Day One of the Supreme Court ObamaCare Hearings

The SCOTUS decision is going to be a nail-bitter. Many feel that the individual mandate will be struck down in a 5 to 4 decision; the 4-conservatives on the bench plus Judge Kennedy against the 4-liberals on the bench, which include Sotomayor and Kagen appointed by Obama just for this fight, even though Justice Kagan breaks federal law in order to force ObamaCare on the American people. Ron Paul Suspects Supreme Court Will Rule “Monstrosity” Obamacare Constitutional and Charles Krauthammer said on the first day of hearings that the Supreme Court does not like to overturn or cause the overturning of large pieces of legislation. However, even some of the liberal Supreme Court Judges Appear Skeptical On Obama’s Defense Of ObamaCare We shall see. And unwinding this monster will be a mess no matter what SCOTUS decides or which method with use.

On a side note, we should also remember that during the 2008 campaign, Obama vehemently opposed Hillary Clinton's reform plan because of its inclusion of mandate. Four years later, his administration is in court defending the precise policy he opposed. This was not a minor or superficial distinction between Obama and his former Democratic rival; it was one of the brightest lines Obama drew to separate the two campaigns' (relatively similar) approaches to government expansionism. As this Buzzfeed video demonstrates, this was a point candidate.

Video: Obama Argues Against Obamacare

--> Listen to Audio of Supreme Court over Obamacare  <--

Video: Obama Lawyer Laughed at In Supreme Court

Why Justice Clarence Thomas Should Not (Needn’t) Recuse Himself… and Why Justice Elena Kagan Should (Must)

Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images

This question is all about politics, not ethics: If neither Thomas or his wife has a "fiduciary interest" in the case, Justice Thomas is in the clear, says Doug Mataconis in Outside the Beltway. But this isn't about legal ethics, it's an attempt to "deflect attention" from Sen. Orrin Hatch's call for liberal Justice Elena Kagan to recuse herself because of her previous work as Obama's Solicitor General. And unlike the Democrats' "phony" case against Thomas, Hatch has "at least an argument" that Kagan should sit this out.
"House Democrats call on Justice Thomas to recuse himself..."

Let's leave all spouses alone: "I get that this is mostly just rhetorical jousting," since Thomas won't recuse himself voluntarily and nobody can make him, says Kevin Drum in Mother Jones. But either way, "it's a bad idea" to argue that "judges' spouses need to be apolitical creatures or that judges are responsible for what their spouses do." That hurts women a lot more than men, and if it's true, why not ban all lawmakers' spouses from political activism, too?
"Keep spouses out of it"

Justice Elena Kagan was directly involved, herself, with ObamaCare. So, Justice Kagen Should Recuse Herself From ObamaCare Case This is 100% different from the Clarence Thomas situation.

Excerpt:

Federal law requires Supreme Court justices to recuse from a case if they had earlier "participated as counsel" in the case. Justice Kagan did just that when she was Obama's solicitor general, but has never explained why she believes she is nevertheless justified in sitting on the case under this standard.

Last week Tucker Carlson, who just hired Ginni Thomas for staff on the Daily Caller, said the same thing on Hannity.  He said he saw no reason for Justice Thomas to recuse himself unless the Thomas’s are receiving fiduciary compensation. (In recent weeks, the site has picked up some high-profile new employees, including former Slate and Newsweek blogger Mickey Kaus.)

Thomas is no political shrinking violet. She’s made her name most recently as a conservative advocate and de facto lobbyist — publicly offering her services to clients of the advocacy group Liberty Central and its partner the Patrick Henry Center for Individual Liberty. She’s the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, vocally opposes the health care reform law, and worked in 2010 to elect Republicans to Congress.  But many (maybe most) in Washington are married to people who are in one way or another involved or working either in one of the 3-branches of government, in support or lobbying concerns, CIA or FBI or security related departments or in the media.

The only way that Justice Thomas would be required to recuse himself under this canon would be if his wife has a fiduciary interest of some kind in the outcome of the litigation or if she falls under one of the provisions of subsection (d). The fact that she may be affiliated with a Tea Party group that has taken a position on the Affordable Care Act is not, in and of itself, sufficient to meet the requirements of Canon 3(C)(1), and anyone with a modicum of training in legal ethics would know that.

Recusal is on a case by case basis and unfortunately up to the judge to recuse themselves.  However in this case… the Obama administration knew of the conflict with Kagan and her recusal should have been provision of her confirmation.

The upcoming decision on ObamaCare is not only over changing the quality of healthcare in America, it is about how much power the government has (will have) over Americans to make us buy whatever they choose, if this is not over-turned. It will also give the federal government control over one-sixth of the budget of the United States. Look at their record… does anyone believe they are capable of that responsibility? Just like social security now… in the not so distant future there will be no money in the coffers for anyone’s (but a chosen few) to get healthcare… let alone decent healthcare or anything like what Americans have now.

Kagan was a guaranteed vote for the White House for the administration in case the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act ended up there. Kagan is ineligible to vote on this case and the White House always knew that. But the Congress did not do their job….

Kagan should (must) recuse herself.  Thomas should (need) not. Some pressure from the other judges might help… Encourage them!

Ask Marion~ 

Related:

The Agenda Project:  Supreme Control

Kagen: Liberal Supreme

Judiciary Committee Probes Kagan’s Role in ObamaCare at GOP’s Request

Elena Kagan Tied to Obama’s Birth Certificate

Papers Prepared to Disbar Kagan

Video: The Other Barak? (Aharon Barak)

Video: Kagan: Constitution Was Meant To Be "Interpreted Over Time" from RCP Video on Vimeo.

Every American Concerned With Health Care Needs to Read This Conversation

Justice Kagan should recuse herself from Obamacare case

This spring the U.S. Supreme Court will decide what may well be the case of the century -- the constitutional challenge to Obamacare. But will the case be heard by eight or nine justices?

Before the health care law was even passed, the Department of Justice had been meeting to develop a strategy for defending the law from constitutional attack. Involved in this effort was none other than Elena Kagan, now the newest Obama appointee to the Supreme Court.

See Video at: ObamaCare: Recuse Kagan! - Dick Morris TV Lunch Alert

Federal law requires Supreme Court justices to recuse from a case if they had earlier "participated as counsel" in the case. Justice Kagan did just that when she was Obama's solicitor general, but has never explained why she believes she is nevertheless justified in sitting on the case under this standard.

One simply can't be the coach and referee in the same game. At best, knowing the playbook will color your judgment, and at worst, you'll be on the lookout for chances to give your former team an advantage.

Here are the facts. It took two lawsuits to get "the most transparent administration in history" to release emails detailing Kagan's involvement in the Obamacare defense. Those emails show that, in a highly unusual move, she ordered her staff to become involved in the defense before the law was even passed.

Perhaps this turn of events is explained by the fact that, upon passage of Obamacare, Kagan's reaction to a confidant was "I hear they have the votes, Larry!! Simply amazing."

Possibly most damning is the fact that Kagan received privileged internal strategy about the case. We know this because the Obama administration redacted portions of Kagan's emails under a Freedom of Information Act exemption that specifically prevents the disclosure of government deliberations.

Kagan is prohibited from sharing that privileged information even with her colleagues on the Supreme Court when they in turn deliberate on Obamacare.

In sum, Kagan's direction of the administration's defense, as well as her inclusion in "let's run this by the boss" discussions about the government's strategy, constitute more than enough participation as counsel to require her recusal under the law.

To be fair, as the calls for Kagan's recusal have intensified, some have rushed to her defense, suggesting that she had insulated herself sufficiently from her office's defense of Obamacare.

Her deputy at the Solicitor General's Office, Neal Katyal, has said that she was "walled off from Day One." Why anyone thought Obama's top lawyer had to be walled off of such a monumental case in the first place is revealing in itself.

In any event Katyal apparently breached that wall with impunity by suggesting that she attend Obamacare strategy meetings, by promising to bring her in such meetings "as needed," and by copying her on internal emails discussing defense strategies.

Or perhaps Katyal simply regarded "Day One" as occurring later in the process, such as after the Obamacare challenges were actually filed or after Kagan was put on the short list for a Supreme Court nomination.

But by those times Kagan was already too involved in the government's defense to later sit on the case as a judge. Legally speaking, pre-suit participation in a case still triggers recusal.

The stakes cannot be higher. The Supreme Court will determine whether the federal government has the power to mandate that every American purchase and maintain government-approved insurance from birth until death - all in the name of regulating interstate commerce.

With such a closely divided court, it may all come down to Justice Kagan's vote, but her vote is too tainted. To preserve the integrity of our Supreme Court on the most important case of the century, Justice Kagan should recuse.

Carrie Severino is policy director and chief counsel of the Judicial Crisis Network.

 

By:Carrie Severino | 11/27/11 8:05 PM l Op-Ed Contributor - Washington Examiner

ObamaCare… the Gift that just keeps on Giving~

JUDICIARY COMMITTEE PROBES JUSTICE KAGAN‘S ROLE IN OBAMACARE...

The House Judiciary Committee has launched an inquiry into Associate Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan’s involvement in the health care overhaul at the request of 49 Republican House members.

The probe will examine whether Kagan, who served as President Barack Obama’s solicitor general prior to her Supreme Court nomination, will be required to recuse herself for cases challenging the health care law, and the accuracy of her answers to the Senate Judiciary Committee during her confirmation hearings last July, CNS News reported.

In a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder on Wednesday, House Judiciary Chair Lamar Smith (R-Texas) requested “relevant documents and witness interviews in order to properly understand U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Elena Kagan’s involvement in health care legislation or litigation while serving as United States Solicitor General.” Smith requested they be made available by July 29.

Federal law bars Supreme Court justices from being involved in cases where their impartiality could be questioned or they previously served in an advisory capacity related to the case at hand.

Rep. John Fleming (R-La.) led 48 of his Republican colleagues in a letter to Smith and House Judiciary Committee ranking member John Conyers (D-Mich.) on June 24, pointing to statements made during her hearings the House members called “contradictory” to released Justice Department documents and urging an investigation.

Kagan said in written responses to the Senate Judiciary Committee that she had no involvement in developing the government’s legal responses to the health care law and was never asked her views or offered them, according to the Washington Times.

Fleming issued a statement Thursday applauding Smith’s request to Holder:

“I am confident that this investigation will uncover even more evidence that Justice Kagan was involved in Obamacare defense activities, contrary to her Senate confirmation testimony. How can any reasonable person believe that Justice Kagan can be impartial on ANY Obamacare case if she was involved in formulating a defense of this destructive law?

Video:  Rep. Fleming Discusses Call For Kagan Investigation

Posted on July 7, 2011 at 2:49pm by Madeleine Morgenstern

Source:  The Blaze

SCHEDULED MEDICARE PREMIUM INCREASES

For those of  you who are on  Medicare, read the article below. It is about the monthly amount of money you are going to pay  in Medicare premiums in 2011, 2012 and the huge  increase you will pay in 2013. It's  a short but important  article:

Congress will not allow an increase in the social  security COLA (cost of living adjustment); however,  the per  person monthly Medicare insurance premiums are being  increased as follows: 

2009 premium of  $96.40

2012 premium of  $104.20 

2013 premium of  $120.20

And increases to a whopping  $247.00 in 2014!

Thank You  Obamacare!

Congress also gave themselves a $3,000 a  month Cost of Living Adjustment!
Send this to all  seniors that you know.

REMEMBER TO VOTE IN NOVEMBER  2012

And in the meantime you might consider moving from AARP, who sold seniors out for profit on ObamaCare, to the ASA or AMAC.  Just like hating Progressivism and what it is doing to America, you can’t talk about changing it and about making a difference and then buy Progressive Insurance.  You gotta help starve the Beast!!

For anyone who missed the Progressive Insurance information:

Friends it is important that we have and share information like this…I would not be sending this out to you if it had not been confirmed by Snopes.com and Truthorfiction.com.

BTW, Snopes is also a leftist group that receives Soros funds, so be aware when checking.  The aren’t always accurate or truthful, but got this one right!

You’ve seen and smiled at the Progressive Insurance TV commercials.
Well, you’re about to learn the rest of the story:

PROGRESSIVE AUTO INSURANCE

You know their TV commercials, the ones featuring the
actress all dressed in white. What you might not know is that the Chairman of Progressive is Peter Lewis, one of the major funders of leftist causes in America . Between 2001 and 2003, Lewis funneled $15 million to the ACLU, the group most responsible for destroying what's left of Americas Judeo-Christian heritage. Lewis also gave $12.5 million to MoveOn.org and American Coming Together, two key propaganda arms of the socialist left. His funding for these groups was conditional on matching contributions from George Soros, the America-hating socialist who is the chief financier of the Obama political machine.

Lewis made a fortune as a result of capitalism, but now finances a progressive movement that threatens to destroy the American free enterprise system that is targeting television shows on Fox News.

Peter Lewis is making a fortune off of conservative Americans (who buy his auto insurance) that he applies to dismantle the very system that made him wealthy. He's banking on no one finding out who he is, so, STOP buying Progressive Insurance and pass this information on to all your friends.

Verify at Snopes:  http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/peterlewis.asp
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/a/aclu-lewis.htm

Cross-Posted By Blogger to True Health Is True Wealth and Daily Thought Pad at 7/09/2011 11:41:00 AM

Related:

Obama Fixed Medicare With Rationing

Senate Confirms Elena Kagan As Newest Supreme Court Justice… Another Nail in America’s Coffin

Papers Prepped to Disbar Elena Kagan

Dirty Little Secret:  Rationing is at Heart of ObamaCare

The 10 Worst States for Retirees

JUDICIARY COMMITTEE PROBES JUSTICE KAGAN‘S ROLE IN OBAMACARE AT GOP’S REQUEST

The House Judiciary Committee has launched an inquiry into Associate Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan’s involvement in the health care overhaul at the request of 49 Republican House members.

The probe will examine whether Kagan, who served as President Barack Obama’s solicitor general prior to her Supreme Court nomination, will be required to recuse herself for cases challenging the health care law, and the accuracy of her answers to the Senate Judiciary Committee during her confirmation hearings last July, CNS News reported.

In a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder on Wednesday, House Judiciary Chair Lamar Smith (R-Texas) requested “relevant documents and witness interviews in order to properly understand U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Elena Kagan’s involvement in health care legislation or litigation while serving as United States Solicitor General.” Smith requested they be made available by July 29.

Federal law bars Supreme Court justices from being involved in cases where their impartiality could be questioned or they previously served in an advisory capacity related to the case at hand.

Rep. John Fleming (R-La.) led 48 of his Republican colleagues in a letter to Smith and House Judiciary Committee ranking member John Conyers (D-Mich.) on June 24, pointing to statements made during her hearings the House members called “contradictory” to released Justice Department documents and urging an investigation.

Kagan said in written responses to the Senate Judiciary Committee that she had no involvement in developing the government’s legal responses to the health care law and was never asked her views or offered them, according to the Washington Times.

Fleming issued a statement Thursday applauding Smith’s request to Holder:

“I am confident that this investigation will uncover even more evidence that Justice Kagan was involved in Obamacare defense activities, contrary to her Senate confirmation testimony. How can any reasonable person believe that Justice Kagan can be impartial on ANY Obamacare case if she was involved in formulating a defense of this destructive law?

Video:  Rep. Fleming Discusses Call For Kagan Investigation

Posted on July 7, 2011 at 2:49pm by Madeleine Morgenstern

Source:  The Blaze