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

Skip to comments.

Justices poised to strike down entire healthcare law
Fox43 ^ | March 28, 2012 | By David G. Savage

Posted on 03/28/2012 9:44:18 AM PDT by Bill Buckner

The court’s conservatives sounded as though they had determined for themselves that the 2,700-page measure must be declared unconstitutional.

"One way or another, Congress will have to revisit it in toto," said Justice Antonin Scalia.

Agreeing, Justice Anthony Kennedy said it would be an "extreme proposition" to allow the various insurance regulations to stand after the mandate was struck down.

Meanwhile, the court's liberal justices argued for restraint. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the court should do a "salvage job," not undertake a “wrecking operation." But she looked to be out-voted.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said they shared the view of Scalia and Kennedy that the law should stand or fall in total. Along with Justice Clarence Thomas, they would have a majority to strike down the entire statute as unconstitutional.

(Excerpt) Read more at fox43.com ...


TOPICS: Editorial; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: obamacare; robertscourt; ruling; scotus; scotusocareday3
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-323 next last
To: Bill Buckner

A lot can happen in three months.


101 posted on 03/28/2012 10:32:58 AM PDT by St_Thomas_Aquinas (Viva Christo Rey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PghBaldy

>> “There is an unseemly conservative obsession with the mandate, IMO” <<

.
What is so unseemly?

The mandate is the essence of what is wrong with Obamacare. The rest of the bill just tampers with a medical system that has completely failed its prime mission anyway. (The Hypocratic oath has been turned on its head)


102 posted on 03/28/2012 10:35:52 AM PDT by editor-surveyor (No Federal Sales Tax - No Way!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: Izzy Dunne

Great point...Ginsberg’s attitude makes the point that we have been making for years: the left legislates from the bench and sees nothing wrong in doing so. She spoke in an unguarded moment...her comment needs to be played up.


103 posted on 03/28/2012 10:36:44 AM PDT by Pharmboy (She turned me into a Newt...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: The Great RJ

Bingo!


104 posted on 03/28/2012 10:37:24 AM PDT by b4its2late (Patience is not a virtue, it is a waste of time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Kickass Conservative
It's hard to believe that we have to depend on the Nine Black Robed Justices to flush the turd since we know four of them like to watch it float in the bowl.

Now that's saying it as it is.

105 posted on 03/28/2012 10:37:51 AM PDT by caww
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Bill Buckner

Pray without ceasing for this court!
.


106 posted on 03/28/2012 10:38:26 AM PDT by editor-surveyor (No Federal Sales Tax - No Way!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mack the knife
A happy consequence of deleting the law in its entirity is that it deletes the funding for all of the Obamacrats which have so far pumped out 10,000 pages of health care regulations which are to support Obamacare.

I wonder if we'd be stuck with those regulations now. Is it like Bin Laden, once he's dead, he's dead? Did the law give them the power to pass regulations, that then become set in stone? Or do these regulations have to go away once the law that said they could pass them goes away? Like the birth control thing...does that regulation stand or does overturning the law now mean that the government no longer has the authority to enforce that regulation?

107 posted on 03/28/2012 10:40:36 AM PDT by JediJones (The Divided States of Obama's Declaration of Dependence: Death, Taxes and the Pursuit of Crappiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: crusty old prospector
Agree, wait for the ruling. Too many times the questioning appears they will rule against govt only to get a written ruling months later in favor of the govt.
108 posted on 03/28/2012 10:42:08 AM PDT by TornadoAlley3 (Obama is everything Oklahoma is not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Scythian

Yes, like Obama could get anything through the current House. Yes. Right. Sure.

More spin from our radical communist muslim leader.


109 posted on 03/28/2012 10:42:53 AM PDT by Freedom_Is_Not_Free (REPEAL OBAMACARE. Nothing else matters.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Bill Buckner
Scalia addresses the ObamaCare case:


110 posted on 03/28/2012 10:42:53 AM PDT by FormerACLUmember
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TomGuy

The bill had no legitimate purpose; it needs to be chucked.

Congress should set out to educate the people that they do not need doctors, nor hospitals nor insurance; all that is needed is a Real Food Diet to be healthy.


111 posted on 03/28/2012 10:42:53 AM PDT by editor-surveyor (No Federal Sales Tax - No Way!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Bill Buckner
The last time I had a feeling like this was just before the OJ verdict...like a silent "oh no" in the back of my mind.

My dad was right.

112 posted on 03/28/2012 10:43:30 AM PDT by evad (STOP SPENDING, STOP SPENDING, STOP SPENDING. It's the SPENDING Stupid)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bill Buckner

If the court’s liberals had any respect for the Constitution and Rule of Law, they would join with the conservatives in ridding this nation of this assault on our liberty and economy.


113 posted on 03/28/2012 10:43:55 AM PDT by pallis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rurgan

You’re mistaken. Bush during his 2nd term appeared to have capitulated and was listening to his liberal wife for advice. The first SCOTUS he proposed was Harriet Myers who would have been an unmitigated liberal disaster.

It was a group of staunch conservatives outside of Congress that got in front of Bush and said “NO!”. They brought Roberts. Later they brought Alito. One of these conservatives was Fred Thompson of Tennessee.


114 posted on 03/28/2012 10:44:11 AM PDT by Hostage (Be Breitbart!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Colonel_Flagg

“Anyone know whose Constitution she was reading when she said this?”

Kenya’s?


115 posted on 03/28/2012 10:44:55 AM PDT by GOPsterinMA (Has Mittens won one "Red State" yet?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: AlmaKing; Bill Buckner
"There are only 4 conservative justices. We’re relying on Kennedy to determine the validity of the US Constitution here."

Anthony Kennedy

Anthony McLeod Kennedy (born July 23, 1936) is an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, having been appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1988. Since the retirement of Sandra Day O'Connor, Kennedy has often been the "swing vote" on many of the Court's politically charged 5–4 decisions.[2][3][4]
...
During Kennedy's time as a California law professor and attorney, he helped California Governor Ronald Reagan draft a state tax proposal.[6]

Kennedy has served in numerous positions during his career, including the California Army National Guard in 1961 and the board of the Federal Judicial Center from 1987 to 1988. He also served on two committees of the Judicial Conference of the United States: the Advisory Panel on Financial Disclosure Reports and Judicial Activities (subsequently renamed the Advisory Committee on Codes of Conduct) from 1979 to 1987, and the Committee on Pacific Territories from 1979 to 1990, which he chaired from 1982 to 1990.

On March 3, 1975, upon Reagan's recommendation,[6] President Gerald Ford nominated Kennedy to the seat on the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that had been vacated by Charles Merton Merrill. Kennedy was unanimously confirmed by the United States Senate on March 20, 1975, and received his commission on March 24, 1975.

Kennedy said about Griswold v. Connecticut (a privacy case regarding contraceptives), "I really think I would like to draw the line and not talk about the Griswold case so far as its reasoning or its result."[13] He also discussed "a zone of liberty, a zone of protection, a line that's drawn where the individual can tell the Government, 'Beyond this line you may not go.'"[14][15]
...
Though appointed by a Republican president, Kennedy is not easily pigeonholed ideologically. He has tended to look at cases individually instead of deciding upon them on the basis of some rigid ideology.[6] As Kennedy said at a reunion of his law clerks, "We always tried to get it right." Georgetown University Law Center professor Randy Barnett has described Kennedy's jurisprudence as "libertarian,"[17] although other legal scholars have disagreed.[18]

Kennedy and Sandra Day O'Connor have been swing votes in many 5-4 and 6-3 decisions on the Rehnquist and Roberts courts. On issues of religion, he holds to a less separationist reading of the Establishment Clause than did O'Connor, favoring a "Coercion Test" that he detailed in County of Allegheny v. ACLU.[19]

Kennedy has supported adding substance to the "liberty" interest protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which means he supports a constitutional right to abortion in principle, though he has voted to uphold several restrictions on that right, including laws to prohibit partial-birth abortions. He is "tough on crime" and opposes creating constitutional restrictions on the police, especially in Fourth Amendment cases involving searches for illegal drugs, although there are some exceptions, such as his concurrence in Ferguson v. City of Charleston. He also takes a very broad view of constitutional protection for speech under the First Amendment,[citation needed] invalidating a congressional law prohibiting "virtual" child pornography in the 2002 decision, Ashcroft v. ACLU.[20]

Kennedy has joined with Court majorities in decisions favoring states' rights and invalidating federal and state affirmative action programs. He ruled with the majority on Equal Protection grounds in the controversial 2000 Bush v. Gore case that halted continuing recounts in the 2000 presidential election and ended the legal challenge to the election of President George Bush.

Analysis of Supreme Court tenure

Kennedy has reliably issued conservative rulings during most of his tenure, having voted with William Rehnquist as often as any other justice from 1992 to the end of the Rehnquist Court in 2005.[40] In his first term on the court, Kennedy voted with Rehnquist 92 percent of the time—more than any other justice.[41]
...
On the Roberts Court, Kennedy often decides the outcome of a case. In the 2008–2009 term, he was in the majority 92 percent of the time. In the 23 decisions in which the justices split 5-to-4, Kennedy was in the majority in all but five. Of those 23 decisions, 16 were strictly along ideological lines, and Kennedy joined the conservative wing of the court 11 times; the liberals, 5.[44]

I think, in this case, Kennedy will see the vast overeach by the Fed's that removes "individual liberty" with such a mandate.

116 posted on 03/28/2012 10:45:37 AM PDT by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: SuzyQue

.
>> “Sending prayers.” <<

.
YES!
.


117 posted on 03/28/2012 10:45:43 AM PDT by editor-surveyor (No Federal Sales Tax - No Way!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Bill Buckner

How many weeks until they actually rule on this? When can we expect their ruling?


118 posted on 03/28/2012 10:47:38 AM PDT by Freedom_Is_Not_Free (REPEAL OBAMACARE. Nothing else matters.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AlmaKing

-—We’re relying on Kennedy to determine the validity of the US Constitution here.-—

We almost made it to 250 years. Not bad, historically.

It’s strange that a reversion to a (leftist) aristocracy is regarded as “progressive.”


119 posted on 03/28/2012 10:48:07 AM PDT by St_Thomas_Aquinas (Viva Christo Rey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

The mandate is to single-payer health care as school choice vouchers are to a government school monopoly. The mandate was created to try to peel off enough Democrat votes from single-payer in the ‘90s to pass a less onerous and more conservative health care bill. Just as conservatives would love school choice vouchers now rather than see kids forced to go to public schools. It’s all very relative. But once a health care mandate is off the table, everyone should be assured single-payer will get a big boost and more unity on the left than it’s ever had before. It will be passed if they get the presidency and Congress again.


120 posted on 03/28/2012 10:48:26 AM PDT by JediJones (The Divided States of Obama's Declaration of Dependence: Death, Taxes and the Pursuit of Crappiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: rurgan
Clinton keeps destroying the U.S.A with that Marxist Ginsburg it put on the supreme Court.

"it" is also helping to destroy the US from without as well as within (eg. "Muslim Spring")

Hillary provides Egypt with the cash, while her cohort Ruth Bader Ginsburg provides them with "constitutional advice".

121 posted on 03/28/2012 10:49:50 AM PDT by BlatherNaut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Bill Buckner

It seemed to me yesterday and the day before that the only one who was solidly in Zero’s camp was Ginsburg.

Breyer probably is also, but he didn’t ask many questions.

Surprisingly, Sotomayer also had a very skeptical tone to her questions!


122 posted on 03/28/2012 10:50:07 AM PDT by djf (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2801220/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: St_Thomas_Aquinas

” It’s strange that a reversion to a (leftist) aristocracy is regarded as “progressive.”

Most thoughtful post of the day!

To wit.....why are Pelosi, Reid and Obama regarded as “LIBERALS” ?


123 posted on 03/28/2012 10:51:26 AM PDT by stephenjohnbanker (God, family, country, mom, apple pie, the girl next door and a Ford F250 to pull my boat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: green iguana

Kennedy appears to be the one most inclined to scrap it, and that is no surprise, since he is the court’s only libertarian.
.


124 posted on 03/28/2012 10:52:54 AM PDT by editor-surveyor (No Federal Sales Tax - No Way!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
This is fundamentally correct.

But.........seeing the Liberal members on the Court, they are strongly subverting the correct and valid legal guidelines described in the Constitution. If it were not for Kennedy, we would be losing this right now.

The Democrats on the court, clearly vote along their Marxist Party line. They have no regard for the legalities clearly spelled out in great detail in the Constitution. They avoid the rule of law, and vote on the grounds of discovery. They are in this to corrupt the foundation of the Constitution at every opportunity.

Their votes are clearly against the Rule of Law, which should automatically be grounds for impeachment.

125 posted on 03/28/2012 10:53:40 AM PDT by PSYCHO-FREEP (If you come to a fork in the road, take it........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Bill Buckner
We need either the whole thing struck down or the whole thing upheld. If the SCOTUS takes this apart piecemeal it could mean Obama's reelection and Obama getting Single Payer.

If the whole thing is overturned, it brands Obama a failure, and he likely gets defeated and fades away.

If the whole thing is upheld, it will make the rise of the Tea Party in 2009 look like a pee-wee soccer game. All Hell will break loose on the right and Obama and the Democrat majorities will be thrown out in an effort to repeal ObamaCare.

126 posted on 03/28/2012 10:54:12 AM PDT by magellan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pallis

” If the court’s liberals had any respect for the Constitution and Rule of Law, “

Simple, they are NOT liberals.....they are radical leftists.


127 posted on 03/28/2012 10:54:43 AM PDT by stephenjohnbanker (God, family, country, mom, apple pie, the girl next door and a Ford F250 to pull my boat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Bill Buckner

If it is struck down, the Pubs must MUST bring
into question the competence of the administration
and focus on the lost time and money spent on this
wasteful effort.

As far as Ginsburg “salvaging” any thing from it,
that is not her job and should she attempt such a
thing should be impeached along with Kagan for
not recusing herself.

That’s my opinion.


128 posted on 03/28/2012 10:54:43 AM PDT by tet68 ( " We would not die in that man's company, that fears his fellowship to die with us...." Henry V.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: djf

Yeah, well, color me skeptical, particularly since she helped get it passed in the first place. Maybe.


129 posted on 03/28/2012 10:54:50 AM PDT by SuzyQue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: crusty old prospector
Show me the ruling.

Agreed. I feel like the MSM is playing rope-a-dope.

Methinks we are being setup...

130 posted on 03/28/2012 10:56:09 AM PDT by jonno (Having an opinion is not the same as having the answer...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Bill Buckner

Sounds like Soros didn’t hire enough cheap college interns to write a good health care bill. Oh well, you get what you pay for!


131 posted on 03/28/2012 10:57:07 AM PDT by The Duke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

” I think, in this case, Kennedy will see the vast overeach by the Fed’s that removes “individual liberty” with such a mandate. “

With Obamacare, substitute “indentured servitude” for “individual liberty”


132 posted on 03/28/2012 10:58:04 AM PDT by stephenjohnbanker (God, family, country, mom, apple pie, the girl next door and a Ford F250 to pull my boat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: SuzyQue

Kagen did, never heard Sotomayer was involved...


133 posted on 03/28/2012 10:59:38 AM PDT by djf (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2801220/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: TomGuy
"I would be leary of thinking they would subject the first black president to such a humiliation."

I doubt they will humiliate the Court in order to save hussein his well deserved humiliation.

We have to remember this is no ordinary administration. They have shown they are extremely adept at screwing the pooch at every turn. It's entirely possible the Court will find no way to save them from themselves.

134 posted on 03/28/2012 11:01:56 AM PDT by moehoward
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Bill Buckner

On a side note as a Red Sox fan I hate your name......


135 posted on 03/28/2012 11:02:04 AM PDT by GQuagmire
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tenacious 1
Photobucket
136 posted on 03/28/2012 11:02:17 AM PDT by airborne (Paratroopers! Good to the last drop!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: djf

Sorry, talk about profiling! I tend to lump them together in my mind. I did mean Kagan, not Sotomayer.


137 posted on 03/28/2012 11:02:24 AM PDT by SuzyQue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: Bill Buckner; All
"Justices poised to strike down
entire healthcare law."


138 posted on 03/28/2012 11:03:17 AM PDT by musicman (Until I see the REAL Long Form Vault BC, he's just "PRES__ENT" Obama = Without "ID")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: St_Thomas_Aquinas
It’s strange that a reversion to a (leftist) aristocracy is regarded as “progressive.”

Progressivism = Reversion to Ancient Barbarism

Abortion -> Spartan Eugenics

Homosexualism -> Sodom and Gommorrah

Racial Politics -> Primitive Tribalism

Obamacare -> Caesarean Dictatorship

139 posted on 03/28/2012 11:03:17 AM PDT by BlatherNaut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: tet68

” If it is struck down, the Pubs must MUST bring
into question the competence of the administration
and focus on the lost time and money spent on this
wasteful effort.”

The Pubs “must” ?

In the past month, Boehner has:

1) Taken Rush Limbaugh to the wood shed

2) Spoken in favor of trial re: Trayvon

3) Warned Republicans not to criticise Obama, while overseas...regardless of his traitorious doings.

No, we need to clean house in Congress next.


140 posted on 03/28/2012 11:04:24 AM PDT by stephenjohnbanker (God, family, country, mom, apple pie, the girl next door and a Ford F250 to pull my boat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: GQuagmire

LOL!


141 posted on 03/28/2012 11:06:14 AM PDT by stephenjohnbanker (God, family, country, mom, apple pie, the girl next door and a Ford F250 to pull my boat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: JediJones

The mandate is nothing but a pay-off to buy the acquiescence of insurance companies. Obamacare was Single Payer’s foot in the door, in preparation to its grand entrance in 2014.


142 posted on 03/28/2012 11:07:16 AM PDT by editor-surveyor (No Federal Sales Tax - No Way!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: Bill Buckner

Cornhusker Kickback
Louisiana Purchase
Pass it to find out what’s in the bill
This is a big effing deal man
Midnight vote
No hearings
Marxism
Fail


143 posted on 03/28/2012 11:09:16 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer (The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: newgeezer

If Obama loses in November and Ginsburg and Breyer immediately resign so that Obama can nominate their replacement, there is NO WAY that the Senate will vote to confirm prior to the new president being sworn in on January 20, 2013 (at which time the new president would surely remove the nominations and nominate two other candidates), much less before the new Senate (which will have a GOP majority) takes over on January 3, 2013. There are 47 Republicans in the Senate, and even with a few RINOs there, it is unfathomable that we would fail to get 41 of them to filibuster last-minute nominations by a defeated, lame-duck Democrat president.

If Ginsburg and Breyer wanted Obama to name their replacements, they should have retired in 2009 or 2010.


144 posted on 03/28/2012 11:09:36 AM PDT by AuH2ORepublican (If a politician won't protect innocent babies, what makes you think that he'll protect your rights?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: PSYCHO-FREEP

Yes, of all the justices of the last two decades, Kennedy has done the least damage to the bill of rights.


145 posted on 03/28/2012 11:11:17 AM PDT by editor-surveyor (No Federal Sales Tax - No Way!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

Great post!


146 posted on 03/28/2012 11:12:35 AM PDT by Gabrial
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Bill Buckner; ntnychik; dixiechick; PhilDragoo; JustAmy; yorkie; MEG33; jaycee; oldteen; ...
 

 

147 posted on 03/28/2012 11:12:44 AM PDT by potlatch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: airborne

Hee Hee! That’s funny.


148 posted on 03/28/2012 11:12:50 AM PDT by Tenacious 1 (With regards to the GOP: I am prodisestablishmentarianistic!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: MichaelNewton

“I’m not sure why they just don’t give a tax credit for insurance payments.”

Might it be the people they want to bring into the system don’t pay any taxes, or not much. How can you give them a credit? The math doesn’t work out. That’s why.


149 posted on 03/28/2012 11:13:34 AM PDT by ironman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: magellan
Well, Scalia seems solidly with you. In today's Supreme Court laugh of the day:

KNEEDLER: ... we think that severability is a matter of statutory interpretation. It should be resolved by looking at the structure and the text of the Act, and the Court may look at legislative history to figure out what the text and structure mean with respect to severability. We don't -

JUSTICE SCALIA: Mr. Kneedler, what happened to the Eighth Amendment? [banning cruel and unusual punishment] You really want us to go through these 2,700 pages?

150 posted on 03/28/2012 11:13:44 AM PDT by In Maryland (Liberal logic - the ultimate oxymoron!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-323 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