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

Skip to comments.

Actually, Justice Roberts Demolished Obama In His Supreme Court Ruling
Business Insider ^ | Jun. 28, 2012, | Grace Wyler

Posted on 06/28/2012 9:09:26 PM PDT by little jeremiah

....But while Roberts may have saved Obama's signature domestic legislation — and perhaps his reelection campaign — by siding with the court's liberal wing, he actually did it in spite of Obama, not because of him.

Roberts' opened his opinion today by declaring, unequivocally, that the individual mandate — which requires people to buy insurance or pay a penalty — is not constitutional under the Commerce Clause or the Necessary and Proper Clause. It's a direct shot at the Obama administration's defense of the law's constitutionality, which largely relied on those two clauses, which give Congress the power to regulate commerce and to enact provisions that are necessary to carry out its laws, respectively.

snip

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


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: abortion; authorondrugs; businessinsider; chiefjusticeroberts; deathpanels; idiocy; obamacare; obamacaredecision; roberts; scotus; stupidafterthink; zerocare; zerohedge
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 151-200201-250251-300301-315 next last
To: little jeremiah

Bullcrap. That Congress can now tax anything for any purpose invalidates the Commerce Clause.


201 posted on 06/29/2012 4:22:07 AM PDT by Wyatt's Torch (I can explain it to you. I can't understand it for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

Right! And Hitler and Togo won World War 2.


202 posted on 06/29/2012 4:26:09 AM PDT by sport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
I saw this in another article:

Denniston told Yahoo News. "I think he was determined to try to uphold some key parts of the law, if he could find a way, partly because...he has grown concerned about the public perception that his Court is a partisan-driven Court."

He's concerned about public perception! That's a fine way to make a ruling. If he's going to rule based an outside opinion rather than the Constitution, why didn't he look at what the public WANTED, which was NO Obamacare?

203 posted on 06/29/2012 4:26:15 AM PDT by Right Wing Assault (Dick Obama is more inexperienced now than he was before he was elected.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

The main point is...

Romney +51 Senators and this thing is repealed.

The other main point...

If Obama is reelected, Obamatax would have been the law anyway under “it’s the right thing to do” powers of the executive branch. #SCOTUS be damned.


204 posted on 06/29/2012 4:30:50 AM PDT by rwilson99 (Please tell me how the words "shall not perish and have everlasting life" would NOT apply to Mary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: entropy12

Hell, in 1934 they put a $200 tax on a $5 shotgun - a 90% tax rate is a bargain compared to that.


205 posted on 06/29/2012 4:42:36 AM PDT by mvpel (Michael Pelletier)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Brad from Tennessee
This disparity would encourage more and more states to opt out and ObamaCare goes broke without a new funding source.

And the new funding source would have to be federal money from where? Tax increases. Would congress be able to levy a tax increase to maintain the program? This combined with normal cost increases translates that congress is going to need to raise taxes on this baby sooner rather than later. Check and mate.

206 posted on 06/29/2012 4:57:45 AM PDT by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Wyatt's Torch
That Congress can now tax anything for any purpose invalidates the Commerce Clause.

That's been the case since 1934 when they slapped a $200 tax on a $5 shotgun.

207 posted on 06/29/2012 5:12:23 AM PDT by mvpel (Michael Pelletier)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
Utter nonsense if this was indeed his reasoning. Because they ignore the Constitution anyway. No the only correct decision for Roberts to make was to strike it down.

Since Obama and the rest of his band of thieves had argued it was not a tax, he could have used the same argunent regarding the Commerece Clause in striking it down and accomplished that result. Instead he claimed it was a tax and allowed an unconstitutional piece of legislature to stand based on an argument that wasn't even there.

208 posted on 06/29/2012 5:27:22 AM PDT by Robert DeLong (u)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldArmy52

“Everyone should get to pick and choose which laws of the land they obey and which they ignore. So, why should anyone else think they have to obey laws they don’t like?”

You’re right, of course. The rule of law has been replaced with the rule of men. The dominant rule of men will be established by who draws their weapon the fastest and shoots the straightest.

Time to get to the range, people, and hone your combat shooting skills. The new Mad Max world is coming and will be knocking on your door.


209 posted on 06/29/2012 5:30:19 AM PDT by sergeantdave (Public unions exist to protect the unions from the taxpaying public)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: cableguymn

Sorry.. Not buying it..

Roberts sure stuck it to Obama by upholding his bill.. What next?


This would be like electing a Republican President, during one of America’s worst economies in its history, who is closer to Obama than Reagan and expecting he will rule right of center and appoint conservative judges.


210 posted on 06/29/2012 5:39:06 AM PDT by Leep (Enemy of the StatistI)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: CitizenUSA
I think the mandate could be challenged again on the grounds that it's effectively an income tax (for constitutionality purposes),

Another reason it may not qualify as an income tax is that for some people the amount is not based on income. It is calculated as the greater of X amount or X percent. The constitution limited the tax power to income.

211 posted on 06/29/2012 5:53:21 AM PDT by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: null and void

McConnell said no appellate judges confirmed until after the election. SC could stand to be understaffed another 10 weeks better than it could stand another Obama pick. Block it and let Mitt’s 2nd action be appointing Levin to the SC, the first being signing the Obamacare repeal the new Congress should have ready for him signature. Third thing he signs should be longer, the list of executive orders he’s repealing.


212 posted on 06/29/2012 5:56:33 AM PDT by JohnBovenmyer (Obama been Liberal. Hope Change!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
So what's the bottom line? Obamacare was upheld using the ridiculous argument that the Government has taxing power that can coerce the citizens of this nation to purchase anything the government deems necessary. It is unbridled power over the individual.

This "there's a pony in there somewhere" reaction to one of the most dastardly acts against our Constitution in our history is just pure nonsense. Unless we understand the long term impact of this judicial outrage, we will continue to lose our freedom to the statists. Roberts had to come up with some rationale for ruling Obamacare constitutional so he created this monstrosity of a decision--a tax that really isn't a tax.

213 posted on 06/29/2012 5:59:01 AM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tflabo
“Can’t he (Roberts) just come up with a straight, non-nuanced decision based upon the principles of the US Constitution? All this triangulation is a headache. “

Lawyerspeak. Shakespeare was right about lawyers.

214 posted on 06/29/2012 6:01:11 AM PDT by HereInTheHeartland ("The writing is on the wall - Unions are screwed. reformist2 10:04 PM #27")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas
Any court watcher would have said all the courts would have upheld the law if Congress had simply called it a tax.

If Congress had treated it as a tax, the bill would have originated in the House and be subject to the same rules that apply to any other tax. It is not just a matter of words but of process, procedures, and regulations. SCOTUS just called it a tax, but said it was exempt from following the rules governing other taxes. Words have meanings.

215 posted on 06/29/2012 6:04:02 AM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: null and void

“If that’s so, I bet she back-stabs him and retires anyway.”

But the pubbies can stall anyone 0 appoints until after the election.


216 posted on 06/29/2012 6:05:07 AM PDT by chooseascreennamepat (The response to 1984 is 1776.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: NVDave
The thing that is most infuriating about this decisions is this: The Obama administration explicitly argued that this was NOT A TAX.

True enough on public statments, but the Administration's lawyers defended it as a tax in court.

217 posted on 06/29/2012 6:07:02 AM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge

Exactly. The culture of dependency is growing every day. People want their free stuff from the government. They are becoming the majority.


218 posted on 06/29/2012 6:15:48 AM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: CitizenUSA
Can Congress encourage certain behaviors by giving income tax breaks? Apparently it can. It certainly does. Could it do the opposite, assign a higher tax rate to someone for not doing something it wants? I'm trying to think of an instance like that, but I'm drawing a blank. Nevertheless, there's a very small distinction in my opinion between giving out tax breaks based on behavior and assigning tax increases for same.

In this case "behavior" is being born. No one is excluded from these laws. Tax credits are meant to alter behavior, but they don't apply to everyone unless they choose to engage in that behavior. I don't have to buy an energy saving furnace.

219 posted on 06/29/2012 6:20:53 AM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]

To: null and void

Actually it doesn’t matter what anyone in Washington says.

The only thing that matters is what they DO.


And every lawyer learned in first year law school precisely the same with respect to judges and their rulings. What judges DO is LAW. What judges SAY is “DICTA.”


220 posted on 06/29/2012 6:25:23 AM PDT by Atlas Sneezed (Hold My Beer and Watch This!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Brad from Tennessee; sickoflibs
Roberts also ruled that the states can opt out of the Medicaid expansion portion of the law without penalty. ObamaCare would have withdrawn all Medicaid funding from states who did not expand their program. Expanded Medicaid, covering about 20 million new clients nationwide, would have been federally funded the first two years after which the states would fund most of it. Roberts said the government could not coerce the states by threatening to defund their existing Medicaid systems.

so essentially, 'states' have Rights that citizens no longer enjoy...

man ole roberts is an intellectually sound Constitutional conservative with his crafty and schizo interpretations of 'law'...

221 posted on 06/29/2012 6:25:52 AM PDT by Gilbo_3 (Gov is not reason; not eloquent; its force.Like fire,a dangerous servant & master. George Washington)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

Alternate Headline:

SCOTUS Upholds George III’s Stamp Act.


222 posted on 06/29/2012 6:26:55 AM PDT by Cletus.D.Yokel (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Alterations - The acronym explains the science.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: cableguymn; little jeremiah; tflabo; null and void; FlingWingFlyer; Tzar; P-Marlowe; MacMattico; ...
Sorry.. Not buying it.. Roberts sure stuck it to Obama by upholding his bill. (sarcasm implied)

Congress tried to make SCOTUS shine this turd, and Roberts told Congress and the American people to put their big boy pants on and clean up this mess that THEY MADE.

The limits on taxation are the votes of our representation!!!

That's the deal. Tax law can be changed every two years. Commerce Clause expansions can last centuries.

If we let a future Pelosi do this again, then we deserve it. If we're not going to participate in the political process, then SCOTUS has said they're not going to become a subcommittee of Congress.

Roberts put a wall up at Wickard. The Commerce Clause expansion of the last century has stopped.

The above could've just as easily come from Scalia, but if Kagan or Sotamayor had written the opinon it would've read like a Marxist manifesto. Remember, lower courts MUST use the reasonings in here immediately. This may have an effect on interstate CO2 regs, who knows?

For those who say this is a novel "tax." What is an earned income credit? It's a NEGATIVE TAX on income you didn't create.

Repeal it. It didn't originate in the House.

Kudo's to Roberts for telling the American voter to get their act together.

223 posted on 06/29/2012 6:29:25 AM PDT by sam_paine (X .................................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

JUST SAY NO TO OBLOW




224 posted on 06/29/2012 6:33:38 AM PDT by devolve (-------------- ------- now_there_will_be_blood----------- ---------------------)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sam_paine
That's the deal. Tax law can be changed every two years. Commerce Clause expansions can last centuries.

And so can the precedent of using the government's taxing powers to compel citizens to do anything the government wants. The individual mandate was upheld, which is the real bottom line. Trying to put a smilely face on this usurptation of our individual liberties is sophistry.

225 posted on 06/29/2012 6:38:42 AM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

Comment #226 Removed by Moderator

To: sam_paine; cableguymn; little jeremiah; tflabo; null and void; FlingWingFlyer; Tzar; P-Marlowe; ...
It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.

That is a nice sentiment, but Roberts is dead wrong. It is his job to determine the constitutionality of a law in accordance with the letter and spirit of the Constitution. What he did here was a violation of his oath. I would bet he didn't read this legislation before ruling on it. Nobody did. Both the law he ruled unconstitutional and his reasoning for upholding it were incomprehensible. Roberts has concluded that the Federal Government can compel anyone to do anything and if they don't do it, they can be taxed.

Eat your broccoli or be taxed.

Brush your teeth or be taxed.

Lose weight or be taxed.

Ride the bus or be taxed.

Don't have more than 2 children or be taxed.

What Roberts ruled in this case is 100 times worse than anything anyone could have dreamed. He has expanded the taxing power of the Federal Government beyond all limits. There is nothing that Congress cannot tax. The power to tax is the power to destroy.

Roberts should be impeached. However I believe he has secret plans to announce his immediate retirement.

Kudo's to Roberts for telling the American voter to get their act together.

You need to change your freeper name.

227 posted on 06/29/2012 6:44:33 AM PDT by P-Marlowe (Roberts Care is Romney Care on Steroids)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: sam_paine
. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.

BS. It is the job of the SCOTUS to protect us from politicians who pass unconstitutional laws. This statement is a cop out. Roberts was wrong in his decision, he is wrong with this BS statement, he perpetrated a crime on the American people. His ruling is a contradiction. You can't say the commerce clause doesn't allow this and then turn around and allow it by defining it as a tax, which it isn't and never was intended to be a tax. According to Roberts we can be taxed for anything and be forced to buy, or do, anything the government wants or suffer a tax.

Get your head out of your a**, it smells much better out here in the fresh air.

228 posted on 06/29/2012 6:44:40 AM PDT by calex59
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

The is the affirmative action era.

Adherence to the constitution has been suspended to give a Marxist man with a tan a legacy to avoid riots on his behalf.

Lawlessness begets lawlessness. This is the latest salvo. More to come on both sides until the US fragments as the dollar implodes and states are forced to provide their own currency.


229 posted on 06/29/2012 6:44:46 AM PDT by PA-RIVER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Junior_G; All

I agree with you and with every other comment that disagrees with the premise of the article.

I posted the article to see whether it had any merit.

Now from reading all the comments, I see it doesn’t.

Thanks to all for commenting.


230 posted on 06/29/2012 6:46:03 AM PDT by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: sonic109

PHOK THE US GOVERNMENT AND ITS COMMUNIST TYRANT.


231 posted on 06/29/2012 6:46:24 AM PDT by PA-RIVER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

Comment #232 Removed by Moderator

To: Junior_G; All

Repeating your comment that I agree with (plus as I said all the others I’ve read:


The conventional wisdom on this is that Roberts sided with the liberals primarily because he was afraid of the criticism that would come down on the court if he didn’t. If true, that makes him one of the most spineless pussbags ever to wear a robe.


233 posted on 06/29/2012 6:47:31 AM PDT by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

Actually by saying it ia a Tax it makes it easier to overturn since it will only take 51 votes in the Senate to overturn. Only 51 votes required to carry a bill on taxes. So the next election with controlling the presidency, the house and the Senate, its gone.


234 posted on 06/29/2012 6:47:51 AM PDT by golfisnr1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

All the above, but with the caveate:

“you stupid ba$+4rd$ elected this scumbag and the congress that passed this pile of $h1+, so you’re gonna have to deal with the consequences of it yourself... Don’t expect me to clean it up for you.”


235 posted on 06/29/2012 6:48:39 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 1 | View Replies]

Comment #236 Removed by Moderator

To: little jeremiah
Seriously? Folks... Do you honestly think obomba cares what the United States Supreme Court thinks? He has never honored America's laws beginning with his illegal immigration into this country, his blatant and bragged about usage of illegal drugs, to his flat refusal to enforce federal immigration laws.
He illegally runs guns into Mexico. He illegally and unilaterally declares wars on foreign nations. He illegally launders illegally attained tax-payer dollars in order to shore up his campaign finances. He...
What's sad is we don't have a citizenry with the balls to vote for honorable, decent people of good moral character with the integrity to tell the truth and to do what they say they will do. Too many Americans say, "it's complicated." Bulls***. There is NOTHING COMPLICATED about doing the right thing.
We need a man or woman that can inspire others to be the best America has to offer. As it stands right now we do not have such a person running for President. Obomba and romney are two peas in a pod. Hell... Romney is the author if obombacare. Does anyone really think he wants to repeal it? Just look at what he said yesterday, "we want to repeal and 'replace'" obombacare. REPLACE? ARE YOU FRIGGIN KIDDING ME? I WANT IT COMPLETELY ABOLISHED AND ERASED FROM MEMORY.

The United States of America is soooooooooooooooooooooo screwed.

237 posted on 06/29/2012 6:50:25 AM PDT by Whats-wrong-with-the-truth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sam_paine
The limits on taxation are the votes of our representation!!!

I don't buy that. So, according to Roberts, Congress cannot legislate me to buy a product, as that would be unconstitutional. But Congress can *coerce* me, through punitive taxation, into doing what it cannot legislate me to do.

Am I to believe the Authors of the Constitution -- who were by no means fans of either government coercion or taxation! -- framed the Constitution in such a way that there is no practical limit to Congress' power to tax. Or rather, is it far more likely that this perceived "limitless" power of Congress to tax is pure bullsh!t, based on a gross distortion of original intent?

238 posted on 06/29/2012 6:54:52 AM PDT by kevao
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

Comment #239 Removed by Moderator

To: sam_paine
Roberts put a wall up at Wickard. The Commerce Clause expansion of the last century has stopped.

He could just as easily done that while throwing out the law. That he treated it as severable at all, much less offered his redefinition of interpretation, is totally out of line.

240 posted on 06/29/2012 6:57:59 AM PDT by Carry_Okie (The Slave Party: advancing indenture since 1787.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: sam_paine
What Roberts and you seem to forget is that nearly half of the people pay no taxes, yet they vote.

Also he had the perfect case to squash the abuse of the Commerce Clause and strike down Obamacare.

Lastly, he has thrown the door wide open for them to claim it is a tax, and see if there are enough tax paying voting citzens to do something about it.

I do not share your kudos for Roberts.

241 posted on 06/29/2012 7:01:10 AM PDT by Robert DeLong (u)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: sam_paine
Repeal it. It didn't originate in the House.

Yep, start with that (and I won't get into the monkey business of actual passage...) Then face the challenge from the first taxpayer who goes before the court to challenge being charged a tax for not doing something. This bill is far, far from being settled law, as much as the liberals want to imagine it is.

Would I have preferred Roberts to simply toss the bill in it's entirety? Yeah, I would have. Will I settle for vast openings to dismantle it as well as a 9-0 vote on the commerce clause being limited? I'll pop the bottle of bubbly for that and make ready for the next battle.

242 posted on 06/29/2012 7:04:21 AM PDT by kingu (Everything starts with slashing the size and scope of the federal government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: Cletus.D.Yokel
!
243 posted on 06/29/2012 7:06:52 AM PDT by MHGinTN (Being deceived can be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 222 | View Replies]

To: sam_paine

Kudo’s to Roberts for telling the American voter to get their act together.


Really the fake CC argument should have been an embarassment to any American who has a half a clue but I guess we have to pretend to take this rediculous stretch from the left seriously?
I mean the CC argument is elivilent to someone suing you because they slipped on an alleged banana peal on someone else’s property.
Although, it kind of makes Obama look like an ass or I should say even more of an ass. I mean he insisted in wasn’t a tax.
Now the left is spinning it as a win.
it seems nearly impossible that even bone head Team Obama will raise the needed taxes needed to fund this spruce goose.
Or, the votes to fund it...?


244 posted on 06/29/2012 7:07:34 AM PDT by Leep (Enemy of the StatistI)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: winner3000
hm... I think his analysis on the direct tax argument is wrong.

If you think of the individual mandate like .... something similar to the marriage penalty then you can see how Roberts found this constitutional.

Everyone married who chooses not to get divorced pays in effect a marriage penalty on their choice to not get divorced in the form of a higher tax rate. This is an existing example of people getting taxed on inaction.

The government is in affect mandating that everyone remain single and anyone who chooses to get married must pay a penalty.

Nothing is bought or sold, and yet no one claims that the government can't tax couples a higher rate than individuals.

245 posted on 06/29/2012 7:08:55 AM PDT by TexasFreeper2009 (Obama lied .. the economy died.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: entropy12

Didn’t Congress just ship our vote-counting to a foreign country? To a company owned by Soros?


246 posted on 06/29/2012 7:09:46 AM PDT by Kenny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Robert DeLong

:: nearly half of the people pay no taxes, yet they vote. ::

By extension, neither will they be required to pay the HealthCare Tax for not having HC Insurance. General fund taxes will pay for that.

If Obamugabe is re-elected, there WILL be a confiscation of some sort regarding the “inactive” funds found in 401K accounts.


247 posted on 06/29/2012 7:11:37 AM PDT by Cletus.D.Yokel (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Alterations - The acronym explains the science.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 241 | View Replies]

To: sam_paine
Roberts put a wall up at Wickard. The Commerce Clause expansion of the last century has stopped.

He could just as easily done that while throwing out the law. That he treated it as severable at all, much less offered his redefinition of interpretation, is totally out of line.

248 posted on 06/29/2012 7:14:30 AM PDT by Carry_Okie (The Slave Party: advancing indenture since 1787.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

Kind of what I am feeling too really. Are the conservatives on the court just not as smart? That’s what I don’t get. It just doesn’t make a lick of sense. Arguments about what Roberts did actually being a great thing are making me see red right now. Leave it up to our elected officials? We’ve been betrayed by them long enough!


249 posted on 06/29/2012 7:14:41 AM PDT by vpintheak (Occupy your Brain!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
Ruth Bader Ginsberg threatened to announce her retirement at the end of this term and give Obama the chance to appoint a new Justice in her place if Obama Care was overturned.

Why would exchanging one rabid leftist for another rabid leftist be much of a threat?

250 posted on 06/29/2012 7:20:31 AM PDT by slowhandluke (It's hard to be cynical enough in this age.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 151-200201-250251-300301-315 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