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

Skip to comments.

Court won't hear arguments demanding Kagan recusal
Google.com ^ | 1/23/12 | AP

Posted on 01/23/2012 10:21:45 AM PST by ColdOne

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court won't hear arguments from a conservative watchdog group that wants Justice Elena Kagan disqualified from deciding the constitutionality of President Barack Obama's national health care overhaul.

Freedom Watch asked the high court for time to demand Kagan's recusal or disqualification during arguments on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The law is aimed at extending health insurance coverage to more than 30 million previously uninsured people and would, by 2019, leave just 5 percent of the population uninsured, compared with about 17 percent today, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

(Excerpt) Read more at google.com ...


TOPICS: Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: bho44; bhohealthcare; freedomwatch; kagan; lawsuit; ruling; scotus; socializedmedicine

1 posted on 01/23/2012 10:21:51 AM PST by ColdOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ColdOne
Kagan, who was solicitor general under Obama, did not participate in the decision.

LIE! Her own e-mails say different.

2 posted on 01/23/2012 10:30:41 AM PST by liberalh8ter (I don't like what the world has become....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne

Looks like the fix is in on this one boys and girls.


3 posted on 01/23/2012 10:30:45 AM PST by Bloody Sam Roberts ("The price of freedom is willingness to do sudden battle anywhere, anytime..." - Robert A. Heinlein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne

The fix is in.

Again.


4 posted on 01/23/2012 10:30:59 AM PST by BenLurkin (This is not a statement of fact. It is either opinion or satire; or both)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne
Gotta Love Dissociated Press:

The law is aimed at extending health insurance coverage to more than 30 million previously uninsured people and would, by 2019, leave just 5 percent of the population uninsured, compared with about 17 percent today, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

RME....

5 posted on 01/23/2012 10:31:19 AM PST by Cyber Liberty ("If the past sits in judgment on the present, the future will be lost." --Winston Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne

I just love how they write these articles.

The question is about recusal. They label the group “consrevative” - then talk about the uninsured. WTF do the uninsured have to do with the legal question of recusal? Noting. Zero. Should not even be mentioned - until at least her ROLE IN PROMOTING THE LEGALITY THE IDEA TO THE PRESIDENT is covered. But - story omits the pertinant data, to work in the propaganda angle.

At least they are consistent.


6 posted on 01/23/2012 10:32:50 AM PST by Eldon Tyrell (question,.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne

It’s just as well. Obamacare is going to have to be repealed. Letting the SCOTUS do it is the coward’s way.


7 posted on 01/23/2012 10:34:04 AM PST by Sans-Culotte ( Pray for Obama- Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: liberalh8ter

She was up to her ears in defending Obamacare, but I think this is supposed to mean she wasn’t part of the decision to refuse to hear arguments she should recuse herself.

Well maybe this is the burr America needs under its bustle to sweep the Obama administration out.


8 posted on 01/23/2012 10:34:51 AM PST by HiTech RedNeck (Sometimes progressives find their scripture in the penumbra of sacred bathroom stall writings (Tzar))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: liberalh8ter

She was up to her ears in defending Obamacare, but I think this is supposed to mean she wasn’t part of the decision to refuse to hear arguments she should recuse herself.

Well maybe this is the burr America needs under its bustle to sweep the Obama administration out.


9 posted on 01/23/2012 10:35:19 AM PST by HiTech RedNeck (Sometimes progressives find their scripture in the penumbra of sacred bathroom stall writings (Tzar))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Eldon Tyrell

“Oh look what a wonderful law. Isn’t it worth a little cheating?”

Keep it up Lame Streamers. Soon all who listen to you will live in one square block in New York City.


10 posted on 01/23/2012 10:36:58 AM PST by HiTech RedNeck (Sometimes progressives find their scripture in the penumbra of sacred bathroom stall writings (Tzar))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Sans-Culotte
Letting the SCOTUS do it is the coward’s way.

Yet, it may very well be the only way.

11 posted on 01/23/2012 10:37:25 AM PST by Puppage (You may disagree with what I have to say, but I shall defend to your death my right to say it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck

LOL. You’re probably right but that didn’t occur to me since it would be ridiculous for her to be impartial in determining whether or not she can be impartial on Obamacare.


12 posted on 01/23/2012 10:48:56 AM PST by liberalh8ter (I don't like what the world has become....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

It pisses me off to wait for the courts, congress should defund and picck it appart These career cowards won’t do sh**.


13 posted on 01/23/2012 10:50:00 AM PST by boomop1 (term limits is the only way to save this country.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Puppage

Well, for the sake of this “wonderful law” America is about to embrace a doctrine of commerce clause enabled mandates on the level of requiring every American to buy one box of corn flakes every week. (If not also requiring it to be Kellogg’s corn flakes.) Fixing this will need a constitutional amendment, though a GOP-endorsed Federal law will stick a finger in that dike.


14 posted on 01/23/2012 10:59:41 AM PST by HiTech RedNeck (Sometimes progressives find their scripture in the penumbra of sacred bathroom stall writings (Tzar))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne

Couple this with Thomas saying SCOTUS is “evading” Hussein’s eligibility problems. Looks like they’ve already taken sides.


15 posted on 01/23/2012 11:11:37 AM PST by bgill (The Obama administration is staging a coup. Wake up, America, before it's too late.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bgill

Now that Obama appointees are sitting on it, it would be the height of embarrassment to have to roll that back.


16 posted on 01/23/2012 11:25:18 AM PST by HiTech RedNeck (Sometimes progressives find their scripture in the penumbra of sacred bathroom stall writings (Tzar))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: boomop1
I'm sick to death of hearing this "defund, defund, defund" crap. The House passed budget bills. The Senate tabled them. Repeal died the same way.

"Defunding" won't mean a damned thing until it can actually get passed through as law.

17 posted on 01/23/2012 11:32:19 AM PST by newzjunkey (Santorum has the Big Mo' right now in FL. /s)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: liberalh8ter
Kagan, who was solicitor general under Obama, did not participate in the decision.

LIE! Her own e-mails say different.

No, what the article means is that Kagan abstained from this vote (the vote not to hear arguments on whether she should be recused).

18 posted on 01/23/2012 11:33:22 AM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Sans-Culotte

I want both - the congress to defund and eliminate the ridiculous overreach and for the court to unequivocally state that they cannot force us to buy something.


19 posted on 01/23/2012 11:44:25 AM PST by reed13k (Knight Rampant Bibliophile, Protector of Knowledge, Purveyor of Inquiry, Defender of Aged Wisdom, an)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
Yes, HiTech RedNeck pointed that out. It didn't occur to me that it would even need to be mentioned that she didn't participate in this decision, how could she impartially do so? I would hope her only input would be answering questions about her involvement in Obamacare.
20 posted on 01/23/2012 11:56:01 AM PST by liberalh8ter (I don't like what the world has become....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]




Click the red pepper!

Don’t Veg Out
Become a Hero, Donate Monthly


Sponsors will contribute $10
For each new monthly sign-up

21 posted on 01/23/2012 1:20:31 PM PST by TheOldLady (FReepmail me to get ON or OFF the ZOT LIGHTNING ping list)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: newzjunkey

In other words wait for the court to render in June as this administration devours the heath care system.


22 posted on 01/23/2012 3:45:14 PM PST by boomop1 (term limits is the only way to save this country.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne; Lurking Libertarian; JDW11235; Clairity; TheOldLady; Spacetrucker; Art in Idaho; GregNH; ..
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

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

23 posted on 01/24/2012 8:21:45 PM PST by BuckeyeTexan (Man is not free unless government is limited. ~Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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