1 posted on
03/30/2012 12:08:37 PM PDT by
Kaslin
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-48 next last
To: Kaslin
2 posted on
03/30/2012 12:10:13 PM PDT by
FlingWingFlyer
(It's time to WEAN the government off of our money.)
To: Kaslin
3 posted on
03/30/2012 12:10:43 PM PDT by
billorites
(freepo ergo sum)
To: Kaslin
Because you stole it from me first? Next question miss piggy,,
4 posted on
03/30/2012 12:12:03 PM PDT by
DesertRhino
(I was standing with a rifle, waiting for soviet paratroopers, but communists just ran for officeoffI)
To: Kaslin
on the second day she actually was trying to help the Govts lawyer as was Ginsberg.
Kagen is a complete idiot who has no knowledge of the constitution and maybe she needs to understand as a judge seeing as she was not one , is that she is supposed to give her decision after the evidence and arguments not help the lawyer and make it known she has already made her decision.
Anyone here know if this woman can ever be removed due to her activism and basically being an idiot?
7 posted on
03/30/2012 12:14:55 PM PDT by
manc
(Marriage is between one man and one woman,It's not a conservative view but a true American view)
To: Kaslin
8 posted on
03/30/2012 12:17:55 PM PDT by
Huskrrrr
To: Kaslin
Kagan clearly has no concept of the constitutional issue that the other justices were quick to grasp...if the federal government can compel individual citizens to buy health insurance they can compel them to do anything else and that fundamentally changes the role of limited government in the US Constitution.
10 posted on
03/30/2012 12:18:29 PM PDT by
The Great RJ
("The problem with socialism is that pretty soon you run out of other people's money" M. Thatcher)
To: Kaslin
This woman has no business being on the Supreme Court!
11 posted on
03/30/2012 12:22:20 PM PDT by
GeronL
(The Right to Life came before the Right to Pursue Happiness)
To: Kaslin
I had a young boy in my class today who told me he is leftist, but also a libertarian.
I try very hard not to “indoctrinate” anyone, but I told him that the two terms are not compatible. The government cannot “give” anyone anything without forcibly taking it from someone else. You cannot believe people should be free according to the Constitution and at the same time think the government should give out “boatloads” of money.
You either believe in freedom or coercive statism.
12 posted on
03/30/2012 12:22:44 PM PDT by
I still care
(I miss my friends, bagels, and the NYC skyline - but not the taxes. I love the South.)
To: Kaslin
The wise lesbian speaks. A wise lesbian and a wise Latina, isn’t that special?
15 posted on
03/30/2012 12:24:04 PM PDT by
Marathoner
(2 goals this year: (1) S##tcan Obamacare; (2) S##tcan Obama)
To: Kaslin
A butt-load of money? From Elena?
16 posted on
03/30/2012 12:24:07 PM PDT by
tumblindice
(our new, happy lives)
To: Kaslin
18 posted on
03/30/2012 12:28:47 PM PDT by
mo
(If you understand, no explanation is needed. If you don't understand, no explanation is possible.)
To: Kaslin
“a big gift from the federal government”
I get it now! The Federal government
is like a goose that lays golden eggs.
Elena Johnson is right. We would be foolish
to say no to free golden eggs.
19 posted on
03/30/2012 12:29:17 PM PDT by
tumblindice
(our new, happy lives)
To: Kaslin
The typical lefty!! Government has no boatloads of money or gifts. The money is being confiscated from 'WE THE PEOPLE' & government or Miss Piggy has no right to gift it to those that didn't earn it.
It proves that if the government is sitting around with boatloads of money - WE THE PEOPLE ARE BEING OVERTAXED!!!
22 posted on
03/30/2012 12:31:21 PM PDT by
LADY J
(You never know how strong you are until being strong is the only choice you have. - Author Unknown)
To: Kaslin
“Why is a big gift from the federal government a matter of coercion? In other words, the federal government is here saying: We’re giving you a boatload of money. There are no matching funds requirement. There are no extraneous conditions attached to it. It’s just a boatload of federal money for you to take and spend on poor people’s health care. It doesn’t sound coercive to me, I have to tell you.”
Can we have any stronger evidence this “woman” is incapable of rendering a constitutional judgment on this matter? She’s one of the prime advocates!
26 posted on
03/30/2012 12:34:23 PM PDT by
ScottinVA
(A single drop of American blood for muslims is one drop too many!)
To: Kaslin
I hope somebody can get a picture of Kagan today after the Supreme Court “vote” on Obamacare. That would tell anybody what they need to know about how the court is going to rule. Since Kagan is so emotionally invested in Obamacare (many say she even wrote large portions of it), if she looks like she sick to her stomach or just got kicked in the gut, it's pretty safe to assume the court voted to strike Obamacare down.
28 posted on
03/30/2012 12:35:49 PM PDT by
apillar
To: Kaslin
It's called theft, bandita.
30 posted on
03/30/2012 12:36:19 PM PDT by
Navy Patriot
(Join the Democrats, it's not Fascism when WE do it and the law is what WE say it is.)
To: Kaslin
I laughed at this woman when she talked of Federal money like it was a separate entity from taxpayer money.
Federal money that we don't have is borrowed money to be later ripped off the people who make this country work.
Kagen should have recused herself. The SCOTUS will only lose credibility if they allow the opinion of this unqualified hack to stand.
31 posted on
03/30/2012 12:36:51 PM PDT by
dforest
To: Kaslin
I liked her work on King of Queens.
36 posted on
03/30/2012 12:40:00 PM PDT by
Mr. Bird
To: Kaslin
-—Why is a big gift from the federal government a matter of coercion?——
Please make it stop. I can’t take it anymore. Really. I can’t.
To: Kaslin
39 posted on
03/30/2012 12:45:03 PM PDT by
ScottinVA
(A single drop of American blood for muslims is one drop too many!)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-48 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson