Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Elena Kagan: How Can Giving a Boatload of Money to Poor People be Unconstitutional?
Rush Limbaugh.com ^ | March 30, 2012 | Rush Limbaugh

Posted on 03/30/2012 12:08:33 PM PDT by Kaslin

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

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.

END TRANSCRIPT


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial; Front Page News; Government
KEYWORDS: 2012; democrats; harvardresumefraud; impropriety; kagan; kagan4kagan; liberalfascism; limbaugh; noethics4kagan; noshame4kagan; noveritas4kagan; obamacare; remembernovember; scotus; socialisthealthcare
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-118 next last
To: Kaslin

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.


51 posted on 03/30/2012 12:54:44 PM PDT by Fledermaus (Democrats are dangerous and evil. Republicans are just useless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Diogenesis

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.


52 posted on 03/30/2012 12:54:58 PM PDT by hal ogen (1st Amendment or Reeducation Camp?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: tumblindice

Hmmm... maybe I DIDN’T see what you did there...

I thought it was a Blazing Saddles ref.


53 posted on 03/30/2012 12:55:19 PM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: MrB

thanks I feel better now


54 posted on 03/30/2012 1:00:49 PM PDT by St_Thomas_Aquinas (Viva Christo Rey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Fledermaus

” 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.”

To me, they are borderline criminals.


55 posted on 03/30/2012 1:06:42 PM PDT by stephenjohnbanker (God, family, country, mom, apple pie, the girl next door and a Ford F250 to pull my boat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

She is clearly a clueless ideologue who never should have been appointed, let alone confirmed.


56 posted on 03/30/2012 1:07:34 PM PDT by pieceofthepuzzle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
Actually, Rush got it wrong here. This quote is from the third day of arguments which had nothing to do with the Commerce Clause or with the individual mandate. The issue was whether the expansion of Medicare was "coercing" the states.

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.

57 posted on 03/30/2012 1:08:07 PM PDT by etcb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Speechless...


58 posted on 03/30/2012 1:33:30 PM PDT by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously, you won't live through it anyway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tumblindice

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.


59 posted on 03/30/2012 1:36:14 PM PDT by DJtex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

1). Where did you get the money?
2). Why are the poor people poor?
3). Who paid for the boat?


60 posted on 03/30/2012 1:36:14 PM PDT by IronJack (=)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

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.


61 posted on 03/30/2012 1:55:15 PM PDT by kaehurowing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

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.


62 posted on 03/30/2012 1:57:06 PM PDT by Tenlein
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: 21twelve

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!


63 posted on 03/30/2012 1:58:40 PM PDT by fremont_steve
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: tumblindice

You can’t make this stuff up!


64 posted on 03/30/2012 2:01:51 PM PDT by JaguarXKE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

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.)


65 posted on 03/30/2012 2:02:44 PM PDT by IbJensen (We now have a government requiring citizens prove they are insured but not that they are citizens.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin; Red Steel; David; theothercheek; GreatOne; AJFavish; Sean Hannity; holdonnow; ...
Maybe Kagan doesn't want to contemplate the coercion factor in the individual mandate, but she'll understand what mandates and coercion really mean if Congress passes a statutory mandate compelling federal judges, under a penalty of a heavy fine or even impeachment, from sitting on cases in which they had previously advocated for or funded or otherwise worked for one of the parties in the controversy before the Court. In other words, voluntary recusal of a judge should be replaced by mandatory recusal in such instances!
66 posted on 03/30/2012 2:05:03 PM PDT by justiceseeker93
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

She should then tell us what clause permits the federal government to drop a boatload of cash on anyone.


67 posted on 03/30/2012 2:13:59 PM PDT by Daveinyork
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
Correction to my post # 66:

The word "compelling" should be replaced by "prohibiting".

68 posted on 03/30/2012 2:17:02 PM PDT by justiceseeker93
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Those “boatloads of free money” are being borrowed from China in the name of WE THE PEOPLE, whose kids and grand-kids will have to pay it back... that is, if the country survives in spite of the vicious leftist Commies like 0bama and his obedient Pet Rock, “Justice” BagLady Kagan.

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...?

69 posted on 03/30/2012 2:20:06 PM PDT by Gritty (Liberalism's view is like the Dar al-Islam: Once they hold this land, they hold it forever-Mk Steyn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Apparently they gave her the job because she is a gay woman and not for her brain?


70 posted on 03/30/2012 2:22:57 PM PDT by chris_bdba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Elena Kagan: How Can Giving a Boatload of Money to Poor People be Unconstitutional?

What a stupid toad!

71 posted on 03/30/2012 2:25:58 PM PDT by WeatherGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: depressed in 06

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.


72 posted on 03/30/2012 2:28:07 PM PDT by manc (Marriage is between one man and one woman,It's not a conservative view but a true American view)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: MrB

and where does she think the Govt’s money comes from.

She’s a complete idiot who needs to be removed from the court


73 posted on 03/30/2012 2:30:02 PM PDT by manc (Marriage is between one man and one woman,It's not a conservative view but a true American view)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: justiceseeker93; Kaslin; Red Steel; David; theothercheek; GreatOne; AJFavish; Sean Hannity; ...

” In other words, voluntary recusal of a judge should be replaced by mandatory recusal in such instances! “

Indeed!


74 posted on 03/30/2012 2:31:27 PM PDT by stephenjohnbanker (God, family, country, mom, apple pie, the girl next door and a Ford F250 to pull my boat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: goodnesswins

And she’s FUGLY too!


75 posted on 03/30/2012 2:31:49 PM PDT by greenhornet68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: depressed in 06; ExTexasRedhead; Nachum; LucyT
Does anyone believe that Kagan has not called DumBO with the results?

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.

76 posted on 03/30/2012 2:32:17 PM PDT by MamaDearest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: MamaDearest

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


77 posted on 03/30/2012 2:33:56 PM PDT by manc (Marriage is between one man and one woman,It's not a conservative view but a true American view)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: greenhornet68

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.


78 posted on 03/30/2012 2:33:56 PM PDT by Scotswife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

As Kagan goes, so goes the boatload!

79 posted on 03/30/2012 2:34:57 PM PDT by Focault's Pendulum (If Obama was any more thin skinned, he'd have a receptacle end: Dennis Miller)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

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.


80 posted on 03/30/2012 2:38:51 PM PDT by Secret Agent Man (I'd like to tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: justiceseeker93

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.


81 posted on 03/30/2012 2:41:23 PM PDT by freekitty (Give me back my conservative vote; then find me a real conservative to vote for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Catsrus
Kagan is dumber than a box of rocks. My apologies to a box of rocks. How this woman ever became a SC judge mystifies me.

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:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/kagan-confirmation-vote/

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.

82 posted on 03/30/2012 2:50:27 PM PDT by JediJones (The Divided States of Obama's Declaration of Dependence: Death, Taxes and the Pursuit of Crappiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: justiceseeker93

Yes, it should be mandatory


83 posted on 03/30/2012 2:55:08 PM PDT by GeronL (The Right to Life came before the Right to Pursue Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

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?


84 posted on 03/30/2012 3:11:12 PM PDT by ridesthemiles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

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.


85 posted on 03/30/2012 3:23:31 PM PDT by manc (Marriage is between one man and one woman,It's not a conservative view but a true American view)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: DesertRhino

Exactly, where does she think this money comes from?


86 posted on 03/30/2012 3:29:21 PM PDT by HollyB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: manc

She is a stooge, a plant


87 posted on 03/30/2012 3:30:29 PM PDT by GeronL (The Right to Life came before the Right to Pursue Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

on that I have no doubt


88 posted on 03/30/2012 3:31:11 PM PDT by manc (Marriage is between one man and one woman,It's not a conservative view but a true American view)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Catsrus

She’s not just clueless, she’s a political animal. Not fit for our nation’s highest court.


89 posted on 03/30/2012 3:32:54 PM PDT by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

This cow will probably be on the bench until she is in her 80’s or drops dead. I vote for ah, never mind..


90 posted on 03/30/2012 3:55:56 PM PDT by Leep (Enemy of the Statist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

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.


91 posted on 03/30/2012 3:58:17 PM PDT by qaz123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

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.

/SARCASM/


92 posted on 03/30/2012 4:04:56 PM PDT by ripley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: manc

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 ...


93 posted on 03/30/2012 4:10:19 PM PDT by Neidermeyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ScottinVA

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.


94 posted on 03/30/2012 4:17:54 PM PDT by djf (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2801220/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: billorites

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.


95 posted on 03/30/2012 4:18:46 PM PDT by JudgemAll (Democrats Fed. job-security Whorocracy & hate:hypocrites must be gay like us or be tested/crucified)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: F15Eagle

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.


96 posted on 03/30/2012 4:21:23 PM PDT by JudgemAll (Democrats Fed. job-security Whorocracy & hate:hypocrites must be gay like us or be tested/crucified)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: MamaDearest; vette6387; flat; unkus; JLAGRAYFOX; Clintonfatigued; ZULU; bevperl; IrishMike; ...

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?


97 posted on 03/30/2012 4:40:30 PM PDT by ExTexasRedhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: FlingWingFlyer

Very frightening and likely quite representative of the elite’s cognitive abilities generally.


98 posted on 03/30/2012 4:45:03 PM PDT by Jay Santos CP ("Idiocracy"... It's no longer just a movie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ExTexasRedhead

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.


99 posted on 03/30/2012 4:49:56 PM PDT by Clintonfatigued (A chameleon belongs in a pet store, not the White House)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: ExTexasRedhead
Everyone take note of the absolute silence out of the spineless, gutless eunuchs in Congress regarding Kagan’s not recusing herself.

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...

100 posted on 03/30/2012 4:54:34 PM PDT by okie01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-118 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson