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 ...
LIE! Her own e-mails say different.
Looks like the fix is in on this one boys and girls.
The fix is in.
Again.
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....
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.
It’s just as well. Obamacare is going to have to be repealed. Letting the SCOTUS do it is the coward’s way.
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.
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.
“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.
Yet, it may very well be the only way.
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.
It pisses me off to wait for the courts, congress should defund and picck it appart These career cowards won’t do sh**.
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.
Couple this with Thomas saying SCOTUS is “evading” Hussein’s eligibility problems. Looks like they’ve already taken sides.
Now that Obama appointees are sitting on it, it would be the height of embarrassment to have to roll that back.
"Defunding" won't mean a damned thing until it can actually get passed through as law.
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).
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.
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.