Should Kagan and/or Thomas Recuse from SCOTUS Obamacare decision?

• BGFalcons82

  

  stlouiedipalma;1006071 wrote:Every argument I've see about the individual mandate comes with the fear talk that, if upheld, it will allow Congress to mandate other things and force citizens to do and buy things they normally wouldn't. To me, that is just what I described it as, "fear talk". I believe that this kind of talk only panders to the lowest common denominator in our society. If you can't argue the merits, scare 'em.

  Hmmmm....fear talk, you say. Let me see if you mean something like:
  
  1. We must pass this stimulus package immediately. If we don't, the unemployment rate will skyrocket over 8%. There is no time to waste, and it must be passed today.
  
  2. We must pass this bill so we can find out what's in it.
  
  3. We must pass this Health Care bill immediately. There isn't any time to waste by posting it on the internet for 72 hours (like I promised I would when I was running for the job).
  
  4. We must pass this Jobs Bill before Congress leaves. Pass this bill. Pass this bill. Pass this bill.
  
  Any of these "fear talks" sound familiar? To quote you, "If you can't argue the merits, scare em."
• majorspark

  

  stlouiedipalma;1006062 wrote:Actually it evolves with every decision handed down by the Court. I don't think the FF envisioned many of the decisions the Court brought in recent years, therefore I would say the Constitution has evolved from what it was orginally designed to be.

  Queencitybuckeye and myself were referring to how most of the founders envisioned it to evolve. But I get your point and agree. The SCOTUS as well as the other two branches of the federal government have at times succeeded in "evolving" it from its original design outside the designated amendment process.
• jhay78

  

  stlouiedipalma;1006071 wrote:Every argument I've see about the individual mandate comes with the fear talk that, if upheld, it will allow Congress to mandate other things and force citizens to do and buy things they normally wouldn't. To me, that is just what I described it as, "fear talk". I believe that this kind of talk only panders to the lowest common denominator in our society. If you can't argue the merits, scare 'em.

  I believe you don't really believe that.
  

  BGFalcons82;1006491 wrote:Hmmmm....fear talk, you say. Let me see if you mean something like:
  
  1. We must pass this stimulus package immediately. If we don't, the unemployment rate will skyrocket over 8%. There is no time to waste, and it must be passed today.
  
  2. We must pass this bill so we can find out what's in it.
  
  3. We must pass this Health Care bill immediately. There isn't any time to waste by posting it on the internet for 72 hours (like I promised I would when I was running for the job).
  
  4. We must pass this Jobs Bill before Congress leaves. Pass this bill. Pass this bill. Pass this bill.
  
  Any of these "fear talks" sound familiar? To quote you, "If you can't argue the merits, scare em."

  5. Republicans want to deregulate everything and pollute the air, water, etc.
  
  6. Any slight reform of SS or Medicare is an attack on the elderly, even if any proposed change affects no one over the age of 55.
  
  7. Any slight reform of public union employees' bargaining rights with regard to pension, benefits, etc. is an attack on the "middle class", even though such employees only make up a small fraction of the total workforce.
• stlouiedipalma

  BGFalcons82;1006491 wrote:Hmmmm....fear talk, you say. Let me see if you mean something like:
  
  1. We must pass this stimulus package immediately. If we don't, the unemployment rate will skyrocket over 8%. There is no time to waste, and it must be passed today.
  
  2. We must pass this bill so we can find out what's in it.
  
  3. We must pass this Health Care bill immediately. There isn't any time to waste by posting it on the internet for 72 hours (like I promised I would when I was running for the job).
  
  4. We must pass this Jobs Bill before Congress leaves. Pass this bill. Pass this bill. Pass this bill.
  
  Any of these "fear talks" sound familiar? To quote you, "If you can't argue the merits, scare em."

  Sorry, but as good as your talking points description is, it doesn't come close to anything the Republicans have mastered over the years. Whether it's Defense, National Security, guns or whatever, the R's have turned "fear talk" into an art form. I actually admire their efficiency at this, as they have always been able to play this card to their advantage. Now it's health care. They couldn't stop the legislation so they will take it to the courts and their only weapon is the slippery slope of commerce. To be honest with you, I don't think that much of the health care bill. I don't think it went far enough as far as affordable coverage and in making an effort to reduce overall costs. I also believe that the individual mandate is there to protect evryone from those who feel they don't need insurance, only to saddle us with the bill when catastrophe comes. Sort of like auto insurance, where we pay higher premiums because of those nasty "uninsured/underinsured" folks. That, in a nutshell, is where I believe this bill will pass muster in the SC.
• BoatShoes

  majorspark;1006729 wrote:Queencitybuckeye and myself were referring to how most of the founders envisioned it to evolve. But I get your point and agree. The SCOTUS as well as the other two branches of the federal government have at times succeeded in "evolving" it from its original design outside the designated amendment process.

  Let me ask this: If we were to impose Justice Thomas' view of the Constitution (which many conservatives adhere to) on our federal government a very large part of our modern government would be outside the bounds of Constitutionally delegated power.
  
  For instance, the CIA, the FBI, Nuclear Weapons, Social Security and Medicare, the Federal Reserve, the Controlled Substances Act, Student Loans, the Air Force and any number of other things would be Unconstitutional under a very pure enumerated power view of the Constitution.
  
  It seems to me, if that Constitutional View is correct and judges and lawyers have gotten it wrong all along, it is beyond practical reality to go back to a Constitutionally Sound Social Contract. We should have been using the amendment process for all of these things all along. If Congress wanted to create the Department of Energy they should have gone to the states for an amendment, etc. etc.
  
  We are beyond the point of no return it would seem. But, that constitutional flaw could be fixed if we were to approve a "police power" amendment to the Constitution. Justice Thomas argues that Congress is treated as if it already has a police power, so why not pass an amendment for Congress to have one in the text of the Constitution...
  
  Then the argument that Congress is no longer applying the Constitution no longer applies and roles of government that are generally accepted as necessary such as the CIA, Nuclear Weapons, don't have to go by the wayside because of Constitutional Violation. The proper role and size of the federal government as a normative matter could still be debated.
• jhay78

  

  stlouiedipalma;1007287 wrote:Sorry, but as good as your talking points description is, it doesn't come close to anything the Republicans have mastered over the years. Whether it's Defense, National Security, guns or whatever, the R's have turned "fear talk" into an art form. I actually admire their efficiency at this, as they have always been able to play this card to their advantage. Now it's health care. They couldn't stop the legislation so they will take it to the courts and their only weapon is the slippery slope of commerce. To be honest with you, I don't think that much of the health care bill. I don't think it went far enough as far as affordable coverage and in making an effort to reduce overall costs. I also believe that the individual mandate is there to protect evryone from those who feel they don't need insurance, only to saddle us with the bill when catastrophe comes. Sort of like auto insurance, where we pay higher premiums because of those nasty "uninsured/underinsured" folks. That, in a nutshell, is where I believe this bill will pass muster in the SC.

  Bolded part #1: Dems perfected the "going to the courts" thingy a long time ago. See Bush v. Gore 2000
  
  Bolded part #2: Dems invented the "saddling us with the bill" thingy also. See the welfare state and trillions of unfunded liabilities with SS and Medicare.
  
  #3: stlouie has become the master of projecting onto Republicans/conservatives the very things his party has perfected the past 100 years.
• BGFalcons82

  

  Did Kagan lie to the Senate?? - http://cnsnews.com/news/article/internal-doj-email-kagan-was-brought-loop-mark-levin-s-obamacare-complaint
  
  Looks like she was involved in the ObamaKare legislation and if nothing else, she must recuse herself once this comes before the Supremes. Lying under oath doesn't mean anything anyways according to the Clinton-defenders...right Roger Clemens?
• jhay78

  

  BGFalcons82;1012218 wrote:Did Kagan lie to the Senate?? - http://cnsnews.com/news/article/internal-doj-email-kagan-was-brought-loop-mark-levin-s-obamacare-complaint
  
  Looks like she was involved in the ObamaKare legislation and if nothing else, she must recuse herself once this comes before the Supremes. Lying under oath doesn't mean anything anyways according to the Clinton-defenders...right Roger Clemens?

  Yes she absolutely should recuse herself, and she shouldn't have been approved by the Senate in the first place.
• stlouiedipalma

  jhay78;1013941 wrote:Yes she absolutely should recuse herself, and she shouldn't have been approved by the Senate in the first place.

  
  
  You must be loving Newt's comments about the Judiciary these days.
• fish82

  

  stlouiedipalma;1021243 wrote:You must be loving Newt's comments about the Judiciary these days.

  I have to admit...the mental picture of the marshals dragging her squealing ass out of the chamber is somewhat attractive.
• stlouiedipalma

  Yeah, you have a point there. The problem is, who decides which judges get yanked? Newt or some super-secret committee?
  
  
  For all his alleged prowess of understanding history (the official historian for Freddie Mac, remember?), Newt doesn't appear to have learned anything from previous social engineering states like Nazi Germany or Communist Russia.
• fan_from_texas

  Neither should recuse. HTH
  
  
  And if I were a betting man, I'd bet that it's upheld.