JW Sues Obama DOJ for Records Related to Justice Kagan’s Role in Obamacare Discussion

[Ernie S.]

Sallow? Rightwinger? Nothing, huh?

 

[AmericanFirst]

JW Sues Obama DOJ for Records Related to Justice Kagan

Thank you.

One more example of lying democrats ignoring law.

As you see the usual Obama kneepads will defend these criminal acts.

What criminal act?

Obamaturds health bill. Obamaturd lying. Get it?

 

[AmericanFirst]

Is Clarence Thomas going to recuse himself because his family made money off of fighting Obamacare?

Was he involved in drafting the bill? Then no.

Clarence Thomas made $150,000 off of his wifes opposition to that healthcare bill

Lets see how much obamaturds socialist supporters make off it. Idiots.

 

[Sallow]

Seems pretty cut and dry to me:

What's "cut and dry"?

Recusal is not compulsory.

What part of "The obama administration was required by law to respond to the FOIA request" don't you understand.
You are absolutely right SC Justices are expected to have the integrity to recuse themselves if they feel they can not render an impartial opinion.
We, however, are entitled to form our own opinion as to whether or not they should. I would like to form my opinion on fact, not blind allegiance to a political party. Call me odd, that way, or better yet, call me Conservative.
Whether you come from curiosity or blind allegiance, though, is immaterial. The obama administration is bound by law to respond to the FOIA request, PERIOD.

You guys sorta overlook that George W. Bush's administration was one of the most secretive in history. He pulled executive priviledge and classified documents on almost everything and won. This only seems to be a problem, now.

So using that history..the Obama administration, by "law" has the right to challenge these requests. And for the very same rationale the Bush administration used.

 

[Sallow]

Thank you.

One more example of lying democrats ignoring law.

As you see the usual Obama kneepads will defend these criminal acts.

What criminal act?

Obamaturds health bill. Obamaturd lying. Get it?

Ah..your usual response.

Nothing if not consistent.

 

[Sallow]

Was he involved in drafting the bill? Then no.

Clarence Thomas made $150,000 off of his wifes opposition to that healthcare bill

Perhaps his wife was paid for her work, but how does that affect J Thomas' ability to be impartial?
On one hand we have a Justice's wife who received a pay check, on the other hand, we have a sitting Justice who was rewarded with a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court of the United States. Draw your own conclusions. I damned sure don't know if I think she should recuse herself, and I won't until I know her part in obamacare.

Seriously?

Really?

 

[Ernie S.]

What's "cut and dry"?

Recusal is not compulsory.

What part of "The obama administration was required by law to respond to the FOIA request" don't you understand.
You are absolutely right SC Justices are expected to have the integrity to recuse themselves if they feel they can not render an impartial opinion.
We, however, are entitled to form our own opinion as to whether or not they should. I would like to form my opinion on fact, not blind allegiance to a political party. Call me odd, that way, or better yet, call me Conservative.
Whether you come from curiosity or blind allegiance, though, is immaterial. The obama administration is bound by law to respond to the FOIA request, PERIOD.

You guys sorta overlook that George W. Bush's administration was one of the most secretive in history. He pulled executive priviledge and classified documents on almost everything and won. This only seems to be a problem, now.

So using that history..the Obama administration, by "law" has the right to challenge these requests. And for the very same rationale the Bush administration used.

National security? Did TDM hack your account?
Look Bush has been out of office for 37 months. "Bush did it too" just doesn't cut it any more.
Try to take off the blinders for just a moment here. As I stated, apparently not clearly enough for some people, I don't know if Justice Kagen should recuse herself from obamacare cases. I don't have enough information to form an intelligent opinion.
Yes, in the grand scheme of things, my opinion matters little. The ultimate decision belongs to Ms. Kagen.
I do, however understand the FOIA. obama must comply, period.

 

[ladyliberal]

What part of "The obama administration was required by law to respond to the FOIA request" don't you understand.
You are absolutely right SC Justices are expected to have the integrity to recuse themselves if they feel they can not render an impartial opinion.
We, however, are entitled to form our own opinion as to whether or not they should. I would like to form my opinion on fact, not blind allegiance to a political party. Call me odd, that way, or better yet, call me Conservative.
Whether you come from curiosity or blind allegiance, though, is immaterial. The obama administration is bound by law to respond to the FOIA request, PERIOD.

The part of "The obama administration was required by law to respond to the FOIA request" I don't understand is the rationale. What law? Did a judge order them to comply with the request? Why should we trust "the green mountain scribe", whatever that is?

Certainly, some of the pertinent records should be requestable via FOIA, but I don't see any evidence whatsoever that the administration is in violation of the law. The request submitted by JW seems extraordinarily broad and would give them access to information that almost exclusively had nothing to do with their claimed area of interest. More importantly, the document produced by the green mountain scribe is a complaint filed by JW, not a ruling issued by a court.

 

[ladyliberal]

Indeed, it seems that federal judges have in the past looked dimly on JW's requests:

JURIST - Paper Chase: Federal judge denies FOIA request for Kagan involvement in health care reform

There is no reason to assume that where JW and the administration are in dispute that the administration is in error, much less in violation of the law.

 

[Ernie S.]

Clarence Thomas made $150,000 off of his wifes opposition to that healthcare bill

Perhaps his wife was paid for her work, but how does that affect J Thomas' ability to be impartial?
On one hand we have a Justice's wife who received a pay check, on the other hand, we have a sitting Justice who was rewarded with a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court of the United States. Draw your own conclusions. I damned sure don't know if I think she should recuse herself, and I won't until I know her part in obamacare.

Seriously?

Really?

You are free to make a FOIA request for tapes of private conversations between Justice Thomas and his wife where they discus her work on obamacare. What? there are no such tapes? Then there is no reason other than your partisan hackery to conclude that the matter was discussed in any way that would prejudice Thomas' opinion, is there?
There ARE, however records of Justice Kagan's duties as Solicitor General that may, or may not point to her prejudice. The LAW says the Administration must provide those records.

 

[rightwinger]

Sallow? Rightwinger? Nothing, huh?

You calling me? It is nice when your opinion is valued

Clarence Thomas has a financial stake in the decision. He has already earned money off of his wife fighting Obamacare and a decision in favor of Obamacare would affect his wifes future earnings

Grounds for recusal

 

[Sallow]

What part of "The obama administration was required by law to respond to the FOIA request" don't you understand.
You are absolutely right SC Justices are expected to have the integrity to recuse themselves if they feel they can not render an impartial opinion.
We, however, are entitled to form our own opinion as to whether or not they should. I would like to form my opinion on fact, not blind allegiance to a political party. Call me odd, that way, or better yet, call me Conservative.
Whether you come from curiosity or blind allegiance, though, is immaterial. The obama administration is bound by law to respond to the FOIA request, PERIOD.

You guys sorta overlook that George W. Bush's administration was one of the most secretive in history. He pulled executive priviledge and classified documents on almost everything and won. This only seems to be a problem, now.

So using that history..the Obama administration, by "law" has the right to challenge these requests. And for the very same rationale the Bush administration used.

National security? Did TDM hack your account?
Look Bush has been out of office for 37 months. "Bush did it too" just doesn't cut it any more.
Try to take off the blinders for just a moment here. As I stated, apparently not clearly enough for some people, I don't know if Justice Kagen should recuse herself from obamacare cases. I don't have enough information to form an intelligent opinion.
Yes, in the grand scheme of things, my opinion matters little. The ultimate decision belongs to Ms. Kagen.
I do, however understand the FOIA. obama must comply, period.

What part of "National Security" fell under Cheney's meeting with business leaders in the energy sector?

It didn't. It fell under executive priviledge. And it was a very broad understand of that priviledge.

This was something you guys supported and fought for back then. And now? You don't.

Amazing.

 

[Peach]

Indeed, it seems that federal judges have in the past looked dimly on JW's requests:

JURIST - Paper Chase: Federal judge denies FOIA request for Kagan involvement in health care reform

There is no reason to assume that where JW and the administration are in dispute that the administration is in error, much less in violation of the law.

Release the records!

 

[Ernie S.]

What part of "The obama administration was required by law to respond to the FOIA request" don't you understand.
You are absolutely right SC Justices are expected to have the integrity to recuse themselves if they feel they can not render an impartial opinion.
We, however, are entitled to form our own opinion as to whether or not they should. I would like to form my opinion on fact, not blind allegiance to a political party. Call me odd, that way, or better yet, call me Conservative.
Whether you come from curiosity or blind allegiance, though, is immaterial. The obama administration is bound by law to respond to the FOIA request, PERIOD.

The part of "The obama administration was required by law to respond to the FOIA request" I don't understand is the rationale. What law? Did a judge order them to comply with the request? Why should we trust "the green mountain scribe", whatever that is?

Certainly, some of the pertinent records should be requestable via FOIA, but I don't see any evidence whatsoever that the administration is in violation of the law. The request submitted by JW seems extraordinarily broad and would give them access to information that almost exclusively had nothing to do with their claimed area of interest. More importantly, the document produced by the green mountain scribe is a complaint filed by JW, not a ruling issued by a court.

I see 9 exemptions spelled out it the FOIA, none of which seem to apply.

 

[Truthmatters]

I agree , release the records.

There is a whole lot of Bush ones Id like to see too

 

[Ernie S.]

Sallow? Rightwinger? Nothing, huh?

You calling me? It is nice when your opinion is valued

Clarence Thomas has a financial stake in the decision. He has already earned money off of his wife fighting Obamacare and a decision in favor of Obamacare would affect his wifes future earnings

Grounds for recusal

So, what you're saying is that a wife's salary belongs to her husband. How terribly "liberal" of you.
Care to discus Michelle obama's hospital job obtained when her husband smeared his way into the Senate?

 

[Ernie S.]

You guys sorta overlook that George W. Bush's administration was one of the most secretive in history. He pulled executive priviledge and classified documents on almost everything and won. This only seems to be a problem, now.

So using that history..the Obama administration, by "law" has the right to challenge these requests. And for the very same rationale the Bush administration used.

National security? Did TDM hack your account?
Look Bush has been out of office for 37 months. "Bush did it too" just doesn't cut it any more.
Try to take off the blinders for just a moment here. As I stated, apparently not clearly enough for some people, I don't know if Justice Kagen should recuse herself from obamacare cases. I don't have enough information to form an intelligent opinion.
Yes, in the grand scheme of things, my opinion matters little. The ultimate decision belongs to Ms. Kagen.
I do, however understand the FOIA. obama must comply, period.

What part of "National Security" fell under Cheney's meeting with business leaders in the energy sector?

It didn't. It fell under executive priviledge. And it was a very broad understand of that priviledge.

This was something you guys supported and fought for back then. And now? You don't.

Amazing.

As I remember, there was consideration of the privacy expectations of private citizens. I don't see that as a consideration in this case.

 

[Ernie S.]

I agree , release the records.

There is a whole lot of Bush ones Id like to see too

And they would affect a case currently on the docket of the SCOTUS, how?

 

[Sallow]

Perhaps his wife was paid for her work, but how does that affect J Thomas' ability to be impartial?
On one hand we have a Justice's wife who received a pay check, on the other hand, we have a sitting Justice who was rewarded with a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court of the United States. Draw your own conclusions. I damned sure don't know if I think she should recuse herself, and I won't until I know her part in obamacare.

Seriously?

Really?

You are free to make a FOIA request for tapes of private conversations between Justice Thomas and his wife where they discus her work on obamacare. What? there are no such tapes? Then there is no reason other than your partisan hackery to conclude that the matter was discussed in any way that would prejudice Thomas' opinion, is there?
There ARE, however records of Justice Kagan's duties as Solicitor General that may, or may not point to her prejudice. The LAW says the Administration must provide those records.

No I am not. And neither of those people are President. Justice Thomas was required to disclose that his wife received an income from that work..and it was just recently that he did.

Be that as it may..the "law" is subject to challenge..especially in it's scope. Which the Bush administration did on many many many..occassions.

 

[Sallow]

I agree , release the records.

There is a whole lot of Bush ones Id like to see too

And they would affect a case currently on the docket of the SCOTUS, how?

It's curious how this case leaped in front of the run up to the Iraqi war. Which by the way..there are a vast amounts of undisclosed information..on.