If the court strikes down the bill or mandate,they will change the ability of congress to pass laws for some time to come. Originally Posted by ekim008No, it will only hinder the Congress in it's ability to pass laws that are not Constitutional.
- Jackie S
- 03-31-2012, 02:11 PM
- Chica Chaser
- 03-31-2012, 02:15 PM
Kagan is dumb as rocks and here is why......... Originally Posted by WhirlawayLets not forget the perceived conflict of interest Ms Kagan has with this matter. She previously served as Solicitor General under Obama during the time of crafting and eventual passage of ACA.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...f_.single.html
Can Justice Kagan review the ACA without regard for the personal and professional past and the future of President Obama as well as her prior work in the administration? Can she look at the ambiguous and open-ended Commerce Clause precedents of the court and reach a legal answer with no awareness of the political implications for the president who so recently employed and appointed her? If the answer is yes, she is more robot than judge. If the answer is no, she should recuse herself. And the answer, ultimately, is what Americans will think, and a reasonable American would believe she has a stake in this litigation.
1) She served as the solicitor general of the United States during the time that the ACA was furiously debated in Congress, discussed in town halls across the country, and enacted;
2) The ACA is the most important, controversial, and partisan piece of legislation put forward by the Obama administration while Kagan worked as the president’s top lawyer to the Supreme Court. If he didn’t consult with her about it, he should have;
3) She was nominated to the Supreme Court by President Obama shortly after the ACA was passed, and the president is closely and personally identified with the law;
4) She has to review the law just a few months before President Obama runs for re-election;
5) His re-election might well be affected by how the Supreme Court rules; and
6) We know she celebrated the passage of the law.
We also know that Kagan wrote an e-mail to Laurence Tribe, a famous Harvard constitutional law professor who was also working for the administration at the time the law passed, in which she said, “I hear they have the votes, Larry!! Simply amazing.” The email's subject line was "fingers and toes crossed today!"
- CJ7
- 03-31-2012, 03:11 PM
Duuuuuurrrrrrr
amazing how people connected to a party work within that party isnt it?
amazing how people connected to a party work within that party isnt it?
- i'va biggen
- 03-31-2012, 03:53 PM
No, it will only hinder the Congress in it's ability to pass laws that are not Constitutional. Originally Posted by Jackie S
you all are hoping this is the only result.the court so far has elected a president changed the law so foreign countrys can contribute vast amounts of cash to elections and if they rule this law is unconstitutional they may so rule in the future,so instead of congress governing the supreme court will govern.
- timpage
- 03-31-2012, 04:08 PM
Yeah, what a dummy. Graduated Summa Cum Laude from Princeton undergraduate. Harvard Law School. Harvard Law Review. Graduated magna cum laude Harvard Law School. (that means she did good Whirlyturd). Law clerk with the United States Circuit Ct. of Appeals, law clerk at the United States Supreme Court. Worked at Williams & Connolly in Washington D.C., one of the most prestigious law firms in the world.
Left to teach law at the University of Chicago Law School, also one of the most prestigious legal institutions in the United States. Worked as assistant White House counsel, nominated for DC Circuit Ct. of Appeals but the repukes wouldn't give her a vote so she went to teach at Harvard Law School. Went on to become Dean of the Harvard Law School.
A "dummy"? No, that would be you Whirlyturd.
Left to teach law at the University of Chicago Law School, also one of the most prestigious legal institutions in the United States. Worked as assistant White House counsel, nominated for DC Circuit Ct. of Appeals but the repukes wouldn't give her a vote so she went to teach at Harvard Law School. Went on to become Dean of the Harvard Law School.
A "dummy"? No, that would be you Whirlyturd.
- Chica Chaser
- 03-31-2012, 04:35 PM
Nice resume she has indeed. Just because she's apparently intelligent doesn't mean she is totally above-board with integrity and ethics in her day job.
Its a really good thing she is smart
Its a really good thing she is smart
- joe bloe
- 03-31-2012, 06:33 PM
Nice resume she has indeed. Just because she's apparently intelligent doesn't mean she is totally above-board with integrity and ethics in her day job.Nobody will ever accuse her of getting by on hers looks! I hear she's a dike.
Its a really good thing she is smart
- I B Hankering
- 03-31-2012, 06:51 PM
- IIFFOFRDB
- 03-31-2012, 07:34 PM
Does the goverment have a leak site too? Obamas justice is STUPID. Thanks RUSH.
- IIFFOFRDB
- 03-31-2012, 07:37 PM
- Whirlaway
- 03-31-2012, 09:18 PM
Maybe Kegan wasn't the biggest dummy at this week's SCOTUS conclave ............maybe it was Breyer (from powerlineblog).
JUSTICE BREYER FLUNKS CON LAW
Reading the transcript and listening to the audio of day 2 of the Obamacare argument, I was struck by the sheer intellectual laziness and complacency of Justice Breyer. To liken him to a rodeo clown would be to credit him with too much energy. Referring to the key New Deal Commerce Clause case of Wickard v. Filburn, Breyer asked, for example: “Didn’t they make that man growing his own wheat go into the market and buy other wheat for his — for his cows?”
Well, actually, no, Justice Breyer, they didn’t. “They” — Congress in an amendment to the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 — limited the amount of wheat farmer Filburn could grow on his farm under a quota set for him by the geniuses in Washington (or penalized him for exceeding the quota). “They” didn’t make him go into the market and buy wheat for his cows. That’s the point — the point Randy Barnett has argued for the past few years.
The distinction between the case vaguely recalled by Justice Breyer and the one decided by the Supreme Court in the Wickard case might be the difference between a pass or a fail on a fairly graded Con law exam in law school. It goes to the heart of the Obamacare case. Justice Breyer has apparently been pursuing other intersts over the past few months.
As Jeffrey Anderson and Conn Carroll have observed, this wasn’t necessarily Justice Breyer’s only laugh-out-loud moment during day 2 of the oral argument. And if Justice Breyer were not a party-line liberal, you would have heard about it.
JUSTICE BREYER FLUNKS CON LAW
Reading the transcript and listening to the audio of day 2 of the Obamacare argument, I was struck by the sheer intellectual laziness and complacency of Justice Breyer. To liken him to a rodeo clown would be to credit him with too much energy. Referring to the key New Deal Commerce Clause case of Wickard v. Filburn, Breyer asked, for example: “Didn’t they make that man growing his own wheat go into the market and buy other wheat for his — for his cows?”
Well, actually, no, Justice Breyer, they didn’t. “They” — Congress in an amendment to the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 — limited the amount of wheat farmer Filburn could grow on his farm under a quota set for him by the geniuses in Washington (or penalized him for exceeding the quota). “They” didn’t make him go into the market and buy wheat for his cows. That’s the point — the point Randy Barnett has argued for the past few years.
The distinction between the case vaguely recalled by Justice Breyer and the one decided by the Supreme Court in the Wickard case might be the difference between a pass or a fail on a fairly graded Con law exam in law school. It goes to the heart of the Obamacare case. Justice Breyer has apparently been pursuing other intersts over the past few months.
As Jeffrey Anderson and Conn Carroll have observed, this wasn’t necessarily Justice Breyer’s only laugh-out-loud moment during day 2 of the oral argument. And if Justice Breyer were not a party-line liberal, you would have heard about it.