Skip to comments.Elena Kagan: How Can Giving a Boatload of Money to Poor People be Unconstitutional?
Posted on 03/30/2012 12:08:33 PM PDT by Kaslin
RUSH: I have the Elena Kagan sound bite. I know that I have total, 100% credibility with you. When I tell you something, you know it's true. But I want you to hear it. This was Wednesday at the Supreme Court during the third day of oral arguments on the constitutionality of the health care reform law. This is the most junior justice, Elena Kagan, a former solicitor general for Obama, who openly cheered the passage of Obamacare when it went through the House. And she then worked on its defense at the Supreme Court. She should have ethically recused herself. But she didn't. And here is her opinion, in the form of a question to one of the lawyers, doesn't matter who. She's talking about the commerce clause and coercion. She doesn't understand the argument that forcing people to buy health insurance violates the commerce clause.
This is a woman who taught law at Harvard. She was the dean of Harvard Law. Which means she's smarter than anybody else. She's smarter than the dean of law at Columbia and she's smarter than the dean at Stanford. She's just as smart as the dean over there at Oxford. There's nobody smarter. When you're the dean of Harvard Law, you're it. And she has no clue. She cannot conceive, she has no concept of the notion that the federal government cannot force citizens to buy anything. By the same token, the government can't force you not to buy anything. Works both ways. So the lawyers are talking about this using the term coercion, coerce people. This compulsory contract, which is an oxymoron. And she's frustrated. She doesn't understand why people don't understand this. She doesn't understand why people think this is unconstitutional. It's a mystery to her. You mean we can't give people health care? I don't understand. Here's how she said it.
KAGAN: 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 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 health care. It doesn't sound coercive to me, I have to tell you.
RUSH: I am sitting here, if you're not watching on Dittocam you can't see me with my mouth all the way open, in stunned disbelief. Folks, this is why all week I have been urging you: Don't think they're smarter than you are. Don't fall for that. Don't grant them that. These are some of the most uninformed, ill-informed, arrogant, conceited people you will ever encounter. I'm not even gonna assume she knows what she's talking about. What it could be is that the federal government is passing the burden of Medicaid to the states. In Obamacare they are off-loading some of the costs to the states. They're demanding that states pick up Medicaid costs, and she is of the belief that the states are gonna get the money that the federal government currently spends on Medicaid, but they aren't. The states aren't going to be able to afford this. And unlike the federal government, they can't go print money.
They have to balance their budgets at the state. It's very difficult for them to even borrow. They do, they sell bonds and so forth, but it's not nearly as easy to deficit spend in the states as it is at the federal government. And Obamacare takes the money in Medicare and shifts it to the states so that they can show on paper that the overall cost on the federal side is not nearly as high as it really is. And to her, this is a boatload of money, what could possibly be wrong? A big gift from the federal government. Obamacare is just a big gift. We're giving this money, and there aren't any strings attached to it. Boatload of federal money for you to take and spend on poor people's health care. That doesn't sound coercive. What it sounds is clueless. I mean totally, genuinely clueless. And this woman's a Supreme Court justice.
Thanks to all the spineless, cowardly, RINO establishment senators that wouldn’t filibuster this moron.
McConnell, Hatch, Lugar, Alexander, Corker, the bobsie twins of Maine, etc.
A total bunch of losers.
This kagan creature is such a fool. That she is on the supreme court means that senators voted for her to be there. Are we doomed as yet? Good bye Freedom...we hardly knew ye. Truly disgusting.
Hmmm... maybe I DIDN’T see what you did there...
I thought it was a Blazing Saddles ref.
thanks I feel better now
” Thanks to all the spineless, cowardly, RINO establishment senators that wouldnt filibuster this moron.
McConnell, Hatch, Lugar, Alexander, Corker, the bobsie twins of Maine, etc.
A total bunch of losers.”
To me, they are borderline criminals.
She is clearly a clueless ideologue who never should have been appointed, let alone confirmed.
You are correct. It does seem Rush sometimes uses the "Ready, Fire, Aim" method, especially when accuracy would get in the way of the point he wants to make.
Yes, Rush conflated two similar coercion themes from Obamacare, forcing individuals into commerce to regulate commerce and forcing states to agree to eventually foot the bill for a huge number of new Medicaid recipients.
What was the biggest of the “big lies” from Obama—
“If you like the coverage you have you can keep it.” —unless you are a Christian who objects to funding abortions.
“This is about cost containment, not rationing care.”
“We are going to cover the 40 million uninsured and it’s going to actually save money.” — CBO says that 10 years from now, 27 million will still be uninsured.
1). Where did you get the money?
2). Why are the poor people poor?
3). Who paid for the boat?
People don’t understand this is the most unqualified person ever to sit on the Supreme Court, in terms of real world experience.
Her legal experience consists of 1-2 years as an associate in a private practice law firm. The rest of her time consists of being in academia or being in make work jobs in the Clinton administration.
Ha ha - that cartoon is great! Just what I had been thinking - I’m surprised that Scalia didn’t ask Kagan to come back up to the bench after speaking on behalf of the government.
What a fundamental mus-understanding of the Constitution this guy illustrates.. “a charter of negative liberties” isn’t a justifiable statement within any amount of logic. It has a list of enumerated powers, and it can’t/shouldn’t go beyond them. Sheesh!
You can’t make this stuff up!
She acts, talks and thinks like him, so why not just shave her head and call her Curly. Moe and Shemp would be proud to have her in their act.
(Too bad they’re all dead.)
She should then tell us what clause permits the federal government to drop a boatload of cash on anyone.
The word "compelling" should be replaced by "prohibiting".
Klown Kagan doesn't understand the Constitution much less care for it and uphold it, as she has sworn to do.
The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! - Patrick Henry, 1775
Forget about the plains of Boston, my friends. She is one of the cabal of malignant tyrants now forging our chains in the fever swamps of Washington!
Is it time yet, Claire...?
Apparently they gave her the job because she is a gay woman and not for her brain?
What a stupid toad!
I think she as talked to obama already on what the vote was plus I also think she has been talking to obama since she got on the court.
This was another reason why I wanted a republican who had balls to beat him as I would want an investigation into how obama has been running his admin and the corruption plus giving our secrets and our ally secrets away.
and where does she think the Govt’s money comes from.
She’s a complete idiot who needs to be removed from the court
” In other words, voluntary recusal of a judge should be replaced by mandatory recusal in such instances! “
And she’s FUGLY too!
He knows - no question about it. Why would his "plant" in the Supreme Court not have the required "flexibility" he speaks fondly of (now that we have been enlightened as to how this administration achieves its objectives)?
Kagan's statement (more politically motivated than legally supported) and lack of ethics in not recusing herself from this decision diminish the efforts of the other Justices in upholding America's laws and decisions to the highest level humanly possible. One has to wonder what the other Justices think of this appointee and how they feel about her failure to recuse.
she has never been a judge, she has hardly any legal experience for the job she has and she only got put there as a plant for obama and to push obama’s socialist agenda.
It’s truly shocking that she got on the bench and she needs removing ASAP
Not only is she stupid and fugly, she is a crook too.
In 1996 she defrauded the SC during the partial birth abortion ban case.
She altered a statement submitted by a doctors’ group to mean the opposite of what they intended.
The statement was persuasive in the case....and it was false.
I wish Scalia would have then said: “And where does the federal government just get this ‘boatload of money’ from in the first place?”
Hint: taxpayers supply it. We all would be supplying it as that’s what the mandate and the penatly is all about.
If it is government money, that means it’s money government has TAKEN from citizens. One way or the other. Directly or by people buying our debt that we (ie citizens) promise to pay (via future taxes) back with interest.
This woman should be tried for treason instead of sitting on the Supreme Court. Bad people don’t last for long. I suspect she will be punished at the first opportunity. I am hoping George Soros will get his punishment soon.
Because 5 Republicans voted to confirm her along with all but one Democrat, giving her 63 Yes votes. We could only afford to lose one Republican at that time if we wanted to filibuster her. And if the Democrats managed to get their one black sheep back in their court, we would have needed a complete Republican block to stop her.
Here's a good breakdown of how the votes on Kagan and Sotomayor went down:
Here are the RINO bozos who voted for Kagan:
Collins, Susan M.
Graham, Lindsey O.
Gregg, Judd A.
Lugar, Richard G.
Snowe, Olympia J.
Those plus 4 more Republicans voted for Sotomayor.
There was just one Democrat (DINO?) who voted against Kagan. He did vote for Sotomayor.
Nelson, Earl B.
Yes, it should be mandatory
This woman should have recused herself from this entire case.
Is there any legal remedy we can use against her for her not doing so?
I get he feeling that Kagan has been talking to obama since she got on t he bench and told him the vote today.
It’s outrageous that this woman is doing this case what is even more is that she does not even qualify for that position and has no clue about the laws or the constitution.
Exactly, where does she think this money comes from?
She is a stooge, a plant
on that I have no doubt
She’s not just clueless, she’s a political animal. Not fit for our nation’s highest court.
This cow will probably be on the bench until she is in her 80’s or drops dead. I vote for ah, never mind..
this, from one of nine of the most brilliant legal minds in the country. has to make you wonder what the caliber of professors are at schools other than harvard, if she’s someone setting a standard.
we’re so screwed.
She’s so smart, so wise, so intelligent, with such brilliance that it defies the imagination how she can stand her own perfection and superiority. How amazing and wonderful and great she is, so generous, kind and caring; amazing.
Anyone here know if this woman can ever be removed due to her activism and basically being an idiot?
It’s a shame there are no cameras in the SC ,,, I would love to have a “blooper reel” of Kagan. Maybe John Roberts would OK a camera for just such a purpose... If we ever get to nominate another justice I would love for us to pick someone with a love for the country , common sense , high intelligence and NO LAW DEGREE ...
The woman has zero conception...
Because the Feds can send a boatload of money every year.
A boatload this year.
A boatload next year.
Three years later, the Fed says “If you don’t do yada-yada, we’re not gonna send you a boatload this year!”
So now how do the states explain to their people that no boatload is coming this year? They don’t. They cave in to the Feds demands.
LEt me guess, these people did their thesis like a letter to Santa Claus: Dear Santa, we want free health care, and if the mean elves complain, just kill them.
There you go, mental age of a 5 year old on government power steroids.
Miss Kagan should be reminded that her lesbo sister Fluke just made unconstitutional for Catholics to give a boatload of money and care to people they chose to.
Everyone take note of the absolute silence out of the spineless, gutless eunuchs in Congress regarding Kagan’s not recusing herself. No outrage; gutless, chicken silence! The same silence out of the same gutless, spineless eunuchs in Congress on the question of Zero’s eligibility. Could we agree that the stench is worse than human waste?
Very frightening and likely quite representative of the elite’s cognitive abilities generally.
Judicial Watch has pushed the issue. Congress has failed to press the issue, though. We can only hope that it has no impact on the final outcome.
Several Texas Republican Congressmen (Gohmert, Hensarling, Barton, at least one other) have taken Kagan to task in interviews for her refusal to recuse herself.
At the same time, they admit that there is nothing that neither Congress -- nor the President, nor the court, nor anybody else -- can do about it. She is the sole determinant of her eligibility to hear the case.
And that's the end of that there story...
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.