Posted on 03/29/2012 10:05:34 AM PDT by CNSNews.com
Video in Story...
Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan defended the expansion of Medicaid under Obamacare today by arguing that "It's just a boatload of federal money for you to take and spend" and concluding "It doesn't sound coercive to me."
Kagan made her comments at today's Supreme Court hearing while questioning attorney Paul D. Clement who was presenting an oral argument on behalf of 26 states seeking to have the federal health care law declared unconstitutional:
Mr. Clement: "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the court. The constitutionality of the act’s massive expansion of Medicaid depends on the answer to two related questions. First, is the expansion coercive? And second, does that coercion matter?"
Justice Kagan: "Mr. Clement, can I ask you as just a matter of clarification; would you be making the same argument if, instead of the federal government picking up ninety percent of the cost, the federal government picked a hundred percent of the cost?"
Clement: "Justice Kagan if everything else in the statute remained the same I would be making the exact same argument."
Kagan: "The exact same argument so, so that really reduces to the question of: why is a big gift from the federal government a matter of coercion?
"In other words, the federal government is here saying: we’re giving you a boatload of money. There are no, is no matching funds requirement. There are no extraneous conditions attached to it.
"It’s just a boatload of federal money for you to take and spend on poor people’s healthcare. It doesn’t sound coercive to me, I have to tell you."
See more "Right Views, Right Now"
This women makes misogyny sound like a rather reasonable outlook on life.
Just a boatload of money. I wonder where it comes from?
Does Michael Moore make hating men seem reasonable?
From Obama's "stash"?
Is this woman a lunatic? The Federal government has no “gift” money to give. It doesn’t produce, it consumes! The coercion happens prior to the gifting!
If he were a man, it might. Fortunately, he is just a pig that talks. So it's a moot point :)
“It’s just a boatload of federal money for you to take and spend on poor people’s healthcare. It doesn’t sound coercive to me, I have to tell you.” Which was followed by ...from his stash..OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA.....
Ya can’t fix stupid.
You care where it came from. The left doesn’t care.
Her point was not even that...her point was, there’s no coercion.
All you have to do is spend it as we tell you, you don’t have to spend state money on this expansion, so where’s the coercion?
“spend it as we tell you to spend it”
And if you refuse, we will punish you by cutting off other funds.
DUH.
That money gets phased out so is useless in the long run. The long run is what states are complaining about.
If that doesn’t make sense to you, then have I got a deal for you.
I am willing to sell you my house such that you won’t have to pay me any money for the first two years. After that, you need to pay me $50,000 a month for life.
Any takers?
These Obama-bucks come from Obama-boats moored in Obama Harbor.
From what I have read about Kagan’s background and outlook - I highly doubt she believes in the Constitution as worded.
I am sure she views it as an interesting document for the period in which it was created - and I am also sure she views the Constitution as irrelevant for our present age.
Reading this make me want to break into her house and take everything in it.
Elmer Kagan thinks money grows on trees.
The government, by its very nature, cannot give except what it first takes.
As between being a man, or a woman, which is Michael Moore?
I’ll tell you why using him as an example is a moot point, and it’s not because he’s a pig.
Justice Breyer will vote with Kagan.
He’s kind of a likable idiot.
John Paul Stevens is who Kagan replaced. He was a huge lib icon. They said people liked him. Another idiot.
So, are Justices Breyer and Stevens examples of why hating men is reasonable?
You get my drift.
I’ll flip the argument.
Margaret Thatcher.
Would she make a good case for misogeny, or would she destroy the case for it?
The making of this Kagan issue an issue of justifiable misogeny, which is against ALL women, is where the wrong turn was taken.
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.