E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSA move by the Justice Department -- due today -- may determine whether the Supreme Court takes up the titanic legal battle over the Obama health care bill this term or waits another year.
The government must say by today what it will do in response to a decision in August by a federal appeals court. Issuing a ruling in a lawsuit brought by Florida and 25 other states who challenged the law, a three-judge panel said Congress exceeded its powers in requiring that virtually all Americans buy health insurance.
Under federal rules, the Obama administration must give notice today if it wants the full appeals court to re-hear the Florida case. The Justice Department could opt to bypass the appeals court and go directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.
If the administration chooses today to bypass the appeals court in the Florida case, there's a good chance the Supreme Court would agree sometime during this coming term to hear the health-care challenges. But if the government seeks review by the full appeals court, then it's almost certain we'll have to wait another year -- which would mean that a decision on the Obama health-care law would be coming during the 2012 election year.
Two other courts of appeal have ruled on challenges to the law. One ruled that a legal challenge brought in Virginia was filed prematurely. The court said the financial penalty the law would impose on those who fail to buy insurance is actually a tax. A federal law, the Anti-Injunction Act, bars lawsuits seeking to challenge a tax provision before it goes into effect, the court said.
A separate federal appeals court upheld the health-care law. The challengers in that case have already asked the Supreme Court to take up the issue.
Leave a Comment:
I have NO issues with SCOTUS hearing the case...as long as Thomas & Alito recuse themselves!
Hanging out with the Koch Brothers @ super secret, all expense paid get-a-ways stinks worse then Sarah's dead fish swimming up stream!
From First Thoughts and totally on point here:
Today we will find out if our constitutional law professor President really believes his ClunkerCare HCR plan can withstand constitutional challenges or not. According to an AP report yesterday, today is the deadline for Barry’s lawyers to tell the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals whether it wants to appeal the three judge panels 2-1 decision finding that the individual mandate is unconstitutional. Barry’s lawyers have two choices: Appeal directly to the Supreme Court and have a final decision during the 2011-12 term which starts next Monday and runs through June 2012, or appeal it first to the full panel of judges on the 11th Circuit Court. If he appeals it to the full 11th Circuit Court, it’s highly likely to delay the case getting to the Supreme Court until after the 2012 election.
If our constitutional law professor President really believes his ClunkerCare HCR plan can withstand constitutional challenges he will direct the Justice Dept lawyers to go right to the Supreme Court. It’s going to be finally decided there no matter what Barry does. And what would give his re-election chances a bigger boost than ClunkerCare being found constitutional by the Supreme Court right in the middle of the Presidential election?
If he doesn’t really believe ClunkerCare is constitutional, he will use the stalling tactic of appealing to the full 11th Circuit Court to push that very embarrassing Supreme Court decision past the election.
My Bet? 95% chance of the stalling tactic, 5% chance of going directly to the Supreme Court.
Joe-- Didn't we already hear your rant earlier today?
If you're so healthy and don't need health-care, should you get to decide for the rest of us?
I have NO issues with SCOTUS hearing the case...as long as Thomas & Alito recuse themselves!
________________________________________________
Translation: I have NO issues with SCOTUS hearing the case...as long as the four liberal justices would form a majority of the justices voting.
Not gonna happen, Nasty.
The 'repeat' idiot from Albany is under the assumption it will get better with age! NOT!
How about Thomas's wife being a certified tea bagger & Thomas himself failed to report her income for 6 years?
WHOOPSIE!
Tom and Nasty: Thanks for letting me know my post annoys you.
It tells me I'm right.
Well I guess he would be in the good company of Charlie Rangel, Maxine Waters, Timothy Geitner, and the Solyndra executives, right? WHOOPSIE!
Not at all Joey - what it tells me is YOU are OUT of GAS!
Instead of all that salmon you eat, you might try some more fiber...
You're sounding backed up!
We'll find out if the President is REALLY a risk-taker today.
I do think that Clarence Thomas should definitely recuse himself -- Alito never will -- but even if he does, and no one else does, the best that will happen in this case is a 4-4 deadlock, which would result in the decision below being affirmed.
Given those odds, like Joe, I suspect the Justice Department will ask for full Circuit review.
And of course Kagen will have to recuse herself as well.
But it's ok, we know that Obama will never fast track this.
I think Jesse Jackson did what he said he was going to to way back when.
You all remember what Jesse said, about Obama's balls?
In any event he ain't got them. I agree with you AM.
Thomas definitely should recuse himself; his wife's efforts to lobby against the health care bill; his own questionable attendance at Koch Brothers secret meetings. Alito should recuse himself as well. Justice Roberts should, if he were truly worthy of the title Chief Justice, demand nothing less.
As for risk taking, it is irrelevant. The current right-leaning court has done no favors for the American people or for democracy; in fact, it has undermined the very ideals that the SCOTUS once represented--a nonpartisan arm of Government.
Actually, Joe, it's not really a question of whether the President thinks the health care reform legislation is constitutional. If he signed it into law, it's a safe bet that he thinks it is.
The issue really is whether the President thinks the conservative activist judges will issue another bizarre ruling like Citizens United. Given the aforementioned ethical problems of Thomas and Alito, I'd say that there is virtually no chance of them recusing themselves -- even though anyone that's paying attention knows that they should.
Joe, care to explain why republicans thought mandated health insurance purchase was fine since they first introduced it back in the 90's?
Junicon. You nailed it!
mikehataway. Did you miss the part where the Solyndra loan process began in 2007 by President George W. Bush, that Bush tried to fast track it in 2008? Whoopsie.
Not sure if Justice Alito will be a problem but Justice Thomas definitely is. So long as Virginia Thomas is on the take lobbying against Health Care Reform it represents a conflict of interest.
In the interest of fairness, Justice Kagan should probably consider recusing herself as she was Solicitor General.
...and it still doesn't change the fact that we pretty much know how every other justice will vote on the case...with the exception of Justice Kennedy...so only he needs to really hear the case.
in fact, it has undermined the very ideals that the SCOTUS once represented--a nonpartisan arm of Government.
_____________________________________
And by "nonpartisan" you mean left leaning like the Warren and Burger courts that made decisions you liked??
Don't you just love it? The Liberals are always trying to game the system. "This conservative should recuse him/her-self! That Republican should resign! Recall elections! It wasn't a fair election! We don't understand how the privacy features work (oh, wait, that was something else)" On and on it goes with this bunch.
Better schedule another march Joo-dy!
The Administration should fast track this to SCOTUS. There is too much money being spent and too much uncertainty for individuals and businesses. Let the chips fall where they may.
BTW Howard Dean is the latest to admit that if this law does pass constitutional muster then small businesses will drop coverage in droves and dump their employees into the subsidized exchanges. Be interesting to see the effects of this on the deficit and premium costs. Either way it appears Nancy Pelosi's famous "We'll have to pass it to find out what's in it" is more prescient than she thought.
Ah...here comes the requisite "Activist Judges" rant!
Once again the lady doth protest too much, methinks.
Gaming the system? If I had a nickel every time I heard a Conservative use the word IMPEACH over the last 2 years I could retire. Of course, we all know the articles of impeachment have already been drawn up and are sitting in someone's desk in Washington just waiting for someone to fill in the blank on that who "high crimes and misdemeanors" nuissance. Don't worry, I'm sure someone will think of something.
Joe, care to explain why republicans thought mandated health insurance purchase was fine since they first introduced it back in the 90's?
___________________________________________
Republican's can be wrong about things also.
It only seems like the Dems have a monopoly on getting things wrong.
Probably for the same reason Democrats included it in a bill that only they voted for. So that a massive entitlement program could be implemented and they could still claim that they didn't raise taxes. If the Democrats had introduced the mandate as a tax then there would be no constitutional questions.
Ah...here comes the requisite "Activist Judges" rant!
_________________________________________________
Apparently you missed the first "Activist Judges" rant in #1.11 above:
The issue really is whether the President thinks the conservative activist judges will issue another bizarre ruling like Citizens United.
Oh Noid the whole impeach thing is so 2009. No my man, now it's all about primary challenges and calls for Obama to hang it up.
Jody - Bush may have started loans for Solyndra, but at the end of the day he pulled the plug.
And seriously libbies - go look up the standards regarding a judge recusing himself. See if you can find anything about a spouse's activities.
You all get so worked up over the silliest things. Then when Thomas does not recuse himself you will all be surprised, shocked and howling at the mopon, as per usual.
You guys are the best. Keep up the good work.
Oh and say libbies - if Citizens United is such a terribly horrible ruling why hasn't it been "fixed" by the legislature?
What happened - what happen, I recall that you all had your biggest brains on this a while back - Schumer, Reid, Pelosi.
Yet nothing so far, just more complaing from you all.
Oh well at least you all still have AFSCME and SEIU kicking down fat stacks of cash. Heck team Blue dominated the spending in Wisconsin's recall elections.
Yep, it's all about spending money on ads.
go look up the standards regarding a judge recusing himself
And what exactly were the grounds for your statement regarding Kagan Spanky?
Did I miss something along these lines?
Actually, it is about sticking money in your own pocket... and that is the answer to your question. But YOU knew that...
I'd walk on burning coals to see this go to SCOTUS right away.
Wait a minute. Did I read that correctly?
Oh, yeah, it was a total rout.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/21/us-wisconsin-idUSTRE78I4RX20110921
Poor, picked-on, pushed-around, and put-upon Republicans. No wonder they lost. ;-)
Wait a minute. Did I read that correctly?
_______________________________
Yes. I was quoting a lefty liberal whining about "conservative activist judges" in response to da hemmorhoid's comment on my post about the Warren and Burger courts. Anyone foolish enough to believe judges decisions are not influenced by their backgrounds and experiences, left OR right, is also foolish enought to believe that a rookie Senator a year into the job with no practical real world experience would make a good President.
Poor, picked-on, pushed-around, and put-upon Republicans. No wonder they lost. ;-)
_____________________________________
Did the Dems win majority control of the WI Senate and FR is not covering that blockbuster story??
You'd have exactly $0.00 from me Noiders.
Incompetence is not a reason to impeach.
AM is listening to those voices in her head again. They tell her things. Lots of things
LoL I'd pay REALLY good money to see this. But I'd rather that they ask for full Circuit review.
Effectively, they must have, Your Honor, since we don't see any more of those "draconian" measures coming out of the legislature anymore.
I strongly suspect there is no stomach for eating dragon meat these days.
Yep, AM you all really took it to those conservatives, eh?
Not to go all "scoreboard" on you, but you seem to have a funny way to measuring success.
Pre-recall frenzy, and before you all dumped $23.4 mill. down the crapper, the republicans controlled the legislature, and particularly the senate.
Post recall, and after the $23.4 million dump the republicans control the legislature and Walkers still doing horrible unfair things to team blue, um, I mean public employee unions.
Man AM $23.4 could employ a lot of teachers and stuff.
Say any of you all catch the article over on Huff Po. about Solyndra? On Huff Po, I kid you not.
True, and so could $44 million, but all that money may have done enough for the cause if only because it stopped the legislature from going through with its public school privatization plans -- not to mention essential repeal of Wisconsin's Family and Medical Leave Act, which is more generous than federal law.
Those things were on the burner before the recalls, but we hear no more about them now.
Wonder why? Not I.
Alan, I know you love to keep perpetuating the lie by taking it out of context but here is what Nacy Pelosi really said:
Kinda changes the whole perspective now, doen't it?
Sorry AM, still not winning, but hey, if that's enough for you, fantastic.
So how is the Recall Walker thing-y coming?
Cynthia - yeah, cause having passed it, they sure did get "away from the fog of the controversy."
In fact Cynthia - this VERY thread is not about any controversy at all, right?
Too funny.
So pray tell, which article, clause, or amendment does the ACA supposedly violate?
So glad you asked, Spanky.
Here's the most recent article I came up with from a reputable source, employing what I consider to be the valid interpretation of the actual demographics from the recent elections, which is that, if anything, those elections showed a substantial shift toward the blue in Wisconsin politics:
http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/128491343.html
Still running up that hill/tilting at windmills.
Oh well, at least it'll keep you all occupied.
You do realize you have no chance in hell of success, right?
What exactly is YOUR definition of "winning?"
Lets see: how many Republicans in the Wis. congress before re-call?
How many AFTER re-call?
Some how Spankles it looks sort of like a Democratic "win" prima facie.
Then, again, you probably have a different definition. Not unusual...
Cynthia, thanks so much for the clarification on Pelosi's quote.
If only the right could read and comprehend, they would see the difference the context makes.
I think the question is simple and the Supreme Court should better do their thing now than later. It's win-win. If the Supreme Court finds the mandate unconstitutional, then that's that, and outgo of expenditures that are happening all the while get curtailed now rather than later, at least saving money being wasted sooner. If the Supreme Court supports the Administration's position, then the opposition from the States goes away, and the overhead of the States bringing these suits gets curtailed.
It seems to me prolonging start of the Supreme Court work is lose-lose, prolongs waste of human resources and money that can be better used to help people.
I would think the President would prefer getting the Supreme Court case over with sooner rather than later, so that he will have more time between the decision and Noverber 2012 to either rejoice or make image repairs.
We get to VOTe for the President. And we did. We don't get to vote for the justices.
The President is allowed to be partisan, the justices are supposed to be non-partisan.
To me the "mandate" part is clearly a tax. 65,000 new IRS agents are hired under the Healthcare Reform to run the mandate part. They are authorize to extract the $6,500 a year on our 1040 forms, or seize our bank balances, or garnish our wages, it has been widely reported. I haven't read the Bill for myself however.
How many people have read the 2,700 page Health Reform Bill? My guess is about 10 people, and maybe one of those was a Congress person that voted for the Bill. Just guessing based on reports.
There very well be multiple "sneaker taxes" within the Healthcare Reform Bill also.
If the Supreme Court gets rid of the mandate, the $416.5 Billion the President extracted from the Social Security fund as "seed money" for the Healthcare Program will not be recovered. Thousands of people that have been hired so far will be left with no account from which to be paid.
Colorfully put, and absolutely right-on, Feisty!
Thomas in particular should recuse himself because of his Tea Party ties. No way is he objective.
Amy,
liberal motives are so sickeningly shallow; Obama care is unconstitutional, so libs can only shill to recuse justices who will follow the Constitution...
Sorry, wont work.
Justice Sonya Sotomayer once recused herself from a lawsuit brought by a diabetic prisoner who claimed the prison withheld medication from him. Justice Sotomayer herself had diabeties. She felt she could not be objective in this case ,and withdrew. Now contrast that to Justice Thomas, who is kneedeep in Tea Party politics, and will hear a case on what is arguably the Tea Party's signature issue: overturning healthcare reform.
See a conflict there? Notice Feisty isn't calling for Roberts to recuse himself, although he is a conservative, he is not politically active in the way Alito, and, especially Thomas, are. Thomas is a Supreme Court Justice - how is it we even know his political opinions? He should not be on the Court at all, much less, hearing this case.
Exactly Amy -- I'm ONLY calling for the dogs who sleep with the fleas...
Ah, how sweet - AMy is talking about the standards for recusal.
So Amy, perhaps you can fill us in on YOUR expertise on this subject?
Maybe you can tell us some of the factors that would apply to a decision to recuse a judge?
Give it a whirl Amy, I'm looking for some entertainment this fine Monday afternoon.
Because if the full SC rules on ObamaCare, the entire law will be thrown out. And you can't have your hero's law tossed, especially not in an election year.
So now the Liberals will make up all sorts of new rules, all kinds of conspiracies, all manners of innuendo, all against the judges they don't like, all told to them by their nightly MSNBC hosts.
It would appear that AMy thinks Sotomeyer and Kagen will walk over her hot coals for Obama.
I'm not at all sure that is the case, but this crap about Thomas and Alito is funny as hell.
Amy---one of the things I have learned through the discussions of Supreme Court ethics is that the justices are not bound to the same ethical rules that apply to federal judges. I would like to think that is because it was assumed that the Supreme Court justices would want to adhere to the standards anyway but sadly I don't think they do. The first concern is to avoid the appearance of impropriety and how Clarence Thomas can think he is seen as impartial when his wife is paid by the industry opposing the legislation and he refuses to comply with disclosure requirements is beyond me.
I love it when the Libs start interpreting the legal system.
It is very entertaining.
You're all RACIST because Justice Thomas is BLACK!!! RACISTS!!!!
Is that because under Republican double standards you believe ONLY conservative right-wingers should be allowed to dictate others' behavior?
Better bring Spanky in to help you on that one WCA....
Amy and Feisty
If you think Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonya Sotomayer are not aligned with and contribute to liberal causes than you are both in serious denial. But luckily for us, the Court doesn't listen to idiots like you when they conduct their business. And there is no chance that any of them are going to be impeached anytime soon, so stop your childish bickering and face the reality that the full court will hear this case as presently composed. The only question is whether or not Obama will delay justice for political reasons. And the answer to that is an obvious YES as long as it will save him votes.
Chris - I think you are onto something - Amy, Feisty and the rest must be racists.
All they can do is pick on the black justice.
Huh. How sad.
Anyway you slice it, Obama loses.
If it does not come before the Court before the election, it's a major campaign point.
If it comes before the court, and is found unConstitutional, it's a black eye for Obama- and a major campaign point.
If it goes before the Court, and upheld, it's even more of a major campaign point, because moat people want it repealed.
Too bad for the liberals that Obama is always in his own little world, where telling people that they are not properly worshipful is a great campaign tactic.
Here in the real world, Obama is sinking fast. He just hit his lowest approval rating ever on rcp
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html
That's not the bottom. It'll be lower still next month this time.
Wait for the unemployment numbers to come out. You ain't seen low yet, never mind lowest.
NJ - It's a black eye for Obama
Careful NoJO, that's enough to get branded a racist around here.
Pray tell, Bob. What specific article or amendment does the ACA violate?
Spanky, NJ, White Collar, perhaps you can fill us in on YOUR expertise on this subject?
Felden, I have absolutely no expertise on this subject. Ask Anna Molly, she'll tell you I know nothing about the legal system.
That is why I just heckle the idiotic statements by others who also , obviously, have no expertise on this subject.
It is very entertaining.
Not as entertaining though, as debating people on this site regarding the Auto Industry. Which I am an expert on.
See, it seems everybody here thinks they are an expert on everything.
Just no basis in reality for most here, I am afraid.
It would be okay with me if Thomas retired and President Obama replaced him with Anita Hill.
The old goat barely shows up to work anyway.
So NOW it is a tax, huh? Does this "tax" apply to ONLY people making over $250k per year, or did President Obama lie when he said there would be NO new taxes for those making less than that amount?
I really would like an answer to this.
Simple, it's a tax on anyone that refuses to get their own qualified health insurance.
If you don't want to be taxed, get insured.
"For us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase,” the president said last September, in a spirited exchange with George Stephanopoulos on the ABC News program “This Week.”
When Mr. Stephanopoulos said the penalty appeared to fit the dictionary definition of a tax, Mr. Obama replied, “I absolutely reject that notion.”
Gee, color me confused on the President's true intentions here.....
To me the "mandate" part is clearly a tax. 65,000 new IRS agents are hired under the Healthcare Reform to run the mandate part. They are authorize to extract the $6,500 a year on our 1040 forms, or seize our bank balances, or garnish our wages, it has been widely reported. I haven't read the Bill for myself however.
How many people have read the 2,700 page Health Reform Bill? My guess is about 10 people, and maybe one of those was a Congress person that voted for the Bill. Just guessing based on reports.
There very well be multiple "sneaker taxes" within the Healthcare Reform Bill also.
If the Supreme Court gets rid of the mandate, the $416.5 Billion the President extracted from the Social Security fund as "seed money" for the Healthcare Program will not be recovered. Thousands of people that have been hired so far will be left with no account from which to be paid.
And exactly WHY wouldn't the Administration want the SC to hear this case right away? Even they have to know it will end up being decided there, no matter how long they try to delay it from getting there.
Tradition, mostly.
Since the Tea People don't like laws or regulations, this whole issue can be resolved starting at the cause of the problem which is:
Hospital ER's are required to treat/stabilize folks, regardless of their ability to pay...so...
Repeal that law or regulation so that if you have NO insurance = NO treatment!
....problem solved!
What a completely asinine statement.
No, that gets rid of the freeloaders using hospital services and my rates being higher to cover those un-reimbursed costs.
That is the TeaTards (new) definition of socialism - re-distribution of wealth.
(Yes, I know how inaccurate and nonsensical that is)
If the Tards don't want health care, let them pay the true price. No care. Then listen to the whining.
Alright chilled - busting out with some EMTALA law.
Fun stuff that law, eh chilled.
You did know that's what you are talking about, right?
Round these parts it's know as the illegal alien health care plan.
Best part is, it's 100% FREE. You know for them. For us taxpayers, not so much.
No, it's called the Hippocratic Oath
Round these parts it's know as the illegal alien health care plan......So you say Lil Rascal!
Guess that solves it all again......illegals are to blame for everything, including health care rising costs, and the price of vegetables!
Not everything chilled, just the imminent implosion of the UC health system for starters.
Plus they really make getting emergency care difficult. That's why I like to roll up to the ER in a green Blazer yelling "La Migra!" La Migra es aqui!"
So chilled what other pearls of wisdom you got regarding EMTALA?
"No new taxes on folks making less than $250,000 per year". Anyone else remember that? Maybe THAT'S what Nancy meant when she said we need to pass it so we can see what's in it!
mikehataway ...... "What a completely asinine statement."
which part, mike?
The part where you claim the Tea Party doesn't like laws and regulations. SOME Tea Party members may appear that way, but most realize that we a nation of laws. They just do not like government getting involved with every single aspect of our lives.
And now that I have answered your question, why don't you answer mine from post #4?
From Mike: "'They just do not like government getting involved with every single aspect of our lives"
Yes, I know, like health care...such a miniscule issue!...MEDICARE/MEDICAID, etc.....and the hypothetical uninsured 30 year old as mentioned in the last Tea People debate, where the audience found glee in his demise!
So I guess you aren't going to answer post #4, huh?
Answer to #4 - It's a tax on freeloaders that refuse to get health insurance and try to get the rest of us to cover them when they get sick. Get insurance or get taxed. I don't care how much you make.
Would that include their decision to get an abotion Mike?
Just wondering.
If you think that health insurance costs will decrease if we deny care to those without insurance, you have another think coming. The companies will continue to raise rates anyway--they are unmitigatingly greedy. There should be no profit on human misery! We should have a one-payer healthcare system and focus on wellness, not technology which does not improve overall outcomes and chemical toxins which are frequently worse than the diseases. We could do this by stopping the constant wars and the corporate welfare, and instituting/enforcing some regulations. SCOTUS, by the Citizens United decision have shown that their loyalties lie with the corporations over the citizens of the US.
"We have met the enemy and he is us!" Pogo by Walt Kelly
The only Justice that will have to recluse herself is Justice Kagan who served as Obama's Solicitor General from Mar 2009 and Aug 2010. As Solicitor General she would have discussed the health care law with the Obama administration. Let's see if she is willing to recluse herself.
Obama wants to keep this out of the supreme court as long as he can and I am betting that he opts for a hearing by the full court of appeals, he knows it is unconstitutional but his ego has gotten in the way. He doesn't care if it cost a few billion to continue implementing it. Let's stop funding any part of the ACA now and use the money else where. If the court should rule in President Obama's favor, Obama could then request funding at that time.
sfcret
By your standards, all justices should recuse themselves if they practiced law or held positions in the legal field before becoming judges. Justice Thomas's Tea Party activities do not fall under the umbrella of working in the legal profession. Kagan's experience as Soliciter General is not the same as Thomas's advocacy for a political party.
Nice conclusion Amy.
Now try to explain to us why.
Come on - tell us who Kagan advocated for, and why. Then compare it to whatever it is you assert Thomas has done.
THEN apply the actual legal standards to each.
Amy?
Amy - Only a simple mind like yours would make such a reply. I said Kagan because she served as Solicitor General for the Obama Administration and according to some she and her staff were consulted as to how to defend the ACA. BTW, you do know that the Tea Party is not a political party don't you? Further no one, expect a few liberals, have accused Justice Thomas of any political advocacy.
Or of acting at variance with the law or of any ethical violations?
Hard for you to understand, sfcret, but serving in the government is not the same as sleeping with an advocate for overturning a piece of legislation.
Obama could have consulted Kagen all he wanted, that doesn't mean she advocated for the healthcare bill. It was her job to deliver advice on the law, not to form a political opinion and push for it.
Amy - It appears you don't understand how things work in the government and the courts. If Justice Kagen gave any advice, and it appears she did, on how to defend the ACA in court then she is most definitely required to recluse herself.
It only "appears" that Amy doesn't understand?
This is why things are always "unexpected" to the libbies.
Amy clearly has no understanding what the Solicitor General does, for whom, or why. She also has no understanding of very basic conflict of interest rules. You know Amy, like when a lawyer represents one side he or she cannot switch mid steam and represent the other.
And they sure as hell could not later act as the trier of fact or law.
Awfully long leap to your conclusion there spank... but then, you do that alot, don't you? As I recall, you have concluded that I have no understanding about operation of law too, as well as a bunch of others that you surreptitiously attempt to utilize to misdirect, misinform, and sway prevailing opinion...Hey! that makes you sound like a Republican! or a lawyer - either way...
But back on track - what exactly makes Amy's knowledge or lack thereof so "clear" as you boldly assert? Please be as specific as possible; some of us are a little slow and have trouble understanding...
Sorry Stupid - but her lack of understanding is clear from comment # 8.1.
And you are correct in this instance - your own lack of understanding prevents you from seeing it.
It's like trying to explain rain to a blind man.
Like your failure to even understand what "operation of law" means. Come Stupid, it's a straightforward concept. All you got to do is google it.
Actually, comment #8.1 makes a very good point for consideration and is FAR from "clearly" demonstrating any lack of understanding.
The arguement can most definitely be made that,
and can pretty well be proven = shall we argue at bar Spank?
Are you one of those who will also argue that corporations are people? Do you believe you could convince SCOTUS to reverse in any portion, or rconvince Romney to admit he is guilty of a mis-speak? I'd be kind of interested to listen to your arguements and presentation of evidence on either one; but not on this board.
Spanky only you would think it to be a difficult task to explain rain to a blind person.
Feisty...That would be okay but you would have to have Cagan and Sotomeyer be recused as well as they were directly involved with the writing and direction of that legislation.
Sources please?
Weel, Feisty, Kagan WAS the solicitor general during the writing of the healthcare act. She HAD to have been consulted on how to defend it in court because they KNEW this was going to be brought before the court system. She was even asked about this during her confirmation hearing.
Judicial Watch did a story on it recently.
Feisty, Kagan was involved in discussions, as Solicitor General of the U.S., in the likely defense of ACA, how much depends on which sources you want to believe, but most agree that she or her staff would have been in on any administration discussion of the Act. I suggest you google Supreme Court Justice Kagan and the ACA. As far as Sotomeyer and would say she would not have to recluse herself.
I asked for sources to back up the claim Mike, NOT some more incoherant rambling out of you...
Now, will someone please provide me with the source(s)/link(s) to confirm 'bullets' allegations?
If you don't mind, I'll make up my own mind and not take you're 'word' for it... K?
Might as well just have everyone but Justice Kennedy recuse themselves, because we all know that he will end up deciding the case in a 5-4 decision anyway!
Fiesty - If you can't look up your own sources maybe you shouldn't even be posting on these threads. I told you in my post above just "google" Justice Kagan and the ACA, there are all kinds of source(s)link(s) and you can make up your own mind.
Damn, is Feisty really that ignorant?
Seems to be the case.
I wonder if she knows what the Solicitor General is, what it does, AND FOR WHOM?
I just love the old gal.
because we all know that he will end up deciding the case in a 5-4 decision anyway!
Sad isn't it? That's how far the Supreme Court has fallen since the right-wingers were appointed. Thomas, Scalia, Alito and even Roberts, utterly predictable and ideologically driven.
I wasn't aware I needed your permission on where I post.
You sure have a mighty high opinion of yourself... lol
I'm more then capable of looking the information up myself - the POINT is I'm sick & tired of people tossing around outrageous claims with NO BACK UP!
I'm also aware of Kagan's role as Attorney General but can find nothing on Google to substantiate the Sotomeyer claim...
Fiesty - Justice Kagan was not the Attorney General but was the Solicitor General, big difference. As for Sotomeyer I never mentioned her.
As far as your point of being sick & tired of people tossing around outrageou claims with no back up, you might want to take your own advice.
Aww Feisty...
That will RUIN the RNC plan of operation : You know, the spin, talking points and sales pitches that are ALL founded upon half-truths or UN-truths. How will they ever be able to trick citizens into voting for their candidates if you make them cite sources and hold them to facts only?
You forgot to add REPEAT it: OVER & OVER & OVER & OVER & OVER & OVER & OVER & OVER AGAIN!
It was an error on my part - thanks for pointing it out! ;o)
There you go. DOJ emails.
judicialwatch.org/files/documents/2011/mrc-kagan-vaughn-declaration-docs.pdf
I'm also aware of Kagan's role as Attorney General
__________________________
Nasty: Eric Holder might have a problem with what you are "aware" of regarding Kagan.
If this is indeed a "tax" then why do we have to buy insurance from a company? Why isn't the government providing us with insurance with this so-called "tax" money?
Because SOMEONE filibustered every attempt at having a publicly-administered option...
YOWSA Mikey! Guess that means that the insurance premiums for my Lamborghini mandated by my state are a tax too.
Kinda reminds me of the following little ditty:
Mikey and spankster had a farm E I E I OH?
and on that farm they paid their tax.
E I E I OH?
With a tax tax here and a tax tax there
here a tax there a tax
Everywhere a TAX TAX
Mikey and Spankster had a farm E I E I OH????
It's a tax. The Congress has the power of taxation. End of story.
.
So then Obama DID lie about no new taxes for people making less than $250k per year, and about how bad it is to raise taxes during a recession. I thank you for clearing that up for me. I had suspected that he was lying, but I am glad to have it confirmed.
If you can prove on your taxes that you can't afford any health insurance you won't be fined.
They are going to wait another year, until after the elections. it is already figured out and justice has nothing to do with it.
The Supreme Court's role is to resolve conflicts among the circuits over federal laws---wouldn't it make sense to have the entire 11th Circuit Court rule on the case, rather than the 3 judge panel? Perhaps the entire court wouldn't have the same opinion as the smaller panel? Might limit the number of circuits in conflict or otherwise narrow the issues.
It's a tax on anyone that refuses to buy their own health insurance. If you don't want to be taxed, get insured.
If the government wants to call it a tax, then they should provide the insurance itself, not a private insuror.
Exactly! That's why democrats pushed so hard for a public option. But the insurance companies own the republican party, so they made sure that this government competition was dead on arrival.
And for Jody---I don't give a rat's behind if the Solyndra loan was applied for under Bush---it was THIS administration that APPROVED it and gave away the money, even though some of their own people were predicting (accurately) that the company would fold.
So we have a law passed by Congress being debated before the courts; we have an administration calling it not a tax, and then it is a tax, just depending on what ever serves their purpose; we have a bill that we have to pay 10 years for when we only get the majority of benefits for 6 years; we have questionable financing when the director of the program admits that they counted the $500 million in Medicare cuts twice, and the fact that those cuts will never likely happen, and we have a President who lied about no new taxes for folks making less than $250k per year.
Sounds like par for the course for this Administration. Sigh.........just holding on until 2012.
Just hoping you are able to hold on until 2016 as well.
When your not going to like the outcome why have it come sooner rather than later? 100% Obama will delay this as much as he possibly can. That is what he has done at every step of the way so far, except at passage. Then it was Ok to ram it through without giving every one the opportunity to know what it says. In Obama's mind that's transparency.
How many times to we have to go over the lies about this? "rammed through" is total bs!
Insurance companies have already given rebates/refunds of overpayments to policy holders due to provisions in the Affordable Health Care Act. The cost of heathcare insurance policies has always increased-always...
The Affordable Care Act you are so scared of is estimated to create 250,000-400,000 jobs annually over the next 10 years Not just in the medical exchanges but also in Health IT jobs which are already increasing.And they are already hiring and have been. http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/02/healthreformjobs.html
The Affordable Health Care Act is actually about 200 pages not the 2700 pages that the misinformed tend to claim. It wasn't shoved down anyone's throat as many claim, either.It was debated for over 18 months and was eventually watered down by the GOP and Blue Dogs.(Yeah, those big Health Insurance and Pharma lobbiests sure came through, didn't they?) It also gets rid of that expensive and unpaid for Medicare Part D the House of Bush foisted on us. If you would really like to read about it , here is the timeline of implementation for individuals and employers. http://healthreform.kff.org/timeline.aspx
And here is the truth about those waivers:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/05/17/truth-about-waivers-protecting-coverage-millions-americans
And before you start a rant about it, congress, the president, and federal employees will all get their insurance from the exchanges beginning in 2014.
http://www.healthcare.gov/law/timeline/
Obama taking the chance that this is ruled unconstitutional before the elections? LOL YA RIGHT.
Its going to be pushed after 2012, and once its ruled unconstitutional, the libs will have no rebuttal to the stagnant economy because of the Obamacare bomb.
This is going to be all theatrics.
And which specific article or amendment, Brendan, do you say the ACA violates?
If they can mandate you to buy health insurance, what is to stop them from mandating you to buy the NYT or a certain type/brand of food, or watch certain TV shows? They all effect interstate commerce. If this is upheld by the Supreme Court you can kiss individual liberties good by.
Oh, BTW, what happened to all those jobs Obama and N Pelosi told us would be created with passage of Obamacare?
They are already hiring and have been. Not just in the medical exchanges but also in Health IT jobs which are already increasing. http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/02/healthreformjobs.html
Tell that to the three hospitals in my area, which BTW has one of the lowest unemployment rates in the country, that just laid off thousands of employess.
There is a whole other side to Feisty's point, and a more relevant one too.
According to federal law “[a]ny justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” (28 U.S.C. § 455(a)). Furthermore, “He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances: . . . Where he has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy;” (28 U.S.C. § 455(b))
The impartiality of every justice could be reasonably questioned given the political toxicity of Obamacare, who nominated the justice, and their record. Asking whether a "reasonable person" perceives a bias is next to impossible because you get opposing answers based on the political views of the person. I could see the argument that Thomas and Scalia should have recused from Citizens United based on their communication with the Koch brothers since the Koch's had a large interest in their ability to donate more money to political causes, but it's a pretty weak argument with Obamacare.
With that said, Kagan was Solicitor General for months after the passage of Obamacare and its subsequent challenges. Her office was tasked with defending them in court. That's a far more black-and-white argument than Thomas and Alito. I think any "reasonable person" would agree she had to have some involvement in her professional capacity, whether as an advisor before passage or afterward.
It seems to me a pretty biased argument to cite Thomas or Alito's political views as cause for recusal but to ignore the fact that Kagan served as the head of the office tasked with defending Obamacare's legality? With the subjectivity of the Thomas and Alito argument, you could also say that because this is a case with no precedent and Obama's signature achievement that both justices nominated by Obama should recuse themselves. I don't see Obama pushing the recusal thing too hard because it applies to justices he needs to support Obamacare as much or more than the ones expected to rule against it.
Don't confuse them with facts and logic, they are already confused enough. That's why they are leftist liberals. They are not capable of seeing the big picture.
Try this for a big picture outlook
President Clinton consistant job growth-Federal government Surplus
President Bush- 2 unfunded wars tax relief for the wealthy 1.3 Trillion dollar deficit-Jobs lost around 3 million.
Get the picture.
freespeech
You forgot the rest of it. Obama"s unprecedented deficit spending and debt creation sets record pace for both causing the Federal debt to skyrocket $7 trillion plus to a whopping $17 trillion and counting. With Mr Obama calling for more deficit spending and debt creation. All while continuing the two wars we were already in, indeed, expanding one of them, and while committing our resources to three more., Libya, Yemen and Somalia (without even seeking Congressional approval). And in the meantime Obama has caused unemployment to rise back to 9.2% and there are fears it will rise further if he is allowed his way on deficit spending on short term public works projects chock full of cost over runs , union kickbacks and corruption. Add on top of that Mr. Obama plan to pursue legalizing 10 to 20 million illegals if he is granted a second term and the prospects for economic recovery are into the negative.
SCOTUS SCHMOETUS......
Romney will give waivers to any and every company that wants them once elected. It's a moot point!
Raab:
[Romney will give waivers to any and every company that wants them once elected.]
Waivers are not "given to any and every company that wants one"...it's a very specific process...maybe you should check it out:
http://cciio.cms.gov/resources/files/approved_applications_for_waiver.html
...but you wont...because you're always "right"...and everybody else who disagrees with you is "wrong".
...ain't that right...
That's right.
Resolving this issue in 2011 politically does nothing for Obama whatsoever.
1. If the law is found unconstitutional and struck down in entirety then the republicans will run on that.
2. If the law is only found partly unconstitutional two things will happen
a. Republicans will accuse the SC of treason and continue trying to table bills in the house allowing the legislature to overturn the judicial branch! (yes this has already been attempted by ..... you guessed it house republicans)
b. Republicans will use that to run against Obama anyways claiming it is wholly unconstitutional.
3. The law is upheld
a. republicans will attempt the above repeated a.
b. Republicans will use this to run against Obama claiming it is wholly unconstitutional.
Quite frankly the affordable health care act will never be implemented and the Republicans will replace it with absolutely NOTHING.
The whole health care issue will be tabled for the next decade and we will all see our premiums skyrocket anyways.
Someone always wins in politics, it just doesn't seem to be the american public these days.
Now, every politician who voted for this health program will be exempt from having to pay in. Even the members of the Supreme Court are exempt. If we are to have a program where one size fits all, then everybody in. No exceptions.
There you have it. I have decided. No need to go to the Supreme Court.
They are not exempt. Congress, the president, and federal employees will all get their insurance from the exchanges beginning in 2014.
http://www.healthcare.gov/law/timeline/
It is amazing how many stupid people do not want everyone to have an affordable health care resource, that would ultimately lower the cost for all, by nearly doubling the financial pool.
The USA is the only industrealized country that does not have health care for all citizens.
Affordable health care can be prevented. We can keep the same old system with skyrocketing medical care cost, continue increasing the number of people that can't buy health insurance, protect health insurance companies with legislation, Allow health insurance companies to pick and choose who gets medical care and how much and create a new wealth group of billionaires by taking money that should go to health care and give it to heath care executives as bonuses. But you have to vote Republican to accomplish this.
Gee, I only paid about 30 dollars a week,( employer pays the rest) for a single plan with a much lower co-pay for 10 of the last 12 years. Since Oblabla took office it has quadrupled and my employer is on the verge of reducing his part to 50% from 75. I guess I kind of preferred the old system.
jed233, health insurance premiums have always gone up. If your employer is blaming the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act for the reason he may reduce his share, he is full of bs.
Yea, I guess 84% of the employers in this country are full of bs and you are right. Little arrogant, ya think?
No, jed233, not trying to sound arrogant at all. I suppose I should have asked you what "old system" you preferred since the Affordable Care Act won't even be in full affect until 2014+. You might want to read this and see for yourself.
http://www.healthcare.gov/law/timeline/
Hey Jed if your insurance premiums have jumped 400% in the past year I would suggest you and your boss might want to bring an anti trust legal case against your insuror.