Any bets on if Justice Thomas will recuse himself?

[Ernie S.]

Has anyone ever seen derpocon and TDM together in the same place at the same time?

Obviously, they have been, else there is no logical explanation for rdean.

 

[Conservative]

Has anyone ever seen derpocon and TDM together in the same place at the same time?

Obviously, they have been, else there is no logical explanation for rdean.

I often wonder about that...in the same way I wonder why no one has seen Latoya Jackson since Michaels death.

 

[Liability]

I'd like to see how Thomas would vote to shut down Obamacare, after his votes in Gonzales v. Raich and U.S. v. Lopez. It would sure be hard to reconcile those opinions with a no vote, and would make me question whether his wife's lobbying paycheck would all of a sudden cause him to do a 180 based on law.

Nonsense.

Neither case supports the ridiculous proposition that the Constitution authorized Congress to regulate interstate NON commerce.

If you CHOOSE to grow weed or wheat, it might become part of interstate commerce -- and even the strained logic that if you do grow your own, you will not purchase it from somewhere else, does provide some logical cover for an effect on interstate commerce.

But there is an absolute LACK of any hint of logic to the facially absurd premise that a decision NOT to buy insurance is interstate commerce activity.

What part of the Constitution informs you that Congress can tell you what to buy?

 

[amrchaos]

I'd like to see how Thomas would vote to shut down Obamacare, after his votes in Gonzales v. Raich and U.S. v. Lopez. It would sure be hard to reconcile those opinions with a no vote, and would make me question whether his wife's lobbying paycheck would all of a sudden cause him to do a 180 based on law.

Can you flush out what you mean by this post.

I am not familiar with issues of Gonzales vs Raich or US versus Lopez, and am curious as to how those cases are related to this one.

Justgive me a quick Synop of your point, nothing long winded or detailed since I can looked the cases up to verify your meaning. But, right now, I am not sure exactly what to look for.

 

[Si modo]

Justice Thomas’ spouse is a paid lobbyist who has received $686,589 from the Heritage Foundation, a prominent conservative think tank and opponent of healthcare reform. Justice Thomas failed to report the sum until recently. Ms. Thomas has also received an undisclosed salary as the CEO of Liberty Central, a conservative organization that actively opposes the new law.


Why isn't he recusing himself?
Isn't getting more than a half million dollars into your household income a mitigating factor?

I would think that given his past indiscretions about reporting his household's sources of income, he would be more sensitive to this issue.

But apparently, he's SO HONEST that he won't think about that cool half a million when he casts his judgment. Honest as the day is long.


This doesn't pass the STINK TEST CONZ.
Will you step up and DEMAND higher ethics or will you let it slide, because it's your guy.
Like you did with Larry Craig? Remember him? The Senator who pled guilty to soliciting toilet sex?
You guys couldn't kick HIM out either...instead you waited for him to retire so he could collect a nice fat government pension.
I guess you just don't HAVE any ethics or morality when it comes to this stuff, do you CONZ?

Racist!

 

[Polk]

In all honesty, both Kagan and Thomas have conflicts of interest.

 

[Liability]

In all honesty, both Kagan and Thomas have conflicts of interest.

Kagan? Yes.

Thomas? No.

In all honesty.

 

[Polk]

In all honesty, both Kagan and Thomas have conflicts of interest.

Kagan? Yes.

Thomas? No.

In all honesty.

Oh please. If anything, Kagan has less of a conflict than Thomas. Kagan advocated for a position, while Thomas has money on the line.

 

[Liability]

In all honesty, both Kagan and Thomas have conflicts of interest.

Kagan? Yes.

Thomas? No.

In all honesty.

Oh please. If anything, Kagan has less of a conflict than Thomas. Kagan advocated for a position, while Thomas has money on the line.

Oh please indeed. Kagan worked at the time to get it passed.

Justice Thomas has a spouse who advocates for a living. Unless she is he and he is her, there is no basis of any kind in the real world requiring him to recuse himself.

In the real world, spouses don't have to agree with each other.

 

[Dot Com]

He doesn't question the attorneys anyway. He just sits there.

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas Celebrates Five Years of Silence During Oral Arguments - ABC News

 

[Dick Tuck]

I'd like to see how Thomas would vote to shut down Obamacare, after his votes in Gonzales v. Raich and U.S. v. Lopez. It would sure be hard to reconcile those opinions with a no vote, and would make me question whether his wife's lobbying paycheck would all of a sudden cause him to do a 180 based on law.

Nonsense.

Neither case supports the ridiculous proposition that the Constitution authorized Congress to regulate interstate NON commerce.

If you CHOOSE to grow weed or wheat, it might become part of interstate commerce -- and even the strained logic that if you do grow your own, you will not purchase it from somewhere else, does provide some logical cover for an effect on interstate commerce.

But there is an absolute LACK of any hint of logic to the facially absurd premise that a decision NOT to buy insurance is interstate commerce activity.

What part of the Constitution informs you that Congress can tell you what to buy?

Health insurance reform is interstate commerce. The mandate is taxation, as is social security and medicare. Both interstate commerce and taxation are constitutional. Good luck with even this wingnut court creating precedent for undoing medicare and social security. My guess is that only Roberts will dissent on this one, as he has a history of pulling law and precedent out his ass, as he did using some bullshit marginalia in Citizens.

 

[Conservative]

I'd like to see how Thomas would vote to shut down Obamacare, after his votes in Gonzales v. Raich and U.S. v. Lopez. It would sure be hard to reconcile those opinions with a no vote, and would make me question whether his wife's lobbying paycheck would all of a sudden cause him to do a 180 based on law.

Nonsense.

Neither case supports the ridiculous proposition that the Constitution authorized Congress to regulate interstate NON commerce.

If you CHOOSE to grow weed or wheat, it might become part of interstate commerce -- and even the strained logic that if you do grow your own, you will not purchase it from somewhere else, does provide some logical cover for an effect on interstate commerce.

But there is an absolute LACK of any hint of logic to the facially absurd premise that a decision NOT to buy insurance is interstate commerce activity.

What part of the Constitution informs you that Congress can tell you what to buy?

Health insurance reform is interstate commerce. The mandate is taxation, as is social security and medicare. Both interstate commerce and taxation are constitutional. Good luck with even this wingnut court creating precedent for undoing medicare and social security. My guess is that only Roberts will dissent on this one, as he has a history of pulling law and precedent out his ass, as he did using some bullshit marginalia in Citizens.

the administration says it's not taxation.

 

[Conservative]

In all honesty, both Kagan and Thomas have conflicts of interest.

Kagan? Yes.

Thomas? No.

In all honesty.

Oh please. If anything, Kagan has less of a conflict than Thomas. Kagan advocated for a position, while Thomas has money on the line.

Kagan actively promoted Obamacare.

 

[Staidhup]

The issue is one of government authority, mandate, versus the freedoms and constitutional rights of it's citizens. Neither justices should recuse themselves, let the arguments commence once and for all. To state, as some have done so, that Justice Thomas and others may have a perceived conflict of interest is shallow at best and would have applied to any and all justices that have ever served over the years which is simply not the case. The Justices were appointed, confirmed by the Senate, to uphold the constitution, determine the constitutionality of a law, and protect the freedoms of it's citizens. Apparently some feel that the law is in fact an intrusion on the rights and freedoms as outlined in the constitution and will employ any tactic they can to insure it will not be overturned. Good luck with that one suckers!

 

[Liability]

I'd like to see how Thomas would vote to shut down Obamacare, after his votes in Gonzales v. Raich and U.S. v. Lopez. It would sure be hard to reconcile those opinions with a no vote, and would make me question whether his wife's lobbying paycheck would all of a sudden cause him to do a 180 based on law.

Nonsense.

Neither case supports the ridiculous proposition that the Constitution authorized Congress to regulate interstate NON commerce.

If you CHOOSE to grow weed or wheat, it might become part of interstate commerce -- and even the strained logic that if you do grow your own, you will not purchase it from somewhere else, does provide some logical cover for an effect on interstate commerce.

But there is an absolute LACK of any hint of logic to the facially absurd premise that a decision NOT to buy insurance is interstate commerce activity.

What part of the Constitution informs you that Congress can tell you what to buy?

Health insurance reform is interstate commerce.

No. It is not.

The mandate is taxation, as is social security and medicare.

Are you absolutely CERTAIN that you wish to stake out the claim that the mandate is TAXATION?

Both interstate commerce and taxation are constitutional.

Interstate commerce is obviously Constitutional. Not all acts that are premised on ALLEGED interstate commerce power necessarily ARE actaully so premised, however.

Taxation CAN be Constitutional. But not always.

Good luck with even this wingnut court creating precedent for undoing medicare and social security.

Irrelevant. Neither of those things is necessary to the voiding of the mandate provisions of ObamaCare.

My guess is that only Roberts will dissent on this one, as he has a history of pulling law and precedent out his ass, as he did using some bullshit marginalia in Citizens.

Your guess is silly. It is FAR more likely that (unless they cop out for a few years on the thin pretext that the matter is not yet "ripe") the majority will void the mandate and thereby effectively gut the ObamaCare Act.

 

[Liability]

Nonsense.

Neither case supports the ridiculous proposition that the Constitution authorized Congress to regulate interstate NON commerce.

If you CHOOSE to grow weed or wheat, it might become part of interstate commerce -- and even the strained logic that if you do grow your own, you will not purchase it from somewhere else, does provide some logical cover for an effect on interstate commerce.

But there is an absolute LACK of any hint of logic to the facially absurd premise that a decision NOT to buy insurance is interstate commerce activity.

What part of the Constitution informs you that Congress can tell you what to buy?

Health insurance reform is interstate commerce. The mandate is taxation, as is social security and medicare. Both interstate commerce and taxation are constitutional. Good luck with even this wingnut court creating precedent for undoing medicare and social security. My guess is that only Roberts will dissent on this one, as he has a history of pulling law and precedent out his ass, as he did using some bullshit marginalia in Citizens.

the administration says it's not taxation.

EXCEPT when they claim that it is taxation.

They have argued both sides -- as the needs change.

 

[amrchaos]

Kagan? Yes.

Thomas? No.

In all honesty.

Oh please. If anything, Kagan has less of a conflict than Thomas. Kagan advocated for a position, while Thomas has money on the line.

Oh please indeed. Kagan worked at the time to get it passed.

Justice Thomas has a spouse who advocates for a living. Unless she is he and he is her, there is no basis of any kind in the real world requiring him to recuse himself.

In the real world, spouses don't have to agree with each other.

I don't think it is about agreeing

It is about benefitting from a deal(if any)

 

[Dick Tuck]

Nonsense.

Neither case supports the ridiculous proposition that the Constitution authorized Congress to regulate interstate NON commerce.

If you CHOOSE to grow weed or wheat, it might become part of interstate commerce -- and even the strained logic that if you do grow your own, you will not purchase it from somewhere else, does provide some logical cover for an effect on interstate commerce.

But there is an absolute LACK of any hint of logic to the facially absurd premise that a decision NOT to buy insurance is interstate commerce activity.

What part of the Constitution informs you that Congress can tell you what to buy?

Health insurance reform is interstate commerce. The mandate is taxation, as is social security and medicare. Both interstate commerce and taxation are constitutional. Good luck with even this wingnut court creating precedent for undoing medicare and social security. My guess is that only Roberts will dissent on this one, as he has a history of pulling law and precedent out his ass, as he did using some bullshit marginalia in Citizens.

the administration says it's not taxation.

You really ought to pay more attention.

The brief put out by the DOJ calls it a form of taxation. It's not a penalty, since you receive something for it, i. e. health insurance. It is taxation, in the same way that Reagan forced self-employed into the Social Security and Medicare insurance systems.

 

[Dick Tuck]

Health insurance reform is interstate commerce. The mandate is taxation, as is social security and medicare. Both interstate commerce and taxation are constitutional. Good luck with even this wingnut court creating precedent for undoing medicare and social security. My guess is that only Roberts will dissent on this one, as he has a history of pulling law and precedent out his ass, as he did using some bullshit marginalia in Citizens.

the administration says it's not taxation.

EXCEPT when they claim that it is taxation.

They have argued both sides -- as the needs change.

So what. The sides that they argued are not mutually exclusive. How is something a penalty when you receive something in return? Does that in fact mean it really is a tax? What would happen to a self-employed person who fails to properly contribute to Social Security or Medicare?

 

[Conservative]

the administration says it's not taxation.

EXCEPT when they claim that it is taxation.

They have argued both sides -- as the needs change.

So what. The sides that they argued are not mutually exclusive. How is something a penalty when you receive something in return? Does that in fact mean it really is a tax? What would happen to a self-employed person who fails to properly contribute to Social Security or Medicare?

are you really this stupid, or is it an act?