Posted on 01/27/2012 2:47:35 PM PST by neverdem
Here is the bigger question. Has she told her fellow jurists the same lie. If so will they see this a as breach of ethics and sanction her?
“. . .and Kagan’s female. . .”
Are you sure. . . .?
Did she state before her confirmation hearing that she had nothing to do with the health care law???
If she does not recuse herself from the Obamacare hearings she must be impeached and removed from the bench. If this is not done there no longer will ba any such thing as judicial conflict of interest. We should have a GOP Congress, the questions is will they have the balls to do it.
It’s a shame she’s not honorable enough to put this question away now. That said, if she hasn’t recused by the time the case is heard, Plaintiff’s counsel and others should submit Kagan’s amicus brief into the Supreme Course record and reference it in their arguments. If she’s on the bench when Plaintiff’s counsel makes oral arguments, counsel’s first words should specifically reference her and point to some argument or parallel to the current case in her amicus brief (i.e. as Solicitor General Kagan argued in her amicus brief dated...). If she does not recuse - file bar complaints and go after her law license.
This business reeks. That said, if she is on the bench at oral argument and is in so many words called out by plaintiff’s counsel, then the court does not strike down the law on multiple grounds, the afterhocks might well end the Obama administration even if it may have otherwise survived. The alternative in that instance, which would be the demise of the courts as a third branch of government and check against excesses of the other two branches, is too terrible to imagine.
I see the loop hole!...2nd word!...it says “he”
Gonna need a TSA employee with latex gloves to make a ruling...
I see the loop hole!...2nd word!...it says “he”
Gonna need a TSA employee with latex gloves to make a ruling...
No Need to Panic About Global Warming
Slashing America's Defense: A Suicidal Trajectory
Issa Demands Access to Second US Attorney who Supervised Operation Fast and Furious
Some noteworthy articles about politics, foreign or military affairs, IMHO, FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.
Thanks for the link.
I am very very conservative and I would bet she will recuse. But not until the time of the case. She will embarrass the court.
LOL
SWEET PING
There's a big difference between actively defending a case and sitting on the bench while the hearing is going on.
Kagan the plant. She’s EVIL as it SOda-mayer weiner.
JACK CADE.
Valiant I am.
SMITH [aside].
‘A must needs; for beggary is valiant.
JACK CADE.
I am able to endure much.
DICK [aside].
No question of that; for I have seen him whipp’d three market-days together.
JACK CADE.
I fear neither sword nor fire.
SMITH [aside].
He need not fear the sword; for his coat is of proof.
DICK [aside].
But methinks he should stand in fear of fire, being burnt i’ th’hand for stealing of sheep.
You can almost hear the rim-shot after everything Dick or Smith say here.
Cade proceeds to go more and more over the top, and begins to describe his absurd ideal world:
JACK CADE.
Be brave, then; for your captain is brave, and vows reformation. There shall be in England seven half-penny loaves sold for a penny: the three-hoop’d pot shall have ten hoops; and I will make it felony to drink small beer: all the realm shall be in common; and in Cheapside shall my palfrey go to grass: and when I am king,- as king I will be,-
ALL.
God save your majesty!
Appreciated and encouraged, he continues on in this vein:
JACK CADE.
I thank you, good people:- there shall be no money; all shall eat and drink on my score; and I will apparel them all in one livery, that they may agree like brothers, and worship me their lord.
And here is where Dick speaks the famous line.
DICK.
The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.
Bump
My personal belief is that it will be held as "Constitutional". Which will please both the Republican and Democrat Parties.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
Thanks neverdem.
I guess the individual mandate would be deemed unconstitutional, and the president would not be able to enforce it, in districts covered by the federal judicial circuit whose Court of Appeals ruled it unconstitutional, since such decision would stand; but the individual mandate would be enforceable in the circuit whose Court of Appeals ruled it constitutional. And as for other circuits, they could do whatever they wanted.
A rational president would realize that having an entire federal judicial circuit in which the individual mandate could not be enforced would cause the entire scheme to unravel, and would move to adopt a new healthcare scheme, just as he would had the Supreme Court struck it down, but we’re not dealing with a rational president.
In any event, we need to get 5 Justices to declare the individual mandate unconstitutional, and elect a Congress and a president who will repeal the entire law.
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.