Leaking SCOTUS, Sinking Obamacare
(Late Tuesday, Judge Jerry Smith of the 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals demanded that the Department of Justice immediately produce a letter of explanation regarding the president’s recent criticism of the United State Supreme Court “stating specifically, and in detailed reference to those statements, what the authority is in the federal courts in this regard in terms of judicial review.” He added, “The letter needs to be at least three pages, single-spaced and it needs to be specific.” The demand was reported by Fox News and on ABC’s blog but nowhere else in the mainstream media.)
There’s only one rationale for President Barack Hussein Obama using the occasion of a visit by heads of state to try to intimidate the Supreme Court into deciding that Obamacare is constitutional: He got a tip that the Court will trash the Individual Mandate, if not the entire 2700 page mess that is the “Affordable Care Act.”
Canada’s Stephan Harper and Mexico’s Felipe Calderon attended a presser at the White House on Monday to discuss NAFTA, trade, security, etc. and were treated to an exhibition of Chicago-style bullying against the highest court in the land by their “constitutional scholar” host. It must have made them think Obama had gone off the deep end when he launched into a pre-emptive attack on SCOTUS’ authority and integrity.
The president’s salvo was replete with distortions and outright lies comparable to the distortions and lies that have surrounded the ACA ever since the law was first proposed and narrowly passed by a highly partisan Democrat Party.
The bill was pushed through the Senate on Christmas Eve, December 24, 2009, 60–39, with every Democrat voting in favor and every Republican voting against, and passed the House of Representatives on March 21, 2010, 219–212, with 34 Democrats and all 178 Republicans voting nay.
Based on the president’s Monday bullying, you would think Obamacare had passed in a landslide vote and that the American people loved the legislation when the precise opposite is the truth.
As Obama said, “Ultimately, I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.”
“Confident?” Not bloody likely or he would have kept his mouth shut! ”Unprecedented?” SCOTUS overturns unconstitutional laws every session! “Strong majority?” The bill squeaked through the House and passed in the Senate only because Senate Democrats marched in lock-step with Obama after heavy-handed cajoling and bribery!
Obama went on to another major distortion, alleging that conservatives had been arguing for years over the “unelected” Supreme Court’s judicial activism, i.e., making rather than interpreting laws. In the Obamacare matter, SCOTUS is doing just that–interpreting, not making law.
In a tone remniscent of the Chicago politics . . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=20605.)
Showing posts with label supreme court. Show all posts
Showing posts with label supreme court. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
To Recuse or not to Recuse?
To Recuse or not to Recuse
At long last, the Supreme Court of the United States has officially announced that it will review the constitutionality of President Barack Hussein signature legislation, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare.
More specifically, SCOTUS will decide the merits of a lawsuit brought by 26 states and the National Federation of Independent Business that contends Congress exceeded its power by imposing an annual penalty of $95 or 1% of gross income, whichever is greater, on individuals who do not secure insurance by 2014. The penalty is scheduled to rise to $695, or 2.5%, by 2016 with a family limit of $2,085.
The limit was indeed benevolent of Democrats who rammed the PPACA through Congress with no assistance from Republicans and now it would be fair of them to insist that Obama’s Justice Elena Kagan recuse herself from the case.
Rare on the SCOTUS level, recusals refer to situations in which a judge or prosecutor is removed or voluntarily steps down from a legal case, most often when the judge or prosecutor has a conflict of interest.
Justice Kagan clearly has a major conflict of interest in determining the constitutionality of the PPACA and should recuse herself from deliberations and a decision on the matter, or be forcibly removed from the bench and be seated in the court along with other known proponents of Obamacare.
Those scenarios, however, are as likely as Democrats admitting that seizure by the federal government of Americans’ health care and one-sixth of the national economy was a screwball, socialistic idea in the first place.
Kagan’s job prior to being confirmed to the Supreme Court was service as Obama’s Solicitor General in which position she was charged with representing the Executive Branch in cases before the U.S. Supreme Court and acting as the chief courtroom lawyer for the government, preparing legal briefs and making oral arguments in that court.
At Kagan’s 2010 confirmation hearings, she dodged key questions and swore she played no part in crafting government responses to anticipated lawsuits contesting the legality of the newly-passed Obamacare legislation, swearing under oath that she merely ”attended a meeting where the cases were discussed, but that she wasn’t involved in the government’s filings.” (http://tiny.cc/p2njk)
If you believe that whopper, the Brooklyn Bridge is unavailable but I can make you a very good deal on the Queensboro.
In a just-released email exchange between the Solicitor General and Justice Department attorney Lawrence Tribe, they discussed the pending legislation and in one Elena exclaimed, “I hear they have the votes, Larry!! Simply amazing.”
What’s even more amazing is that Solicitor General Kagan was able to dissociate herself . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5968.)
At long last, the Supreme Court of the United States has officially announced that it will review the constitutionality of President Barack Hussein signature legislation, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare.
More specifically, SCOTUS will decide the merits of a lawsuit brought by 26 states and the National Federation of Independent Business that contends Congress exceeded its power by imposing an annual penalty of $95 or 1% of gross income, whichever is greater, on individuals who do not secure insurance by 2014. The penalty is scheduled to rise to $695, or 2.5%, by 2016 with a family limit of $2,085.
The limit was indeed benevolent of Democrats who rammed the PPACA through Congress with no assistance from Republicans and now it would be fair of them to insist that Obama’s Justice Elena Kagan recuse herself from the case.
Rare on the SCOTUS level, recusals refer to situations in which a judge or prosecutor is removed or voluntarily steps down from a legal case, most often when the judge or prosecutor has a conflict of interest.
Justice Kagan clearly has a major conflict of interest in determining the constitutionality of the PPACA and should recuse herself from deliberations and a decision on the matter, or be forcibly removed from the bench and be seated in the court along with other known proponents of Obamacare.
Those scenarios, however, are as likely as Democrats admitting that seizure by the federal government of Americans’ health care and one-sixth of the national economy was a screwball, socialistic idea in the first place.
Kagan’s job prior to being confirmed to the Supreme Court was service as Obama’s Solicitor General in which position she was charged with representing the Executive Branch in cases before the U.S. Supreme Court and acting as the chief courtroom lawyer for the government, preparing legal briefs and making oral arguments in that court.
At Kagan’s 2010 confirmation hearings, she dodged key questions and swore she played no part in crafting government responses to anticipated lawsuits contesting the legality of the newly-passed Obamacare legislation, swearing under oath that she merely ”attended a meeting where the cases were discussed, but that she wasn’t involved in the government’s filings.” (http://tiny.cc/p2njk)
If you believe that whopper, the Brooklyn Bridge is unavailable but I can make you a very good deal on the Queensboro.
In a just-released email exchange between the Solicitor General and Justice Department attorney Lawrence Tribe, they discussed the pending legislation and in one Elena exclaimed, “I hear they have the votes, Larry!! Simply amazing.”
What’s even more amazing is that Solicitor General Kagan was able to dissociate herself . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5968.)
Saturday, January 22, 2011
The Disunited State of the Union
The Disunited State of the Union
. . . A good question is, Why are members of SCOTUS even expected to attend SotU addresses? The justices may very well be asked to pass judgement on the constitutionality of what the president and congress do. Should they be in attendance when those political plans are outlined? Should they be expected to acquiesce to that with which they disagree? Should they just stay home?
The president, the vice president, and, of course, congress en masse, will be in attendance but this year, in another unprecedented–and politically-inspired–move, Democrat Senator Mark Udall has proposed a SotU innovation: http://tiny.cc/2jttv
Rather than have congresspeople seated as usual in the House chamber helter skelter but according to political party, Udall has suggested that everyone be integrated into one, big, unified group, a proposal never brought to the fore when Democrats dominated both houses but which now strikes Democrat Udall as an outstanding change. The potential impact on the television audience of witnessing the loyal Republican opposition seated united in that opposition is an absolute irrelevancy to the senator.
In the wake of the president’s call for national healing and an end to divisiveness and vicious invective following the Tucson massacre, a plea that has yet to reach either the hearts or ears of his supporters, the idea of that demonstration of non-partisanship has attracted a number of Republicans such as Sen. John McCain who are forgetful that when they have reached across the aisle in the past to Democrats the Dems have devoured their arms up to the armpit.
However, things have changed and all is good now. Everything is beautiful and everyone is happy, joyful, and non-partisan–until a Republican president next delivers a State of the Union message or Democrats next control both houses of congress.
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=3432)
. . . A good question is, Why are members of SCOTUS even expected to attend SotU addresses? The justices may very well be asked to pass judgement on the constitutionality of what the president and congress do. Should they be in attendance when those political plans are outlined? Should they be expected to acquiesce to that with which they disagree? Should they just stay home?
The president, the vice president, and, of course, congress en masse, will be in attendance but this year, in another unprecedented–and politically-inspired–move, Democrat Senator Mark Udall has proposed a SotU innovation: http://tiny.cc/2jttv
Rather than have congresspeople seated as usual in the House chamber helter skelter but according to political party, Udall has suggested that everyone be integrated into one, big, unified group, a proposal never brought to the fore when Democrats dominated both houses but which now strikes Democrat Udall as an outstanding change. The potential impact on the television audience of witnessing the loyal Republican opposition seated united in that opposition is an absolute irrelevancy to the senator.
In the wake of the president’s call for national healing and an end to divisiveness and vicious invective following the Tucson massacre, a plea that has yet to reach either the hearts or ears of his supporters, the idea of that demonstration of non-partisanship has attracted a number of Republicans such as Sen. John McCain who are forgetful that when they have reached across the aisle in the past to Democrats the Dems have devoured their arms up to the armpit.
However, things have changed and all is good now. Everything is beautiful and everyone is happy, joyful, and non-partisan–until a Republican president next delivers a State of the Union message or Democrats next control both houses of congress.
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=3432)
Monday, July 26, 2010
The Gruesome Commitment of Elena Kagan Part One
The Gruesome Commitment of Elena Kagan
Not that it makes any difference at this point since Solicitor General Elena Kagan will certainly be confirmed next week by the Democrat-controlled Senate as the next associate justice of the United States Supreme Court, but Americans should fully comprehend who and what they’re getting in the person of Ms. Kagan.
I don’t just mean that she’s liberal to her core and I don’t refer to her antipathy toward the military nor to the rumors that she’s a lesbian. I refer to her commitment to murdering defenseless babies.
Now I know that such a damning statement raises the hackles of “progressives,” (liberals, leftists, and most Democrats), who tend to rise up en masse to defend a woman’s “right to choose” and deny en masse that aborting “the product of conception” is tantamount to killing babies.
However, when a fetus is 20 or more weeks old, is viable outside the womb, and possesses all of the God-given human features of an infant, when it looks like a baby, sucks its thumb like a baby, reacts to external stimuli, has a fully-formed brain, heart, lungs, and all the other organs of a tiny human being, only those deeply committed to eradicating its life at all costs can deny it is a living person.
Elena Kagan is such an individual and a female individual at that, a member of the female gender which is specially engineered to be emotional, caring, nurturing as opposed to dispassionate, detached, and murderous. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1805)
Not that it makes any difference at this point since Solicitor General Elena Kagan will certainly be confirmed next week by the Democrat-controlled Senate as the next associate justice of the United States Supreme Court, but Americans should fully comprehend who and what they’re getting in the person of Ms. Kagan.
I don’t just mean that she’s liberal to her core and I don’t refer to her antipathy toward the military nor to the rumors that she’s a lesbian. I refer to her commitment to murdering defenseless babies.
Now I know that such a damning statement raises the hackles of “progressives,” (liberals, leftists, and most Democrats), who tend to rise up en masse to defend a woman’s “right to choose” and deny en masse that aborting “the product of conception” is tantamount to killing babies.
However, when a fetus is 20 or more weeks old, is viable outside the womb, and possesses all of the God-given human features of an infant, when it looks like a baby, sucks its thumb like a baby, reacts to external stimuli, has a fully-formed brain, heart, lungs, and all the other organs of a tiny human being, only those deeply committed to eradicating its life at all costs can deny it is a living person.
Elena Kagan is such an individual and a female individual at that, a member of the female gender which is specially engineered to be emotional, caring, nurturing as opposed to dispassionate, detached, and murderous. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1805)
Saturday, May 15, 2010
Jews, Catholics and SCOTUS
Jews, Catholics and SCOTUS
It’s long past time for America to consider the heretical idea of amending the Constitution and make new openings on the Supreme Court term-limited if not elective offices.
When the Founding Fathers devised the Constitution in the late eighteenth century, life expectancy at birth, thanks to rampant diseases, was a mere 24 years although, depending on where one lived, it could range up to 60 in New England, 45 in the Middle Colonies and 35 in the South. Those figures are according to Encyclopedia.com.
Averaging the 3 locales, a person could expect to live 46.7 years, with a little bit of luck. Today, thanks to the marvels of modern science and medicine, Americans can reasonably expect to live well into their seventies and beyond and late eighties and nineties are no longer unusual.
There is no possible way that James Madison . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1683)
It’s long past time for America to consider the heretical idea of amending the Constitution and make new openings on the Supreme Court term-limited if not elective offices.
When the Founding Fathers devised the Constitution in the late eighteenth century, life expectancy at birth, thanks to rampant diseases, was a mere 24 years although, depending on where one lived, it could range up to 60 in New England, 45 in the Middle Colonies and 35 in the South. Those figures are according to Encyclopedia.com.
Averaging the 3 locales, a person could expect to live 46.7 years, with a little bit of luck. Today, thanks to the marvels of modern science and medicine, Americans can reasonably expect to live well into their seventies and beyond and late eighties and nineties are no longer unusual.
There is no possible way that James Madison . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1683)
Monday, May 10, 2010
Elena Kagan, Gay Justice?
Elena Kagan, Gay Justice?
Just as it was with Judge Sonia Sotomayor, the nomination of Solicitor General Elena Kagan as replacement for SCOTUS Associate Justice John Paul Stevens was a done deal as soon as President Obama nominated her. Kagan, a Janet Napolitano lookalike, is a shoo-in.
The Democrat Party’s 59 seat Senate majority insures it. Republicans would need an unlikely unanimous agreement of its 41 members to filibuster her nomination.
In addition, Sotomayor was a woman and a Hispanic, Kagan is a woman and, apparently, a lesbian. What else did they need going for them? It was payback time in both instances. Two prime Obamian constituencies were in line for some recognition, the Hispanic-Latino community and the gay-lesbian community, and they’ve now gotten it.
However, why the White House became all exercised over a CBS online story that outed Kagan as “the first openly gay justice” was baffling when it hit the fan three weeks ago: Then she was only on the list of possible nominees and not yet even on the short list but why all the perturbation?
Did the Obamians consider open or hidden lesbianism a negative? . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1674)
Just as it was with Judge Sonia Sotomayor, the nomination of Solicitor General Elena Kagan as replacement for SCOTUS Associate Justice John Paul Stevens was a done deal as soon as President Obama nominated her. Kagan, a Janet Napolitano lookalike, is a shoo-in.
The Democrat Party’s 59 seat Senate majority insures it. Republicans would need an unlikely unanimous agreement of its 41 members to filibuster her nomination.
In addition, Sotomayor was a woman and a Hispanic, Kagan is a woman and, apparently, a lesbian. What else did they need going for them? It was payback time in both instances. Two prime Obamian constituencies were in line for some recognition, the Hispanic-Latino community and the gay-lesbian community, and they’ve now gotten it.
However, why the White House became all exercised over a CBS online story that outed Kagan as “the first openly gay justice” was baffling when it hit the fan three weeks ago: Then she was only on the list of possible nominees and not yet even on the short list but why all the perturbation?
Did the Obamians consider open or hidden lesbianism a negative? . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1674)
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)