Hilarious: Chief Justice Roberts Defends Court's Impartiality over Health Care Law

Discussion in 'Healthcare/Insurance/Govt Healthcare' started by rdean, Jan 1, 2012.

  1. rdean
    Offline

    rdean rddean

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    Messages:
    60,211
    Thanks Received:
    6,905
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    chicago
    Ratings:
    +15,051
    The comment, included in Roberts' year-end report, comes after lawmakers demanded that two Justices recuse themselves from the high court's review of President Obama's health care law aimed at extending coverage to more than 30 million people. Republicans want Justice Elena Kagan off the case because of her work in the Obama administration as solicitor general, whereas Democrats say Justice Clarence Thomas should back away because of his wife's work with groups that opposed changes to the law.

    Republican lawmakers say it's not fair that Kagan will rule on the case after serving as Obama's top Supreme Court lawyer until nominated to the high court. They say the Justice Department has not fully revealed her involvement in planning Obama's response to challenges to the law.
    Meanwhile, 74 Democrats told Thomas in a letter last February that because of his wife's work "the line between your impartiality and you and your wife's financial stake in the overturn of health care reform is blurred."

    Chief Justice Roberts Defends Court's Impartiality As Health Law Case Looms | Fox News

    Look at what is so hilarious about this. The difference between Democrats and Republicans.

    Democrats don't want Thomas involvement because he has a "financial" stake in overturning the law. Republicans are fine with that.

    Republicans don't want Kagan involved because she once worked for Obama. Republicans call that "guilty because they know each other". Democrats don't see a problem with people knowing each other, where Republicans see "conspiracies" in a casual glance caught on tape.

    Reminded me of Scalia going on vacation with Cheney two weeks before he ruled on whether Cheney's illegal "secret" meetings with the oil companies to determine America's energy policy were in fact "illegal". According to the law they were. According to Scalia, with Cheney, that made a difference. Scalia was incensed anyone dared to question his integrity, which, of course, has always been in question.

    This Supreme Court is going to be known as one of the most radical in US history.

    Because of their rulings, Hugo Chavez can throw unlimited amounts of money into US presidential campaigns. Since he owns Citgo, an oil company, he will throw his money behind Republicans. They will quickly change their tune. Corporations and money rule.

    Remember, in Mitt's famous words, "Corporations are people, my friend". That means their unlimited money is an expression of their Supreme Court given right of "free speech".

    Funny, Republicans see corporations as people. People more deserving of rights than gay Americans.

    The Health Care law has always been constitutional, whatever they rule. The government has the right to tax. If they vote against it, will people suddenly want to stop buying auto insurance. The auto insurance is to protect the citizens, just like the Health Care law. But Health Care companies don't make the same amount of money. They can't "fleece" the American people which Republicans hate.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. Quantum Windbag
    Offline

    Quantum Windbag Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,308
    Thanks Received:
    5,014
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +5,221
    You think it is hilarious that Roberts thinks Kagan is a responsible adult who is capable of deciding for herself if there is a conflict between her work as Solicitor General and being an Associate Justice?

    Why am I not surprised?

    For the record, there is a legitimate question that Kagan might have worked on defending PPACA in court. If that happened, which I doubt, then she should not decide the case. Also, Thomas will get no money from the case, only complete idiots think he will.
     
    Last edited: Jan 1, 2012
  3. rdean
    Offline

    rdean rddean

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    Messages:
    60,211
    Thanks Received:
    6,905
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    chicago
    Ratings:
    +15,051
    The last I heard when a man and a woman are married, what they get they share. Could be different for Republicans. I don't know, do you?
     
  4. SFC Ollie
    Offline

    SFC Ollie Still Marching

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2009
    Messages:
    28,742
    Thanks Received:
    4,418
    Trophy Points:
    183
    Location:
    Extreme East Ohio
    Ratings:
    +4,458
    Actually deano you are wrong again. I would prefer they both stood back from this ruling.

    Kagan probably had a lot to do with working on this law for Obama. Thomas may have a financial issue in the ruling.

    When this law is declared unconstitutional I don't want there to be any questions about it.

    And only an idiot can compare health insurance which you will be forced to purchase against car insurance which you do not have to purchase. (no one says you have to drive) How many hundreds of thousands of adult Americans don't even own a car?
     
  5. C_Clayton_Jones
    Offline

    C_Clayton_Jones Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2011
    Messages:
    41,543
    Thanks Received:
    8,933
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    In a Republic, actually
    Ratings:
    +23,869
    Yes, there’s ample ‘evidence’ as to the impartiality of the Courts’ members:


     
  6. Quantum Windbag
    Offline

    Quantum Windbag Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,308
    Thanks Received:
    5,014
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +5,221
    Last time I heard you are the largest idiot on the board. The Thomas's will make money no matter which way the PPACA is decided, just like everyone else on the Supreme Court, or does it work differently for Democrats?
     
  7. Quantum Windbag
    Offline

    Quantum Windbag Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,308
    Thanks Received:
    5,014
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +5,221
    And no one from the other side ever dines with anyone.

    Your stupidity is showing again.
     
  8. rdean
    Offline

    rdean rddean

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    Messages:
    60,211
    Thanks Received:
    6,905
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    chicago
    Ratings:
    +15,051
    That is not a good argument. Many people have to drive for their job. Should they decide not to drive to avoid getting car insurance even though their family suffers? Is that what you're saying. Even you have to admit that is a really stupid argument.

    If you drive, you have to have car insurance. And the only reason you do is to protect the public. Everyone gets sick. Everyone gets old. Unless they die in a car accident. Then they are insured by law.
     
  9. rdean
    Offline

    rdean rddean

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    Messages:
    60,211
    Thanks Received:
    6,905
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    chicago
    Ratings:
    +15,051
    Even where I work, we can't go out for a meal costing more than $25 dollars or it can be considered a bribe. You can't possibly believe Scalia and Thomas go to McDonald's.

    You just call people stupid out of habit. Why? Fear of them calling you stupid. So you try to "strike first". The sad fact is you have something to be afraid of. Pity.
     
  10. SFC Ollie
    Offline

    SFC Ollie Still Marching

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2009
    Messages:
    28,742
    Thanks Received:
    4,418
    Trophy Points:
    183
    Location:
    Extreme East Ohio
    Ratings:
    +4,458
    SO if you get sick you have to purchase insurance? Sorry it doesn't match up. Many people take public transportation to their jobs. For 1 1/2 years I actually walked to work. took almost 5 minutes........
     
    Last edited: Jan 1, 2012

Share This Page