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

Skip to comments.

Kagan, Thomas Targeted in Hopes of Swaying Supreme Court's Health Care Ruling
FOX News.com ^ | October 2, 2011

Posted on 10/02/2011 3:05:54 PM PDT by Kaslin

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court hasn't even agreed yet to take the case questioning the constitutionality of the individual mandate -- the centerpiece of President Obama's health care law -- but already arguments are lined up to remove justices from trying to weigh in on deliberations.

Justice Elena Kagan's role in the Obama administration as it was formulating the legal defense for the health care law disqualifies her from participating in the decision, say groups who call the former solicitor general incapable of being objective. Kagan says she was not involved in developing the legal strategy of the Affordable Care Act, but opponents of the law have requested records of the administration's deliberation process to see who participated.

Conversely, liberal groups and some Democrats in Congress say Justice Clarence Thomas can't be jurisprudent because his wife worked for organizations that actively opposed the health care law. On Thursday, 20 House Democrats requested a federal investigation into whether Thomas broke federal disclosure laws by not listing his wife's pay on a disclosure form for 21 years -- even though her job at the time was no secret.

"The forms are simple and straightforward. Given that we now know he correctly completed them in at least five earlier years, it's hardly plausible -- indeed it's close to unbelievable -- that Justice Thomas did not understand the instructions," said Common Cause President Bob Edgar.

On Thursday, the Obama administration requested the court take up the case and deliver its verdict by June 2012, as Obama and his Republican opponent gear up for the fall campaign. That request got the backing of retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, suggesting that the court could be inclined to take it.

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Front Page News; Government
KEYWORDS: commicare; democrats; kagan; liberalfascism; obama; obamacare; scotus; thomas

1 posted on 10/02/2011 3:05:58 PM PDT by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Trying to rig the courts like his National Socialist Democrat predecessor, FDR.

FUBO & FAD


2 posted on 10/02/2011 3:09:36 PM PDT by RJS1950 (The democrats are the "enemies foreign and domestic" cited in the federal oath)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Conservatives have a tendency to "go the extra mile" and avoid any possible appearance of impropriety.
Liberals, on the other hand, couldn't care less.

I worry that Thomas will recuse and that Kagan will not. I also worry that the two will make a deal: "I'll recuse if you recuse" and then Kagan will back out after Thomas publicly says he will recuse. I put nothing past these power-hungry slimeballs.

3 posted on 10/02/2011 3:10:47 PM PDT by ClearCase_guy (The USSR spent itself into bankruptcy and collapsed -- and aren't we on the same path now?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

I think 0bama and 0bamacare are finished not matter what the Supremes decide.

If they overturn it, the electorate will be all the more outraged that the Dems squandered so much getting this piece of crap legislation through...he loses.

If they uphold it, the PEOPLE are going to be even MORE motivated to head to the polls and elect those who WILL overturn it...he loses.


4 posted on 10/02/2011 3:11:46 PM PDT by SueRae (I can see November 2012 from my HOUSE!!!!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

If anyone needs to recuse itself it it Kagan, not Thomas


5 posted on 10/02/2011 3:12:47 PM PDT by Kaslin (Acronym for OBAMA: One Big Ass Mistake America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Kagan is a solid vote for Commicare.


6 posted on 10/02/2011 3:19:37 PM PDT by GeronL (The Right to Life came before the Right to Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

That is what the Dems want.

Kagan will not recuse herself willingly. They are “above” things like “conflicts of interest”.


7 posted on 10/02/2011 3:21:06 PM PDT by GeronL (The Right to Life came before the Right to Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
Neither one will recuse.
I suspect that the Court will strike down the individual mandate, and much of the rest will remain in tact.
The opinion will be fractured, without five justices all agreeing on very many points.
It will be a mess.
It will leave Obamacare unworkable and instantly terminal.
Congress will have no choice but to repeal it, and the rats will not be able to seriously argue for keeping the law as is without the mandate.
They won't have the support of the insurance companies this time around, that is for sure.
I hope I am wrong and all 4 conservatives plus Kennedy join together and strike the whole thing down.
It will be interesting.
8 posted on 10/02/2011 3:31:00 PM PDT by Clump (the tree of liberty is withering like a stricken fig tree)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SueRae

I agree. If we can vote in enough Repubs in both Houses and the WH, then this travesty can be overturned now matter what the Supreme Court does.


9 posted on 10/02/2011 3:31:30 PM PDT by Signalman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Clump

“I suspect that the Court will strike down the individual mandate, and much of the rest will remain in tact.”

What the Rats forgot in their haste to pass this, was to write an exclusion clause into the bill. From what I’ve learned, if ANY part of it is overturned, the whole thing goes...they can’t save parts of it.


10 posted on 10/02/2011 3:41:47 PM PDT by SueRae (I can see November 2012 from my HOUSE!!!!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin


11 posted on 10/02/2011 3:42:06 PM PDT by Iron Munro (Obama/Rangel/Pelosi Code of Ethics: Don’t do as I do. Do as I say.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SueRae

It’s true they did not put in a severability clause.
The problem is that there is ample precedent for the court implying severability even in the absence of such a clause.
I don’t agree with the practice, but it has been done before.


12 posted on 10/02/2011 3:49:54 PM PDT by Clump (the tree of liberty is withering like a stricken fig tree)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Clump

I don’t think they will do anything.

They didn’t uphold property rights, they didn’t sump all of Campaign Finance Reform when they had a chance (although a later case protected some free speech)

SCOTUS will not touch it I think


13 posted on 10/02/2011 4:03:03 PM PDT by GeronL (The Right to Life came before the Right to Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Kagan has already hinted she has no intention of recusing herself at Congressional hearings fer her confirmation saying she did not specifically work on the case law while she was Solicitor General.She need not have worked on the specific case law for her to have a conflict. She was in charge the strategy to defend the biggest piece of legislation the administration enacted.As such she has a conflict. Much like the madam of a brothel need not sleep with the customers to establish an interest in its survival.


14 posted on 10/02/2011 4:05:37 PM PDT by chuckee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

KAGAN must recuse herself! Yeah! I know.


15 posted on 10/02/2011 4:08:22 PM PDT by Don Corleone ("Oil the gun..eat the cannoli. Take it to the Mattress.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Kagan should recuse herself, if she has an ethical bone in her body, because of her work in writing the drafts of this monstrosity of a law. She cannot be impartial.

If this results in a 4-4 split in the judgment, so be it. A tie may not be a win, but it is no endorsement either.


16 posted on 10/02/2011 4:10:06 PM PDT by alloysteel (Are Democrats truly "better angels"? They are lousy stewards for America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

A pox on the RINO’s and wimp republicans for not nixing Kagan’s nomination. Sotomeyer too for that matter.


17 posted on 10/02/2011 4:15:59 PM PDT by prairiebreeze
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

If Justice Thomas recuses himself we might as well nullify the 19th amendment.


18 posted on 10/02/2011 4:16:46 PM PDT by greatvikingone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: greatvikingone

She’s on the court. She gets a vote no matter what. No matter how undeserving.

We owe a lot of pain and grief to the 19th.


19 posted on 10/02/2011 4:36:32 PM PDT by Cyber Liberty (I like both Perry and Palin, and will vote for whichever of them wins.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

How is working for the president for the healthcare the same as SUPPORTING groups that oppose it? There does the power lie?


20 posted on 10/02/2011 4:37:16 PM PDT by CincyRichieRich (Keep your head up and keep moving forward!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cyber Liberty

I was referring to Mrs. Thomas - she has a Constitutional right to vote without regard to her husband’s job.


21 posted on 10/02/2011 4:46:55 PM PDT by greatvikingone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: greatvikingone

Oh! My mistake. In that case your post made no sense. Like mine, consequently.

As you were, then....


22 posted on 10/02/2011 4:56:09 PM PDT by Cyber Liberty (I like both Perry and Palin, and will vote for whichever of them wins.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: alloysteel

I think you are correct. Kagan should recuse.
Thomas is a red herring


23 posted on 10/02/2011 5:07:04 PM PDT by aumrl (let's keep it real Conservatives)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

If you go back and look at US v. Lopez (1995) and US v. Morrison (1999) you will see that Kennedy believes in federalism.
We have a shot.


24 posted on 10/02/2011 6:57:11 PM PDT by Clump (the tree of liberty is withering like a stricken fig tree)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

The supreme court has already punted... it’s too late for them to do anything. We currently have the votes in the house to prevent Obamacare from being implemented.

Why aren’t they doing it?


25 posted on 10/02/2011 7:27:09 PM PDT by Safrguns
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Safrguns

Government (including all involved in it), begets government.

That’s the problem we are faced with.
And that’s where nearly all the candidates are coming from.


26 posted on 10/02/2011 7:40:05 PM PDT by Varsity Flight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Varsity Flight

Here is truth. The only one that can recuse himself is our beloved Clarence Thomas. He ain’t go’in anywhere!!! This law is going down like the Zeppelin. Go Clarence!! We love you man.


27 posted on 10/02/2011 8:18:14 PM PDT by PETENICK1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Clump

I am not a legal or constitutional scholar so bear with me while I ask this question.

I recall when the law was passed that “they” were saying the individual mandate could not be “removed” from the bill because of something called severability - and the Obamacare bill did not have it.

Is that still the case? Do things like that change?


28 posted on 10/02/2011 8:46:54 PM PDT by Personal Responsibility (Cain 2012!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Iron Munro

I dont understand...every time someone mentions this Kagan woman, they post a picture of Kevin James?


29 posted on 10/02/2011 8:57:30 PM PDT by SoCalTransplant (Old and Busted: Republican or Democrat? New Hotness: American or World Citizen?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: alloysteel
If this hog doesn't recuse herself she should be formally identified as a participant in the case as well as a judge.

Scalia should point it out.

30 posted on 10/02/2011 9:07:29 PM PDT by PA-RIVER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: alloysteel
A tie may not be a win, but it is no endorsement either.

I'm not sure about this, but I believe that if its a tie, it goes back to the last decision by the previous court before it got to SCOTUS, which, and again, I am not sure, would make this a victory.

31 posted on 10/02/2011 9:13:41 PM PDT by Sonny M ("oderint dum metuant")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

Don’t worry about Thomas. Unlike the RINOs and the rest of the GOP, Thomas has a spite and a set, and he isn’t one to cave or give in, if anything, this just ticks him off...............and unlike the left wing, I like it when he is angry.


32 posted on 10/02/2011 9:16:51 PM PDT by Sonny M ("oderint dum metuant")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Personal Responsibility
That's not really accurate.

There is a principle called "severability" that permits a law (or contract, or whatever) to survive even if one of its parts or provisions are tossed out. So, if the law expressly says that its provisions are severable, then tossing one provision means that the rest will definitely survive.

However, the lack of a severability provision does not require the entire law to be tossed just because part of it is stricken. A court may still imply some level of severability, preserving parts of the law even if some other parts are stricken down.

So what all of this means is that the lack of a severability clause means there is a chance the court will strike down the entire law if it strikes down the mandate, but that it is not necessarily required to do that. It could still permit some of it to survive.

I personally think there will be 5 votes to strike down the mandate, but that the tougher argument is going to be how much of the bill is permitted to survive if the mandate is striken.

33 posted on 10/02/2011 9:22:35 PM PDT by Bruce Campbells Chin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Iron Munro

From her pudgy neck up, Kagan is a man. Cover up the photo from the neck on down, and you would swear that this creature is a man. Another liberal Jew-in-name only. She is not part of God’s chosen people, but rather is a vile socialist commie pig, like George Soros. She will roast in hell along with other liberal Jews who in reality hate their religious ethnic heritgage and would just as soon see Israel destroyed and given over to the Palistinians.


34 posted on 10/03/2011 12:33:21 AM PDT by rcrngroup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Safrguns
Why aren’t they doing it?

Because the RiNO Establishment has already instructed Boehner to take a dive and see to it that Obamacare survives all political and legal challenges.

The S&P 500 firms and their CEO's who sit in the Business Roundtable and the Chamber have a huge stake in Obamacare. They want to use it as a repository for all the employees they intend to throw out of their employer-paid healthcare plans.

Howell Raines (ex-NYT editor with contacts all over kingdom come) wrote in 2008 that the deal had already been consummated in a back room before the 2008 election, and the RNC was just waiting to get the election out of the way. Apparently the enterprise-oriented policy think tanks were the communication and negotiation conduits, or so I got the impression from Raines's articles (yes, yes, not that he's the best source for information on something he's so invested in, as an ur-liberal golem himself).

35 posted on 10/03/2011 12:55:20 AM PDT by lentulusgracchus (Concealed carry is a pro-life position.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Does Ruth Buzzi Ginsberg recuse herself whenever the ACLU is involved with a case?


36 posted on 10/03/2011 4:37:03 AM PDT by PghBaldy (War Powers Res: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/warpower.asp)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rcrngroup
From her pudgy neck up, Kagan is a man. Cover up the photo from the neck on down, and you would swear that this creature is a man.

I bet Janet Napolitano would like to have a private consultation....


37 posted on 10/03/2011 6:59:03 AM PDT by Iron Munro (Obama/Rangel/Pelosi Code of Ethics: Don’t do as I do. Do as I say.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Personal Responsibility

See post 12.


38 posted on 10/03/2011 3:28:26 PM PDT by Clump (the tree of liberty is withering like a stricken fig tree)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

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