Posted on 12/12/2011 1:16:31 PM PST by CincyRichieRich
I'm concerned. Rush didn't pick up on this like I thought he would today. When I saw the DrudgeReport headline, I smiled, but then when Rush DID say the SCOTUS "ties", i.e., "4" to "4" revert back to the next highest court ruling, I recalled the Arizona Immigration case last ruling was not favorable ***AND*** I recall the last Obamacare ruling also was split, but VERY much in favor of the commerce clause, which will destroy the nation as we know it if it stands. Then I suspected Kagan is doing this on purpose, meaning, she will I predict recuse herself in Obamacare as well hoping for a tie just like Arizona Immigration.
I almost feel like saying like Rush, "Don't doubt me on this".
This sucks and I believe that is what is going on and going to happen.
I don't see 5 votes against the commies on either case.
Pray for God's sovereign hand to move mountains (of paper).
Thank you for that explanation. Sometimes it gets tricky and you explained it perfectly.
Look, for obummer to win it would require the reversal of DeCanas v Bica, a case that was decided 9 to 0.
Right. In the absence of a “definitive ruling” from a higher court the lower court ruling stands. A tie is not definitive.
No one can force Kagan to recuse herself. A supreme court justice is not subject to a federal statute which is a creation of Congress. Separation of powers. It would be Unconstitutional. But statutes may cover all other federal judges as they were not recognized in the Constitution (just the Supremes).
If Kagan proceeds in the face of a conflict of interest, then she could be impeached (ha) but it would be too late to affect this case or even Obamacare case. They would be long since decided.
De Canas v. Bica (1976), in which the Supreme Court emphatically declared that federal immigration laws did not prohibit the states from enforcing the policies embodied by those federal immigration laws. (In that case, the state law was a California prohibition against the employment of illegal aliens.) The Court reviewed the text and history of the federal Immigration and Nationality Act, and found no indication that “Congress intended to preclude even harmonious state regulation touching on aliens in general, or the employment of illegal aliens in particular.” According to the Court, states may enforce laws consistent with federal immigration laws, so long as the state does not “impose additional burdens not contemplated by Congress.”
I agree with the other posters who think it’s a very obvious strategy: she recuses herself on Arizona, which gives her cover for NOT recusing herself on Obamacare.
Then she can’t be accused of being unwilling to recuse herself.
Never mind that Arizona has nothing to do with Obamacare.
These people never stop scheming.
Thanks for the explanations. Do supreme court rulings, present, future, have to agree with past rulings? Just asking.
Yes, and if not all prior cases where the case was cited become questionable. I ran across this case reading the Texas illegals education case, people over look the fact the court said you did not need to educate illegals if you deported them. After I read that I think it is actually legal for a state to deport illegals. ///????? The justice department has argued feeling in this case not law.
A vanity such as this requires only one solution: one strong martini, followed an hour later by a glass of warm milk, then go to bed........sheesh!
More help
You are absolutely 100% correct in your asessment.
She is recusing herself on a few other court cases for public image, to set herself up for not recusing herself on the grand enchilada (Obamacare)
You can set your watch to the actions of anybody remotely connected to this administration. They are so so very predictable....
Not quite true, as Congress can establish, limit or withdraw the jurisdiction of the courts over certain cases.
The only practical way to enforce the statute regarding recusals is for impeachment, which, of course, is dead on arrival in the Senate.
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.