Healthcare Ruling: Individual Mandate Ruled CONSTITUTIONAL, entire law upheld.

Originally posted by Jedimind

Originally posted by Indigo5


Try this...pick an item you would like me to address...and be prepared to respond...and respond based on cited facts and evidence...and I will respond honestly to anything that he claimed in the laundry list

edit on 29-6-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-6-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)

No I won't 'try this'. I already presented a simple video (you don't have to watch the whole thing...even half gives you the basic idea) wherein Schiff cited facts and evidence so his work is done. If you want to rebut it have at it but I'm not going to hold your hand and walk you through the process.

He is rambling. Your unwillingness to choose even one of his claims for examination or debate speaks volumes.

reply to post by Xcathdra


Why are you not at all concerned with the fact that Judge Thomas did not recuse himself?

Originally posted by RainbeauBleu
reply to post by Classified Info

 

What do they do with people who are in auto accidents and severely injured if they don't accept medical help? Just wondering. The Amish don't use cars (or they didn't used to). Scientologists do. What's the hospital policy? Kill them? Let them die on a stretcher somewhere without care? Do they let the family take the mangled person home to let them die?

They are taken to the hospital and we all help pay for it.
No, they do not usually drive cars.
No, that does not stop them from being hit by cars.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher

The entire bill isn't magically converted into a revenue bill...one part of the bill was upheld Constitutional because it is a tax, and always was a tax.

If enforcement of the mandate was, as you say, always a tax please answer me this:

Why did the Supreme Court take the case?

A tax must be fully enacted before it is allowed to be brought before the SCOTUS.

Did the POTUS lie?

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


uhm, ok.

Would the right honorable gentleman from the great state of denial yield for a question?

Im not sure if you are just blatantly ignoring the law and what she stated. The law is clear, as are her words and the conflict of interest. As dar as the typical "propoganda / disinformation" statement how about you try harder and actually refute what I posted, instead of relying on that tired cliche people use when they cant refuite the facts,

I supported my position with the offical transcript as well as the Federal statute that applies to her. I guess with so many lies coming out of this Administration I should not be surprised his nominee would lie as well. Even those who support the law in the extreme aren't above lying by trying to parse words, interpret the ruling and claim this is not a tax, even though the Supreme court stated it was.

So far you have not addressed the facts I raised, instead you are ignoring them. When you figure out how to make your argument using facts instead of obfuscation get back to me

Originally posted by habitforming
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

Why are you not at all concerned with the fact that Judge Thomas did not recuse himself?

Fair point... He should have, when the 74 Democrats called for him to recuse himself, complied and recused himself. Title 28 455 does apply to the justices, and Chief Justice Roberts stated as much when he addressed this particular issue .

His reasoning was because there is no higher court to determine if a Justice should recuse themself, allowing a higher court juge to sit in their place, it is up to the individual justice to decide for themselves. The problem with that position is exactly what we see in this ruling with Thomas and Kagan.

* - A lobbyist wife
* - A former solicator general

Both are conflicts of interest, both should have recused themselves.

My issue with Roberts comments and positions is it guts the law, a law that is in place for a reason. Relying on an individual to determine their own conflict of interest is like a police officer killing someone and justifying his actions without any other eyes looking to make sure it was the right call or not.

I find it disconcerting that the Supreme Court, the top court in the land, would willingly ignore a law that applies to them and then suggest there is no way to enforce it.

A soluion to this probelm was suggest by Rep. Leahey and I think its an interesting one that deserves serious consideration. His suggestion was to allow retired justices to be able to fill in for a justice who had to recuse themself from a case.

Absent that, and with the current view on the recuasl law and self determination, essentially creates a situation akin to the SS investigating Auschwitz.

Sometimes its difficult to see the trees while standing in the middle of the forest. In this case we had 2 justices who failed to police themselves.

So yes, both Justices should have recused themselves from this case.

Question for you -
Do you think both justices should have recused themselves?

reply to post by SeesFar


Not just small business. If they have their way,even MickyD's will not exist.

reply to post by SeesFar


Tricare will be defunded.

The Administration threatened to veto the defense appropriations bill unless in includes significant hikes in healthcare fees on service members.
The Washington Free Beacon reported:

The Obama administration on Friday threatened to veto a defense appropriations bill in part because it does not include higher health care fees for members of the military.

www.thegatewaypundit.com...

reply to post by habitforming


Hypocritical much? I had an indepth response however decided I was not going to sink to your level and drag the thread off topic. You are doing so well at it you dont need anyone elses assitance. Here is an idea, how about you actually answer the question I posed to you when I responded, in depth, to your question.

Maybe this time you can answer the question instead of attacking and evading?

On the off chance you missed it, as you were busy attacking the poster because you cant refute the facts, is do you think both justices should recuse themselves? If not or only 1 why?

Do you think its riht of the DOJ to ignore FOIA requests, violating the law, by refusing to release documents on Kagans involvement in the governments case on Obamacare?

Do you think the DOJ should be investigated for violating the FOIA law since their refusal to release documents come no where close to the exemptions for national security in place?

reply to post by Kituwa


Nothing like holding the government hostage by using deceptive actions to raise taxes.

I think Congress should do what Obama wants while at the same time attacking another measure that would force the entire executive branch over to Obamcare and off their government plans.

reply to post by Xcathdra


At any time you are free to post a quote of her saying "I will recuse myself from the ACA ruling".

Go ahead...I'll wait.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

At any time you are free to post a quote of her saying "I will recuse myself from the ACA ruling".

Go ahead...I'll wait.

No problem.. What part confuses you so we can help you understand?

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
Please go find a source that says Kagan promised to recuse herself.

Ironic that once e metthe challenge and proved you wrong that you are now once againt trying to parse words.



Justice Department Resists Releasing Records That Could Shed Light on Whether Justice Kagan Needs to Recuse Herself from Health Care Case - Feb 14th 2011

Federal law mandates that a Supreme Court justice must recuse herself from a case if she previously expressed an opinion about its merits while in government service.

At the time that President Obama signed his health-care reform law, Kagan was serving as President Obama’s solicitor general and President Obama had not yet nominated her to the Supreme Court.

Kagan’s job as solicitor general was to defend the administration’s position in federal court cases. On March 23, 2010, the day Obama signed his health-care reform law—and seven weeks before Obama would nominate Kagan to the Supreme Court--Florida and Virginia filed suit against the law in federal court challenging its constitutionality. Also on that day, 12 states joined Florida in its suit against the law.

Kagan was Obama’s solicitor general at a time when Obama’s most significant legislative accomplishment was being constitutionally challenged in a federal court system at whose pinnacle she now sits--on the very panel that must ultimately settle the challenges.

In a questionnaire that she filled out for the Senate Judiciary Committee prior to her confirmation hearings, Kagan said she would abide by the “letter and spirit” of 28 U.S.C. 455, a federal law governing the recusal of federal judges, including Supreme Court justices.

“If confirmed, I would recuse in all matters for which I was counsel of record,” Kagan told the committee in the questionnaire. “I would also look to the letter and spirit of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges (although it is not formally binding on members of the Supreme Court of the United States), the Ethics Reform Act of 1989, 28 U.S.C. 455, and any other relevant prescriptions. I would also consult with my colleagues in any case where recusal might be advisable.”

Reference Material for below - 28 USC 455 - Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge

The part above where its stated it is not applicable to the Supreme Court is incorrect -

Historical and Revision Notes
Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §24 (Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, §20, 36 Stat. 1090).

Section 24 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., applied only to district judges. The revised section is made applicable to all justices and judges of the United States.

Continued from article link at top...

The text of 28 U.S.C. 455 states: “(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. (b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances: … (3) Where he has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy.”

The law goes on to define a “proceeding” to include the “pretrial, trial, appellate review, or other stages of litigation.”

Prof. Ronald Rotunda of the Chapman University School of Law, a legal ethics expert, told the Senate Judiciary Committee during Kagan’s confirmation hearings that 28 U.S.C. 455 requires Kagan to recuse herself from any case that she so much as expressed a verbal opinion about when serving as solicitor general.

Click link at top for remainder of story.


References -
Senate Confirmation Hearing - Elena Kagan - transcripts

reply to post by Xcathdra


So I will quote your underlined portion.

“If confirmed, I would recuse in all matters for which I was counsel of record,” Kagan told the committee in the questionnaire. “I would also look to the letter and spirit of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges (although it is not formally binding on members of the Supreme Court of the United States), the Ethics Reform Act of 1989, 28 U.S.C. 455, and any other relevant prescriptions. I would also consult with my colleagues in any case where recusal might be advisable.”

Funny...I don't see her mention the ACA specifically in there anywhere.


Now that's odd...because that's what I asked for.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


Try reading the part where she stated she would recuse herself from any case she was involved with.

Then I suggest reading the actual statute that covers judges when it comes to conflict of interest and recusals. You can find that in the part I posted, the same part you quoted, the same part you noted the poriton I highlighted.

Once done with that read Chief Justice Roberts position on Kagan and Thomas and their recusals and the view he holds.

Please tell me how her statement of complying with the ltter and spirit of the law does not translate into Obamacare? The statute is clear, she is aware of the statute, and she stated she would recuse herself from any case she dealt with.

Lets review the facts -
She dealt with Obama care as Solicator General
She told the Senate she would recuse herself from cases she was involved with, which amounted to around 10 + according to her.
She told the Senate she would comply with the law.
She told the Senate she would comply with the letter and spirit of the law.

So I am guessing, according to your logic, she meant every case except for Obamacare?

or....

continue to ignore the truth simply because it doesnt support your position.

The info you asked for several times is there. Its completely up to you to ignore it or accept it. Based on what she said to the Senate, she broke her proimise to recuse herself from the case. She broke her promise to abide by the letter and spirit of the law. By doing so she violated the law.

Being she was appointed by Obama im not surprised about her lies. It seems to permeate this administration at all levels.

Maybe you can explain why the DOJ is violating FEderal law (FOIA) by denying access to the records of her invovlement with Obamacare prior to her appointment? The DOJ has given exactly ZERO reasons to justify the denial, as required by law.

As far as you wanting to play the what the defintion of is is with her statements about recusal, the info is there. I believe she broke her promise as well as the law, you dont. I wont change your mind and you arent going to change mine so she we discuss another aspect of this or continue going in circles to no avail?

How about we discuss the reason why she should be impeached for bad behavior by being invoved in Obamacare as a advisor and counsellor when the legal challenges started and then refuses to recuse herself, clearly in violation of the law?

Oh wait.. nevermind.. I keep bringing up law violations when its already be clearly established this administration is above the law.

Now before you try to once again come up with a smoke screen I would like to point out that Justice Kagan recused herself from the Supreme Court decision on Arizona Bill 1070 - Illegal immigration.

Why?

Because as solicator General she took part in advising and consulting, like she did with Obamacare as Solicator General.

reply to post by Xcathdra

I believe she broke her promise as well as the law, you dont. I wont change your mind and you arent going to change mine so she we discuss another aspect of this or continue going in circles to no avail?

And there you have it...it is just your opinion.


Now...show me where she is the counsel of record on any ACA case.

Oh that's right....you can't.

And since you can't do that...you can't logically claim she broke her promise because you don't have the facts to back that up with.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Maybe this time you can answer the question instead of attacking and evading?

I keep asking you to stop making things up.
You have yet to give me what I asked for so you are hardly in any position to make demands.