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"
All matching fund programs where the Feds tax the states generally and then offer the money back to the states on the condition that the state implement the Fed’s program is coercive.
It’s not something the state would do on it’s on. It’s not something the FED has power to legislate directly. So they use the power of the federal government to tax and hand out funds, to coerce states to do things the federal gov’t is not authorized to legislate on.
Other justices on the bench should have put pressure on her to have to recuse herself. She should not even be a factor in the decision.
He makes hating Liberals seem sensible.
A Justice of the Supreme Court made this comment. Wow!
Let’s list the coercive affects (albeit indirect).
Insurance companies are coerced to compete.
Doctors are coerced into price fixing
Patients are coerced into government provided insurance
Taxpayers are coerced into accepting more debt or higher taxes
Poor people have access to health care in this country. Further, because we have the most advanced medical care on the planet, they have had access to things they would never have access to in many if not most socialist countries (like redo heart valve replacements for IV drug abusers who have recurrent endocarditis).
I listened to a union protester on the radio today talking about how health care is a right. It is not a right. It is a blessing and a privilege. In this country you can be unemployed but have lots of children that someone else pays for, and at the same time you can be way overweight, and smoke, and find money for those extra calories and for cigarettes, and find money for a cell phone, etc. etc., and then claim that you have a right for the services of doctors and nurses etc., irrespective of your own efforts or responsibilities.
We cannot and will not survive as a nation unless and until we call out the ‘entitled’ and accept as a society that few things in life just exist for the taking, but instead have to be worked for. When you take without giving you are parasitizing others. That's not fair - to use one of the favorite words of the left.
“A Justice of the Supreme Court made this comment. Wow!”
That’s because she was never chosen by merit.
What an asshat.
She was put on The Court SPECIFICALLY to help re-distribute wealth, and Rule that to do so is Constitutional?
THERE IS NO FEDERAL MONEY!
It's taxpayers' personal money, that is TAKEN, to hand out to benefit someone else.
WHERE in the Constitution does it say that individuals can be "ENRICHED", by taking from one, and giving to another, at the GOVERNMENT'S discretion?
This woman is extremely dangerous, to be in such a high position of power. Her conflict of interest alone, in this case and her refusal to recuse herself is an impeachable offense.
If Congress fails to vote this woman out on that grounds, then we are doomed as a Republic.
What else do you expect from someone who has never held a real job? All money belongs to the government and, if you’re good, they may give some to you.
A fantastic part of the oral arguments was when Kagan produced a football from under her robes, stood up on the bench and spiked it - but my personal favorite was when she centered her defense of the Individual Mandate on the Mac-a-rena’s world-wide influence.
Clearly, we have ourselves an informed and serious Justice in Kagan.
oh.... and /sarc
This statement tells us everything we need to know about Justice Kagan's concept of "coercive power" versus "individual liberty" and the Constitution's protections for the latter.
America's Founders viewed "government" as "coercive" by nature.
America's Founders understood that "government" creates no money, has no money, and cannot "gift" money without first "taking" it from someone--a "coercive" act in itself.
Besides, this "boatload of money" is not "federal money." It is "the People's" money, and who is naive or uninformed enough to believe that "taking" it from the people, sending it to Washington, and then doling it out to the States is an efficient way to provide "poor people's health care"????Oh, how far we have come from the wisdom which gave birth to America's Constitution, America's liberty for all, and America's prosperity and greatness!!!
I have a forty-something male colleague whom I feel very sorry for because he looks a whole lot like Elena Kagan...
Some people really are as dumb as they look, and Kagan is one of them.
Kagan is either utterly stupid, or just a reflexively lying Commie.
Likely both.
The money comes from taxes removed from the states. It is then offered back to the states with strings attached. If the states refuse the attached strings then the money formerly belonging to the states’ taxayers is not forthcoming. That sounds like coercion to me. In fact, it is at the very core of the problem with the federal income tax and direct withholding. The states effectively have ceded their ability to say “no” to the federal monster, lest they be extorted by the threat of no money.
And she is on the SCOTUS? Unbelieveable! This statement is a nice window into the mind of how a liberal, elite jurist views the taxpayer, poor people and, the Constitution, all in one sentence.
Not al all. She knows where money comes from. It comes from the taxpayers whose every cent is a gift from government. This is how liberals think. If you hear someone saying that a tax cut "has to be paid for," then you know that the speaker thinks all money actually belongs to the government, and whatever the government allows you to keep is just a gift. They have noconcept that money is earned, since they're usually lifelong government parasites who've been growing fat of the labor of others as long as they can remember. They actually think that they're entitled to everything you make.
Example the Pelosi hag - She never worked a day in her life. Even as a child she was chauffered in a taxpayer funded limousine.
Worst appointment ever
Next to The Wise Latina
Scalia should have jumped in and said, “Mr Clement, where does the federal government ultimately get their “big boatload of money” from? (Hint: taxpayers).
Some “free” gift.
It’s FREE because everyone is forced to pay for it because we have to mandate they take it? This is the liberal illogic working here.
We are paying for all of it, the money is taken from us, by various means and routes, but all of it has to be paid by citizens. One way or the other. It’s NOT free.
Since when is it a “gift” if you’re the one paying for all of it? It’s such a great gift the government says if you refuse it we’ll fine or jail you? It’s so great the government has to use its coercive force to ensure you take it?
Some free gift.
Mandatory ponzi scheme (another one). Social Security is the other one. I didn’t even sign up for it personally, but I can’t get out of it and get back what was taken from me. Talk about a violation of contract 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.