I wonder what kind of "perks" Mrs. Thomas gets with her husband on the court? And how much does she influence his decisions?

Phancy, you got any problems at all with Kagan sitting in on this one?

the high court is tainted anyway,,they are all political picks...where they should be elected by the voters.

Everybody seem to assume that this will be a 5-4 decision. I believe it will be more like a 6-3 decision upholding the law on constitutional grounds. At least one of the conservative justices will agree with the rulings by the conservative justices on the circuit court and uphold it.

Ivan careful I just brought that up on another post.

White Collar what objection do you have to supreme court justices having rules of ethics to follow and why should they be exempt with the level of power they now hold.

That is the problem with our current judicial system. The judges are supposed to oversee trials to ensure that the rules of court, rules of evidence and criminal/civil codes are followed on behalf of the state & people.....not a political party. The prosecution is one side the defense is the other but the judge is for the state on behalf of both. The supreme court is for the US Constitution, peiod. Its not supposed to be for or against anything....it just weighs the current law and judges wether or not it is in line with the constitution or outside of the constitution. Judges should never politic from the bench or involve themselves with political sides because it biases their standing on the bench as impartial.

This is a part of an article;

By JESSE J. HOLLAND and MARK SHERMAN
Associated Press

Two justices, conservative Clarence Thomas and liberal Elena Kagan, who had been asked by advocacy groups to withdraw from the case, are going to take part in it. The court's practice is for justices who are staying out of a case to say so when it is accepted, and no one has announced a recusal. Thomas's wife, Virginia, has worked for a group that has advocated against the health care overhaul, and Kagan served as solicitor general in the Obama administration when the law was being formulated.
Copyright 2011 The Associated Press.

They should both sit this one out.

Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL vs WCA - Point, Set, Match, and Game...

Good comments Fiesty, have followed you posts for awhile.

As for the US Supreme Court... I hope you remember your oath to the people of the United States. Do not let your party affiliation, outside activities, or anything else influence your decisions.

Feisty, I think you mean Scalia, not Alito (Although, Alito could sit out and it would be fine with me also).

White Collar: Don't be too sure of that. You assume chief justice Robertss is just another politcal hack masked in black. I would not assume your conservatives will automatically vote to curtail the powers of Congress that are written into the constitution...particularly since they have on occasion voted the other way.

I think I can say that I would say this about any political leaning judge.

I honestly do not have an Issue with C.T. staying on for this case. I personally do not see a legal reason to keep him out of it. It is his wife, who worked with the groups, not him. She is allowed to have a political life if she so wishes.

I KNOW I can say this about any judge.

IF you worked on a law as E.K. did, there is a huge issue with sitting on the panel that decides if it is constitutional or not. IF you worked on it, you deemed it constitutional when helping to frame the law. Total conflict of Interest.

Hey, what happened to White Collar Auto? Did Fiesty run him off? That exchange was just getting good!

WCA- I agree wouldn't they cancel each other out at that point? What's the problem here?

Fiesty,

We have to let the court decide, not us. Whether we like the decision or not.

test test

"IF you worked on it, you deemed it constitutional when helping to frame the law. Total conflict of Interest.

Well, the conflict of interest would not come from a prior familiarity or from previously thinking it is constitutional; all the justices would have various preconceived notions depending on their familiarity with the issues.

A conflict of interest is when someone would personally gain from a decision. It has been argued that if someone has been a strong advocate for an issue, then they have a conflict of interest to judge it fairly on the legal merits only. That's possible, but it still isn't a direct personal gain.

Sorry WCA - while I'm not in agreement with Feisty, it looks to me like you started the name calling. That last post was really pretty immature and unnecessary. It makes it pretty obvious that you can't back your stance. Too bad.

WCA,

It is also hard to debate someone when the facts are on her side. Clarence Thomas should be impeached for failing to correctly fill out forms, required by law. For thirteen years he lied or forgot that his wife made almost 700,000.00 from far right leaning groups.

If he didn't lie and forgot about her making that much money then he needs to step down because he is senile. More than likely he lied and if that is the case he should be impeached. Both Scalia and Thomas have been at events sponsored by the Koch brothers, the Koch brothers also funded the Citizens United versus the FEC that gave Corporations person hood. Now Corporations have the ability to spend as much money as they want influencing elections. Every Justice that voted that a Corporation has the same right as a living United States Citizen should be impeached in my opinion.

I also agree that Kagan should sit out on the Health Care Hearings. Both sides of the political spectrum have to follow the law in order for our country to run correctly. Supreme Court Justices should not even engage in anything that might appear political or improper.

And WCA as far as calling people names you have already started that childish game and called Feisty a pig and those that agree with her minions. Can't have it both ways.

Kagan should sit out because SHE HERSELF worked on the defense of the law for the current administration. This is a blatant conflict of interest. In the case of Thomas, this is not so apparent, as it was his wife, and not he himself, who worked to defeat the law. Justice Thomas and his wife are two different people, and being married to someone is not the same as BEING someone. Arnold S is a republican and married a Kennedy (democrat). James Carville is married to a conservative. Just being married doesn't mean they share the same views, biases, or opinions. Had Thomas himself worked to defeat the law, I would argue he sure excuse himself, but he didn't.

Many conservatives believe that Kagan was put on the court for the sole purpose of hearing this case and ruling in favor of the law. She promised to recuse herself of any cases where she presided over them as solicitor general. Let's see how "transparent" she is now that the world is watching.

Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL

Nice try to stack the court for your side, but it doesn't seem to be working. It appears all 9 Justices will hear the case, and it will likely swing on Justice Kennedy, which means it could go either way.

Personally, I'd like Congress to adopt 'Universal' health care, with minimum 'Standards of Care' dictated by the government, and have insurance companies compete nationally for business on the standardized care required to provide competition to control costs. It should be paid for by a combination of payroll taxes and a small national sales tax. It should also require malpractice claims to be handled by binding arbitration to get the attorney lobby out of the equation.

It seems to work well for other industrialized countries and would provide equal health care for everyone. If some want 'Cadillac' added coverage out of pocket, they can pay extra. Estimates are that it could save as much as $1 Trillion per year ($10 Trillion over 10 years - which is 2/3 of our National Debt).

gee supreme court is in the pockets of big money. what a suprise. they didn't pass the campaign funding laws for nothing. the true meaning of trickle down economics. wealthy people give to politicians and judges => they make policies and laws to benefit the wealthy and corporataions => "ooops we're all out of money" => the end. what do we get rrrrrrrruber biscuit. chew on that.

"In fact, justices are exempt from the Code of Conduct that governs the actions of lower federal judges."

First, whether anyone thinks the justices attendance of such gatherings is appropriate doesn't matter in light of the fact that they aren't breaching any code of conduct. You can't say they are doing something wrong just because you don't like it. Whether they should be held to that code of conduct is another issue. That said, no one can tell me that this sort of thing isn't happening all the time, with all of the justices. We can pick on these two in particular now, but I doubt they are doing anything the others haven't done. I'm not saying that makes it right in general, but in terms of the rules/laws, they aren't breaking any. So change the rules if they need changing....

The mandatory buying of insurance does not fit the commerce clause. Second, the law is not equally applied allowing for exemptions, which is a violation of the taxation clause. If you read the Constitution, it is supposed to be based off the legislative intent at the time it was passed back in 1787. A lot of rulings over the years fail to follow the intent of what was written. The ruling are not supposed to be for ideology but for the original intent of the law. We have gotten away from the intent and now want things that benefit even if it wasn't the intent. I wonder how many of you that want Obama-care are on welfare, unemployed and not looking for a job, or or goofing off on the job. I am retired and have the time for these blogs. If some of you put the time and effort into work as you do in these blogs, you could be a very successful and wealthy person. Besides, if you were a true liberal, you wouldn't be on the computer because it takes energy and you need to set the example to conserve it.

Joe Radmacher

I agree that Clarence Thomas broke the law by not reporting his wife's earnings and for that reason, he should have been removed. The bit about his wife taking money" from far right leaning groups" is unnecessary to the argument. Doesn't matter if she got the money selling Girl Scout cookies, it was wrong not to report it.

With regard to:

"Every Justice that voted that a Corporation has the same right as a living United States Citizen should be impeached in my opinion."

That is just your opinion - no legal grounds for impeachment/removal and also unnecessary to the argument.

My point is, what Thomas did in not reporting his wife's earnings, whatever the source, was wrong, period, and grounds for removal.

Roy Wilson,

I agree with your position on Health Care. You have some very valid points and even a fair way to pay for the cost and keep the market competitive. Good post!

I'd like to give the Spreme Court Justices (all of them) credit for achieving excellence in their field.

I for one am confidence their decision will reflect an arduous review of the United States constitution. Most of us posting on this issue are simply posturing for the outcome we would like to see. But none of us sit on the US Supreme Court. So let them all do their difficult work of reconciling two competing views of constitutional law. It is a thankless job. One they were willing to accept regardless of the fact that most cases find one side disgruntled.

God provide guidance to them in their deliberations.

For the record, I did not call Feisty a name. I used an old expression that my dad use to use all the time about getting in debates with people who refuse to listen.

I have a long history here of never calling anyone names and if that is the way it was taken, I apologize.

This all started with me saying they should both sit out. I still don't see the problem with that. Sit out, sit in, the result won't change.

Don't care either way.

We keep HCR, we pay higher rates.

We dismantle it, we go back to paying more for the uninsured with our taxes.

Either way, WE PAY. For those stupid Republicans who will think we will go to a "let him die" society (as they cheer for in debates)... it will not happen. You WILL PAY either way. Deal with it, morons.

Oh, and I love the fact that Republicans fight for Health Care Reform for 20 F---ING YEARS... Dole pushes for it over and over... their own candidate implemented it in his own state... it was based off a Republican framework... But when Obama gets it done, suddenly they are all against it. 20 years of fighting for it, a liberal passes it, and it's the devil. Awesome.

A.L.S.,

I agree that Clarence Thomas broke the law by not reporting his wife's earnings and for that reason, he should have been removed. The bit about his wife taking money" from far right leaning groups" is unnecessary to the argument. Doesn't matter if she got the money selling Girl Scout cookies, it was wrong not to report it

It matters to me where the money comes from because he has voted in favor of laws benefiting these groups. That is a conflict of interest! I don't see the harm in selling girl scout cookies because that is charitable, you don't get paid for it and is not a conflict of interest.

"Every Justice that voted that a Corporation has the same right as a living United States Citizen should be impeached in my opinion."

Now you are saying I can't have an opinion? This case and the Supreme Court decision gives corporations more power than the voters. That is just wrong.

The rest of you that says it OK for the spouse to make money from organizations that can benefit from their spouses decisions on the court most live in a different world than I do. If my wife makes money it is shared in the household and should be considered a conflict of interest.

Liberals knew Kagan would be a problem and set about looking for any excuse to have Thomas remove himself to even the numbers. They are so transparent. The Court does not recognize conflict of interest involving political activity of a spouse. Manufactured outrage from the left once again.

The "wash" is making the point that it is silliness to demand that anyone sits out on any ruling. The SCOTUS is what it is at any given time, currently right-leaning. Why conservatives aren't satisfied enough with this is what is contemptible. For progressives and anyone who disliked the Citizens United ruling, get out and vote to reelect President Obama to prevent more conservative appointments.

With that said, and as pointed out above, the SCOTUS is NOT supposed to legislate from the bench, rather to rule on legal grounds only. We have seen lower courts with conservative judges find in favor of the Affordable Health Care Act. This proves there are judges who rule on legal grounds and not their personal conservative or liberal views.

Ultimately this is really only about the mandate part of the law. If the mandate is struck down, my understanding is the rest of the Affordable Care Act will still be valid. The Obama administration has pushed to have this case heard ASAP so that this issue will be out of the way before the 2012 election. Whether the SCOTUS finds in their favor or not, it is smart to take this away as a campaign platform for Teapublicans. I for one am sick of their lies about dismantling "Obamacare" when in fact they could do no such thing.

All they need to ask the Obama Attorney is one simple question:

Name ten examples of Commerce that isn't Interstate Commerce.

The entire premise that Everything is Interstate Commerce defies basic logic. It would have just been called "Commerce" and then the Constitution would have said the Federal Gov't can Regulate ALL Commerce.

But that isn't what the Constitution says.

Interstate as opposed to Intrastate.

So if you can't buy insurance across state lines, and your medical care occurs in your state, then there was no interstate commerce.

Forgetting this one case, this is a very important Constitutional question.

Essentially, the Obama Administration is asserting that the Federal Gov't can regulate, and even force commerce on everything that crosses state lines or doesn't cross state lines. AND on what you purchase OR don't purchase.

I can't come up with a single example of what isn't covered by that. Literally there is nothing I can physically do that wouldn't be subject to that, even if I did nothing! That is infinite Federal Power. No Constitutional limitations.

That should scare just about everyone. Your party will be out of office sooner or later - and then a Federal Gov't with no limits on it's power will be in the hands of the other guys.

I can't think of a more complete destruction of our Constitution and it's system of checks and balances on Gov't authority.

Like the Justice's should NOW start recusing themselves! Then throw out all previous cases. People who believe that they are un-tainted in their beliefs also think that Politicians aren't influenced by "honorarium". Hahaha...honorarium.

Ryan -- After reading up on this issue last night my understanding is that past precedent supports the argument as this being an interstate commerce issue. For instance, if one has no insurance and is injured and requires hospitalization, receives care and then never pays the bill it impacts the industry as a whole. That is where the argument stands. And on a few other issues as well. This is my take however and I am not a lawyer.

Others feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

I'm still surprised people are expecting a 5-4 ruling. Its far more likely to be 7-2, with Thomas and Schalia dissenting.

The Constitution is very clear on this matter: Since the Federal Government is on the hook to pay for people who do not have health insurance and are then unable to pay their medical bills, the "general welfare" clause is in effect, giving Congress the power to demand coverage. The implementation is clearly correct under the "Commerce Clause" [as Silberman correctly ruled].

You can even draw precident: In the late 1790's, Congress passed a series of laws [the Militia Acts] that REQUIRED most all male citizens to purchase guns in case they were called up to militia duty. Same exact concept is in play with the insurance requirement. [As an aside: It rocks using the 2nd ammendment against conservatives once in a while :D]

Kennedy and Roberts have consistently upheld the Commerce Clause, so I see very little chance of this getting overturned. 6-3 ruling as a minimum. Even if the law is overturned, I only see the insurance requirement getting removed, and that can be re-implemented in other ways [say, an unhealthiness tax, which would be perfectly legal via "Taxation and Spending Clause"].

I'm predicitng 7-2, with Thomas and Schalia dissenting.

WCA: Their opinions don't matter anyway.

WCA, this is a democracy. EVERYone's opinions matter.

Sure, it would be nice if we could save some time by having the Supreme Court get rid of Obamacare for us.

But it doesn't really matter. As soon as Obama is voted out, the republican that replaces him will scrap the whole mess.

The entire premise that Everything is Interstate Commerce defies basic logic. It would have just been called "Commerce" and then the Constitution would have said the Federal Gov't can Regulate ALL Commerce.

But that isn't what the Constitution says.

Not really. The Interstate Commerce Clause was written because under the Articles of Confederation, you had a situation where some states were adjusting their currency to gain a competitive edge on other states. By making that the domain of hte Federal Government, you forced all the individual states to adopt one larger economic system, as opposed to having each state having different standards [which would have profound economic effects; look at Europe as an example]

Also:

[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;

So yes, the Consitution is very clear: Any commerce that crosses state lines is under the authority of the Federal Government.

All you political hacks (and you know who you are cough* Fiesty cough* Retired cough* cough*) need to get over yourselves. You all b*tch about Thomas and Alito being one track mind Right wingers but have no problem with the hard left wing political activists Kagan, Sotomayor, Ginsburg, and Breyer sitting on the bench. Your all nothing but HYPOCRITS and your outright hatred for Thomas is just evidence of your RACISM.

Anti-Lib...Poor lil neocons...Effed up the country in only 8 years and now, they are all salivating over all the profits they can put into their high risk investments courtesy of the sick and dying in this country. The only reason any neocon wants to bash national healthcare reform is because they are the ones who profit the most from it.

As for the interstate commerce BS...Try the state of Texas...it uses that interstate commerce BS to stack the deck against any states that put up a fight against their slime ball Big Oil pipe lines...ask the people of nebraska about that one. And gee...how won't all that oil and that new pipeline fill Texas politicians pockets at the expense of the health of the rest of the country.

Grow up little neocons...we are not going to let you get away with dumping more of YOUR states' healthcare needs on our federal kitty courtesy of the rest of us. The red states take more out of the federal kitty to pay for their healthcare than any other states blue or purple. This is why these scumbuckets bitch about having to pay for their healthcare for the first time in their lives.

Sorry, I have no intentions of working my ass off so Lil Abner and Daisy Mae can get their healthcare paid for by my taxes. I pay for mine...You pay for yours.

Joe Radmacher "Roy Wilson, I agree with your position on Health Care."

Thanks. Just for perspective, I looked at President Obama's 2012 Budget projections, and here is what it shows with regard to just the health care entitlements - Medicare/Medicaid;

Total projected Revenues for Medicare/Medicaid over the next 10 years = $2.730 Trillion.
Total projected Costs for Medicare/Medicaid over the next 10 years = $10.530 Trillion.
That's a net Deficit in just the Medicare/Medicaid programs of $7.790 Trillion.

It's interesting to note that the same Budget projections by Obama for the same 10 year period (2012-2021) show a TOTAL Deficit of $7.206 Trillion, so if it were not for the health care Deficits, we would actually show a net SURPLUS of $584 Billion over the next 10 years. These figures include the added cost of Obama's new entitlement for Obamacare. The revenues and spending projected by Obama can be verified at the following White House link - See Table S-3;

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/tables.pdf

If we just enacted Universal Health Care and covered everyone, paid for with a combination of payroll taxes (employer and employee), plus a relatively small national sales tax (I estimate about 3%, excluding food and medicine), we would not only solve the health care issue, but the Deficit problems as well. This, combined with tax reform to eliminate most of the 'loopholes' that the rich use to avoid taxes, would solve the vast majority of our problems and help our busineses to be more competitive as well.

It would seem to be in this case that the liberals believe that if a person accepts a position on the Supreme Court their spouses need to lose THEIR constitutional rights if they are Republican. Why doesn't this apply to Democratic appointees ?

Aw poor Fiesty is all upset at being called out for the racist political hack she is. LOL

Tell me Fiesty, which of your left wing mainstream media would you like me to point you at? Watch any of their analysts. They all agree the four I named ALWAYS side with you libs.

I'm not going to review every case with you. You don't have a real job other than paid left wing blogger. If your really oblivious to reality, you have plenty of time to do your own research to educate yourself.

Yes, poor fiesty.
Driven by ego and the challenge to control, enamored by radicals, anarchists, those who instigate "change" that most people call conflict.
Your actions are born, not out of the search for justice but, by studying history, out of the need to be recognized and remembered.
You CAN get a lot of attention creating controversy.
You hate anything that detracts from you or your cause.
You pretend to follow in the footsteps of great motivators but you are without grace, humility and compassion.
There is nothing noble in that.

Republicans have already demanded that Kagan sit out the case because of her work as solicitor general in the Obama administration during the fight over the health care law.

She obviously has a conflict of interest. Clarence Thomas will obviously vote against the law by his previous voting record alone. I don't think his wife getting money is going to make him change his mind on the issue. The government has no authority to tell us what we must buy and if the court or anyone else presumes this they need to be summarily removed.

If your really oblivious to reality, you have plenty of time to do your own research to educate yourself

So in other words - you throw out baseless accusations and when challenged to back them up - this is the best answer you can come up with! lol

You see the difference between you & me is credibility - I have it & YOU don't!

Be gone little troll - you are dismissed!

Hey Someoneelse-4466623,

Do you have anything intelligent to say or is your idiotic gibberish all you can come up with? Go look in the mirror if you want to see disgusting.

If they can force me to buy insurance, then the next step will be to require me to buy a new car every 3 years (to prop up the auto industry), and a new cell phone every two years. This is a floodgate that, once opened, will have virtually limitless boundaries on the power of government. The question here isn't whether or not requiring everyone to buy health insurance would help pay for healthcare for everyone. Of course it would. The question is whether or not the constitution allows Congress to mandate that everyone purchase Health insurance. In short, the question is, "Does the constitution essentially say that the ends justify the means"? Can we force people to do ANYTHING by saying it's for the "general welfare" and part of "commerce".

I predict the court will rightly say (as did the 11th circuit court) that it's a flimsy argument to require commerce and then say you are regulating it.

Az,

It is hard to argue with your premise but it seems to imply that our current system is somehow different than in the past. In fact our judicial system has been far worse in the past with entirely unqualified political appointees throughout the system. Jefferson was outraged by Adams midnight appointments the 5th Justice of the Supreme Court Roger Taney was an entirely political animal and a extremely marginal legal mind he was appointed as a political reward for supporting Andrew Jackson and Jacksonian Democracy. Appointed judgeships were bought and sold as political currency for most of our history and elections were often visibly corrupt. William Howard Taft was a Supreme Court Justice after he was president he ruled on laws that he had signed into law and no one on either side questioned his character. I in fact believe there is far less corruption and probably not as obvious a political bias. Never were appointments held up as they are today especially on the GOP side where they don't even use the ABA rating system as a guide and reference the extremist Federalist Societies ratings instead.

jkh

JPSOTW AND Kstarr1,

So liberals are looking for any excuse to have Thomas remove himself to even the numbers and are also racist? What?

I suppose you think Thomas forgetting to list about $700k income on his tax return that his wife made off her Teaparty group was just an accident? If it was anybody else they would be arrested. The man is a cheat and liar and I sure as hell don't think he is fit to make any decisions concerning our healthcare. It has nothing to do with race, just morals and trust.

Roberts sold our country out to corporations. Not only corporations in America. Foreign corporations. What a guy.

I guess you are a selective reader. You are very transparent.

1. As Solicitor General, they were already crafting defences for court challenges as ObamaCare was being "passed"...knowing challenges were coming

2. A series of e-mails shows she was involved:

"An October 13, 2009, exchange between Kagan and former Deputy Solicitor General (and current Acting Solicitor General) Neal Katyal. Katyal informs Kagan, “We just got Snowe on health care,” referring to Senator Olympia Snowe (R-ME)."

"A March 21, 2010, email from Kagan to then-Senior Counselor for Access to Justice Laurence Tribe: “I hear they have the votes Larry!! Simply amazing...” Tribe responds, “So healthcare is basically done! Remarkable.”

"A March 16, 2010, email from Kagan to David Barron, then-acting head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, asked if he had seen an article by Michael McConnell published in the Wall Street Journal that discussed a strategy by Democrats to “‘deem’ ObamaCare into Law without voting.” “Did you seee [sic] Michael McConnell’s piece in the wsj?” Kagan writes in an email with the subject line “Health care q.” “YES, HE IS GETTING THIS GOING,” replied Barron.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/news/2011/nov/new-documents-show-supreme-court-justice-elena-kagan-s-comments-obamacare-legislation-

hey Fiesty - i am local to you, want get a drink sometime??? i like drinking and talking politics with someone that has the same views and sounds like you would be teaching me something.

Roy Wilson -- Universal healthcare? Coming from a hard right kinda guy you surprise me sometimes. Understanding you look at the budget first your idea has some merit. Unless I'm mixing you up with another Roy, lol. ; )

What would really be nice is if people could argue and debate without calling each other names. You know who you are, instead of debating you say things like,

Aw poor Fiesty is all upset at being called out for the racist political hack she is. LOL

Anti-Lib...Poor lil neocons

There are hundreds more I could point to but I gave one from each side of the political spectrum.

I don't care if you are an extreme liberal, an extreme conservative, or a moderate there is no need to talk to other people like this. It proves that can't debate the facts so you resort to juvenile name calling.

I am sure our foreign enemies love to see us tear ourselves apart. United we stand, divided and we will be conquered.

Only a liberal law professor calls it "the commerce clause". No one questions their power to regulate foreign commerce.

It's called the Inter-State Commerce Clause.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:

“
[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;
”

Note that it doesn't say Commerce within the several states, it says among the several states.

Hence why it is called the Interstate Commerce clause.

Again, no one has been able to give an example of what would be excluded by this clause under the current Obama position.

They assert that commerce among the states includes Commerce and No Commerce, both within a state and between the states.

So I ask the honest question: name something that wouldn't be covered. And then why wouldn't the Constitution give the Federal Gov't the power to regulate all commerce by just saying : "the Federal Gov't has the power to regulate all commerce"?

That is the exact question they need to ask in this case. If their definition includes everything, then the Federal Gov't has infinite power. We don't need a Constitution at all if they have infinite power. The entire document sets limits on what Washington can do.

So my challenge still stands: name something that isn't covered by the Obama definition of Interstate Commerce..

Dont_carry_it_all "Roy Wilson -- Universal healthcare? Coming from a hard right kinda guy you surprise me sometimes. Understanding you look at the budget first your idea has some merit. Unless I'm mixing you up with another Roy, lol. ; )"

No, I'm that same person that also believes in fiscal and monetary restraint.

Since I'm neither a Republican nor a Democrat, I'm free to 'call em as I see um'. Sometimes it drives people crazy, huh. I wouldn't be surprised if even Feisty thought it had merit.

Can we have Obama sit out the rest of his term too?

Solyndra was asked to delay announcing layoffs until after 2010 vote

"energy officials "did push very hard for us to hold our announcement of the consolidation to employees and vendors to November 3,"... The mid-term congressional elections took place on November 2, and the next day, Solyndra announced it was shutting down some operations and laying off workers."

http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/15/politics/solyndra-investigation/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

dont know how to break it to you guys that think the gov cant make you buy insurance .. try to get away with that arguement if you get pulled over for haveing a tail light out .. try to tell the officer the gov cant make people buy insurance .. he will tell you you are right then write you out a ticket ... the SCOTUS should have Kagen Thomas and Scalia sit this one out .. just 2 days a go Thomas and Scalia were guests of honor at a dinner provided by the Law firm that will argue the case against Health Care Reform...can anyone say bought and paid for

If we can fix the problem of covering those who don't have health insurance by requiring EVERYONE to buy health insurance, then why not also require everyone to buy life insurance? I mean, everyone will die and those who die without life insurance put a huge strain on the rest of us by instantly creating families that are dependent on government to exist.

No, I don't REALLY want the government to require everyone to buy life insurance, but you could use the same argument they are using to require you to buy health insurance to also require everyone to buy life insurance. And after life insurance, it would be something else you'd be required to buy. Government is like a hungry beast that requires more and more, and once they find a new source of revenue (required purchasing), they will find more and more things to require us to buy. You can bet big donors to both parties are already lining up behind their favorite politicians to have it mandated that the government require everyone to buy their product.

independent jim "dont know how to break it to you guys that think the gov cant make you buy insurance .. try to get away with that arguement if you get pulled over for haveing a tail light out"

Apparently you don't understand the difference between a requirement for insurance related to the 'privilege' of driving a car and a 'right' to be alive. Nobody 'requires' that you drive a car.

If you want the 'privilege' of working for a company for compensation, you are also 'required' to pay into a Social Security and Medicare insurance fund, but nobody is 'forcing' you to work..

Ryan in Texas,

It is called the Commerce Clause by virtually everyone. I have never heard anyone else who apparently thinks Scalia is a liberal. He calls it the Commerce Clause in speaking and in writing fairly recently in his concurrence in Gonzales v Raich. You also might want to read almost any Supreme Court decision under the Rehnquist Congressional Commerce Clause Decisions of which Scalia and Thomas were in conconcurrence. There is no liberal cabal if so I would have been asked to join, we liberals have a hard enough time agreeing on much of anything the idea of some unified assault on the individual rights of states gives us way too much credit. And yes the Commerce Clause can be invoked to regulate intrastate commerce see Wickard v Filburn and has been and also cited in a variety of nullification cases.

jkh

White Collar Auto: Here's a simple question I'll be you refuse to answer.

Why is it you demanded that Rangle be expelled for his not reporting taxes owed (which he found and paid before putting himself before the ethic committee for it) yet you are ready to forgive Thomas's unpaid taxes without question?

There wouldn't be some kind of double standard for libs and extremist righties would there?

Oh, NOW the radical libs and conservatives want a voice in who judges at the Supreme Court level because they were SO STUPID AS TO NOT HAVE THIS NEGOTIATED IN CONGRESS!

That's the price you pay for being indignant radicals. You gave up your representation when you put your stinky face on and told your congressionals NOT to negotiate. Now you get to lie in the bed you made in.

Next time, radicals, maybe you'll think twice before being such an indignant a-hole that you thought compromise was a dirty word. Welcome to being an adult, where you work with other adults to get some of what you want, even if youc can't get everything.

A lot of you are ignoring the real issue here. Ryan in Texas nailed it @1.44.

FORGET ABOUT THE HEALTH CARE ISSUES

Feisty, let's say you are right, and they uphold the law.

Under this interpetation of the Commerce clause, what will be the limits to the governments power?????? THERE WILL BE NONE!

Think long and hard about that people. And remember, no matter which party you are against, they will someday wield that same power!

If that doesn't scare the funk out of you, you're an idiot.

The Supreme Court is owned by the corporations now, and has been for a while. Thomas is especially sold out, as is Alito, Scalia and Roberts. When they ruled that corporations are people, and when they stole the election from Gore in 2000, it was all the same thing. You don't get justice at the Supreme Court. You get Republican politics. But one thing is for sure, the feds have no right to tell me to buy insurance. That part of Obama's law needs to go.

I agree w/almost everything you are saying Karl. I lost faith in the Supreme Court when they ruled in favor of the Westboro Baptist (Hate Group) Church and that corporations are people. I won't believe a corporation is a person until it could be put to death.

As for National Health Care (sorry, I do not support this as Obama's law, congress passed it, so they are also responsible), If this is repealed, the american taxpayer will continue to pay coverage for those who cannot afford health care. So one way or another, we still pay. Lastly, the only way to have a qualify of life in this country now, must include: Food, Clothing, Shelter, Health Care, and Transportation.

It's both sides of the aisle and you know it! Do you think the win on the Healthcare bill benefits the people. No, it gives 30 million new customers to a crooked Insurance industry that will raise their prices as soon as we are forced to do business with them. That's corporate greed that lobbied the Democrats. Both sides are out of whack and the sooner the Tea Party and the Occupy people realize it and get together, the sooner we can fix it. Or we can stay on the sidelines and act like it's one side or the other that cause the problems. It's both sides for sure, says this Independent. Like when Hillary Clinton was asked by a constituent point blank about why Lobbying is legal, and she said "it's an intrical part of our government". Bought and paid for, just like all the rest of them.

This court is so highly politicized I think they should all be recused from hearing this issue and it should be referred to the international court in the Hague.

How about letting the people vote on it? Lib's have a better chance in the courts than the people voting on it.

This issue just proves that like the Congress and Senate, the Supremes should have term limits. 8yrs max each. A political seat should not be a lifetime position. These people make rules that EVERYONE but THEM have to abide by. It's not right at all.

The court system was designed to be the weakest of the 3 branches of gov't. It has evolved into the stongest which is Congresses fault.

Well Matthew, you will remain disappointed then. Cheerio!

Matthew's ( and everyone else that hates Thomas) racism is showing through. He just doesn't want to see blacks on the Supreme Court.

You do know I'm African-American, right, JPSOTW?

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

So, JPSOTW, what was your first reaction when you read that last sentence? I'm not actually African-American, but I could have been, for all you knew. So, who's the racist? Sure isn't me, I just think the man is incompetent, has a lot of ethical problems, and should never have been appointed, in the first place. And if I'm so racist, how do you explain my vote for President Obama in 2008, and the fact that I will vote for him again?

Typical right wing response, if you disagree with the conservative African-American, you must be racist. What an idiotic assumption on your part, JPSOTW.

Anyone who believes the healthcare industry wants healthcare reform needs their heads examined. Better yet, go and check out how many lobbying groups have been paid in the billions in just the last 3 years to see to it no healthcare reform comes to pass.

Why? Because HMOs like all insurance industries don't have to give you what you pay for. Under the eye of the government, they can't claim that 80% profit and spend it on their high risk investments that come from those premiums we pay. Premiums are not profit. They pay for healthcare insurance which is to say, a service we are entitled to. This BS of dropping policies people paid decades into is theft big time and Big Insurance knows it. The same is true of jacking the copays and deductibles to make them so unaffordable that people end up bankrupt trying to pay both healthcare insurance and the bills HMOs reject for payment.

Enough with that BS. Big Insurance needs far more regulation to stop them from taking money and using it for everything but its intended purpose.

Matthew-

Well let's see.....

I just think the man is incompetent, has a lot of ethical problems, and should never have been appointed, in the first place.

Change appointed to elected and you have exactly how I feel about Obama. But I'm sure you libs think I'm a racist because I think his policies are all wrong for America. You know the typical left wing response.

Oh and by the way, if you identify with Obama and today's liberals you are backing an historically RACIST party called the Progressives. Do a little research.

Al-524682, actually, the founding fathers designed the three branches to be co-equal, with no branch having more power than another, to provide the checks, and balances they wanted to have in place. If one branch was weaker, then that branch could not provide the necessary checks on the other two branches.

How about letting the people vote on it? Lib's have a better chance in the courts than the people voting on it.

People did vote on it. That is why it is a law. The supporters of the law are not the ones pushing it into court. If you mean let all the citizens vote on it, well you're in the wrong country. That's not how laws are passed here.

This issue just proves that like the Congress and Senate, the Supremes should have term limits. 8yrs max each.

No, that would make the process even more politicized. SCJs are appointed and have lifetime terms specifically to avoid making them beholden to special interests and the political parties.

By the way - calling someone a racist is an excellent way to immediately lose both credibility and the argument.

I don't care whether we agree on the issue. Please save the ad hominem attacks for the mirror.

Ahh, I see, JPSOTW, you really are an idiot. That would explain your idiotic comments. And, no, my assumption was not that you are racist because you disagree with President Obama, you proved you are racist with your post. Personally, I do not even think in those terms, you're the one who brought it up, not me.

Umm, "Progressive Party"? That isn't even a current political party. Now that Democratic Party, on the other hand . . . I mean, they only had a Latino, an African-American, and a women running for President in 2007. But they had those white guys running, too, so that just proves how racist they are! Right?

Somehow, I don't think I'm the one who needs to do some research.

Oh and by the way, if you identify with Obama and today's liberals you are backing an historically RACIST party called the Progressives. Do a little research.

First of all, that's not really true. The Progressive party of 1912 and the Democratic party are not really the same insofar as the Progressive party (a.k.a. the Bull Moose Party) vanished by the 50s.

Second of all, even if they were, your argument is tantamount to saying that the British government likes to persecute people in India - just a little out of date.

The Progressives did not vanish in the '50s. They changed their moniker to liberal because Progressive got such a bad reputation due to their racism, eugenics policies, and fascist ideals. The Democratic party is entirely controlled by the far liberal left. Therefore, yes the democrats are still the Progressive Party with all their wonderful Progressive (aka racist & fascist) goals.

Progressives == Liberals == Today's Democrats

Matthew, Houston, TX "I wouldn't mind seeing Justice Thomas recuse himself from the Supreme Court, period."

I'm sure there are many people who 'wouldn't mind' if Justices Kagan, Bader, Stevens and Sotomayor recused themselves either, period.

Jannine: I agree; these people get too comfortable in DC. Good post.

Well, duh!, Roy. Your point is?

Amen....leave them both alone...let the SCOTUS do whatever it is they do...this is the Court we have...this is the Court we must live with...been that way for 235 years. No matter how many dinners they go to, or how may wives' make midnight drunk calls, or hussles $$ from right wing...they are still on SCOTUS for life, and get to vote any d**n way they please.

Except Kagan has a serious conflict of interest, just a minor detail for you, I know.

BS. Thomas has a clear cut and glaring conflict of interest, and in NO WAY should be allowed any where NEAR a ruling in this case.

I believe the members of this court may realize a need to respond unanimously to this legislation in order not to continue the polarization of the nation on this issue. By acting unanimously on "Brown versus Board of Education" the court ensured that those supporting discrimination were marginalized and had no claim to American values.Not only does the ACA strengthen private industry, but I also think the court.

This court would certainly elevate its stature and set the record straight by a unanimouse opinion.

It should not come down to Kennedy.

ewent wrote:

Anti-Lib...Poor lil neocons...Effed up the country in only 8 years and now, they are all salivating over all the profits they can put into their high risk investments courtesy of the sick and dying in this country. The only reason any neocon wants to bash national healthcare reform is because they are the ones who profit the most from it.

As for the interstate commerce BS...Try the state of Texas...it uses that interstate commerce BS to stack the deck against any states that put up a fight against their slime ball Big Oil pipe lines...ask the people of nebraska about that one. And gee...how won't all that oil and that new pipeline fill Texas politicians pockets at the expense of the health of the rest of the country.

Grow up little neocons...we are not going to let you get away with dumping more of YOUR states' healthcare needs on our federal kitty courtesy of the rest of us. The red states take more out of the federal kitty to pay for their healthcare than any other states blue or purple. This is why these scumbuckets bitch about having to pay for their healthcare for the first time in their lives.

Sorry, I have no intentions of working my ass off so Lil Abner and Daisy Mae can get their healthcare paid for by my taxes. I pay for mine...You pay for yours.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Aside from the harsh language, which is objectionable to some, ewent's facts are clear and accurate. As far as conflicts of interest: When a justice works on a case during the course of performing their duties as a judge (as in Kagan's case) that doesn't display ANY conflict of interest in hearing such cases in the future, regardless of any promotion or appointment they recieved since they last worked on the case. It's their appointed or elected responsibility in both cases, and implies NO political bias. However, when a judge attends a fundraiser for personal political projects, (Alito and Thomas) or they attend rallies with their wife and hide her reciept of funds for political action in his required (required specifically to root out any political influence, I might add) financial disclosures for 7 years (Thomas) you have a clear evidence of political bias on those judges parts, since neither of the things they did were part of their Constitutionally mandated duties, as was the case with Kagan. Obviously, alito and Thomas should sit this one out since they both attended personal political action rallies against the Health Care law and obviously are biased to one side, Kagan was doing her job as required by law and can be trusted to give unbiased deliberation once again on the matter. I don't recall her attending any Occupy Wall St rallies, so I still have no evidence that she IS a "Liberal" judge. Her record certainly isn't liberal. When she decided the white firefighters were descriminated against in favor of African American firefighters was that a "liberal judge" thing to do?

And a typical, ignorant of the superior intellegence of the right, comment by 1st assistant to fiesty, bob

So Mitch, b/c a President decries a judge's decision, that judge should use the power of his office (regardless of what is their mandated duty or what's good for the People) to "get him back" for the admonishment?

So, when Sotomeyor recused herself from that case last (and this) year, that made her a conservative?

I'm just trying to understand your position, or is that going to change again tomorrow when you come up with another rhyming bumper sticker quote you think is clever? (it's not, btw)

So, whenever someone has a "compelling story" you're going to try to deride it, unless their conservative? Oh, wait: "Rich brat succeeds in life cuz of daddy's cash and connections" NEVER is compelling to the majority, is it? Not exactly "Horatio Alger".

Grow up. You're being ridiculous.

sovereignty:

supreme and independent power in government as possessed or claimed by a state or community.

mitchj: It appears individual sovereignty might be an oxymoron.

We do get your talking point, though...you are outraged at the left...... but not at at the Court which tilted the playing field so steeply in your side's favor by legislating from the bench.

Fox Lies.

Stevo1908,

I agree with mitch. It may take awhile, but don't think it is going to stop with this law if it makes it.

what is unfortunate about lib posters is either they dont understand, or do and ignore fact:

consider libs, the welfare clause is expanded to permit the fed to force you to purchase something....and the fed is run by conservatives.

do you have the mental capacity to understand now?

unfortunately, i cant draw pictures here, but surely, oh, nevermind.

Its the commerce clause...an whether you like it or not, health care is regulated. It is not the end of life on this planet as we know it if it is extended to all Americans.

I don't want to go to work every day so somebody else can get a free ride on my earnings. It's already happening. There are at least 70 income transfer programs that allow people to "qualify" for having their bills paid with my earnings. Where is my individual sovereignty? What happened to my having a right to the "fruits of my labor"?

Hey Steve, you'll be saying the same thing as Mitchj when the Republican's get power back and tell you you've lost you're moral compass and will buy Bibles. Then the Bible companies will be overjoyed that they have new customers and can raise their rates. How's that $400 Bible that you are being forced to buy taste? Spend your money on food instead of the Bible and watch them lock you up in a free society. Or, just replace Bible with anything else that they want to force you to buy, in a free country. People are flushing the Freedom that many have died for down the drain.

joeobamayer: exactly right!

why wont they understand..or do they?

@ AP

The point is that no government can force you to buy a product from a private enterprise regardless of economic impact.

Individual responsibility is no more, the liberal's have dumbed everything down so that the "collective" suffers.'

Our founding fathers would be ashamed at what our country has become, the government needs to stay out of my wallet.

Sure Mitch.....have you payed your income tax lately? Have you got your car insurance coverage that the government requires you to have? Hell, do you have a driver's license, wear your seatbelt, stop for red lights? If you want "personal freedom" go to the backwoods of Idaho and hold up and wait for the "revolution" why don't you?

that will be the end of individual sovereignty.

You must be pro-choice then, right? From where I sit, it is conservatives trying to take away individual sovereignty.

@ PatIowa

How about you learn the difference between state and federal governments. State governments have the ability to require you to have car insurance if you want to drive in thier state. Federal governments do not have the ability to mandate such a requirement.

So sick of people using the state car insurance requirement like its the same federally.

Learn before you speak!

Kagan use this time to make me a sandwich!!!

PatIowa-2042516

Sure Mitch.....have you payed your income tax lately? Have you got your car insurance coverage that the government requires you to have? Hell, do you have a driver's license, wear your seatbelt, stop for red lights? If you want "personal freedom" go to the backwoods of Idaho and hold up and wait for the "revolution" why don't you?

Pat, even though your are from iowa, i will try to help you understand. the law is not structured as a tax. car insurance/liscense/stop lights is/are only required if you own a car, seatbelt only if you ride in one.

if you believe my cry to preserve the sovereignty of the citizenry so ridiculous, then you will certainly enjoy a gulag. unfortunately, your kind are always so shocked when eventually your in one.

lib50.

You must be pro-choice then, right? From where I sit, it is conservatives trying to take away individual sovereignty.

yes lib 50, i am. as long as i dont have to pay for an abortion, or someone elses kid.

puhlease - if the US Treasury had a buck for every ignorant lib who incorrectly used car insurance as an example of why it's ok for the government to force Obamacare down our throats we could seriously deal with the national debt.

Mitch j,

When you make comments like this one,

what is unfortunate about lib posters is either they dont understand, or do and ignore fact:

It proves that you are prejudice, and prejudice is born of ignorance and usually dies in violence.

We either need to pay for the unfortunate to have health insurance, so they can be treated before it become an emergency we and end up paying more for them anyway. Or Make it so that they can not be seen at all without insurance.

The middle ground that many of you seem to be fighting for is the most expensive for all those that pay into the system. I personally couldn't push people into the streets that need help and let them die. So the most cost effective way is to reform health care. Sadly we could have done a much better job if the right had not made so many problems and demanded so many extra garbage added to the bill.

I am forced to pay taxes for a hugely bloated military. Heck I was forced to pay taxes for Bachmans 'pray the gay away' groups.

We are forced to buy car insurance, because if you are in an accident and hurt someone but can not afford to cover them, the state picks up the cost at the tax payers expense. It is the same thing, if you don't have insurance and get sick and can not afford it, the hospital picks up the cost at everyone else's expense.

if the scotus decides the welfare clause gives the fed the ability to tell us what we are to purchase, that will be the end of individual sovereignty.

It is quite likely that if the SCOTUS decides to uphold the law, then the ruling will be written very narrowly so as to limit the potential for unintended consequences.

As a side note, there is no such thing as individual sovereignty. If you are a citizen, then you are beholden to federal, state, and local governments.

I find it a little difficult to buy that Congress will pass laws to make us all slaves given the opportunity since the citizens won't stand for that. Smacks of fearmongering.

Thank You Richard! Finally someone with a brain responds to the conservatives attempting, attempting that is, to condescend over those with superior intelligence. (As if they might "get" something that a person who reads does not. Silly, and sad really. (See Mitch j, THATS how you condescend over someone! lol)

The Supreme Court has a long history of carving out exceptions for American society that sometimes are borrowed from other forms (some, even objectionable to American ideals) of government and folded into our Democratic Republic. Some are from communist, socialist, fascist, anarchtic forms but bear no other hallmarks of those forms due to specific clarification by the Supreme Court. THAT (Listen up, Sarah Palin) is where the term American Exceptionalism comes from: we take the good which works and ditch the rest which led to the hate of those forms. We require that if a business is to be publicly licenced and for the public they MUST accept all of the public without discrimination. If we acknowledge that we had been historically bigotted (we-as a country-did), we can use legal adjustments to help even the playing field while still having no prohibition against being racist, or otherwise bigotted, in personal belief. Neither requires any of the extremes associated with affirmative action or racism be adopted into the public law precedent, does it? No. It does not.

We are free to be picky and exclusive in our private lives, or private clubs but not in the publicly funded or mandated areas of our society. Those are specifically conflicting principals but we manage under the guidance of The Constitution and the deliberation of the members of The Supreme Court. If we can do that, we can manage a Health Care Law HOWEVER it turns out without being "forced into interacial, necro-bestial butt-s*x slavery where all of our guns, gold and bibles will be confiscated and replaced with rakes, Obamadollars, korans and condoms for use w/our neighbors' underage chillens" or whatever that last rant of yours was. LMFAO. Sorry, I just couldn't resist.

good idea, but were too stupid, remember cut/cap/balance?

crashed and burned under the fact that DC thinks we are all too dumb to make such decisions.

Mitch first time you have said anything I can agree with. M. Fisher you are very correct we the people should vote on the HC bill since it seems so divisive. This is one that may better be served by having we the people involved, but we must have the full information not just one side or the others. No advertising or promotions, just give us the facts and let us decide.

my vote just in......DUMP IT

Tis the Season,

I second that?

Put the public option back in to make it competitive and I say keep it.I have 26 employees that I pay half of thier premiums for them.Last years cost to me was $95,160.00. I personally would like to see a little competition to maybe lower our costs

The problem is that one of the things that got Obama elected was the HC law. I think it should be up to the people to vote to keep it, dump it or modify it.

The citizens do not get a vote in federal laws. We are a Republic. A direct vote would be in violation of our Constitution.

One of Obama's platforms (in fact his principal platform) was healthcare reform. He campaigned on this. He was elected for this. That's where the people got a vote.

I wasn't terribly thrilled when the Patriot Act was passed, but it was passed by duly elected representatives, and now it is the law of the land. That's the way it works here.

MFisher: Which is EXACTLY why conservative states and Legislatures are adopting or trying to pass laws that make it harder for the masses, who are more often liberal, to register and vote. They know that their only chance is to have an equal number of both at the polls. The problem with that is that it's NOT America. When we have massive turnout, we have a majority who favors the majority. That's a Democratic Republic, not tax cuts for the wealthy who make up about 3% of the population and everybody who can't write and copyright "Windows" before Bill Gates does can BEEEP themselves and get John Boener's food to him before it gets cold.

Your "fight" is a joke. Grow up.

Steveo1908: If you wish to continue taking it in the shorts... go ahead by yourself. There are many of us who believe in FREEDOM from an INTRUSIVE, CONTROLLING and CORRUPT THREE BRANCHES of GOVERNMENT!Take a look at your fellow posters and their beliefs regarding a tainted US Supreme Court. You sir, are common wannabe intellectual schmuck.

A government, for protecting business only, is but a carcass, and soon falls by its own corruption and decay.
Amos Bronson Alcott

I am ready for us to have another civil war ! Take the dumb ass tea baggers; and Koch Brothers army!!!

@Fed up, Everyone likes to complain that they dont need or use healthcare so dont force it upon them....that is until they are diagnosed with a serious injury or illness. Then its all gimme, gimme, gimme.

Like when the tea-bag crowd applauded to "let them die" referring to people who choose not to buy health insurance. I would bet every penny in my pocket that they are singing a different tune when it is them, their mother, their children, etc who is the one without healthcare. And what happens when you have health insurance only to find out that the insurance company decides not to pay due to "preexisting conditions" like acne (yes, they have called acne a preexisting condition). Do those people deserve to die as well?

Its easy to may bold claims. Much harder to live them. Tea-baggers are the countries biggest hypocrites.

Matt: There are those who only believe in the power of prayer.... not my belief. Who are you or I to tell them they must abandon their religious belief(s)? As far as the Tea Party crowd goes there is no affiliation between myself and their plight(s)! I wonder what fantasy land most are dreaming up when it comes to forced health-care? It seems to me many states provided health-care to the masses such as HMO or Basic Health Care etc. those failed. What makes you believe Obama-Care will be any different? Who will oversee it and who will profit from it? It is also my belief anything incorporated into our Three Branches of Government becomes 100% corrupted...

Maybe one of you left leaning guys could answer this for me. What did the Koch brothers do that makes you hate them so much? I couldn't find anything on NBC, CBS, Fox, ABC of something that they actually did wrong.

Fed Up ... you are certainly free to take your belief in no government where there IS no government to hinder you, or the guy stronger than you. But I would guess that most of us in the United States do want a government of laws, not dictatorships of the strongest, or wealthiest, or craziest. God Bless our President, our Congress, and our Judiciary.

Hey, BW. You must be new?

You'll find that it's more often than not a popularity contest here.

Only the most partisan and rude comments here get much attention. Nearly all comments based on fact and common sense but lacking in the verbage to really shove it up someone's back side make for a boring read, sadly. And then there are the blog leaders on both sides of the FR isle who always get praises, thumbs up, return comments as long as your arm for merely stating "There is no joy in mudville".

You're right, though. It's fun to watch sometimes. They can come up with some pretty funny insults and occasionally I learn something that is actually factual. But, over all they seem like pretty good people, generally speaking.

And, you know, we are all angry about our screwed up world and our screwed up government. Daily when we look about and realize where we find ourselves we are all (at least the bottom 95% or so here in the US) overwhelmed with our own powerlessness to do anything about it. In desperation we fly from one party to the other seeking a solution to the insanity of the last administration only to find that we have been f'd without a kiss once again.

Add to that the fact that the wealthy people and corporations (or people) are continuously plotting and planning to rule the country; even the whole world. And, they don't even hide it anymore. They make open statements, huge donations to those who would give them more power, buy supreme court justices and law makers, have representatives sign oaths that are more binding than their oaths of office all the while daring anyone to try and stop them.

I have to cut a lot of slack to angry people. Angry people who continuously ignore facts, research political news to support the conclusions they've already made and who take such pleasure in delivering it to those whom they deem their enemies in the most hateful and abusive ways possible. They are obviously filled with anger and the frustration from witnessing again and again the most heinous and bold perpetrations of injustice upon the average person by those same powerful few.

There is no justice for the average man. Only against him. Yet those in power break laws with impunity laying literally millions of people to waste financially or even starting wars which kill and maim thousands of their own countrymen and our lawmakers protect them. They are above the law. It makes people angry to be told that they are unamerican and a poor, unworthy, slob because they lost their job or they lost their house and many other things because a handful of people gambled these things away and have been gambling them away for decades.

Wow...Now where did all of that come from..?

M Fisher: It came from your very astute observation, and I couldn't have said it better. Thanks, BTW, for cutting slack which I suspect I may have benefitted from. Once. lol

...a 6-3 vote in favor of the health care law.

We need to repeal car insurance! We don't want any insurance Hospitals got to treat you anyway!

Compulsory auto-insurance is state based not federal.

States have to follow the rules of the federal government when it comes to law making. So why is auto insurance okay while health insurance isn't?

So why is auto insurance OK while health insurance isn't?

Because if you run over someone in your car, you are liable for their medical bills. If you get sick and choose to die without medical care, you are only hurting yourself, nobody else.

Your not required in any state to have car insurance. You don't want car insurance, then don't own a car.

If you don't want health insurance, then don't have health.

Are you required to buy auto insurance just to walk down the street. How could you even compare them, they aren't the same. Where's the public option on the Healthcare Bill. It's called the bus in the auto industry. Are you forced to buy auto insurance when you are born? So everyone can be covered, whether they drive or not. Are you forcing elderly people who choose not to drive anymore to pay? Think, knowledge is power and Freedom means not being forced to buy a private good/service.

P.T.Smith

Here in Washington State, I'm required to have auto insurance. So how would having to have health insurance be any more unconstitutional?

apples to oranges. you have a choice to own a car.

P.T.

If you don't own a car you aren't required to buy Auto Insurance. SEE???

road warrior. If you dont have health insurance and you get hurt, the hospital is obligated BY LAW to give you free medical care. This is then paid for by the rest of us through higher premiums and overall costs.

So your argument is not valid.

Boo yah. Check mate. Winning.

Actually the states make that one okay by stating that your don't 'have' to drive. You can walk, bike, take a cab or you could take a bus. With a little imagination your could flap your arms and caw loudly while running down the street and "fly" to your destination. Swap out a 'woosh' sound and don't flap and you have your own private jet. Not bad, eh?

Bottom line is, driving is a "privilege" and that is the word the states use. If you want to do it you have to follow established rules.

Joe, I agree that we should have public, single-payer health insurance...but this is the best we can get in a society where half of the electorate deems any reasonable government service to be all-out socialism that will eventually lead to complete anarchism.

This is what we call a compromise. Learn it, live it, love it.

My gosh! First youz guyz bash us poor folk for buying big houses when we can't afford them, and now you want us to buy expensive health care, which...we can't afford either. After we are made to buy it, the costs will be blamed on us poor folks again, and we be damned tired of getting it from both sides.

Matt,

I think the slippery slope of socialism leads to totalitarianism, not anarchy, except maybe as a response to totalitarianism.

But the other half of the country thinks that reigning in unreasonable government amounts to anarchy, or racism, or hatred of the poor, or something.

It must hinge on everyone's ideas of what "reasonable" means.

Because if you run over someone in your car, you are liable for their medical bills. If you get sick and choose to die without medical care, you are only hurting yourself, nobody else.

Not really true. Dead people are expensive. The 911 call, autopsy, burial/creamation, and what have you all add up to money. If the dead person's estate (such as it is) is insufficent to pay the bills, then someone has to bear the cost. Oftentimes, it's the taxpayers.

People who are sick for lack of medical care still get guaranteed treatment at the ER, even if they cannot pay. In severe cases the medical costs can be staggering. Someone has to bear that cost, and it's oftentimes the taxpayers.

Requiring citizens to carry health insurance will make people more likely to get care early because they're paying for coverage anyway. Insurance companies have a vested interest in supporting preventative care because preventing major illnesses is much less expensive than treating them.

Incidentally, in most states you do not have the option to choose to die. Suicide is generally illegal - it just doesn't rack up a lot of convictions for some reason.

It's called bribery, fool.

I am obviously misinformed, Bob. Please enlighten me regarding your concerns with "bribery" as it relates to my comment. Citing a wee bit of evidence would greatly strengthen your argument. And, is name-calling really necessary to make your point?

Because his wife was paid by the Tea Party to argue against the healthcare bill. Since he lives with his wife and it will monetarily benefit his family, it is a conflict of intrest.

Yeah, that is pretty much the argument. Presumably his wife would receive a monetary benefit for successful lobbying should the SCOTUS rule against the law, which makes it Thomas' benefit by extension of marriage.

Perhaps they have a legal arrangement to cover this possibility, I have no idea. Barring something like that, however, it's hard to see his impartiality.

She has financially gained already, as stated in the amended financial report that the SCOTUS judges must file. This filing is required by law, passed by Congress and not challenged in Supreme Court. The law requires all those who have living arrangements with a Chief Justice, to include their income. The reason is apparent.

When a position of such high importance in our government is accepted, certain restrictions are included. Somewhat like, joining the service and giving up your right to a civil trial, yes she did not accept the position but prudence would have served her and him better.

Lincoln's wife's family owned slaves, she did not. Her position was not a issue during those times. This can not be said today, look at Hillary Clinton's position in government, and her husbands world foundation. Is this collusion?

Of course lincoln's slave ownership had nothing to do with his OPPOSING slavery, it only could've been a conflict if he was opposing emancipation. Since he stood to lose financially from his own idealistic political position, the fact that he fought for that position made his pincipal stronger than his financial interest otherwise. It proved his integrity. It's THE OPPOSITE situation with the Thomases, they stand to gain by his support of, or ruling in favor of his wife's position, the Koch Brothers' position, Karl Rove's, Cheney's, Bush's, Kristol's, Ashcroft's, Ralph Reed's, Tenet', Gingrich's, Dumbsfeld's position on the Health Care law. Every monied, big-business or Neo-Con human in this country opposes that healthcare law because it has a value requirement rather than a fee for service allowance. It will cut the bottom line for non performing health systems, not keep an endless stream of cash coming for sometimes pointless tests, surgeries, hospice care for non-terminal patients and other redundancies that keep people rich while letting patients die for lack of EFFECTIVE care.

And the thing about the Clintons made absolutely zero sense: collusion to stop AIDS? Are you under the impression that government has to be equally anti-human for every pro-human thing a private foundation does? The only purpose of government is to represent people and solve the problems of the society and if you have to be a narcissist to do it, if you need a little ego-boosting hanky-panky for the guy who does it THATS the negative side, Secretary Clinton doesn't have to oppose the things her husband supports unless they fall out of the scope of what the majority of people want or need, or are against the law of the jurisdiction in question or against her own Oath to the United States. Raising money to help the poor isn't any of those things, do you not get that? I mean, are you missing something here? It's not striving for a "negative to positive" balance, it's striving to do any and all things that are one's duty as a servant of the United States public while having limited or no input into the things one personally or financially benefits from. This is necessary to prevent improper influence or prevent the appearance of impropriety which might impugn the ethical prestige or soil the image of the institution which is, in this discussion, the highest court in America, the final and highest form of American Government.

Thomas even voicing his opinion in public (as he's done at Teabagger rallies) soils the impartiality of the Highest Court. He lowers his collegues and every justice before him who remained silent their whole lives with his self-indulgent ridiculousness. He never should've been appointed, the stain will take decades to wash off our country.

Just because one knows the law doesn't mean he will follow the law. It only means he is better equipped than most to skirt the law.

Just because one knows the law doesn't mean he will follow the law. It only means he is better equipped than most to skirt the law.

You mean avoid enforcement? How could they possibly do that given the legal attention the law was bound to get?

The law is either Constitutional, or it's not. The SCOTUS will figure that out. The point stands, however, the this executive branch has a strong understanding in legal scholarship, suggesting that they knew how to craft the law to make it Constitutional.

That's not "skirting the law"; it's following the Constitution.

Wow! 7-2 will say it's unconstitutional! That's a pretty high number.

But it is not clear to me why she should recuse herself just because we know she has an opinion on the matter. We can assume they all have opinions. Now if she worked on drafting and promoting the exact piece of legislation she would be judginng, that would be a potential conflict, although still not one of direct personal gain.

Viper you have to be single to make that statement, any man here married and willing to tell the truth knows full well the power of the wife, that is unless you beat yours.

Agreed, The liberals are reaching for the recusal of Thomas. What his wife does is totally separate from him, The audacity of the Liberal left never ceases to amaze, To have the balls to say a judge should be excused because of his wife's politics, But coming from let me show you my wiener, Weiner....Nothing really is surprising..

GaboonViper: I don't know if you are married or not, but are you telling me if your wife was living with you and pushing a cause day and night and talking to you about it....that is would not be a factor in your decision on the bench? Get real.

I would like to see the Supreme Court Justices have a 4 yr term limit. Anyone who is involved with a decision and is affiliated with an outside interest group eliminate themselves period. No one sane person in this country can believe the United Citizen decision was what the 1776 constitution had in mind. A corporation does not live by a heartbeat, yet this joke called US supreme court allowed it because of the money involved elects a party who is usually corrupt. Do you really think they have any business even hearing this issue knowing each one of their political background?

How come the Republican elected Supreme's come from the "Federalist Society" background? What do they talk about in this society that isn't open to anybody with other than conventional conservatism opinions? Did they sign some pledge to someone other than the people of the United States as almost all Republican legislators did to Grover (who?)? Hard to see how this current SCROTUS isn't "legislating from the bench" when they declare Bush the winner, corporations are people, and now HCR.

jock59801..(#23.1)...... "Now if she worked on drafting and promoting the exact piece of legislation"

1. As Solicitor General, they were already crafting defences for court chalenges as ObamaCare was being "passed"...knowing challenges were coming

2. A series of e-mails shows she was involved:

"An October 13, 2009, exchange between Kagan and former Deputy Solicitor General (and current Acting Solicitor General) Neal Katyal. Katyal informs Kagan, “We just got Snowe on health care,” referring to Senator Olympia Snowe (R-ME)."

"A March 21, 2010, email from Kagan to then-Senior Counselor for Access to Justice Laurence Tribe: “I hear they have the votes Larry!! Simply amazing...” Tribe responds, “So healthcare is basically done! Remarkable.”

"A March 16, 2010, email from Kagan to David Barron, then-acting head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, asked if he had seen an article by Michael McConnell published in the Wall Street Journal that discussed a strategy by Democrats to “‘deem’ ObamaCare into Law without voting.” “Did you seee [sic] Michael McConnell’s piece in the wsj?” Kagan writes in an email with the subject line “Health care q.” “YES, HE IS GETTING THIS GOING,” replied Barron.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/news/2011/nov/new-documents-show-supreme-court-justice-elena-kagan-s-comments-obamacare-legislation-

These exchanges do not suggest direct involvement, but opinion which we all are entitled too. Now C. Thomas's past financial statements being false because he did not include his wife's income, as required by law, is a blatant disregard of his position in government.

Mrs. Thomas earned some $700,000 in the past 12 years as a advocate against the healthcare bill, and it was not reported on financial statements required by law. Enough said, about the spin factor in politics.

But Kagan working openly on the actual bill is totally kosher with you...........

djj, I'm going to take a flyer and guess that you wont be outraged if Kagan doesn't recuse herself for obvious conflicts of interest?

I think they all should sit it out and put it on the ballot in 2012

@Amazeing: as far as I know there is no such thing as a national referendum.

Though in theory, it would bring us clsoer to a true democracy instead of a representative democracy. With the internet and technology, it wouldn't be too difficult to have regular referndums (referenda?) on any matter of national importance, not just once a year or every other year on election day. But can you imagine the opportunity for fraud?!

Where does it say that Kagen "worked on" the health care bill? She was Solicitor General and her role as such was to represent the US before the Supreme Court when a case gets there. The Solicitor General does not draft legislation. One of the consistent criticisms of Obama was that with health care and other legislation he left the drafting and legislation up to Congress, rather than getting involved in the details.

You are right djj. But Republicans don't care about right and wrong.

Thanks for the info, Riverhawk. Those who are interested in factual information appreciate that info.