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

[Lovebears65]

JW Sues Obama DOJ for Records Related to Justice Kagan

 

[Sallow]

And?

This will be fun. Will congress now make it compulsory for Supreme Court Justices to recuse?

And will that law be retroactive?

 

[Truthmatters]

anything to see her side as winning.

poor deluded soul

 

[Full-Auto]

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.

 

[Lovebears65]

anything to see her side as winning.

poor deluded soul

Bahahahaa. You are a freaking deluded. Your so far up Obama's ass its sinful!!

 

[Sallow]

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?

 

[Truthmatters]

anything to see her side as winning.

poor deluded soul

Bahahahaa. You are a freaking deluded. Your so far up Obama's ass its sinful!!

you little baffoon, you have no idea what I think.

You dont listen you only scream at the top of your lungs about any little thing you can find

 

[bripat9643]

anything to see her side as winning.

poor deluded soul

Bahahahaa. You are a freaking deluded. Your so far up Obama's ass its sinful!!

you little baffoon, you have no idea what I think.

You dont listen you only scream at the top of your lungs about any little thing you can find

 

[Lovebears65]

anything to see her side as winning.

poor deluded soul

Bahahahaa. You are a freaking deluded. Your so far up Obama's ass its sinful!!

you little baffoon, you have no idea what I think.

You dont listen you only scream at the top of your lungs about any little thing you can find

POT MEET KEETLE>. You will post over and over again even when NOBODY believes a word you say. You sit at your computer and make up lies

 

[Ernie S.]

What do you expect from the board "baffoon"?

 

[Ernie S.]

Seems pretty cut and dry to me:

The obama administration was required by law to respond to the FOIA request by January 25, 2012. However, to date, the obama administration has neither released any records, nor provided an explanation as to why records should be withheld, nor given a date when a response to Judicial Watch’s FOIA request will be forthcoming.

 

[Sallow]

Seems pretty cut and dry to me:

The obama administration was required by law to respond to the FOIA request by January 25, 2012. However, to date, the obama administration has neither released any records, nor provided an explanation as to why records should be withheld, nor given a date when a response to Judicial Watch’s FOIA request will be forthcoming.

What's "cut and dry"?

Recusal is not compulsory.

 

[rightwinger]

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

 

[GuyPinestra]

Seems pretty cut and dry to me:

The obama administration was required by law to respond to the FOIA request by January 25, 2012. However, to date, the obama administration has neither released any records, nor provided an explanation as to why records should be withheld, nor given a date when a response to Judicial Watch’s FOIA request will be forthcoming.

So they're just ignoring the law they've sworn to uphold? I'm the first to admit that both sides do it, but that doesn't make it right.

 

[Sallow]

Seems pretty cut and dry to me:

The obama administration was required by law to respond to the FOIA request by January 25, 2012. However, to date, the obama administration has neither released any records, nor provided an explanation as to why records should be withheld, nor given a date when a response to Judicial Watch’s FOIA request will be forthcoming.

So they're just ignoring the law they've sworn to uphold? I'm the first to admit that both sides do it, but that doesn't make it right.

That's not even the point.

Recusal is not mandatory.

 

[Ernie S.]

Seems pretty cut and dry to me:

The obama administration was required by law to respond to the FOIA request by January 25, 2012. However, to date, the obama administration has neither released any records, nor provided an explanation as to why records should be withheld, nor given a date when a response to Judicial Watch’s FOIA request will be forthcoming.

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.

 

[Ernie S.]

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.

 

[Ernie S.]

Seems pretty cut and dry to me:

So they're just ignoring the law they've sworn to uphold? I'm the first to admit that both sides do it, but that doesn't make it right.

That's not even the point.

Recusal is not mandatory.

Recusal is not the point. JW is suing to force compliance with FOIA.

 

[rightwinger]

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

 

[Ernie S.]

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

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.