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

Skip to comments.

Black robes can't hide the truth
Albany Times Union ^ | April 3, 2012 | By MAUREEN DOWD

Posted on 04/04/2012 6:24:43 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-107 next last
To: Oldeconomybuyer
I wish you had warned us that the article was written by Maureen Dowd. I don't want to give her the recognition of even a click on a link to her article. She is a vile and disgusting piece of trash. She is part of that set of Democrat partisans which nowadays passes for journalists.

Even amongst them, she is one of the worst.

51 posted on 04/04/2012 7:01:18 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
...hacks dressed up in black robes...

Been that way for a long time!

52 posted on 04/04/2012 7:01:32 AM PDT by BenLurkin (This is not a statement of fact. It is either opinion or satire; or both)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Texas Eagle

Yes. Yes you are.

; - )


53 posted on 04/04/2012 7:02:10 AM PDT by WayneS (Comments now include 25% more sarcasm for no additional charge...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: WayneS
Is it too late to invoke the Equal Protection Clause?

After all, President Clouseau has granted thousands of waivers from this law. Not to mention that government employees and Congressholes are exempt.

Of course, they're also exempt from participating in Socialist Security so I guess there's the out right there.

54 posted on 04/04/2012 7:02:16 AM PDT by Texas Eagle (If it wasn't for double-standards, Liberals would have no standards at all -- Texas Eagle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

“Has this former constitutional law instructor no respect for our venerable system of checks and balances?”

Of course not. So long as the checks cash, who cares about balances?


55 posted on 04/04/2012 7:03:28 AM PDT by ctdonath2 ($1 meals: http://abuckaplate.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins
The Rats are worried me thinks.

It's a shame that in a government designed to secure our natural rights, there are at least four Justices who are certain to vote for Constitutionalizing our enslavement.

Photobucket
Bad Law

56 posted on 04/04/2012 7:03:50 AM PDT by BobP (The piss-stream media - Never to be watched again in my house)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
This court, cosseted behind white marble pillars, out of reach of TV, accountable to no one once they give the last word, is well on its way to becoming the one of the most divisive in modern U.S. history.

Compared to Warren? The left wasn't complaining then!

57 posted on 04/04/2012 7:05:35 AM PDT by Carry_Okie (GunWalker: Arming "a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as well funded")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
Some day Dowd may actually say something intelligent.
I'm guessing it'll be read from her will.
58 posted on 04/04/2012 7:06:32 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Texas Eagle; WayneS

A constitutional amendment, proposed to the states by 2/3 majority of congress would do the trick.


59 posted on 04/04/2012 7:09:49 AM PDT by Flightdeck (If you hear me yell "Eject, Eject, Eject!" the last two will be echos...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

I leave all my worldly possessions to my little dog Toto.


60 posted on 04/04/2012 7:10:07 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: BobP

They don’t realize that when a socialist government is finished plundering “the rich” that it begins to progressively define “the rich” downward. Someday the less poor are going to be “the rich” when compared to the destitute.


61 posted on 04/04/2012 7:15:53 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Pray Continued Victory for our Troops Still in Afghan!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: originalbuckeye

She has it so backwards, as well.

It’s the leftists/Marxists who keep their eye on the end goal, ie, the “results”. They contort the process in order to achieve those goals. This is “fairness” to them. They define what a “fair” outcome would be, and change to rules in order to achive that outcome.

Conservatives, on the other hand, are more concerned with following the same rules and letting the results fall where they may, as long as the rules are followed. This is “fairness” to a conservative.


62 posted on 04/04/2012 7:21:39 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

So its affirmative then, there was a leak from the SC to Obanana and the MSM, else-wise they would not be having conniptions just yet.


63 posted on 04/04/2012 7:22:35 AM PDT by dps.inspect (the system is rigged...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
What really, Really, REALLY gets me is that both sides forget the real problem: medical care costs are through the roof. So the whole insurance thing is not the root problem. This I tried to argue with all my representatives at the time of this bru-ha-ha, but all ignored me, Republicans and Democrats alike.

So let's say that the Supreme Court does throw out Obamacare. What will Congress do? The right thing? Don't make me laugh. They will try to patch insurance again, instead of striking at the core of the problem.

I'm glad to see that we don't have to depend on government to Do The Right Thing. From the New York Times: "...a group of nine medical specialty boards plans to recommend on Wednesday that doctors perform 45 common tests and procedures less often,... . Eight other specialty boards are preparing ... additional lists of procedures their members should perform far less often." THERE is the heart of the problem. THERE is why my own hospital stay for a heart problem blossomed to $30K out of pocket.

And why are doctors performing tests that provide diminishing returns? Part of the problem is legal exposure -- people with dead relatives who say "if you had performed this test, my Aunt Mae would be alive today." Part of the problem is a lack of incentive to avoid unnecessary tests: "Don't worry, your insurance will pick it up." (No, they won't, not anymore.) And a good part of the problem is the attitude of the patient or patients' family: "We have to do everything we can."

So, it's a three-pronged problem: reform of the medical tort system, education of the doctors about the fiscal side of their decisions, and education of the patients or guardians about effective testing. Notice the word "insurance" didn't enter into this summation -- and the reason is that insurance should be in the background.

I've been against single-payer for some time, because I think that the free market should be given a chance to operate. But that hasn't happened because the lawyers are now dictating medical treatment by the malpractice lawsuits they file. The medical societies, by agreeing to standards of practice, can reign in the practice of medicine in the courtroom. So when we unshackle medicine from law, we might get somewhere.

Or not. Politics has a huge amount of inertia build into it...

64 posted on 04/04/2012 7:25:59 AM PDT by asinclair (Think outside of the classroom.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

Barf Alert? Modo is the liberal word that when translated is Barf Alert.


65 posted on 04/04/2012 7:31:53 AM PDT by ALPAPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: asinclair

-—What really, Really, REALLY gets me is that both sides forget the real problem: medical care costs are through the roof. So the whole insurance thing is not the reaason-—

Third party payment is the main reason for skyrocketing medical costs.

Notice that Lasik eye surgery, which is not covered by insurance, has decreased in cost continuously.


66 posted on 04/04/2012 7:35:01 AM PDT by St_Thomas_Aquinas (Viva Christo Rey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

It’s amazing the vitriol that liberals are already unloading on SCOTUS in advance of a decision in this case. It’s still 50/50 that they’ll toss out any part of Obamacare. Faith in Anthony Kennedy to do the right thing is, I fear, not based on his history on the court.

What will they say if the court upholds Obamacare?


67 posted on 04/04/2012 7:38:08 AM PDT by PhatHead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WayneS
This is not correct. There is no appeal and no override of a supreme court decision, except possibly via a reversal by a subsequent supreme court.

The Congress has the option of removing federal judges. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior. If a federal judge refuses to rule in accord with the Constitution the Congress may remove him, and he can be replaced with one that will.

68 posted on 04/04/2012 7:40:16 AM PDT by ALPAPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

Is Maureen Dowd still around? I thought she was dead.


69 posted on 04/04/2012 7:40:32 AM PDT by anoldafvet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cletus.D.Yokel

Yeah, I was wondering about that juxtaposition. Figured it was related to the last sentence of the excerpt.


70 posted on 04/04/2012 7:41:46 AM PDT by ctdonath2 ($1 meals: http://abuckaplate.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
Occurs to me that one motivation for the Obama's odd remarks is that he assumes the "commerce clause" has in fact been expanded so much that, indeed, nothing is outside the scope of congressional regulation. Having stretched constitutionally granted powers beyond all bounds, SCOTUS now reaps what it has sown: there are no bounds to what the legislature may do, and hence no role for the courts to question its actions.

I keep oscillating between whether the Obama is extremely subtle & clever about what he is doing, or completely inept. At the moment, given the above reasoning, I'm favoring the latter: he's akin to a toddler declaring "I can do it!" with nary a clue what "it" entails.

71 posted on 04/04/2012 7:50:06 AM PDT by ctdonath2 ($1 meals: http://abuckaplate.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rfreedom4u
The SC doesn’t have the last word (or at least shouldn’t) The last word belongs to the people.

I agree with you but I think we have to be mindful of where in the process we utter the last word.

If we are saying that the Supreme Court cannot determine whether a piece of legislation is constitutional after the people's representatives have spoken, that is a denial of the doctrine of judicial review which, although not explicit in the Constitution, has been the accepted modus operandi in The United States since Marbury vs. Madison in 1803, with some very important exceptions.

Pres. Andrew Jackson simply ignored the Supreme Court's ruling prohibiting the removal of Indians and their banishment along the trail of tears famously (or infamously) saying "The Supreme Court has made its order now let it enforce it."

It might be said that Abraham Lincoln and the northern tier of states decided to overturn the Dred Scott decision by waging a Civil War. In any event, that war was the occasion for outlawing slavery by executive decree.

Franklin Roosevelt, of course, attempted to undo or reshape court rulings by packing the court, an undertaking which failed as a tactic but succeeded as a strategy by causing "a switch in time to save nine."

Newt Gingrich has recently raised serious arguments asserting the power of the legislative branch to control the rulings of the federal courts simply by abolishing the courts and it is established that the legislative branch has subject matter power over the courts by controlling their jurisdiction. Gingrich cites Pres. Jefferson as one who controlled the power of the federal courts by abolishing them.

As I said, I support judicial review of legislative action although it is not explicit in the Constitution. I have a little bit more trouble supporting judicial review of referenda such as now having occurred more than once in California. I think my objection to the judicial review in California arises from my conviction that the federal judges are misapplying constitutional principles in striking the referenda rather than from a belief that the courts have no business determining the constitutionality of referenda. A warning that we are all susceptible to finding that which is desirable constitutional and that which is undesirable unconstitutional.

Of course, the people have the ultimate say when they amend the Constitution. There is no judicial review in that case.

The entire justification for declaring the people's representatives' laws unconstitutional is to deny the people the right of the majority to have their say. But that does not mean that the court has necessarily the last say.


72 posted on 04/04/2012 7:51:39 AM PDT by nathanbedford ("Attack, repeat, attack!" Bull Halsey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: asinclair
Nobody wants to face the reality that there is no upper boundary to what goods & services may be rendered for a price. One can always get better medicine & treatment (given enough $$$), and of course everyone wants it (if $$$ were no object). Via normal supply-and-demand this is a self-limiting issue ... but with the onset of insurance services to spread the costs, and then the involvement of police-power-backed government to spread those costs further, we can strain the limits and get everyone used to getting whatever they want - not realizing that by stretching supply-and-demand the system will either snap back or break.
73 posted on 04/04/2012 8:01:23 AM PDT by ctdonath2 ($1 meals: http://abuckaplate.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: ALPAPilot
Yes, you have correctly quoted the Constitution. Congress can, indeed, remove supreme court justices via impeachment if the justices demonstrate they are not on 'good behavior' (wnatever that is).

However, that was not the question at hand. Congress cannot overturn a supreme court ruling, and removing one or more justices via impeachment AFTER a particular ruling will not change that fact.

By the way, how many United States supreme court justices have been impeached and removed from the court in our nations history?

74 posted on 04/04/2012 8:11:03 AM PDT by WayneS (Comments now include 25% more sarcasm for no additional charge...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford

Well said, sir.

Of course, congress can abolish all federal courts except the supreme court, right?


75 posted on 04/04/2012 8:14:26 AM PDT by WayneS (Comments now include 25% more sarcasm for no additional charge...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: rfreedom4u
And thank you for the amazing pic. I think I recognize her but can’t think of the name.

Helpful hint: right-click on the picture, then go to 'properties'.

76 posted on 04/04/2012 8:19:04 AM PDT by NurdlyPeon (I just don't know what to put here right now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: WayneS

1 impeachment, no removals. Samuel Chase March 1805.


77 posted on 04/04/2012 8:20:39 AM PDT by ALPAPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
Mo's having a fit!

Like all libs she wants it both ways. When they can't get what they want through legislation, either at the state or federal level, they look to the judiciary to legislate from the bench for them.

But if the judiciary doesn't agree with their legislation, that's judicial activism, reactionary, and a return to segregated lunch counters and back-alley abortions. I get so tired of their rantings.

78 posted on 04/04/2012 8:36:52 AM PDT by Rummyfan (Iraq: it's not about Iraq anymore, it's about the USA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

I’d like to smack MoDo upside the head with all 2700 pages of Obamacare!


79 posted on 04/04/2012 8:38:50 AM PDT by Rummyfan (Iraq: it's not about Iraq anymore, it's about the USA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ALPAPilot
If you can find an argument, from our founders or more modern, that “good behavior” means agreeing with the Congress and/or the President on the Constitutionality of a law - please present it.

Impeachment in our Constitutional system is not designed to remove those whose decisions or votes or policies are unpopular with a majority of Congress.

80 posted on 04/04/2012 8:43:08 AM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to DC to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
Thanks for posting that pic. You saved me some money ‘cuz now I can put off refilling my Viagra prescription ;-)

KZJ rocks!!!

81 posted on 04/04/2012 8:56:12 AM PDT by varon (Congress is a sanctuary for political criminals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
Holy mackerel! She's baaack! I haven't seen her around here for months, maybe a year!

Someone must have messed up, driving the stake into her!


82 posted on 04/04/2012 9:05:34 AM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

The socialist/democrat mainstream media is going on an all out campaign to intimidate the Justices to uphold the unconstitutional government healthcare.


83 posted on 04/04/2012 9:05:49 AM PDT by rurgan (Make all laws have an expiration date of 3 years. too many laws is the problem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WayneS; Texas Eagle

Wayn is correct. However, with almost every decision declaring a law unconstitutional either in the decision itself or in a dissenting opinion, “hints” are made as to how the same result can be accomplished with just a little twist in approach.

It will be interesting to read the opinion in June. Right now, I agree with a number of people that believe the vote is in to at least invalidate the individual mandate but since the law lacks (purposely) a severability clause I think the initial vote is to declare the entire law invalid.

This I think explains our Pres_ent’s ill-considered, inflammatory remarks regarding the case. Whether a clerk or a sitting justice gave the White Hut a heads up would be a great find! ;-)


84 posted on 04/04/2012 9:10:01 AM PDT by Tunehead54 (Nothing funny here ;-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

bm


85 posted on 04/04/2012 9:11:52 AM PDT by skinkinthegrass (Kill all the terrorists; protect all the borders, ridicule all the (surviving) Liberals :^)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
It's cute when Mo tries to get all seriously political and like, stuff.

You know she's serious when she leaves out her standard lame, three-years-too-late, pop culture references.

Normally, she'd thrill her ditzy fans by comparing Scalia to Lady Gaga or Clarence Thomas to Moms Mabley.

She's a hoot, that always freezing cat lady.

86 posted on 04/04/2012 9:17:55 AM PDT by dead (I've got my eye out for Mullah Omar.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

Where’s the BARF ALERT on this article??


87 posted on 04/04/2012 9:23:03 AM PDT by Lucky9teen (Peace is that brief glorious moment in history when everybody stands around reloading.~Thomas Jeffer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

Dear Mo,

Obamacare requires a federal database for medical records, therefore it is legislating away the only “right” established by Roe. The right to privacy between a doc and patient is legislated away by obamacare, or to put it more succinctly: ROE IS REVERSED WITH OBAMACARE

Care to re-visit your position? Is your head exploding yet? Crazy libs can’t keep track of their own preferred USSC positioins....


88 posted on 04/04/2012 9:23:20 AM PDT by CSM (Keeper of the Dave Ramsey Ping list. FReepmail me if you want your beeber stuned.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
This whole strategy by Team Obama is so juvenile and doomed to failure.

Toothless career threats to very intelligent people with lifetime appointments will do nothing but steel their will.

Look for a big "bite me, dick" decision, on which even a few of the libs may concur, just on principle.

89 posted on 04/04/2012 9:26:28 AM PDT by dead (I've got my eye out for Mullah Omar.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WayneS

I could certainly be wrong on this (and I probably am), but I have been given to understand that while Congress can’t overrule the S.C. once it renders a decision it can determine what the court is allowed to rule on beforehand.


90 posted on 04/04/2012 9:26:31 AM PDT by rex regnum insanit (falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs

Dowd....a never was....


91 posted on 04/04/2012 9:28:47 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 42 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

The Supreme Court is being Alinskied. If the liberal justices had any respect for their position and the way the Executive Branch is going thug on their branch, they would change their vote and vote with the Conservatives against Obamacare. This would blow Obama’s cover, and show his attacks on the Supreme Court for what they really are. I am not holding my breath however. Their true religion is liberalism, and that trumps all.


92 posted on 04/04/2012 9:32:41 AM PDT by winner3000 (ss)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Click here to watch the new trailer for Men in Black 3


93 posted on 04/04/2012 9:44:43 AM PDT by evets (beer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ALPAPilot

Exactly.

So, supreme court rulings which overturn federal law are approximately 175 times more likely to occur than congress impeaching a supreme court justice.

I’m comfortable with those odds. I’m guessing Mr. Scalia probably is also.


94 posted on 04/04/2012 9:51:32 AM PDT by WayneS (Comments now include 25% more sarcasm for no additional charge...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: WayneS

In theory, yes. In fact, Jefferson did it.

Here is part of article 3:

U.S. Constitution

Article III
Section 1.

The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.
Section 2.

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;—to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;—to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;—to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;—to controversies between two or more states;—between a state and citizens of another state;—between citizens of different states;—between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.


95 posted on 04/04/2012 9:57:57 AM PDT by nathanbedford ("Attack, repeat, attack!" Bull Halsey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: rex regnum insanit

The Constitution does not list such an ability among the powers of congress, so I’m going to assume they cannot do it.


96 posted on 04/04/2012 10:05:46 AM PDT by WayneS (Comments now include 25% more sarcasm for no additional charge...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: WayneS; rex regnum insanit
The Constitution does not list such an ability among the powers of congress, so I’m going to assume they cannot do it.

Actually it does have the authority to pass legislation, not subject to judicial review, and has done so more than 100 times. The last time I recall was at the behest of the outgoing majority leader Little Tommy, they passed a special dispensation for the removal of some trees, from his property.

97 posted on 04/04/2012 10:18:22 AM PDT by itsahoot (Tag lines are a waste of bandwidth, as are most of my comments.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: originalbuckeye

She can’t get over the fact that in 2000 the Supreme Court stopped Gore from stealing the election.


98 posted on 04/04/2012 10:20:23 AM PDT by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

Federalist 78 is where Hamilton discusses good behavior. It is more about what good behavior is, not what it isn’t. He does make the point that good behavior would be the judiciary limiting congress’s propensity to violate the rights of citizens. Bad behavior would be to collude with them and them and the president to do it. That is exactly what happened in the Filburn case of 1942 . Unfortunately, if the congress is colluding with the judiciary, impeachment is unlikely.

I’m sure many of the founders weighed in on the Chase case, but O’Hare doesn’t have free wifi so I have to look later.


99 posted on 04/04/2012 10:38:41 AM PDT by ALPAPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: itsahoot

Will you please be so kind as to cite the Article and Section within the Constitution from which the congress derives this power?

Thank you.


100 posted on 04/04/2012 10:43:08 AM PDT by WayneS (Comments now include 25% more sarcasm for no additional charge...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-107 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