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

Skip to comments.

CBS News: Roberts Was Going to Overturn ObamaCare But Changed His Mind
News Buster.org ^ | July 1, 2012 | Noel Sheppard

Posted on 07/01/2012 10:47:39 AM PDT by Kaslin

CBS News broke a huge story on Sunday's Face the Nation concerning the Supreme Court's Thursday ruling on ObamaCare.

According to Jan Crawford, CBS legal and political correspondent, Chief Justice John Roberts was initially going to strike down the individual mandate requiring citizens to buy health insurance, but changed his mind over the objections of the conservatives on the Court (video follows with transcript):

CBS News: Roberts Initially Wanted to Strike Down ObamaCare Mandate But Changed His Mind

NORAH O’DONNELL, SUBSTITUTE HOST: We're going to start first with Jan because you've done some reporting. The big question was why did Chief Justice John Roberts do what he did? And you've learned some new details right?

JAN CRAWFORD, CBS LEGAL AND POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, that's right. What was striking about this decision was that it was the conservative Chief Justice that was providing that decisive fifth vote, joining the liberals to uphold the President’s signature achievement. And Norah that was something that no one would have expected back in 2005 when President George W. Bush put him on the Supreme Court, and that was something that not even the conservative justices expected back in March when the Court heard arguments in this case.

I am told by two sources with specific knowledge of the Court's deliberations that Roberts initially sided with the conservatives in this case and was prepared to strike down the heart of this law, the so-called individual mandate, of course, that requires all Americans to buy insurance or pay a penalty. But Roberts, I'm told by my sources, changed his views deciding to instead join with the liberals.

And he withstood-- I'm told by my sources -- a month-long desperate campaign by the conservative justices to bring him back to the fold, and that campaign was led, ironically, by Justice Anthony Kennedy. And why that's ironic is because it was Justice Kennedy that conservatives feared would be the one most likely to defect. But their effort, of course, was unsuccessful. Roberts did not budge. The conservatives wrote that astonishing joint dissent united in opposition, and Roberts wrote the majority opinion with the four liberals to uphold the President's signature achievement.

O’DONNELL: Has this there been anything like this on the Court before? I mean, that's extraordinary that the Chief Justice, according to your report about a month ago decided to do this and then was lobbied unsuccessfully.

CRAWFORD: Yes, that has happened before, and often in high-profile, controversial cases including Justice Kennedy who's changed his views in a very high-profile case involving a woman's rights on abortion back in 1992. And justices do change their mind. There is precedent for that. One justice told me that surprisingly enough it happens about once a term. But in the case of this magnitude with so much on the line, conservatives believed they had Roberts’ vote in this case, and there's quite a lot of anger within the hallways of the Supreme Court right now.



TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: alteredsource; facethenation; jancrawford; obamacaredecision; robertscaved; robertscavedtomedia
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-215 next last
To: Eye of Unk
Call it what you want but I think their was a genius play made here that will truly cause Obama to

At the price of the freedom of every American; alive and yet to be born. Was this genius worth the price?

101 posted on 07/01/2012 11:54:50 AM PDT by Turbo Pig (...to close with and destroy the enemy...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: mojito

No doubt Kagan leaked to the Obama administration that Roberts was the weak link on the conservative side oherwise they would have went after Kennedy. I doubt this was a month long issue. I bet Roberts changed his mind over the last week.


102 posted on 07/01/2012 11:59:20 AM PDT by LongWayHome
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Cowboy Bob
Roberts "blinked" under pressure by the White House.

Roberts didn't blink, he broke under the pressure.

Once broken, he no longer has the esteem that he once had, or respect of others who would want to count on him in the future.

-PJ

103 posted on 07/01/2012 12:00:47 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too (If you can vote for President, then your children can run for President.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Cowboy Bob; All

Roberts was blackmailed over the illegal adoption of his children.

XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX THU AUG 04, 2005 11:35:09 ET XXXXX

NY TIMES INVESTIGATES ADOPTION RECORDS OF SUPREME COURT NOMINEE’S CHILDREN

**Exclusive**

The DRUDGE REPORT has uncovered a plot in the NEW YORK TIMES’ newsroom to look into the adoption of the children of Supreme Court Nominee John G. Roberts.

The TIMES has investigative reporter Glen Justice hot on the case to investigate adoption records of Judge Roberts’ two young children, Josie age 5 and Jack age 4, a top source reveals.

Judge Roberts and his wife Jane adopted the children when they each were infants.

Both children were adopted from Latin America.

TIMES insider claims the look into the adoptions are part of the paper’s “standard background check.”

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2900724/posts


104 posted on 07/01/2012 12:01:46 PM PDT by jimbo123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: jimbo123

“TIMES insider claims the look into the adoptions are part of the paper’s “standard background check.”

That the Times sees this as a greater priority than The Won’s birth certificate is all any one needs to know about the parttson Fourth Estate in America.

That the owners of the Times feel secure in their treason is the fault of We the People.


105 posted on 07/01/2012 12:05:49 PM PDT by mo (If you understand, no explanation is needed. If you don't understand, no explanation is possible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: EQAndyBuzz
This is what happens when you have a liberal activist Supreme Court.

It's what happens when you elect RINOs.

106 posted on 07/01/2012 12:05:49 PM PDT by Sirius Lee (Goode over evil. Voting for mitt or obie is like throwing your country away.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Turbo Pig

I think the decision taken in this direction has spawned more positive actions than one that made Obamacare constitutional, if it had passed by the latter it would have been a shooting war already.

In this direction at least they the enemy will be full of false hopes of achievements, and the more they celebrate the deeper they will sink with this gift of a life preserver full of lead.

At least on our side, the conservative side we have full enclosure cold water immersion suits, they on the other hand have a very limited amount of time in the cold frigid waters before they lose all bodily functions.

And as we can see Pelosi has already lost it drunk on hubris and gloating of victory.


107 posted on 07/01/2012 12:06:59 PM PDT by Eye of Unk (Is your state Obamacare free yet?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf
I’m more and more convinced that he was threatened in a way that had teeth./i>

the smell of blackmail is in the air.

Remember,back when he was first being considered, NBC went on a witch hunt regarding his two children, adopted from South America.

They have - gasp - blond hair and blue eyes - from S. Amer. surely, thought the media lackey, there's got to be a story there...

Blackmail is the clintooon/Chicago way...gathering info and sitting on it until it can best serve them.

he also has epilepsy. Threaten to make a major fuss over it in public and sway the people to 'He shouldn't be sitting on the bench?"

Anything is possible. WE are dealing with some deep evil these days, folks.

108 posted on 07/01/2012 12:07:50 PM PDT by maine-iac7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: mo

Bush, the Rinos and the ‘Rats knew about the illegal adoption of Roberts kids and worked out a deal to bury it back when the NYT started sniffing around. Now we know what the deal was.


109 posted on 07/01/2012 12:08:31 PM PDT by jimbo123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: maine-iac7

Roberts adopted kids were born in Ireland and the adoption was laundered through Mexico or some other Latin American country.


110 posted on 07/01/2012 12:10:40 PM PDT by jimbo123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

I believe her. There has to be quite a lot of anger for this to leak out of the Supreme Court.

WOw. No wonder Roberts left town.


111 posted on 07/01/2012 12:14:02 PM PDT by Girlene (Chief AHat Roberts - should resign in disgrace.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: I see my hands

I’m hitting the “like” button on this one.


112 posted on 07/01/2012 12:14:10 PM PDT by angcat (ROMNEY/RUBIO 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf

“I see this as our country’s Reichstag fire.”

Fast and Furious was supposed to be our country’s Gleiwitz incident.

See my tagline.


113 posted on 07/01/2012 12:14:22 PM PDT by MikeSteelBe (Austrian Hitler was, as the Halfrican Hitler does.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
"And I would expect at least one of the conservative justices to give a scathing dissent that they read out loud. But Scalia’s scathing dissent was used up on Monday with the AZ decision."

Kennedy read the ACA dissent from the bench, scathingly...

114 posted on 07/01/2012 12:15:16 PM PDT by StAnDeliver (=)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Yale University.......Skull and Bones.....the entire American leadership elite is derived from this society at Yale. Why might that be.....

These experiences in the coffins incorporated sexual pain and resulted in being born-again, into the Order, as we mentioned above. (Cooper, p.95) Powerful force charges through the participants of these ceremonies, transforming their lives dramatically. This type ritual is classic Satanism. Anton LaVey states, in his book (The Satanic Rituals: Companion To The Satanic Bible, (p. 57) “The ceremony of rebirth takes place in a large coffin.. This is similar to the coffin symbolism that...is found in most lodge rituals.”

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/skullandbones.htm


115 posted on 07/01/2012 12:18:12 PM PDT by mo (If you understand, no explanation is needed. If you don't understand, no explanation is possible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eye of Unk
Ms. Barnhard sayz:

"Roberts is not a “Machiavellian genius.” Roberts is a moral degenerate lifetime Washington D.C. politico, who is well known in the beltway to be borderline obsessed with his image.

In other words, Chief Justice John Roberts emotionally operates on the same level as the average twelve year old girl, and just sold out not just the Republic, the Constitution and the entire American populace, but really the entire planet, because now that the United States is no more, the forces of evil will run absolutely rampant over the rest of the planet.

And Roberts did it so that a bunch of coke-snorting sodomites and psychopaths in Georgetown will pretend to like him – for about five minutes. "

116 posted on 07/01/2012 12:18:36 PM PDT by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
I could have Attorneys General from 28 states filing legal briefs to overturn ObamaCare when it had originally been passed in the U.S. Senate by a 60-39 margin.

Here in PA we elected a GOP Gov, a GOP senator and the GOP Reps now outnumber the DEMS

This happened in 2010

And if Roberts used that reasoning then he should have taken into account the results of the 2010 election
117 posted on 07/01/2012 12:20:10 PM PDT by uncbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Paladin2

“......bunch of coke-snorting sodomites and psychopaths in Georgetown will pretend to like him – for about five minutes. “

Until those clowns are afraid of We the People .. We the People will be stuck with this nonsense..”


118 posted on 07/01/2012 12:21:13 PM PDT by mo (If you understand, no explanation is needed. If you don't understand, no explanation is possible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
"For example, if I were a Supreme Court justice I'd be asking myself how I could have Attorneys General from 28 states filing legal briefs to overturn ObamaCare when it had originally been passed in the U.S. Senate by a 60-39 margin. "

The Senate no longer represents the interests of the States.

119 posted on 07/01/2012 12:24:48 PM PDT by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: uncbob

I am getting tired of repeating this: John Roberts is a statist, a man who believes that all rights come from the state, not from God. Therefore Roberts doesn’t believe in the constitution as written, in the bill of rights or the balance of power in the three co-equal branches of government.

Robert’s judicial philosophy is dictated by whoever is sitting in the White House. The will of the people is irrelevant. Obama has the power.


120 posted on 07/01/2012 12:24:53 PM PDT by Eva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: Sirius Lee

“It’s what happens when you elect RINOs.”

No argument here.


121 posted on 07/01/2012 12:25:48 PM PDT by EQAndyBuzz (ABO 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Hillary had the FBI files on her political opponents in the private residence of the White House during the Clinton years. Do we really think that she and/or Obama doesn’t have them now?

Can you think of any plausible reason that a traditionally conservative jurist would step so far out of what is normal and rule in such a weird way that even legal scholars have been left scratching their heads?


122 posted on 07/01/2012 12:26:34 PM PDT by Noamie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

**** you very much, John.


123 posted on 07/01/2012 12:26:46 PM PDT by chris37 (Heartless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mo

“Until those clowns are afraid of We the People .. We the People will be stuck with this nonsense..”

From your lips to God’s ears...


124 posted on 07/01/2012 12:29:34 PM PDT by TalBlack ( Evil doesn't have a day job.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: Bratch
That’s not going to happen unless you get an overwhelming majority (60+, IMO) in the Senate.

If what you say is true, it's necessary. We must do it. As Christians and patriots, it's our job to defend the truth and our families and neighbors, at the cost of our lives, if necessary. Anything else is, I'm sorry to say, cowardice. Unless someone has a better way to achieve the same end, it's our duty. The fact that it's difficult is just part of the landscape.

125 posted on 07/01/2012 12:30:24 PM PDT by SamuraiScot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: azishot; TheOldLady; WildHighlander57; netmilsmom; tomdavidd; Freeper; Gvl_M3; Flotsam_Jetsome; ...
Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Article, and # 61.

Thanks, azishot. The Pelican Brief was also mentioned yesterday on another website, fwiw.

126 posted on 07/01/2012 12:31:08 PM PDT by LucyT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Eva
"Robert’s judicial philosophy....."

From The MAN his self:

""I don't necessarily think that it's the best approach to have an all-encompassing philosophy.""

127 posted on 07/01/2012 12:31:42 PM PDT by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: uncbob
"if Roberts used that reasoning then he should have taken into account the results of the 2010 election "

My observation too.

Had Chicken smacked the law down and sent it back to Congress for rework as a tax, it would have died due to the Peoples' most recent actions.

Roberts' line of argument here is specious. He needs to be called out on it.

128 posted on 07/01/2012 12:35:44 PM PDT by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: Eye of Unk

a genius play
^^^^^^^^^^^^

I must not be as smart as you.


129 posted on 07/01/2012 12:40:33 PM PDT by wintertime
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: LucyT

Thanks for the ping.


130 posted on 07/01/2012 12:41:41 PM PDT by thecodont
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Signalman

Nice!


131 posted on 07/01/2012 12:45:32 PM PDT by thecodont
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Eye of Unk; onyx
We're dealing with checker players .....They don't understand the sacrifice of a pawn to win the game. Mark my word something larger is in play in the near future.

During church today..at the alter taking communion...it hit me how often God has answered a prayer, not the way I'd asked, but it a convoluted round the barn, down the lane and through the woods kind of way.

If He'd done it my way, it may have met needs for a while, but by doing it HIS way much more was accomplished.So I have learned to let go and let God.

Just as I trust in God's will for my life, I will trust that for whatever reason, Roberts made a convoluted decision because he knew another matter needed attention and would need this sacrificial pawn to achieve it. It's not like he didn't tell us how to solve the problem....VOTE THE BASTARDS OUT!

Did the judge just ask the US to divide the baby. Will the true mother of the child come forward? Will the country be saved?

132 posted on 07/01/2012 12:49:46 PM PDT by hoosiermama (Obama: "Born in Kenya" Lying then or now!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion; Uncle Slayton
But Scalia’s scathing dissent was used up on Monday with the AZ decision.

Kagan wasn't a participant in the AZ decision. Is this significant?

133 posted on 07/01/2012 12:49:54 PM PDT by thecodont
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: I see my hands

http://pauldavisoncrime.blogspot.com/2010/03/obama-what-me-worry-about-approval.html

someone needs to shop this, it wont take much they are both idiots.


134 posted on 07/01/2012 12:50:17 PM PDT by rolling_stone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: wintertime

I just started looking for Rove’s dicta on the ruling. Haven’t found anything yet.


135 posted on 07/01/2012 12:51:03 PM PDT by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: mo
That the Times sees this as a greater priority than The Won’s birth certificate is all any one needs to know about the partisan Fourth Estate in America.

That the owners of the Times feel secure in their treason is the fault of We the People.

A "conservative" chief justice breaks on the most important issue facing the country after blackmail relating to irregular adoptions, outing as gay or similar trivial matters, yet a socialist President who isn't even eligible for office not only continues his abhorrent policies, but successfully blackmails the chief justice over these trifles.

Roberts is a weak, other-directed, scared rabbit, afraid-of-his-shadow, obsessed with his reputation conformist who is, and always has been, terrified of being out of step with the dominant forces in society. He is no match for street thugs like Obama or Clinton who have no reservations about anything so long as it doesn't get them impeached.

We need more Scalias who will, like the socialist justices, wear their fiercely-held politics on their sleeves, and no more titular conservatives who vainly think filling pages with obiter dicta, i.e. commerce clause, will influence anyone.

/conjecture

136 posted on 07/01/2012 12:51:03 PM PDT by Kennard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: hoosiermama

Thanks, good perspective.


137 posted on 07/01/2012 12:51:51 PM PDT by thecodont
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: Bratch

They for the most part are pretty obscure to the general public away from the court; imagine what they’d face having the Occupy crowd down their throats all the time.

Guess we’ll never know.

so what about patriots protesting the idiotic decision ? why not?


138 posted on 07/01/2012 12:52:26 PM PDT by rolling_stone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Paladin2

There you go. That’s my view on it and she said it well.


139 posted on 07/01/2012 12:57:42 PM PDT by sheana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Paladin2; All
Latest FR thread with original article, Roberts Switched Views..... with more background.
140 posted on 07/01/2012 12:57:50 PM PDT by Girlene (Chief AHat Roberts - should resign in disgrace.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
The Supreme Court has great power, but only on the condition that they use it sparingly.

This reminds me of people who argue state legislators should choose senators once again as they did a century ago.

If state legislatures did pick the senators, the unelected Senate would have less power. Given current thinking about majority rule, unelected bodies have to tread lightly or risk losing the power they do have.

I suspect Roberts thought about repealing the law, but decided he didn't want to risk sticking his head out on this matter.

That's the way the Supreme Court has always been. Marbury v. Madison established the Supreme Court's right to decide whether laws were constitutional.

The court found with Marbury, but at the same time ruled that the law that mandated that Marbury receive his appointment was unconstitutional.

The Court is always doing things like that -- splitting hairs, splitting the difference between the two sides in a dispute, asserting its right to decide while avoiding making decisions which might be divisive or controversial.

My own (wholly ungrounded) suspicion is that Roberts "swapped places" with Kennedy, allowing Kennedy to cast a vote with the conservatives, and taking the heat himself for giving the liberals their majority.

141 posted on 07/01/2012 12:59:23 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ChildOfThe60s
Do I sympathize with Roberts? NO. He shouldn’t be on the bench if he’s not willing to stand up to Obama’s thugs.

It's soooo much fun to be a keyboard warrior with no consequences.

Can you say that when your pretty wife or your child has a cross hair painted on their back and the prick in control are threatening to pull the trigger?

Then you ask yourself who is going to support you when you stand up and reveal it, is the risk WORTH IT?.

We in this Country and on this forum always criticize those who do not take a stand then never back up those who do....George Zimmerman anyone?

Would YOU sacrifice your Life, Liberty and Property, the safety of your beloved Family when it has been demonstrated time and time again that no one will back you up?

I don't mean to aim this personally at you but I'm just presenting this for thought.

142 posted on 07/01/2012 12:59:55 PM PDT by Las Vegas Ron (Rush Limbaugh = the Beethoven of talk radio - http://www.istandwithrush.org/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Cowboy Bob

....which begs the salient question, what does the White House have on Roberts to make him blink?

I’ve said it before, and it bears repeating again. Filegate was the seminal scandal of the Clinton Administration. FBI background files on over 900 Republican elected officials and political appointees. Having served in the Reagan Administration, there’s a 100% chance the FBI has a file on Roberts, which made it way to DNC operatives during Filegate.

If nothing else, the material in those FBI files served as a starting point for opposition research on Roberts and other Republicans. With Terry Lenzer and the boys on the case, there’s no telling what might have been discovered to prompt Roberts’ sudden conversion.

The dissent in Thursday’s decision reads like a majority opinion, while Roberts’ “majority” summation looks like something that was originally drafted as a dissent. Now, we’re told that Roberts was a late convert to upholding the law. What caused the sudden switch? Was it an ideological conversion, a desire to uphold the “integrity” of the court, or did the Dims discover some deep, dark secret about Roberts?

Yeah, it’s a conspiracy theory, but I’m not buying the idea that Roberts switched so he’ll get a favorable story in the Washington Post “Style” section.


143 posted on 07/01/2012 1:00:26 PM PDT by ExNewsExSpook (uoted)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Eva

What has that to do with my post


144 posted on 07/01/2012 1:01:15 PM PDT by uncbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: thecodont

It seems to have gotten lost in all the _______________


145 posted on 07/01/2012 1:01:27 PM PDT by hoosiermama (Obama: "Born in Kenya" Lying then or now!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf
I’m more and more convinced that he was threatened in a way that had teeth.

What could the White House have on him?

146 posted on 07/01/2012 1:02:33 PM PDT by Jeff Chandler (I miss Harriet Miers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Paladin2

Like I said using that excuse he should have used the 2010 election results and the fact the GOP repealed OBAMACARE after that elecetion


147 posted on 07/01/2012 1:03:25 PM PDT by uncbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: Las Vegas Ron

if he copuldnt stand the heat he should ahave left the kitchen and resigned or recused himself he took an oath and betrayed it. Out tounders put everything they had including their lives at risk so this a$$ clown could give it away to feel good.


148 posted on 07/01/2012 1:03:41 PM PDT by rolling_stone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: rabidralph
As much as men on this site like to complain about women getting the right to vote as the downfall of this country,

The premise of your argument is false, women were never denied the opportunity to vote.

They couldn't vote because in those days they typically didn't own property....a requirement for anyone, man or woman to vote.

149 posted on 07/01/2012 1:04:07 PM PDT by Las Vegas Ron (Rush Limbaugh = the Beethoven of talk radio - http://www.istandwithrush.org/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

Comment #150 Removed by Moderator


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-215 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