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 ...
Trying to rig the courts like his National Socialist Democrat predecessor, FDR.
FUBO & FAD
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.
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.
If anyone needs to recuse itself it it Kagan, not Thomas
Kagan is a solid vote for Commicare.
That is what the Dems want.
Kagan will not recuse herself willingly. They are “above” things like “conflicts of interest”.
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.
“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.
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.
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
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.
KAGAN must recuse herself! Yeah! I know.
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.
A pox on the RINO’s and wimp republicans for not nixing Kagan’s nomination. Sotomeyer too for that matter.
If Justice Thomas recuses himself we might as well nullify the 19th amendment.
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.
How is working for the president for the healthcare the same as SUPPORTING groups that oppose it? There does the power lie?
I was referring to Mrs. Thomas - she has a Constitutional right to vote without regard to her husband’s job.
Oh! My mistake. In that case your post made no sense. Like mine, consequently.
As you were, then....
I think you are correct. Kagan should recuse.
Thomas is a red herring
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
I dont understand...every time someone mentions this Kagan woman, they post a picture of Kevin James?
Scalia should point it out.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
Does Ruth Buzzi Ginsberg recuse herself whenever the ACLU is involved with a case?
I bet Janet Napolitano would like to have a private consultation....
See post 12.
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.
