, and it appears that the majority of the USSC believes it to be a valid argument.
47 posted on 04/07/2003 11:57:07 AM PDT by CA Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Viva Le Dissention
Because the government enforces the decision of the jury doesn't mean that they are an agent of the government, sorry to tell you.

Sorry to tell you--they effectively ARE an agent of the government.

They are citizens, no more, no less. The Government is not a party to such a lawsuit and has no interest in its outcome.

Once the outcome is in place, the government has an interest. The government DOES have an interest in preventing said outcomes from being too onerous--it might inspire the pursuit of some more...primitive...forms of "justice" by various interested parties to the case.

The citizens of the State of Utah have cast judgment against the actions of the company, under the laws of Utah, and that decision is enforced by the laws of Utah. Today's Supreme Court decision undercuts the sovereignty of both state law and the jury system.

Well, if you're putting it that way...

What is to keep the jury from imposing as punishment the mandatory dismemberment of the company's officers and their families at a Monster Truck Rally?

Oh, you mean that they aren't THAT sovereign?

Whoopsie.

Maybe they never were as sovereign as you think they are.

And kindly note your construction--you describe them as "the citizens of the State of Utah." Go read a criminal indictment; it will say "The People of Utah vs. XXX."

Semantically, you just made civil and criminal cases co-equal under the Eighth Amendment.

48 posted on 04/07/2003 11:57:57 AM PDT by Poohbah (Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
"Seems to me that all SCOTUS did was expand the protection against excessive fines and cruel and unusual punishment to include civil cases"

No, I'm afraid you got it backwards.
Last week they said that there was no proportionality requirement in the constitution for excessive fines and cruel and unusual punishment.
49 posted on 04/07/2003 11:57:58 AM PDT by APBaer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: WaveThatFlag
Ten times actual is a little high, but it's a sound principle. However, I'm not comfortable with courts that legislate, as surely this one has done. I like the result, but I hate the method.
50 posted on 04/07/2003 11:59:56 AM PDT by Petronski (I'm not always cranky.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-140 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