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

Skip to comments.

I'm getting a bad feeling about all of this.

Posted on 04/03/2012 1:44:05 PM PDT by servo1969

If there's one thing that Obama is a master at it's lying.

With that in mind I'm starting to feel really apprehensive about the SCOTUS vote on Obamacare.

I hate to say it but what if he's won?
What if he's managed to flip one of the judges (or didn't even have to)?
What if he's been informed by Kagan or Sotomayor that it's in the bag?
What if all these little statements to the press are just him loading the bases for a grand slam in June? So he can look Large and In Charge to all his minions?

I hate to be defeatist but I'm getting a sinking feeling in my stomach.

Jeez. If I have any grandkids they're gonna have to celebrate this c*cks*ckers birthday in school.


TOPICS: Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: healthcare; obama; obamacare; scotus; vanity
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-108 last
To: PhiloBedo
Thank you for the reference. It is as you say.

I wonder, was there any call for Rehnquist to recuse himself, at the time?

Are the Justices exempt from having to recuse themselves?


I'm no expert on the subject (for lack of time and resources, I'm mainly using the Wiki articles here) although I do have some exposure to it; from what I understand, there was a lot of criticism of Rehnquist and his refusal to recuse himself; the wiki article on Laird v. Tatum discusses that subject very briefly.

The Supreme Court justices are not exempt from having to recuse themselves and have done so on any number of occasions. Again, the wiki article on recusal contains a decent discussion of when a Supreme Court justice will recuse him/her self along with a number of different instances in which particular justices have recused themselves. Frequently, they will recuse themselves when they have a financial interest that might be implicated in a decision, or when they are related to a party or an attorney in a case.

Whether a Supreme Court justice can be forced to recuse him/her self, or be punished for failing to recuse him/her self, I do not know; however, I would hazard a guess that in a sufficiently egregious case, the Chief Justice, or the most senior Associate Justice, might refer the matter to the Congress with the suggestion that the matter was a proper subject for impeachment hearings. But that's just my own wild speculation.
101 posted on 04/03/2012 6:38:01 PM PDT by Oceander (TINSTAAFL - Mother Nature Abhors a Free Lunch almost as much as She Abhors a Vacuum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: melancholy
Kagan or Sotomayor in a losing effort may try to establish their bona fides.

They aren't that smart.

102 posted on 04/03/2012 7:39:54 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (Over half of U.S. murders are of black people, and 90% of them are committed by other black people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: servo1969

Do you remember the SCOTUS decision on reverse-discrimination from the University Of Michigan students?

Need I say more?


103 posted on 04/03/2012 9:45:16 PM PDT by spel_grammer_an_punct_polise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stephenjohnbanker

Yours is the traditionally, historically correct response but I think these people are so far beyond the pale that they will let this thing get by them just like Hitler and the fellas’ let things get away from them.


104 posted on 04/04/2012 5:11:47 AM PDT by TalBlack ( Evil doesn't have a day job.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: stephenjohnbanker

Yours is the traditionally, historically correct response but I think these people are so far beyond the pale that they will let this thing get by them just like Hitler and the fellas’ let things get away from them.


105 posted on 04/04/2012 5:12:18 AM PDT by TalBlack ( Evil doesn't have a day job.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: TalBlack

” Yours is the traditionally, historically correct response but I think these people are so far beyond the pale that they will let this thing get by them just like Hitler and the fellas’ let things get away from them.”

I could very well be wrong. I hope not.


106 posted on 04/04/2012 8:37:54 AM 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 104 | View Replies]

To: fatnotlazy

Excising the mandate and retaining the rest is akin to removing the entire first floor (supports included) of a high-rise building - what’s left won’t just stay where it is. Either the court goes thru the entire TWO THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED pages (and that’s just the list of changes to existing law, that doesn’t represent the entire relevant US Code which must be analyzed) and makes whatever adjustments they either assume Congress intended (telepathy is not in their job description) or they want (to wit: judicial activism), or they chuck the whole thing and tell Congress to try again. As more than one judge indicated active opposition to the prospect of merely reading the whole thing, and as the mandate is the premise for much of what remains, full overturn is the only option.

I am looking forward to Thomas’ opinion. It will use the verdict as a jumping-off point for addressing & virtually setting precedent on related issues. I would not be surprised if he DID read all 2700 pages, and will issue a scathing microscopic review of the whole thing.


107 posted on 04/04/2012 8:51:08 AM PDT by ctdonath2 ($1 meals: http://abuckaplate.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: dforest
There is a precedence, Social Security.

Yup. I was keen on NOT signing my kids up for it (let them decide their own involvement), but the ~$20,000 cumulative tax credit loss (to wit: penalty) each was rather persuasive.

And I expect that will be the model for the replacement. Sign up for qualifying health insurance, and the IRS will give you a 100% refundable tax credit. No penalty, but no excuse to not get coverage.

108 posted on 04/04/2012 9:00:27 AM PDT by ctdonath2 ($1 meals: http://abuckaplate.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-108 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