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

Skip to comments.

SCOTUS: Oral Arguments on Same-sex marriage today [Live Thread] (Audio available by 2:00 ET)
Free Republic/C-SPAN ^ | 03/26/2013 | BuckeyeTexan

Posted on 03/26/2013 10:05:42 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-158 next last
Audio from today's arguments will be available from SCOTUS by 1:00 PM. Check back for a link and further discussion.

I apologize for the choppiness of the article. I wanted to get an update to you before the audio is available.

1 posted on 03/26/2013 10:05:42 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian; JDW11235; Clairity; TheOldLady; Spacetrucker; Art in Idaho; GregNH; ...

FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.

2 posted on 03/26/2013 10:06:27 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Thanks, looking forward for more updates.


3 posted on 03/26/2013 10:08:37 AM PDT by Sir Napsalot (Pravda + Useful Idiots = CCCP; JournOList + Useful Idiots = DopeyChangey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Is that 1:00 California time?


4 posted on 03/26/2013 10:09:25 AM PDT by edcoil (If the man was accused of leadership, there would not be enough evidence to convict him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

“Oral arguments.” Perhaps a poor choice of words.


5 posted on 03/26/2013 10:10:21 AM PDT by Huskrrrr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Huskrrrr

Nope. That’s what they’re called.


6 posted on 03/26/2013 10:11:49 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan
I have no doubt Prop. 8 will be overturned for good. We have a gay-friendly SCOTUS, with at LEAST one sitting gay/bi-sexual Justice. The will of the people will be once again nullified. Never mind marriage is a 'club' of sorts and has nothing to do with equality.

The will of the people only counts when it goes the way liberals want it to go.

7 posted on 03/26/2013 10:11:56 AM PDT by Obama_Is_Sabotaging_America (PRISON AT BENGHAZI?????)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: edcoil

Eastern time since SCOTUS is in D.C.


8 posted on 03/26/2013 10:12:35 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Obama_Is_Sabotaging_America

P.S. Kagan and Roberts should recuse themselves for conflict of interest!


9 posted on 03/26/2013 10:13:04 AM PDT by Obama_Is_Sabotaging_America (PRISON AT BENGHAZI?????)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

As a refresher,

What is exactly 9th court decision on Prop 8?


10 posted on 03/26/2013 10:13:09 AM PDT by Sir Napsalot (Pravda + Useful Idiots = CCCP; JournOList + Useful Idiots = DopeyChangey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

We all know how this will end.


11 posted on 03/26/2013 10:14:21 AM PDT by Epsdude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Epsdude

Sotomayer, Kagan, and Ginsburg plus not a single protestant on the US Supreme Court.


12 posted on 03/26/2013 10:18:25 AM PDT by Lumper20 (`)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Obama_Is_Sabotaging_America

FWIW, my impression of the quotes I’ve seen from the discussion on standing is that there is a serious legal question as to whether or not the defendants have the right to be heard in federal court.

If the court dismisses this case on the basis of standing, that would leave in place the 9th Circuit decision overturning Proposition 8.

Chief Justice Roberts seems firmly on the side that standing should not be granted. As usual, Justice Kennedy made statements that could go either way.


13 posted on 03/26/2013 10:21:21 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

The lawyer defending Prop 8 should demand that if the justices intend to strike down the law that they strike down all laws banning any kind of marriage. You can’t rule that one kind of marriage must now be accepted and any other type be excluded. Any and every type relationship must be given equal status as well by the Gay and Lesbian’s rational. While they’re at it, demand the tax code reflect their ruling as well. No more deductions and different rates that don’t apply to every one. Either every one has them and pays the same rate or it’s unconstitutional.


14 posted on 03/26/2013 10:21:35 AM PDT by SCHROLL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot

The 9th Circuit overturned Prop. 8 and struck down the ban on gay-marriage.


15 posted on 03/26/2013 10:22:20 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan
On the subject of procreation being the state's key interest in the insitution of marriage, Justice Stephen G. Breyer said, "There are lots of people who get married who can’t have children."

This is the stupidest argument for gay marriage, and it doesn't surprise me it comes from Breyer, since Souter is no longer there to be the village idiot.

Why don't we allow brothers and sisters to marry, or close relations? Precisely because of the harm if they should have children. But, according to Breyer, many marriages don't have children, so clearly there is no rational basis to deny brothers and sisters the "right" to marry.

And since the concept of traditional marriage is that you get married, and THEN have children,and not the other way around, under the "Breyer" standard marriage makes no sense, because NOBODY WHO GETS MARRIED has children at the time they get married.

In reality, the point of marriage WAS to have children. There were few people getting married simply to guarantee themselves a partner. That some people can't have kids is of no consequence -- most can. That some people choose not to is of no consequence -- most do. And that marriage doesn't always work out the way government had intended, doesn't mean marriage has to be modified in a way that guarantees that it won't work the way government intends.

Since there is no way to guarantee that a particular couple WILL HAVE CHILDREN before you grant the license, in the history of the world up until now, marriage has been defined precisely in the way that was most likely to lead to the outcome. So, we don't let brothers and sisters marry. We don't let same-sex couples marry.

Frankly, there is no particular reason for the state to recognize the marriage of two people who are past childbearing age. But marriage has always been allowed between unrelated men and women.

Even in our darker history, the rules are based on children -- we didn't allow mixed-race marriages NOT because we were concerned about a white guy having sex with a black woman, but because of irrational fear of mixed-race children.

The bad part of the rest of this summary of the oral arguments is that most of them have nothing to do with what the court is SUPPOSED to be deciding -- NOT whether it makes sense to ban gay marriage or allow it, but whether the constitution REQUIRES that two people of the same sex be allowed to get government sanction for "marriage".

16 posted on 03/26/2013 10:22:33 AM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Thanks.


17 posted on 03/26/2013 10:24:21 AM PDT by Sir Napsalot (Pravda + Useful Idiots = CCCP; JournOList + Useful Idiots = DopeyChangey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot
Here's the official transcript of this morning's proceedings.
18 posted on 03/26/2013 10:26:02 AM PDT by alancarp (Obama will grab your guns and ship them to Mexican drug mobs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Roberts might be right that they don’t usually allow this, but it makes no sense to call for a lack of standing.

If the PEOPLE of a state have the right to amend their constitution, which they clearly do in California, then the PEOPLE of the state should directly have standing to defend their constitutional amendment against claims that it violates the federal constitution.

Oddly, given that Roberts went out of his way to give deference to the legislative branch in his Obamacare ruling, I would expect that he would reject the constitutional question here, and let the congress have it’s way. And I would expect he would cite all the recent “We are for gay marriage” pronouncements by elected representatives as a clear indication that there is nothing stopping the congress, or a state, from approving gay marriage if they want.


19 posted on 03/26/2013 10:26:55 AM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Obama_Is_Sabotaging_America

... And that is based on the current SC. We could have several retirements over the next few years. Most major media, educational and political institutions except the house will be controlled by liberals. And the house has weak RINO leadership and controlled by fear.


20 posted on 03/26/2013 10:28:31 AM PDT by plain talk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

>>> On the subject of how same-sex marriage harms traditional marriage, Justice Elena Kagan asked, “How does this cause and effect work?”

If I say what I want to say, I will be banned.


21 posted on 03/26/2013 10:28:40 AM PDT by Sir Napsalot (Pravda + Useful Idiots = CCCP; JournOList + Useful Idiots = DopeyChangey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SCHROLL

He didn’t.

While I believe that gay-marriage is legally a states’ rights issue, my Christian faith leaves me firmly against the idea. So as a Christian, I was somewhat disappointed in Cooper’s defense because he refrained from a direct attack on gay marriage. As a states’ rights advocate, I appreciated the fact that he tried to convince the court that important, democratic, timely, public debate should continue as is with various states banning and allowing gay marriage.


22 posted on 03/26/2013 10:29:02 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

Agreed.


23 posted on 03/26/2013 10:31:23 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

Agreed. Again.

There was a particulary “funny” exchange between Scalia and Kagan on this subject.


24 posted on 03/26/2013 10:35:25 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Obama_Is_Sabotaging_America

Why?


25 posted on 03/26/2013 10:36:42 AM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Obama_Is_Sabotaging_America

The two women are , no question. I am convinced that Roberts is homosexual as well.


26 posted on 03/26/2013 10:37:00 AM PDT by kabumpo (Kabumpo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Obama_Is_Sabotaging_America

The two women are , no question. I am convinced that Roberts is homosexual as well.


27 posted on 03/26/2013 10:37:31 AM PDT by kabumpo (Kabumpo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

I’m not disagreeing with your reasoning, but a caller to Rush, and Rush himself, just got through saying that if the 9th circus granted standing to an entity that didn’t deserve it and heard the case and ruled, that the entire proceeding of the 9th circus could be invalidated, which would leave in place prop 8.

I don’t know. I’m quoting what I heard. Rush said this is one reason for a lot of confusion in this case.


28 posted on 03/26/2013 10:37:37 AM PDT by txrangerette ("...hold to the truth; speak without fear..."(Glenn Beck))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian; JDW11235; Clairity; TheOldLady; Spacetrucker; Art in Idaho; GregNH; ...

Link to transcript: http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/12-144a.pdf

Link to Real Audio audio: http://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/realplayerfiles/12-144.ra

Link to Windows Media audio: http://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/wmafiles/12-144.wma

Link to MP3 audio: http://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/12-144.mp3


29 posted on 03/26/2013 10:37:38 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Huskrrrr

Felatious arguments?


30 posted on 03/26/2013 10:40:38 AM PDT by EEGator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: txrangerette; Lurking Libertarian

Yes, but the 9th Circuit granted standing and so did a lower court. One of those rulings will prevail as I understand legal experts. (I am assuming that each court grants or denies standing for itself.) But ... IANAL! :)

Maybe LL will share what he thinks, legally speaking.


31 posted on 03/26/2013 10:41:11 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: txrangerette

??? Too much twisted reasoning for my taste.

“Regular folks” would not have come to the same conclusion.


32 posted on 03/26/2013 10:41:59 AM PDT by Sir Napsalot (Pravda + Useful Idiots = CCCP; JournOList + Useful Idiots = DopeyChangey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
If the PEOPLE of a state have the right to amend their constitution, which they clearly do in California, then the PEOPLE of the state should directly have standing to defend their constitutional amendment against claims that it violates the federal constitution.

The CA State AG really is the source of the standing issue.

After Prop 8 was passed and became part of the CA Constitution, the 9th Circuit [actually just 1 judge] overturned it. BTW: The judge who overturned it is gay ...

The CA AG then declined to appeal it - something he is SUPPOSED to do for the people. Prop 8 proponents then went to the CA Supreme Court and it found that they did have standing when the CA AG declines.

Prop 8 proponents then went to the 9th Circuit and asked for an en banc hearing. It declined and pooch-punted it directly to SCOTUS.

If the CA AG had stood up for the people and appealed, like he is supposed to do, standing would not be an issue at SCOTUS today.

33 posted on 03/26/2013 10:43:07 AM PDT by Lmo56 (If ya wanna run with the big dawgs - ya gotta learn to piss in the tall grass ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian; JDW11235; Clairity; TheOldLady; Spacetrucker; Art in Idaho; GregNH; ...
I'm sure some of these will be posted as separate articles in the days ahead. For now, here's a snapshot of the MSM articles on today's oral arguments.

Chicago Tribune: Supreme Court wary of broad ruling endorsing gay marriage
LA Times: Supreme Court appears split on Prop. 8, broad gay marriage ruling
Washington Post: Supreme Court justices conflicted on gay marriage case
Fox News: Justices indicate interest in narrow ruling on gay marriage
USA Today: Supreme Court justices question gay marriage bans
ABC News: Supreme Court Justices Struggle With Federal Right to Gay Marriage

34 posted on 03/26/2013 10:57:51 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Epsdude
We all know how this will end.

I fear for this country. We are indeed as Judge Bork pointed out, "Slouching Towards Gomorrah". We have become a nation not of laws but of "judges in black robes". What the people think is only preliminary. Our votes mean nothing until some "court" says so.

35 posted on 03/26/2013 11:07:50 AM PDT by mc5cents
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

From the Fox News article:

Chief Justice John Roberts told Olson that it seemed supporters of gay marriage were trying to change the meaning of the word “marriage” by including same-sex couples.

Interesting. Didn’t see that coming from Roberts.


36 posted on 03/26/2013 11:13:21 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Thank God for Scalia.


37 posted on 03/26/2013 11:17:01 AM PDT by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: trisham

And Thomas. The two of them are a triumph for conservatives. Brilliant legal minds and conservative.


38 posted on 03/26/2013 11:18:53 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Absolutely.


39 posted on 03/26/2013 11:20:27 AM PDT by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: EEGator

That came to mind. :0)


40 posted on 03/26/2013 11:20:49 AM PDT by Huskrrrr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: SCHROLL
The lawyer defending Prop 8 should demand that if the justices intend to strike down the law that they strike down all laws banning any kind of marriage. You can’t rule that one kind of marriage must now be accepted and any other type be excluded. Any and every type relationship must be given equal status as well by the Gay and Lesbian’s rational. While they’re at it, demand the tax code reflect their ruling as well. No more deductions and different rates that don’t apply to every one. Either every one has them and pays the same rate or it’s unconstitutional.

The main question is "what would the Constitution say." I admit to being middle of the road on this issue but here goes:

My own personal opinion is I support traditional marriage, but being the libertarian I am, but the government should not be involved but in reality it is so I see it as more of a State's rights issue. Let each State and the people therin decide, that's the basis of our system. The people of California have spoken and said no so it should stay that way. Same with Massachusetts, if they say yes, the same should apply. Even so, if a minister of any religion or a judge who will not marry a gay couple based on his convictions should not be forced to either. No one should be forced to go against their conscience.

I do agree with your idea though, if we take this equality thing too far, if homosexuals can marry, why not polygamy? Why not group marriage?

Take it a step further, albeit a bit absurd, a lonely middle aged guy like me, why can't I find some good looking 18, 19 or 20 year old chick, toss her in the back of my Chevy Blazer and off to the Justice of the Peace? B-) Hey, marriage is a right so I'm claiming it as a right for me too. A lot of my classmates are in the same boat as me, we can just pick women like we are drafting for a dodgeball team and have our own harems. B-D

Maybe your position is the best of all along with getting rid of all tax breaks and so on.

The only other way to cure this at that national level is to have a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as traditional (like they did for the Russian and Serbian Constitutions) or open for all. I don't like amending the Constitution for things like that though. Otherwise, the Feds should be silent here and just kick it to the States.
41 posted on 03/26/2013 11:21:04 AM PDT by Nowhere Man (Whitey, I miss you so much. Take care, pretty girl. (4-15-2001 - 10-12-2012))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan
Yes, but the 9th Circuit granted standing and so did a lower court. One of those rulings will prevail as I understand legal experts. (I am assuming that each court grants or denies standing for itself.) But ... IANAL! :) Maybe LL will share what he thinks, legally speaking.

Standing is an element of subject-matter jurisdiction (if the plaintiff or appellant lacks standing, there is no "case or controversy" and the case cannot be heard in federal court). So, even if the parties do not raise the issue, SCOTUS will always decide for itself if there is standing at the SCOTUS level, and can review the lower courts' decisions as to standing.

If SCOTUS decides that the appellants lack standing, it can either dismiss the appeal (which will leave the 9th Circuit's decision in place in California, but without any precedential impact on other states), or it can decide that there never was standing even in the lower courts (which will wipe out the lower court decisions). Either way, the Court would avoid a ruling on the merits of gay marriage. That seems to be what Kennedy wants to do: he does not want to be the 5th vote to decide the constitutionality of gay marriage either way. My guess is that he is personally in favor of gay marriage but he would prefer to have it enacted by voters and legislatures rather than imposed by the courts.

42 posted on 03/26/2013 11:24:21 AM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

BIG Question:

Kennedy has suggested NOT ruling at all at this time.

Normally, if there is no majority opinion from SCOTUS AFTER VOTING, the PREVIOUS 9th Circuit ruling applies, in which case, Prop 8 would be overturned and gay marriage would be legal [for CA only].

My question is whether the 9th Circuit’s ruling would stay in place [overturning Prop 8] OR because SCOTUS failed to rule, would the 9th Circuit’s ruling be vacated and the CA Supreme Court’s ruling apply?

In this scenario, SCOTUS DOES NOT rule either FOR or AGAINST - and in fact, DOES NOT RULE AT ALL, so, in THIS case, does the 9th Circuit’s ruling stand? Can a lower court’s constitutional ruling stand even IF SCOTUS has decided NOT TO RULE AT ALL after it has heard the case?

FYI: The CA Supreme Court ruled Prop 8 constitutional, but allowed previous gay marriages to remain in place ...


43 posted on 03/26/2013 11:30:48 AM PDT by Lmo56 (If ya wanna run with the big dawgs - ya gotta learn to piss in the tall grass ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

Because we have the most LEFTIST-ACTIVIST SCOTUS of all time. At least half of them are political operatives for 0bama. The complete lack of liberals’ ability to place the dictates of our Constitution above that of their own personal wishes is perhaps the gravest threat the judicial branch poses to our Republic.


44 posted on 03/26/2013 11:31:42 AM PDT by Obama_Is_Sabotaging_America (PRISON AT BENGHAZI?????)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

Thank you. That explains the standing issue in this case much better for me.

Breyer seems to think that the petitioners do not have standing in federal courts but do in state courts.

He said that 40 states have what is called a public action where any citizen can bring action to “vindicate the interest in seeing the law enforced.” He then went on to say that historically the court has ruled that such cases do not belong in the federal system.

So if the court ruled that the petioners do not have standing in any federal court, that would overturn the 9th Circuit and uphold the CA Supreme Court, correct?


45 posted on 03/26/2013 11:38:19 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Lmo56; Lurking Libertarian

See Lurking Libertarian’s explanation immediately above your post.

SCOTUS can determine that the petitioner (opponents of gay marriage in this case) have no standing before SCOTUS or have no standing in any federal court, including the 9th Circuit.

I am waiting on his reply to whether or not SCOTUS can decide that the petitioner did not have standing before the CA Supreme Court.


46 posted on 03/26/2013 11:43:21 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

Your time in answering questions is very much appreciated, as usual, FRiend. :)

(Please don’t bill me. Heh.)


47 posted on 03/26/2013 11:44:30 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Sounds like the SCOTUS is finding an ‘out’ to avoid ruling on this matter. Cowards.


48 posted on 03/26/2013 11:45:34 AM PDT by Obama_Is_Sabotaging_America (PRISON AT BENGHAZI?????)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

Because some loony people think Roberts is gay. No wonder people make fun of conservatives. We try to do a “is he gay” witch hunt.


49 posted on 03/26/2013 11:46:25 AM PDT by rwfromkansas ("Carve your name on hearts, not marble." - C.H. Spurgeon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: txrangerette

See posts 42 & 43, 45 & 46 regarding possible outcomes with respect to standing.


50 posted on 03/26/2013 11:46:45 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-158 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