E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Political groups are applying pressure to two of the U.S. Supreme Court's nine justices before they hear a series of cases challenging the constitutionality of President Obama's signature health reform law.
Conservative groups want to prevent Justice Elena Kagan from being among the members of the court to decide the case, which the justices announced on Monday they would hear this term. And liberal groups, similarly, want Justice Clarence Thomas to recuse himself from the case.
Their demands reflect the gamesmanship surrounding the case, which would either offer legal vindication for Obama's law, or hand Republicans a victory in dismantling it -- at the height of the election season, no less, since a decision is due in June.
Republicans have already demanded that Kagan sit out the case because of her work as solicitor general in the Obama administration during the fight over the health care law. Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch (R), a longtime staple of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has demanded that she recuse herself, and House Republicans have sought to probe the extent of her involvement in crafting the legal defense for the law.
Kagan said in written responses to questions during her confirmation process to the court that she would recuse herself "from any case in which I've been counsel of record" or in any case in which she had "played any kind of substantial role in the process." She said in her confirmation testimony that she had attended at least one meeting where pending litigation against the health law might have been discussed, but "none where any substantive discussion of the litigation occurred."
The Judicial Confirmation Network and Judicial Watch, both conservative legal groups, have called for Kagan to recuse herself. Even if she doesn't sit out the case, it would provide the right-leaning groups with a way to spin an unfavorable opinion, especially if the decision comes along slim margins.
But Kagan isn't the only target. If conservatives have urged her recusal for fear of her reliably liberal vote, then it's concern about Thomas's usually-conservative voting record that prompted liberals to urge his recusal.
Seventy-three House Democrats, led by then-Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY), wrote earlier this year that Thomas should recuse himself because of his wife's work with Tea Party groups in opposition to the law. The Democrats charged that Ginni Thomas had previously been compensated in part for her work against health care reform; the liberal Magazine Mother jones reported that she had received $150,000 in compensation from Liberty Central, a group opposed to the reform law, according to her husband's financial disclosure forms.
Health Care for America Now is also among the liberal groups to have joined the demand for Thomas's recusal.
All indications, though, point toward recusals for neither, meaning all nine justices would participate.
If there were to be recusals, we'd know by now. The fact that the court granted the health care cases yesterday without noting that any justice "took no part in the consideration" tell us that. But this has been clear for quite a while, because the court has handled other health care cases in past months -- such as the refusal to grant fast-track status to the case brought by the State of Virginia -- without noting any recusals.
Moreover, there's some thought that the dividing lines between "conservative" and "liberal" justices might not even apply in any usual way. For instance, Judge Laurence Silberman, the appeals court judge in D.C. who authored an opinion upholding the constitutionality of health reform, was appointed to the court by President Reagan, and has been active in the Federalist Society, a conservative legal society.
NBC's Pete Williams contributed reporting.
Leave a Comment:
fed up... do you drive? have to buy auto insurance? why not bitch about that also?
Larry HMM do you have auto insurance on a state level or a Federal one. If you don't own a Vehicle are you forced to buy Vehicle insurance anyways? Auto Insurance is a State by State mandate NOT FEDERAL. Plus it covers the other person NOT YOU if you cause the accident. So understand THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CAN NOT TELL YOU TO PURCHASE ****. If that was the case then why did the Government in the last 200+ years ever tell Citizens to buy this or that. IT because ITS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Larry,
Driving is a privilege granted by the state. The state has the right to mandate insurance since the STATE GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO DRIVE.
Now, I can choose not to drive and I DO NOT HAVE TO BUY AUTO INSURANCE. I can not choose not to buy health insurance under this law. Can you see the difference?
Is Social security or medicare unconstitutional?
Auto insurance is mandated by the state, & the state insurance commissions do a reasonable job in keeping costs down, however that's not the case when it comes to the states dealing with controlling the rising cost of health care insurance
On that, the state governments fail in their fiduciary & legal obligations to the tax payer & federal government has to step in to protect both the consumer & the state ---- Health Care & Insurance crosses state lines, therefore the Commerce Clause does apply
Letherneck,,, Get a grip, according to the Federalist Society, most of the US Constitution is unconstitutional... They still can't accept the fact that the US Constitution once ratified made the Federalist Papers a mute argument
Again Jim-372206 give an Example like I asked in the other post on this subject. Still waiting............
Before trying to sound intelligent at least try to do some Research into what your talking about, it HELPS. Plus make sure YOUR READING COMPREHENSION is at 100% don't what you too have to put foot in mouth again.
Put it on the Ballet and let the people decide if it lives or dies. "We the People"
They should all sit it out and put it on the ballot in 2012
Whoever said we need to elect the supreme court justices need to be reminded that Obama was elected.
Fiesty r/head, your about as good as they come at "spinning."
djj-951919
you should understand the law before you say what is a travesty.
under normal circumstances only the person involved needs to review the circustances. not family or friends.
kangan worked with white house on the law that why she should step aside.
Kagan, Uncle Thomas and Scalia. Yes, they should not hear or participate in the case. Otherwise the Court is tented with bias.
Are Kagen and Napolitano sisters? LOL...
If they are that family sure had a bad case of ugly genes. I mean HOLY COW!
This opinion is strictly constitutional...if it is viewed as a matter of law - then it will be struck down - clearly. If it is otherwise then get ready for the ride of your American Citizen life - simply - your freedoms, rights will have been handed up on a silver platter by a silver gavel and have set the precedent for every other freedom and right to become matters of judicial review. Folks, tis a pity that your politics are blinding you to the actual agenda here. I'm not conspiracy theorist, just a simple citizen with figurative blinders off...no president has the right to impugn my basic rights and liberties by demanding I carry healthcare or be penalized for failure to comply. Fie! Rue the day that we hand over such governance for it is one grain of sand in the increasingly large sandcastle that waits for the tide - which like death and taxes, will come.
Sounds to me like you are enjoying Medicare.
Miss G, showing my age here, there is a very rudimentary teaching tool explaining how a law gets passed. Called " I'm just a bill " it was part of the Schoolhouse Rock series. A president, unless he used an Executive Order (Gov. Perry is on record saying he would use one to quash this same legislation), cannot on his own impugn ANYTHING you consider a right or a liberty. True, President Obama ASKED his party to design and sponsor this Healthcare Plan but it was voted on by all of Congress (House and Senate). He signed it and, until it is reviewed and rejected by the Supreme Court, a review that has to be requested by the way, it is a law (having graduated from mere "bill" status). Myself, though flawed, I feel that this healthcare plan is a good thing and should be debated to remove the flaws (not eliminated completely). However, I will accept whatever decision the Supreme Court makes in this matter because THAT IS HOW THINGS ARE DONE HERE. Even if the Supreme Court says this law in its current form is constitutionally sound it can still be repealed by future Congressional action. Again, because that is how things are done here. So stop saying that your rights have been impugned because until the Supreme Court rules in this matter, they haven't been.
Miss G, I would like to hear your feelings about the Patriot Act. Now THAT is a piece of legislation that, by design, runs roughshod over most, if not all, of your rights. Domestic spying, search and seizure without warrant, imprisonment (some bay in Cuba comes to mind) without trial, are all "legal" now because of this law.
Tony,
The problem with cleaning up the original bill is, if you take away certain aspects of the bill the affordability goes away in certain cases also. This monster needs scrapped and we need a fresh start. I don't think anyone would be against the government telling insurance companies they can not exclude people based upon pre existing conditions. I don't think anyone would be against telling insurance companies you can not drop a person because they got sick. There are many areas that common ground exists and thats where things should start.
they should both go! i bet fiesty looks like mr. kagan.
to Jeremy - 960164
back in April, 2011 the following appeared in an article in presswatch (not sure what that is but here goes)
Justice Antonin Scalia galloped beyond the farthest boundaries of judicial propriety in secretly meeting on Capitol Hill to discuss the Constitution with Tea Party members of Congress saddled with a co-equal duty to assess the constitutionality of legislative action. If there are better ways to destroy public confidence in judicial impartiality, they do not readily come to mind. . . .
Don't be surprised if a Tea Party member soon speaks on the floor of the House urging repeal of the health care reform law's individual mandate because Justice Scalia secretly advised that it exceeds the powers of Congress.
So, if in his conversation with members of Congress (not just Tea Party members) he gave examples of existing laws and his opinion on their legality, what then? I would compare that to sitting down with a company's lawyer to see if you could collect damages in a product liability case against that same company. However, in this SPECIFIC case, it is the White House that asked SCOTUS to hear arguments. Yes it is a political gamble, but if the Court rules in their favor it would take that argument away from his political opponents.
I am 66 years old and still work and have health insurance, but iam for universal coverage. I can remember when the doctor would treat you for what was wrong, now if your 15 minutes are up he will give you a shot, some meds and send you on your way and dont keep him from seeing the next guy by asking a question
"Their demands reflect the gamesmanship surrounding the case, which would either offer legal vindication for Obama's law, or hand Republicans a victory in dismantling it"
You make it sound as every single Democrat like this ill thought law when in reality (yea I know that is not something the media likes to report on) I know many Dems that want this thing abolished. It's not a Dem vs.Rep thing its an Obama vs. "We the People" thing.
What was that vote in Ohio again?
62 to 38 I believe with 62% in support of issue 3
Obama is licking his chops at the prospect of SCOTUS ruling this constitutional. Next, he will introduce legislation that will mandate that all people purchase new cars, so that the unemployment and slow economy problems will be solved. After that, he will introduce legislation that will mandate that we shall all purchase at least mandated minimum amounts of fruits and vegetables, to help us lower the rising cost of healthcare. Next, we will all need more legislation to purchase Solyndra solar panels, so that the US can recoup its cost in the failing company, and so that the nation can solve the problems of unaffordable green energy. After that, more legislation to purchase bank and investment company stock, so that our national financial infrastructure can remain healthy.
There is no end to the things that we can be made to purchase in order to solve our national problems.
There is, however, one way that we can prevent such a nightmare. I don't want to be a part of the America that lost its mind, like the do-gooder Progressives did back in the 1920's. They, along with the blacks, were proponents of that insanity, and the insanity has popped up again in the younger generations. That was another wacky idea that was supposed to solve the nation's problems, making all lives better. When it didn't work, the Progressives could not admit their mistake - instead, they demanded and received increased police enforcement, giving birth to another problem that never went away.
We're just sick of Progressives, and their wacky "I know how to make things better, if you'll just do what I say" ideas.
Nice reach Mr. Lagg but it's still a reach.
Obama's hope that all of us are insured is a good thing....it doesn't mean that he is going to make everyone buy a car...thats absurd thinking.
Should I have said that Bush was going to start wars with every country based on lies because he was able to get away with it once? That too would be absurb...wouldn't it?
If you hate Obama then you hate Obama...but please spare us from your ridiculous reasons.
Progressives have given this country a ton of prestige and honor....We went to the freaking moon because of progressives....we have given seniors the ability to live out their days with healthcare and happiness because of progressives....we have saved some from poverty and helped others receive needed medical attention because of progressives....What are you talking about?
I would ask you the same thing about conservatives....what have they done for us? The "I know how to make things better, if you'll just cut taxes" approach has yielded what? We have watched "conservatives" since Reagan de-regulate markets and cut taxes....the result has been deficits and a widened gap between the rich and poor....
We are so divided along the party lines now. What are reasonable and common grounds for us working together to save this nation. Leave the supreme judges alone. If you want to take some of them out so your side can win then why should we have supreme court at all.
If the case is judged on the merits of the constitution, it would be pretty difficult to say the commerce clause does not give the federal government the ability to regulate health insurance.
If the case is judged on political connectedness then even a corporation can become human or a private entity can take property from another. This is our conservative courts decisions.
What will it be: the constitution or the politics? This is the only question.
Thomas has been the biggest joke since day one. If not for mindless politics, this loser would never be sitting on the high court. He should recuse himself from any case with political impact.
I am married and I have my own beliefs and thoughts. And why do liberals resort
to name calling. To assume someone beats their wife over the statement that a
husband can have different beliefs than his wife is SAD.
"And why do liberals resort to name calling"
Because it show how intelligent and educated they are. See we're just too dumb to understand that.
I am sick of the USA giving money from taxpapyers to other countries, for example:
We give Israel over 3 billion dollars per year. According to wikipedia:
"Health care in Israel is UNIVERSAL"..."with funding from the government".
Israel also has a rank of "15th among 169 world nations on the UN's Human Development Index which places it in the catagory of "Very Highly Developed."
Why are USA tax dollars funding countries that have health care for it's citizens when families like my family has no healthcare following my unemployment. Something is wrong in the USA!
USA taxpayer money should first take care of the USA citizens. I am concerned about the Supreme Court taking up health care due to an Israeli flag being displayed in a Supreme Court Justice's Office during a photo session. How do you represent the USA and what is best for our citizens when you are displaying a foreign flag in your USA office? I find what is taking place in this country shocking!
Thomas won't recuse himself. He's only on there to push through the right-wing agenda. If he doesn't; there is no reason why Kagan should.
Sad, cynical attempt by conservatives to veto the voters' choice in 2008. You didn't care when you had the court packed with idiots like Thomas. Can't complain about the make-up of the court when they're the ones pushing for that court to hear the case.
Kagen wrote the law...
Follow the logic: there is no way in HELL that a straight laced Anita Hill would come up with the now famous qoute, " hey, what's PUBIC HAIR doing on my coke can? BUT someone who was additcted to watching pornographic movies, as Thomas's first wife claims he was, sure as hell could
THEREFORE beyond any reasonable logical doubt we have a full blown pervert on the Supreme Court, Cain style. Follow the damned LOGIC there too! Not much different than connecting the dots at Penn state, despite the perpetrator's denial
David, let's follow the logic. Thomas is black, Cain is black, all black men are perverts? Could explain a few things like a long, cocaine induced, limo ride...
David: What in the heck are you smoking?
So therefore no black men are perverts??
EXACTLY!
Tired of both sides trying to manipulate the process instead of allowing issues to stand or fail on their own merit.
How about a compromise. They both should recuse themselves. But, I find it particularly odious Thomas and Alito's direct involvement with the Koch Bros. They've totally abandoned judicial impartiality. We have got to have a code of ethics for SCOTUS, without it, our entire gov't is corrupt. The other two branches sadly are too far gone.
Uh, no.
We should really clear some things up about this law. For one it does not force you to buy insurance like everyone keeps saying. You simply will receive a tax penality if you are uninsured. Don't be insured but since they have to take care of you when you hurt yourself or become ill youre going to have to pay for that. That way the hospitals dont keep charging care for uninsured back to the insured as premiums.
Another important point to note is that insurers can no longer deny you coverage for previous conditions. This is fair right? Can anyone agree that it is wrong to deny people care if they lose their job and have cancer? Well how can you enforce that if you can just go out and buy a months worth of insurance after you find out you have cancer? Simple. Everyone has to be insured. The tax penality is your insurance. Stop whining and get out of the way of progress toward a better world for everyone.
ThatsBS: Oh if you don't do it you will be fined. What kind of force are you looking for?
The Supreme Court justices are essentially politicians in black robes. They are just as corrupt as the criminal empire in washington that masquerades as our seat of federal government. And to think that it only takes five of these "judges" to screw things up even more.
Such stupidity that you people actually believe we live in a government with two parties... Republicans and Democrats are all the same brand now, corrupt puppets. Look at our dictator in chief, doing the very things he said Bush did wrong (killing thousands of civilians in the name of "peace or revolution". He is but an extension of a plot that is now becoming even more apparent. When the Rothchilds and Rockefellers and a handful of other global tycoons took the reins of power, we lost this country. Yes, FDR like other puppets are merely tools for the globalists. We are now heading towards an end that most of you simple minded slaves will never even fully comprehend. Europe is going to fall and the "global" economy will fall with it. You simple slaves will fall right into the Israel/Iranian war that will then become WWIII and then after millions are dead you will beg for a Global Government, ie: UN. You are slaves controlled by a system that makes you think you have a vote.
Wake up before it is too late.
If things go to hell like you say they will, do I still have to make a house payment? If not, I say bring it! I can hunt and plant vegetables so I'll live.
They arn't even hiding it anymore. The middle east is being set up with radical governments so that a entire region will stand against Israel. We of course will never stand against Israel and thus we will defend her. Russia and China has both already said they will stand with Iran. So there you have it. Its really not that hard when you study History to see that the lines are already being drawn and the USA is the head of the beast under the control of the UN. We are now bombing countries claiming that we are not at "war", yet thousands of civilians are dead. I am not a liberal nor a right winger, those are just tags created by our masters to divide the people against the oligarchy that exists. I laugh at the people that are concerned with the quote "1%". Its not the "1%" that we need to worry about, its the .001% that run this world. Once you are a MULTI-BILLIONAIRE, money is no object. You then focus your attention to power and control. We are seeing these maniacs turn the world upside down. If you want to hurt those that see you as the slaves, you must attack the masters and their bag carriers such as George Soros and Rupert Murdock.