Any bets on if Justice Thomas will recuse himself?

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.

So if you don't buy insurance you are taxed? That is a first. It is not a tax it is a penalty. Now if congress had created a tax and then said if you buy insurance you can get money back in taxes. Then it would not have been a penalty. But that would not have accomplished what they wanted.
 
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?

And what about Kagan? She was the solicitor general, the government's defense lawer, to set up the defense of Obamacare.

Doesn't sound like your too outraged about that much more apparent conflict of interest. :eusa_boohoo:
 
are you really this stupid, or is it an act?:confused:

Nice forensic skill you demonstrate. Simplistic ad-hominen, in lieu of substantive rebuttal would get you kicked off any high school, junior varsity debate team.
 
Last edited:
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.

So if you don't buy insurance you are taxed? That is a first. It is not a tax it is a penalty. Now if congress had created a tax and then said if you buy insurance you can get money back in taxes. Then it would not have been a penalty. But that would not have accomplished what they wanted.

How can it be a "legal" penalty, if you're really getting something of value in return? How is it different from forcing self-employed people to pay into Social Security and Medicare?
 
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.

you need to pay more attention...
Alito, Breyer Call Out Obama Lawyer For Dubbing Mandate Both A ‘Penalty’ And ‘Tax’ | TPMDC
On the first day of health care reform arguments before the Supreme Court, two justices needled a top Obama lawyer for simultaneously calling the fine that will be paid under the law for not purchasing insurance a “penalty” and a “tax.”


Obama Budget Director Says Obamacare Mandate Fine
Republicans argue the admission from Acting White House Budget Director Jeff Zients undermines the White House's defense of the law before the Supreme Court. Congress has broad power to impose taxes.

"That's not a tax?" Rep. Scott Garrett (R-NJ) asked in reference to the mandate.

"No," Zients answered, "that's not a tax."

"I just wanted to be clear on that because that's not the argument the administration is making before the Supreme Court," said Garrett.


The Obama administration calls it a tax.
Then, they call it NOT a tax.
Then it's a tax again.
Then it's not.
 
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?

Again you don't get insurance when you pay the penalty. You are penalized if you do not purchase anything and you still don't get insurance. Kind of a mute point anyways as the Supreme Court apparently just ruled they do not see it as a tax.
 
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.

So if you don't buy insurance you are taxed? That is a first. It is not a tax it is a penalty. Now if congress had created a tax and then said if you buy insurance you can get money back in taxes. Then it would not have been a penalty. But that would not have accomplished what they wanted.

How can it be a "legal" penalty, if you're really getting something of value in return? How is it different from forcing self-employed people to pay into Social Security and Medicare?

Your not getting anything in return. If you pay the penalty, it is because you do not have health insurance. You don't pay the penalty and then get insurance. You pay the penalty and get nothing.
 
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?

Moron... if you pay the penalty, it is because you did not buy insurance... meaning you did NOT get something in return.

Seriously, are you this stupid? Please... tell me it's all an act.
 
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?

And what about Kagan? She was the solicitor general, the government's defense lawer, to set up the defense of Obamacare.

Doesn't sound like your too outraged about that much more apparent conflict of interest. :eusa_boohoo:

That comparison misses completely the advocacy a lawyer must take, and is part of their basic ethics. Using your analogy, a criminal defense lawyer would never be able to sit on the court, and hear a murder case, because they advocated for an accused killer. Roberts should step down on any cases of corporate torte, because he advocated for corporations.

There's a substantial difference between a lawyer doing their job, according to their code of ethics, and a lawyer who has a material interest in a case. The stronger argument is that Thomas stands to make a material gain, if he votes against Obamacare, since his wife has a high paying lobbying job against it.
 
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?

Moron... if you pay the penalty, it is because you did not buy insurance... meaning you did NOT get something in return.

Seriously, are you this stupid? Please... tell me it's all an act.

You get health insurance in return.
 
The more I think about it, the more I realize that Judge Thomas does not have to recuse himself.

We already have sense of how Thomas read the constituion AND his wife has associated with the Heritage foundation for almost 2 decades with both her working for the foundation plus cases that the foundation had an opinion during that time.

Therefore, past precedent would suggest that this time is no different. If Thomas were to recuse himself from this case, then he should have recused himself from past cases. Which he has not.

Now Kagan is different story....
 
Last edited:
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?

Moron... if you pay the penalty, it is because you did not buy insurance... meaning you did NOT get something in return.

Seriously, are you this stupid? Please... tell me it's all an act.

You get health insurance in return.

No you don't get health insurance unless you buy it. You just pay the penalty if you don't have insurance.
 
That comparison misses completely the advocacy a lawyer must take, and is part of their basic ethics. Using your analogy, a criminal defense lawyer would never be able to sit on the court, and hear a murder case, because they advocated for an accused killer. Roberts should step down on any cases of corporate torte, because he advocated for corporations.

There's a substantial difference between a lawyer doing their job, according to their code of ethics, and a lawyer who has a material interest in a case. The stronger argument is that Thomas stands to make a material gain, if he votes against Obamacare, since his wife has a high paying lobbying job against it.

You are an idiot, dick suck.

Heritage is NOT in business to defeat Obama's fascist care, they are a think tank. They continue regardless of the fate of fascist care.

Your argument is spurious, the weak diarrhea of a partisan fool.
 
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?

And what about Kagan? She was the solicitor general, the government's defense lawer, to set up the defense of Obamacare.

Doesn't sound like your too outraged about that much more apparent conflict of interest. :eusa_boohoo:

That comparison misses completely the advocacy a lawyer must take, and is part of their basic ethics. Using your analogy, a criminal defense lawyer would never be able to sit on the court, and hear a murder case, because they advocated for an accused killer. Roberts should step down on any cases of corporate torte, because he advocated for corporations.

There's a substantial difference between a lawyer doing their job, according to their code of ethics, and a lawyer who has a material interest in a case. The stronger argument is that Thomas stands to make a material gain, if he votes against Obamacare, since his wife has a high paying lobbying job against it.


Wow, can you possibly be this stupid? Well I guess so...

That is not the analogy you dishonest fuck. The analogy is: a judge would not be able to sit on the court and preside over the murder case of the SAME person he once defended for the same crime.

She is a judge presiding over a case that SHE herself once defended. Not a similar case, the SAME fucking case. Complete and total textbook case of why a judge would normaly recuse themselves from a case.

But not with liberals, politics comes FIRST, before the rule of law.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top