Powered by TypePad

« The New USDA Guidelines Are Out | Main | More On ObamaCare »

January 31, 2011

Comments

Unstayed and dead in 27 states.

Stay, stay stay stay, stay stay stay, stay stay stayio,
Daylight come and me wan no stay.
===================

Stephanie

Gabriel Malor:

This question has come up a few places. I've also seen incorrect media reports that Judge Vinson's decision declaring all of ObamaCare unconstitutional "will have no instant effect on implementation." This is probably fueled in part because "senior White House advisors" are apparently saying that implementation will continue while the lawsuits play out.

That is incorrect, at least for the moment. The law is unconstitutional and that ruling is binding on the parties. Not just the 26 plaintiff states, mind you, as I've also seen erroneously reported. All parties to a lawsuit are bound, including and especially the defendants, that is, the U.S. departments attempting to implement ObamaCare.

That means that at this moment all parts of the law are unenforceable, including the guaranteed issue rule, the preparations for the exchanges, the minimum standards, the Medicaid expansion, the FSA adjustment, the 1099 debacle, and, of course, the individual mandate. The Obama Administration risks a contempt order if it attempts to continue to impose any of these ObamaCare requirements on the states.

Y'all concur or not?

Stephanie

My husband has started reading Brad Thor (on y'alls suggestion) and has a question.

He just read the Lions of Lucerne and wants to know what book starts the Scott Harvath series? He wants to follow the sequence of what he did to get to the Secret Service.

What order are the books best read? Can't seem to find a primer on the web that answers this.

Sara (Pal2Pal)

On Greta just now, the Florida AG, so young and pretty, said that the ruling is binding on all parties to the case, the 26 states and those who joined the suit, such as the National Assoc. of Businesses. She also mentioned VA and Okla. She seemed to be surprised at the question the way you would be about a question so clear on its face, but I still think she left it sketchy on the states not part of the suit. Despite Clarice's attempt, I'm still kind of confused, since I live in a state not part of the suit and not inclined to accept the results. I personally think unconstitutional means unconstitutional for all states unless they secede.

narciso

That is the first book in the series, Stephanie, it's a bit of a downer, because the plot goes a little like the macguffin in '24, where the foe is one of the 'usual suspects', but many of the characters, in the series are established there.

Thomas Collins

Stephanie, my reading of the opinion is that the Federales must stop implementing all aspects of ObamaCare, including the tax provisions, now, and in all states, unless Judge Vinson stays his order or unless the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit stays the order. However, there are JOMers who know a lot more about the constitutional and statutory rules, and the procedural rules promulgated by the federal courts themselves, pertaining to matters of federal court jurisdiction and the impact of federal court orders in a variety of circumstances. So, I defer to them.

MarkO

All of this legal legerdemain resulted from the fact that Obamacare would never have passed but for the fiction that it was not a tax. Congress has the power to tax. It choose deception.

I understand the opinion to be the equivalent of an injunction because it invalidated the entire legislation. Thus, the Feds would have no legal authority by which to continue to act.

clarice

I say it applies only to the fed's conduct in the 26 states which participated in the case as plaintiffs.
As a practical matter, since by my count that is over half the states and confusion would be considerable, unless it is stayed, the feds ought to halt everything everywhere.

It is also true that there are some false reports that he opinion has been stayed..but Cato argues persuasively that it has not been stayed.(discussed on prior thread)

Sara (Pal2Pal)

Ooooh, Judge Vinson is a handsome man.

Sara (Pal2Pal)

Clarice, I think you and the FL AG tend to be on the same page.

Janet

What a mess.

Thomas Collins

See Stephanie, clarice takes a different view than I do, and clarice has a gazillion times more experience in this area than I do, so I would place my bets on her being correct. However, I think we both agree that if the Obama Administration has an ounce of sense, it will cease implementation steps with respect to those portions of ObamaCare already in effect unless a stay is granted.

Sara (Pal2Pal)

Ann Coulter on today’s Obamacare ruling:

“So right now federal officials are not allowed to enforce Obamacare. Though, I am torn, because on one hand the law is clearly unconstitutional. On the other hand, I just got my White House waiver…

I must say, there are two court opinions on each side. Obviously, I find the two that find the two that call it unconstitutional more compelling for logical reasons. There’s no point in having any limits on Congress’s authority if they can force all citizens to buy a product. And, by the way, if this is constitutional then Republicans should turn around and mandate that all citizens be forced to purchase a gun and a Bible. And, there’s a lot more evidence that owning a gun and a Bible is better for society than everyone having to buy health insurance.”

Danube of Thought

I agree with Clarice, although I am very uncertain.

Recall the issue when Judge Vaughan--a single district judge sitting in a single CA district--held "don't ask, don't tell" unconstitutional. That bound the feds around the world.

What makes it a bit more interesting here is that in Michigan a federal district judge has issued the opposite ruling. What happens in that state?

And what happened to the Blue Demons against the Redmen?

Stephanie

Yoo, too weighs in.

LUN

John Yoo. Heh.

Sara (Pal2Pal)

And yet, the Michigan AG was on Greta a few minutes ago and applauding Judge Vinson's ruling. He is an (R). Did the AG position in Michigan change hands in the last election?

JM Hanes

[Pardon the cross post, but I gather this is now healthcare's final destination. Also crossing my fingers that I don't Larwyn the thread, because Typepad won't let me Preview.]


narciso, I think this may be the passage from Kagan's hearing you were thinking of in the previous thread:

When pinned down by a glassy-eyed Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., on the not-so-hypothetical question of whether Congress could actually pass a law forcing Americans to eat "three fruits and three vegetables every day," Kagan replied that it just sounded like a "dumb law."

Kagan on recusal:

Kagan, who would replace retiring John Paul Stevens, has indicated she would not recuse herself from hearing a lawsuit filed by Florida and 20 other states challenging the new federal health-care law.



Though serving as the government's chief litigator, Kagan asserted that she had no involvement in discussing the government's response to the suit filed this spring.



"I attended at least one meeting where the existence of the litigation was briefly mentioned, but none where any substantive discussion of the litigation occurred," Kagan wrote in a letter to Republican Judiciary Committee members.



Kagan said she was never asked her opinion of any legal issues relating to the health-care law.

Thomas Collins

I suppose one way to look at it is whether the Federal court in the district in which Judge Vinson sits would have jurisdiction to hear a challenge from an individual in a non-plaintiff state to a provision of ObamaCare that is currently in effect. Presumably the non-plaintiff state wouldn't choose to intervene now, because it had already determined that ObamaCare was just fine. So, it would have to be a challenge by a plaintiff other than that state.

narciso

Judge Vinson did include the former discussion:

Or, as was discussed during oral argument, Congress could require that people buy and consume broccoli at regular intervals, not only because the required purchases will positively impact interstate commerce, but also because people who eat healthier tend to be healthier, and are thus more productive and put less of a strain on the health care system.

clarice

But DoT that DADT was a federal policy that only affected the federal govt ,not individual states.
And even there the govt could have sought a stay while it appealed and chose not to.And technically it probably could have --though too exceedingly complicated and unwieldy to do so-- applied the new rule only for servicemen in that CA district.

Logically:
A Court order only applies within the jurisdiction of that court.
Normally, that would mean Vinson's order only covered fed action in his Fla district.

EXCEPT 26 states were considered proper parties and therefore they were entitled to whatever relief the court ordered.

If only Fla had been a plaintiff, the order would have covered only Fla.

daddy

I think this post of Janet's at the end of the long Canal thread probably got lost in the shuffle, and I think it deserves a read:

"Here is that ">http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jan/28/tawdry-details-of-obamacare-420960137/?page=1"> great article from the Wash. Times on Friday.
It says - "Last year, we learned that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) had granted 111 waivers to protect a lucky few from the onerous regulations of the new national health care overhaul. That number quickly and quietly climbed to 222, and last week we learned that the number of Obamacare privileged escapes has skyrocketed to 733."

clarice

And that, daddy, is as good an example of crony capitalism as one is likely to see in the US.

Sara (Pal2Pal)

Wouldn't the waivers be proof that the feds know that not everyone should be under the mandate and weaken any claim they have that the ruling only covers the parties to the suit?

Jim Rhoads a/k/a vjnjagvet

I think the government at least will argue that Judge Vinson's order is not binding on the Feds in e.g. Michigan where Judge Steeh (sp?) squarely upheld Obamacare against essentially the same arguments made before Vinson. ISTM this argument is made a bit complicated by the Michigan AG's participation as a Plaintiff in the FLA suit so your guess is as good as mine as to how this all shakes out.

Jim Rhoads a/k/a vjnjagvet

i didn't make clear that neither the State of Michigan nor the Michigan AG participated in the USDC Michigan case.

clarice

MI is a very complicated situation, Jim. One Court says it's okay but another late enjoins the govt from enforcing it in MI. I think the latter court prevails.

clarice

*another lateR enjoins**

This sort of conflict is or was more common in child custody cases for heaven's sake.

Porchlight

Here's a link to the HHS list of waivers that the Washington Times article is discussing. Someone more savvy than me, please screencap it:

List of All HHS Obamacare Waivers (AKA Keep Scrollin')

clarice

Well, Jim, if the state didn't make itself a party in the original case in MI my argument that the later opinion should prevail is stronger, I think..different issues altogether were apparently involved in the two cases. Was the MI one the abortion challenge?

Sara (Pal2Pal)

When the case goes to the Supremes, how many more states, do you predict, will join in the form of amicus briefs on the side of the 28?

Jim,MtnViewCA,USA

LUN: Judge quotes Obama the campaigner on the broccoli hypothetical in ruling against Obama as Pres. (Linked by Instapundit)

Jim Miller

Clarice - Crony capitalism AND crony socialism.

Because, a broad definition of socialism includes unions representing public employees, as the SEIU and other unions that have gotten waivers often do.

Danube of Thought

I agree re the distinctions in the DADT case, Clarice, but my point was only about the reach of the ruling as it now stands. Obviously things are going to change as the motions and appeals start flying.

JM Hanes

daddy:

In a convenient bit of timing, the 500+ new waivers made public after the President's SOTU Address.

Can anyone tell me which two challenges Obamacare survived?

Danube of Thought

Sara, my guess is that very few states with Dem governors will file in support.

daddy

"the 500+ new waivers made public after the President's SOTU Address."

Noticed that JMH.

What a fortunate coincidence for the Prez.

Frau Fritten

With the waivers up to 733, How can it be said that the individual mandate is essentia. l It's a bunch of Grade A Leftist Hooey.

(daddy, my husbands brand new RV12 two-seater arrived on Friday. It replaces his Cessna 172 but he won't miss the extra two seats. The pilot who flew it out from Omaha, used 16 of the 20 gallons of regular automobile gasoline in the trip from Tuscon to Upland CA. We followed the flight online before heading to the airport to watch the plane come in.)

clarice

I believe there were two challenges that survived, JMH. One was in Missouri where the judge wrote a perfectly laughable opinion..The other was a challenge by an anti-abortion group challenging the coverage of abortion procedures in the Act.

That's just from memory and you know I am no narciso so take it with a grain of salt.

daddy

From the total folks exempted from Obamacare at Porchlight's link we learn that so far 2,189,636 American citizens are more equal that others.

(and that doesn't include the Amish).

clarice

Yes,JMH, the MI case was on the abortion provisions.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/43289.html

Sara (Pal2Pal)

These are the states that flipped to (R) governors in the last election:

Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

I know Michigan was already listed in the FL suit, but I don't know about the rest.

Sara (Pal2Pal)

OT, but I'm not going back to the other thread.

Walk Like an Egyptian, 2011 remix.

Danube of Thought

Powerline on Ezra Klein:

"There is, obviously, considerable humor value in seeing a kid who is on record as believing that the Constitution is too 'confusing' to be understood, since it is more than 100 years old, trying to critique the constitutional analysis of a federal judge with almost 40 years of experience as a lawyer and 27 years as a judge. But is the Washington Post really in the business of providing its readers with that sort of amusement?"

clarice

The Post is now so bad it is beyond parody, DoT.

JM Hanes

Clarice:

I was wondering whether the two challenges which failed were initiated by State AG's or by private individuals/orgs. It seems like that would make a big difference in the relative importance (and effect?) of the rulings, wouldn't it?

If the anti-abortion case was confined to a challenge on funding alone, would both the challenge and the opinion be considerably narrower as a legal matter? Does anyone know if it was argued as a constitutional issue, and if so, on what basis?

Apologies for the bleg, but I'm seriously multi-tasking here this evening. My house guests are not exactly inclined to join me in a victory lap, but I couldn't let the moment pass without a bit of JOMO style celebration.

daddy

Frau,

That's great news about your new plane. In other, possibly more exciting news, I've found a German joint in Guanhzhou that honest to Gawd has decent Bitburg on tap! ">http://www.echinacities.com/guangzhou/city-life/guangzhous-german-connection-1920-restaurant-and-bar.html"> 1920.

Foods very mediocre but who cares once you've got a great pour.

Clarice,

Enjoyed the comments at this ">http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-turn/2011/01/left_unreasoned_and_unprepared.html"> Jennifer Rubin story I think you linked earlier. It seems the Post readers of Ezra rush over to dump on Jennifer, but are starting to get some very sensible pushback by her commenters.

I really do worry that she's almost going to rescue the damn WaPo from financial collapse all by herself.

JM Hanes

Thanks for the link, Clarice. Didn't see it till I'd posted.

Charlie (Colorado)

I think we both agree that if the Obama Administration has an ounce of sense,

Boy, for a second I thought you were serious.

Jim Rhoads a/k/a vjnjagvet

FYI

Judge Steeh's Michigan opinion LUN went beyond the abortion provision.

Publius from Idaho

If you replace "bribes" with "campaign contributions"; and "oil leases" with "waivers; and Sec. of Interior Albert Fall with Sec. of Health and Welfare Sec. Kathleen Sebelius, what is the difference between the ObamaCare waivers and the Teapot Dome scandal except that Sebelius has not been convicted yet?

Charlie (Colorado)

Clarice - Crony capitalism AND crony socialism.

Which is to say, fascism.

I'm beginning to think we should call a spade a... fucking shovel.

JM Hanes

Sara:

I clipped this list of complainants from somewhere on the web:

Attorneys General representing the 26 states of Arizona, Indiana, Mississippi, Nevada, North Dakota, Alabama, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Louisiana, Michigan, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, Georgia, Alaska, and as of January 19, Ohio, Wisconsin, Kansas, Maine, Iowa, and Wyoming. Also, the National Federation of Independent Business and two individuals, Mary Brown and Kaj Ahlburg.

Charlie (Colorado)

daddy, my husbands brand new RV12 two-seater arrived on Friday.

I've found a German joint in Guanhzhou that honest to Gawd has decent Bitburg on tap!

You guys are killing me.

MarkO

Redmen cast out the Demons. Much weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Captain Hate

And what happened to the Blue Demons against the Redmen?

They were ice cold from beyond the arc.

Frau Sportflugzeug

ChaCo, your fab weight loss is killing *me*!

Sara (Pal2Pal)

The Obama Administration Spits in Judge Vinson’s Eye and Other Reactions to Today’s Ruling

clarice

JMH I do not remember where the second challenge was initiated though I think it was Missouri (I'll look) or ho the plaintiff was. But it was a poorly writen, rather shallow decision as I recall.

Rick Ballard

Not to mention juiceboxers banging their sippy cups on the table. Judge Vinson's decision is a proper tribute to the Democrats Obamic victory, which taught 70+ Democrat Representatives and Senators the true value of the President's immortal line: This time, you've got me.

Porchlight

Thanks for the Rubin link. That was good work.

narciso

With legal knowledge of such depths, how could he have gone wrong, in the LUN

MarkO

I discovered that the Good Judge Vinson was born in Cadiz, KY. I am pleased to report that after I passed through Cairo, IL, and over into Paducah, KY, I once went into Cadiz. So, this is a six degrees of Kevin Bacon thing.

A few years later I went back to Cadiz in search of antiques. That was before I was one.

Yes, children, I've been to Cairo and Cadiz and Paris, ID.

clarice

I can't find the other case which upheld Obamacare, and I'm so tired I'm going to bed. Sorry.

Jim Rhoads a/k/a vjnjagvet

Tomorrow, Clarice.

Porchlight

Not to mention juiceboxers banging their sippy cups on the table.

Rick,

One really must re-link Iowahawk's Young Pundit Essay Contest entry by Ezra Klein:

Because the Constitution is so old, it is written in the "old-timey" language of people of more than one century ago, which leads many modern people to get confused and frustrated by it. "What is this stupid boring thing?" they will ask, then go back to playing Super Mario Cart. These modern people could not be any more wrong, because hidden underneath all the "so-called" confusing words is an exciting story with twists and turns everywhere. Fortunately, and most importantly, the Founding Fathers also invented the Supreme Court which does a good job of translating the Constitution into modern words and juxtaposing them for all of us, the American people of the United States.
Danube of Thought

Clarice, I think maybe the fourth case was in a different district in Virginia. But I, too, am headed for slumberland soon.

Tomorrow it will have to be.

Rick Ballard

Porchlight,

Do you think that Dingy can hold his caucus together in the face of McDonnell's 47 vote bloc? I think it's possible to pick off the four votes necessary for repeal. My reason for thinking so is that the President has already demonstrated the length of his coat tails and his braggadocio wrt raising $1 billion means that he intends to suck the donor well dry, leaving all those Senators to fend for themselves.

He's really not very smart.

Porchlight

Rick,

I was enough of a sucker to hope the blasted thing wouldn't make it past the Senate in the first place, especially after Brown was elected.

But things are different now. Vinson's decision, even if nothing else comes of it, stokes the engine of repeal at the perfect time.

Obama will raise that billion, I'm sure of it, though much of the shakedown will be extralegal.

Enlightened

Helloooooo......coming from my new iPhone, boy howdy I'm login all this legalese today! Brilliant. Smells like fried moonbats 'n a five dollar shake!

Danube of Thought

This decision also provides very good cover for de-funding efforts: "we can't spend all this taxpayer money until we get a final ruling."

This is a big fucking deal.

Enlightened

***lovin*** not login-LOL

JM Hanes

Jim Rhoads:

"Judge Steeh's Michigan opinion LUN went beyond the abortion provision."

Thanks for the PDF, Jim. It does look like these were private complainants, and if that is true of the other failed challenge, does the idea that the 2 wins and 2 losses to date are of anything near equal weight seem more than a little farfetched?

Sara (Pal2Pal)

It is remarks like this that make me love Sarah Palin. In reference to the self-imposed ban on Palin stories for the month of February:

“Because there’s a lot of chaos in Cairo, and I can’t wait to not get blamed for it–at least for a month,” she told the audience, according the Daily Beast.

Extraneus

Here's the Boston Globe, reporting that the judge has stayed the ruling.

Judge Roger Vinson ruled that Congress cannot force individuals to buy health insurance, but stayed the ruling.
[snip]
He ruled, however, that the law could remain in effect until appeals from the Obama administration are finished. That process is expected to take up to two years; most specialists anticipate that the US Supreme Court will be the final arbitrator.
This isn't the first time or only place this was reported. Either it's a leftist conspiracy to muddy the waters or the judge really did this.
Sara (Pal2Pal)

Extraneus: The wording is identical, so the NYT, WaPo, and now the Globe are all just regurgitating the original reporting. There was no stay at close of business yesterday, according to someone here, and Vinson didn't think it was necessary since he believes that the Feds will follow the rules (law). I think Vinson underestimates just how sleazy and shady the left really is. I have yet to see an instance where they believe the rules apply to their side. The rules are whatever they need them to be at any given moment.

Jane (sit on the couch or save your country)

First of all I want to announce that it is snowing like a banshee here. This is the storm before the storm. A mere 8 inches is expected today, until the real thing hits tomorrow. I already have cabin fever.

Secondly, Greta interviewed a bunch of the Generals yesterday and asked if they would still make preparations to implement the law, and every one of them said they would - because if the Supremes ruled against them they would be screwed if they didn't.

narciso

She rolls with the punches doesn't she, it was not the place, that time, but her critique of QE 2, ahem TM, seems to be more and prescient

Melinda Romanoff

narc-

Linkie to that please?

narciso

Well it's kind of apocryphal, but it seems on point, in the LUN

narciso

Btw, catch Megyn's reading of the Vinson opinion, as it was released, in the LUN

Sara (Pal2Pal)

He was wary of noble theories, students say; instead, they call Mr. Obama a contextualist, willing to look past legal niceties to get results.

From Narciso's link.

This is exactly what I was just saying about Vinson not taking into consideration the philosophy of Obama and the left.

Melinda Romanoff

Oh, I meant the QE2 comments, but I'll see what I come up with myself.

I saw the other bit.

narciso

This is one, from the LUN

sbw

Julie Rovner on NPR's Morning Edition served up a perfect example of pseudo-journalism. My comment below the piece:

Julie, rather than provide a platform for the "former law school" dean with a definite point of view who convinced me that HE doesn't like Vinson's decision, give us information of the law's lack of a severability clause which is WHY Vinson invalidated the whole law. Then, instead of opinion, we can make up our own minds on -- you know -- the evidence.

Sue

It is my understanding that Vinson ruled on plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. If that is the case, a stay wouldn't be necessary, would it? And, the judge said the same when he said he expected congress to stand down.

Sue

Actually, plaintiffs wouldn't need a stay. The defendants would need it and the judge didn't issue it.

Ranger

Ok, http://volokh.com/2011/01/31/the-weak-link-in-judge-vinsons-opinion-striking-down-the-mandate/>this is one of the scariest serious legal arguments I've ever read. It is as if Prof. Kerr simply ignores the larger implication of his argument to make a smaller point.

My co-blogger Ilya Somin defends Judge Vinson by pointing out that the Supreme Court’s majority opinions insist that the federal government does not have completely unlimited power. Ilya’s argument is unpersuasive because the existence of nonzero limits in no way implies the existence of major limits. The current state of Commerce Clause doctrine is that there are certain largely symbolic limits on federal power but those limits are relatively minor: As Justice Thomas put it, Congress can regulate virtually anything. Judge Vinson says that this cannot be the law because it would make the federal government too powerful. But Judge Vinson does not consult existing doctrine before declaring the principle, and that’s the problem: If you take existing doctrine seriously, it readily fits the mandate under the Necessary and Proper clause.

In other words, we have no real constitutionally limited government, because the SC gave congress the power to regulate everything via the commerce clause. The fact that the First Priciples of the constitution calls for limited government, is not relevent, because through case law we have demolished those principles. Of course these same people thought Kelo was just fine for the same reason.

clarice

It takes all kinds Ranger. Kerr's point might have merit if he referred only to the taxing power. It is clear that if the Congress had required a health tax to cover these expenses, it could have done so constitutionally, instead it chose to regulate a nonactivity under the commerce clause..

clarice

Rick, I have the same thought--the significance of this decision will be political..Outside of a few blue hells, anyone who refuses to vote for repeal is building his own scaffold..the decision IOW is most significant politically.

Yes, JMH, the other two cases are small potatoes compared to those which the states won.

As to the repeated claim that the judge stayed his order--it is without factual foundation no matter how often anonymous sources in the WH told that to clueless reporters who repeated it over and again on their front pages.


Melinda Romanoff

Thanks, Narciso.

narciso

Ot, for a moment, 'credentialed idiocy' has no boundaries, in the LUN

Captain Hate

Jane, my dog woke me up to have to urgently go out @ 2:30 this morning and it was snowing as hard as I've seen it with at least half a foot in the street and more elsewhere. When I subsequently got up all the snow had stopped and it (and the dog) have been fine since. Not sure when the follow-up whammy is supposed to hit. We haven't had any ice yet although I wonder what Ann and Maryrose have experienced (I'd expect Maryrose's experience to be similar to mine).

clarice

ras O at -11 today.

Ranger

OT, but it is already almost 5pm in Egypt and the "million man march" doesn't seem to have materialized. Prostesters are gathering, but not in huge numbers. Drudge doesn't even have the AJ live feed up any more, so they must have gone back to regular programing. In a few days we will hear that El Baradei has been given a symbolic cabinet post, and that will be the end of it for a while.

narciso

How does one say 'Rally to restore sanity' in Arabic. Does living in Chicago, give you special insight into these things, Ranger

clarice

How dumb do you have to be to forget how many people there are in countries like Egypt and how easy it is to fill a central square in front of the cameras with protestors to create an image of overwhelming force?

Jane (sit on the couch or save your country)

Capn',

My guess is we have about 5 feet on the ground. I'm really really really done with it.

clarice

There are BTW about 77 million Egyptians..Just to make my point clearer.

L Parmale

"Bill would require all S.D. citizens to buy a gun
The measure is known as an act “to provide for an individual mandate to adult citizens to provide for the self defense of themselves and others.”
“Do I or the other cosponsors believe that the State of South Dakota can require citizens to buy firearms? Of course not. But at the same time, we do not believe the federal government can order every citizen to buy health insurance,” he said.


lun

narciso

Or three times as many people as in Iraq or Afghanistan

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame