Supreme Court agrees to hear Obama healthcare law

[Navy1960]

Will Justice Kagan recuse herself?

Maybe?

10/19/11
U.S. District Judge Ellen Huvelle, a Clinton appointee, ironically provided evidence last week that seals the case that Justice Elena Kagan is required by law to recuse herself from cases challenging Obamacare.

The law in question is 28 U.S.C. 455. It mandates that a justice "shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might be reasonably questioned" or "(w)here he has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceedings ..."

Court Ruling Proves: Kagan Must Recuse | CNSnews.com

Thanks for posting that. My post was a bit rhetorical I must admit...I have read a few stories over the past few months that discussed the issue.

Such as this one from the WSJ as it was being discussed before her confirmation to the SCOTUS.

Elena Kagan breezed through her recent confirmation hearings, but there's some crucial unfinished business the Senate should insist on before voting on her nomination to the Supreme Court. To wit, she ought to recuse herself from participating as a Justice in the looming legal challenges to ObamaCare.

In response to Senate queries, Ms. Kagan has said she'll recuse herself from participating in 11 cases on which she represented the government in her current job as Solicitor General. The challenge to ObamaCare isn't one of them, though the cases brought by Florida and 20 other states were filed in March, well before President Obama announced her nomination on May 10.

Ms. Kagan was never asked directly at her hearings about her role as SG regarding the health-care lawsuits. The closest anyone came was this question from Oklahoma Republican Tom Coburn: "Was there at any time—and I'm not asking what you expressed or anything else—was there at any time you were asked in your present position to express an opinion on the merits of the health-care bill?"

Ms. Kagan: "There was not."

Regarding a potential recusal, that's not the right question. Ms. Kagan was unlikely to have been consulted on the merits of health-care policy, and even if she did express an opinion on policy this would not be grounds for recusal. The legal precedents on that are clear.

Recusal arises as a matter of judicial ethics if as a government official she expressed an opinion on the merits of the health-care litigation. This is what she would have to render a judgment on were she to be confirmed for the High Court. It is also the question on which she is likely to have participated given her role at the Justice Department

While not experssing an opinion on the politcial leanings T of one justice or another , would this not also apply to Justice Thomas as well? If it does and they both recuse themselves then you are right back to the same place you were at before.

Justices of the United States Supreme Court have not adopted and are not subject to a comprehensive code of judicial ethics. Nor are denials of motions to recuse by individual justices required to be in writing or subject to review. Recent media reports have focused public attention on this situation. The purpose of this letter is to issue a nonpartisan call for the implementation of mandatory and enforceable rules to protect the integrity of the Supreme Court.
Canon 1 of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges explains the importance of judicial ethics:
An independent and honorable judiciary is indispensable to justice in our society. A judge should maintain and enforce high standards of conduct and should personally observe those standards, so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary may be preserved.
This Code of Conduct is applicable to all federal judges except Supreme Court justices.
http://www.afj.org/judicial_ethics_sign_on_letter.pdf

 

[bigrebnc1775]

If Kagan participates, the ‘Kennedy Court’ will vote to uphold; if not, not.

The politics of the issue are of course telling: conservatives want the ACA struck down having nothing to do with the law or facts of the case, but rather because they would cherish a major defeat for Obama. The fact that millions of Americans would again be without insurance – given the fact Congress would be unable or unwilling to pass healthcare reform again – is of no consequence to the right.

The Individual Mandate will go down. The Rest of the law will likely remain, which will be a problem considering the Entire Law is based on the Idea of the Individual Mandate reducing costs, and generating Funding.

Wasn't there something about the way it was worded that if that certain part is found to be unconstitutional the whole law will be found unconstitutional?

 

[Flopper]

Scalia has hinted that he doesn't want to overturn the legislation. And this would be a second radical step for the court, who's already done some remarkable activist decisions in terms of overturning laws from the state and federal government.

One way or the other..it's going to set the stage for universal health care. And if the courts overturn obamacare..that's going to be sooner rather then later.

I don't care where you got your information from.
Universal Healthcare in this country is not going to happen. Period.
It's not possible for the federal government to insure 320 million people. Also, universal health insurance would require a captive market where privately funded insurance or direct pay to medical professionals must be outlawed.
That will no doubt not stand up to Constitutional muster.

Yeah..it will.

And yes it is.

If it's possible for this country to destroy the world 25 times over..surely it can save it just about the same amount.

If the law is overturned which I doubt, the demand for healthcare reform will not go away. In fact, even if the law stands, the next administration will be proposing healthcare law changes, not repeal. Repeal would set the stage for a single payer system.

 

[Charles_Main]

The politics of the issue are of course telling: conservatives want the ACA struck down having nothing to do with the law or facts of the case, but rather because they would cherish a major defeat for Obama. The fact that millions of Americans would again be without insurance – given the fact Congress would be unable or unwilling to pass healthcare reform again – is of no consequence to the right.

The Individual Mandate will go down. The Rest of the law will likely remain, which will be a problem considering the Entire Law is based on the Idea of the Individual Mandate reducing costs, and generating Funding.

Wasn't there something about the way it was worded that if that certain part is found to be unconstitutional the whole law will be found unconstitutional?

Don't Believe so, But most people agree with out the Mandate the Law is pretty much Unworkable.

 

[Flopper]

The Individual Mandate will go down. The Rest of the law will likely remain, which will be a problem considering the Entire Law is based on the Idea of the Individual Mandate reducing costs, and generating Funding.

Wasn't there something about the way it was worded that if that certain part is found to be unconstitutional the whole law will be found unconstitutional?

Don't Believe so, But most people agree with out the Mandate the Law is pretty much Unworkable.

The law is certainly workable without the mandate. Open enrollment would be extended and insurance companies would charge a late enrollment fee. Depending on the number that signed up, the cost of coverage for preexisting condition would have to increase. The 260 billion in deficit reduction through tax increases and cutbacks in Medicare, the increase coverage of Medicaid, closing of the Medicare doughnut hole and numerous other provision would exist.

 

[MeBelle]

The law in question is 28 U.S.C. 455.

Interesting.

(b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances: [...]

(4) He knows that he, individually or as a fiduciary, or his spouse or minor child residing in his household, has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;​

I hope there's no one like that on the Court!

I'm not sure what qualifies as a 'financial interest' or how it would be determined if "...substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding..."

If Mrs Thomas quits her lobbying position, then it would be OK with everyone if Thomas does not recuse himself?

I do find some irony that Mrs Thomas is earning money lobbying AGAINST ACA.
If the SCOTUS sides against ACA then Mrs Thomas is out of a job??

Any commentary on the subject at hand, KAGEN? TY

 

[The T]

Maybe?

10/19/11
U.S. District Judge Ellen Huvelle, a Clinton appointee, ironically provided evidence last week that seals the case that Justice Elena Kagan is required by law to recuse herself from cases challenging Obamacare.

The law in question is 28 U.S.C. 455. It mandates that a justice "shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might be reasonably questioned" or "(w)here he has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceedings ..."

Court Ruling Proves: Kagan Must Recuse | CNSnews.com

Thanks for posting that. My post was a bit rhetorical I must admit...I have read a few stories over the past few months that discussed the issue.

Such as this one from the WSJ as it was being discussed before her confirmation to the SCOTUS.

Elena Kagan breezed through her recent confirmation hearings, but there's some crucial unfinished business the Senate should insist on before voting on her nomination to the Supreme Court. To wit, she ought to recuse herself from participating as a Justice in the looming legal challenges to ObamaCare.

In response to Senate queries, Ms. Kagan has said she'll recuse herself from participating in 11 cases on which she represented the government in her current job as Solicitor General. The challenge to ObamaCare isn't one of them, though the cases brought by Florida and 20 other states were filed in March, well before President Obama announced her nomination on May 10.

Ms. Kagan was never asked directly at her hearings about her role as SG regarding the health-care lawsuits. The closest anyone came was this question from Oklahoma Republican Tom Coburn: "Was there at any time—and I'm not asking what you expressed or anything else—was there at any time you were asked in your present position to express an opinion on the merits of the health-care bill?"

Ms. Kagan: "There was not."

Regarding a potential recusal, that's not the right question. Ms. Kagan was unlikely to have been consulted on the merits of health-care policy, and even if she did express an opinion on policy this would not be grounds for recusal. The legal precedents on that are clear.

Recusal arises as a matter of judicial ethics if as a government official she expressed an opinion on the merits of the health-care litigation. This is what she would have to render a judgment on were she to be confirmed for the High Court. It is also the question on which she is likely to have participated given her role at the Justice Department

While not experssing an opinion on the politcial leanings T of one justice or another , would this not also apply to Justice Thomas as well? If it does and they both recuse themselves then you are right back to the same place you were at before.

Justices of the United States Supreme Court have not adopted and are not subject to a comprehensive code of judicial ethics. Nor are denials of motions to recuse by individual justices required to be in writing or subject to review. Recent media reports have focused public attention on this situation. The purpose of this letter is to issue a nonpartisan call for the implementation of mandatory and enforceable rules to protect the integrity of the Supreme Court.
Canon 1 of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges explains the importance of judicial ethics:
An independent and honorable judiciary is indispensable to justice in our society. A judge should maintain and enforce high standards of conduct and should personally observe those standards, so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary may be preserved.
This Code of Conduct is applicable to all federal judges except Supreme Court justices.
http://www.afj.org/judicial_ethics_sign_on_letter.pdf

No. He is not directly involved. Kagan was.

 

[MeBelle]

If the law is overturned which I doubt, the demand for healthcare reform will not go away. In fact, even if the law stands, the next administration will be proposing healthcare law changes, not repeal. Repeal would set the stage for a single payer system.

The US needs HEALTH INSURANCE reform, not health care reform.

 

[The T]

If the law is overturned which I doubt, the demand for healthcare reform will not go away. In fact, even if the law stands, the next administration will be proposing healthcare law changes, not repeal. Repeal would set the stage for a single payer system.

The US needs HEALTH INSURANCE reform, not health care reform.

We don't need Government running the industry into the ground which it is already doing as millions of people are being forced off of employer backed programs.

The whole thing will end up like Socialist Security, Medicare, Medicaid...

 

[thereisnospoon]

The Individual Mandate will go down. The Rest of the law will likely remain, which will be a problem considering the Entire Law is based on the Idea of the Individual Mandate reducing costs, and generating Funding.

Wasn't there something about the way it was worded that if that certain part is found to be unconstitutional the whole law will be found unconstitutional?

Don't Believe so, But most people agree with out the Mandate the Law is pretty much Unworkable.

Correct. IN order for this to work, it MUST have a captive citizenry

 

[thereisnospoon]

Wasn't there something about the way it was worded that if that certain part is found to be unconstitutional the whole law will be found unconstitutional?

Don't Believe so, But most people agree with out the Mandate the Law is pretty much Unworkable.

The law is certainly workable without the mandate. Open enrollment would be extended and insurance companies would charge a late enrollment fee. Depending on the number that signed up, the cost of coverage for preexisting condition would have to increase. The 260 billion in deficit reduction through tax increases and cutbacks in Medicare, the increase coverage of Medicaid, closing of the Medicare doughnut hole and numerous other provision would exist.

NO tax increases. Government has enough. They can learn to spend less.
Done.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

"What Congress cannot do under the Commerce Clause is mandate that individuals enter into contracts with private insurance companies for the purchase of an expensive product from the time they are born until the time they die," the opinion said.

Federal appeals court strikes down insurance requirement in Obama's health care overhaul | NJ.com

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Wasn't there something about the way it was worded that if that certain part is found to be unconstitutional the whole law will be found unconstitutional?

Don't Believe so, But most people agree with out the Mandate the Law is pretty much Unworkable.

The law is certainly workable without the mandate. Open enrollment would be extended and insurance companies would charge a late enrollment fee. Depending on the number that signed up, the cost of coverage for preexisting condition would have to increase. The 260 billion in deficit reduction through tax increases and cutbacks in Medicare, the increase coverage of Medicaid, closing of the Medicare doughnut hole and numerous other provision would exist.

no it isn't because it can't be paid for

 

[The T]

Don't Believe so, But most people agree with out the Mandate the Law is pretty much Unworkable.

The law is certainly workable without the mandate. Open enrollment would be extended and insurance companies would charge a late enrollment fee. Depending on the number that signed up, the cost of coverage for preexisting condition would have to increase. The 260 billion in deficit reduction through tax increases and cutbacks in Medicare, the increase coverage of Medicaid, closing of the Medicare doughnut hole and numerous other provision would exist.

no it isn't because it can't be paid for

But see? This is what they are arguing...it is NOW a TAX...before it was a TAX...Nevermind it forces Commerce...or go to jail for not participating

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The law is certainly workable without the mandate. Open enrollment would be extended and insurance companies would charge a late enrollment fee. Depending on the number that signed up, the cost of coverage for preexisting condition would have to increase. The 260 billion in deficit reduction through tax increases and cutbacks in Medicare, the increase coverage of Medicaid, closing of the Medicare doughnut hole and numerous other provision would exist.

no it isn't because it can't be paid for

But see? This is what they are arguing...it is NOW a TAX...before it was a TAX...Nevermind it forces Commerce...or go to jail for not participating

Now where are they going to put all those criminals for not paying?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The law is certainly workable without the mandate. Open enrollment would be extended and insurance companies would charge a late enrollment fee. Depending on the number that signed up, the cost of coverage for preexisting condition would have to increase. The 260 billion in deficit reduction through tax increases and cutbacks in Medicare, the increase coverage of Medicaid, closing of the Medicare doughnut hole and numerous other provision would exist.

no it isn't because it can't be paid for

But see? This is what they are arguing...it is NOW a TAX...before it was a TAX...Nevermind it forces Commerce...or go to jail for not participating

so obama lied?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HE-rGGKksQ]President Obama s Pledge Never to Raise Taxes on Anyone Making Less Than 250 000 a Year - YouTube[/ame]
shocking

 

[rdean]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Supreme Court agreed on Monday to decide the fate of President Barack Obama's healthcare law, with an election-year ruling due by July on the healthcare system's biggest overhaul in nearly 50 years.

The decision had been widely expected since late September, when the Obama administration asked the nation's highest court to uphold the centerpiece insurance provision and 26 states separately asked that the entire law be struck down.

The justices in a brief order agreed to hear the appeals. At the heart of the legal battle is whether the Congress overstepped its powers by requiring that all Americans buy health insurance by 2014 or pay a penalty, a provision known as the individual mandate.







Supreme Court agrees to hear Obama healthcare law - chicagotribune.com

People should be against this un authorized use of legislation of congress. If they can force people to buy healthcare coverage they can force people to buy anything like guns.

They are forced to pay taxes and get car insurance.

Oops.

 

[Liability]

no it isn't because it can't be paid for

But see? This is what they are arguing...it is NOW a TAX...before it was a TAX...Nevermind it forces Commerce...or go to jail for not participating

so obama lied?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HE-rGGKksQ]President Obama s Pledge Never to Raise Taxes on Anyone Making Less Than 250 000 a Year - YouTube[/ame]
shocking

The TOTUS may have lied. The President was just reading along.

It is apparent that the President couldn't have been lying. It's a lock that he has no fucking clue, one way or the other, whether it is or isn't a tax.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Supreme Court agreed on Monday to decide the fate of President Barack Obama's healthcare law, with an election-year ruling due by July on the healthcare system's biggest overhaul in nearly 50 years.

The decision had been widely expected since late September, when the Obama administration asked the nation's highest court to uphold the centerpiece insurance provision and 26 states separately asked that the entire law be struck down.

The justices in a brief order agreed to hear the appeals. At the heart of the legal battle is whether the Congress overstepped its powers by requiring that all Americans buy health insurance by 2014 or pay a penalty, a provision known as the individual mandate.







Supreme Court agrees to hear Obama healthcare law - chicagotribune.com

People should be against this un authorized use of legislation of congress. If they can force people to buy healthcare coverage they can force people to buy anything like guns.

They are forced to pay taxes and get car insurance.

Oops.

one comment before you hear what obama said do people who don't have a car have to pay auto insurance?
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HE-rGGKksQ]President Obama s Pledge Never to Raise Taxes on Anyone Making Less Than 250 000 a Year - YouTube[/ame]

 

[The T]

no it isn't because it can't be paid for

But see? This is what they are arguing...it is NOW a TAX...before it was a TAX...Nevermind it forces Commerce...or go to jail for not participating

Now where are they going to put all those criminals for not paying?

Compelling question...isn't it?

The SCOTUS has alot to wade through. Mark Levin and his Landmark Legal Foundation are right in the thick of it...He spoke of this tonight...

Landmark Asks Supreme Court to Decide on Obamacare.

Landmark's Amicus Brief on Obamacare

Interesting read when you have the time.