The wife of Justice Thomas is not part of the proceeding.

Pilot.

Problem:
“Kinda sets the stage for what Thomas Jefferson would have approved as a well timed revolution. I am surprised it took this long.”

Soultion:
http://www.victoriaadvocate.com/weblo...

Kiddle play:
Let's analyze it.......Uh ok, boil it down to basics. U.S. foreign aid - sorry, we have a deficit that would gag Linda Lovelace - no more foreign aid. (incomplete sentence by the way)

Real talk:
http://www.victoriaadvocate.com/weblo...

Insanity :
The love for Fred Reed’s ignorant views on education.

Sanity:
http://www.victoriaadvocate.com/weblo...

I rest my case.

Tafoer.
You said, “The spouse of a Justice having opinions and a Justice (Kagan) having formed opinions are two different things. Of course, a liberal could not see that.”
It seems to me that you didn’t read the law you have posted earlier. Which I might add shows hatred, ignorance, and an unfair assessment on your part.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/htm...
Here is why Clarence Thomas should recue himself.
(5)He or his spouse, or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person:
(i)Is a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of a party;
(ii)Is acting as a lawyer in the proceeding;
(iii)Is known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;
(iv)Is to the judge’s knowledge likely to be a material witness in the proceeding.

Waywardwind.

Both of these Justices must recue themselves. Before someone who claims to know the justice system like Tafoer and say something crazy, I’ll explain the court system 101. If someone on a jury or a judge have known the defendant (personally), then the judgment and ruling would be questionable or worse biased. Justice Kagen should be rescued because she worked in the Obama White House over this issue. Justice Clarence Thomas should be rescued based on his wife’s activism over this issue. I also believe his wife’s group has brought up law suit against the bill was well. As for Justice Judge himself, the man need to understand who got him where he is now and what barrier he have to go through in the first place. Then again, I bet you refuse to understand that as well.
I find it sad that grown men who proclaim their “love” for the constitution don’t know the most basic fact of having a fair and unbiased justice. Maybe just maybe you, Rollinstone, and Tafoer should read that founding document again instead of trying to make a fool out of me. That’s right I said it.

Link1: http://www.npr.org/2011/11/15/1423393...

Link 2: http://blogs.findlaw.com/law_and_life...

Tafoer.

If you are going to call someone a liberal make sure that the person is one. I guess it is very obvious that you didn’t read the last few posts I made. Better yet, I thinking you refuse to read that becauseit doesn’t fit your rightwing narrivate. I mean I did said “By the way, Mr. Rollinstone, I am against the Health Care law as well.”

The spouse of a Justice having opinions and a Justice (Kagan) having formed opinions are two different things. Of course, a liberal could not see that.

You're right, J. NEITHER of them will have to recuse themselves. So, what's your problem with Thomas? In one post to me you called him (uncle) Thomas and in a later post, you refer to the Hon. Clarence Thomas. Which is it...uncle Thomas or Hon. Clarence Thomas? You were bellyaching about Mrs. Thomas for some reason. Instead of looking for something to bash me about, why don't you tell us just what she did that you think should cause her husband to recuse himself from the debate and vote on BOCare? Give us YOUR opinion of whatever she did that got you so exercised.

Rollinstone.
Your comment is similar to a bee trying to fight a Boeing 747. Why should someone need back up, when your comment is deemed lightweight?

WWW.

Playing the “acting cute” card aren’t you? You said,” I didn't mention ANY of the justices.” Earlier you said, T”afoer...She won't have to recuse herself.” Well…..? How many Waywardwinds are there? Just like I said earlier, “If Justice Kagan has to go, so does Justice Thomas”. It is really not that hard to figure that one out WWW?

Writein..."Waywardwind.
I hazard a guess you won’t talk about Hon Clarence Thomas’ role in the Health care debate. And why he should be recuse himself."

I guess you were about to give up on me answering you, but you wrote the first post to me after I went to bed and the one quoted above while I was at work. I have to work to pay Social Security so my wife can afford to be retired -- as she often reminds me. I sometimes have things to do other than monitor your creative postings. I answered as quickly as I could after I found your posts.

Writein..."I don’t see you questioning the issue of Justice Clarence (Uncle) Thomas. Why is that?"

Well, J, I figured I'd let YOU do that. I didn't mention ANY of the justices. I'm not sure exactly which issue you have with Thomas so go for it. By the way, what would you have called me if I had written the Uncle Thomas thing? Would that have been an illustration of racism on my part?

" As for your rant that justices don’t can’t get fired etc. The U.S. Constitution has the Senate as the body to fire them."

It wasn't a rant, it was envy. Yeah, the Constitution has a provision for impeachment and removal of justices. However, in the entire history of the country, it's NEVER happened, regardless of how richly deserved it might have been. An absolute dunce cannot be removed as long as s/he is reasonably honest. Even a justice eaten up with dementia and cannot control his/her bodily functions can remain on the bench. I still contend that being a United States Supreme Court justice is the greatest job in the world. I've reconsidered and it's BETTER than the queen of England.

"I do not hear you mention anything about Thomas’ wife role in some political activities namely the Health Care debate, of Justice Kagan has to go so does Justice Thomas."

THAT is an interesting sentence. But, J, you're right. I didn't mention anything about Mrs. Thomas or any of her activities regarding the health care debate. I know absolutely NOTHING about the activities of any spouse of any justice. I don't know why you jumped on me for not mentioning something I never claimed to know anything about. All I said was that law doesn't apply to presidents, justices and congress critters. If you're outraged over the activities of Mrs. Thomas, feel free to mention them yourself.

Rollinstone.

I forgot to ask you this. When will you take Edith Ann’s Advice and go to Washington and fix things yourself?

Rollinstone.
If you can’t call something by its right name, and then you are not being honest in debating. By the way, Mr. Rollinstone, I am against the Health Care law as well. I can be against something without sounding like a cartoon character. We, as a society, have enough “cartoon characters” in the media like Joe Pags, Sean Hannity, and Glenn Beck.

Pilot?

Where is Q-tips input on Obamacare?

Oh that's right! He is dodging those pesky old KHOU assassins.

BigJ, I will make this as simple as I can so you're able to understand....

Obumacare = A medical and fiscal disaster for our poor country. It is a fraudulent, utopian dream with dire and dismal consequences.

It's really funny how some revere this new costly entitlement with such compassion. Compassion derived from using other people's money of course - the cheapest form of compassion I might add.

The compassion it really brings tears to my eyes - but enough of that I have to man up, I guess.

Wait a minute. I am confuse what is Obumacare and who in the world is Obummer? Can someone please help me translated the Pig Latin.

Rollingstone, you are so correct. The Socialist Democrates got this horrible bill passed by hook and crook. Might be the worst bill in the history of the United States. Fitting that it happened under Barry "Jimmy Carter Jr" Obummer!

Waywardwind.
I hazard a guess you won’t talk about Hon Clarence Thomas’ role in the Health care debate. And why he should be recuse himself.

Rollinstone

What is Obumacare? Can you please tell us?

Obumacare is unconstitutional period, but it is also unpopular and it is another costly entitlement that will bankrupt the nation. It will make healthcare difficult to obtain except for the very rich and those with political connections.

We've been consistently lied to about the cost of Obumacare.....from the WSJ:

"A new Congressional Budget Office report on the long-term trend in the federal budget finds that the costs of Medicare and Medicaid will drive federal spending and debt to all-time highs in coming decades. In one scenario, federal health-care spending doubles over the next 25 years, to 11% of GDP in 2035 from 5.6% this year. In another scenario, the debt eclipses 100% of GDP by 2021 and 190% of GDP by 2035. That's higher than where Greece is right now, and we see what the bond vigilantes are doing there."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epol...

Waywardwind.

I don’t see you questioning the issue of Justice Clarence (Uncle) Thomas. Why is that? As for your rant that justices don’t can’t get fired etc. The U.S. Constitution has the Senate as the body to fire them. I do not hear you mention anything about Thomas’ wife role in some political activities namely the Health Care debate, of Justice Kagan has to go so does Justice Thomas. Maybe just maybe, there should judicial freedom with Texas Supreme Court as well, which is more about playing Rick Perry-type conservative politics than doing blinded and fair justice. My comment also goes to TAFOER as well.

Lol......The day the Supreme Court gathered behind closed doors to consider the politically divisive question of whether it would hear a challenge to President Obama’s healthcare law, two of its justices, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, were feted at a dinner sponsored by the law firm that will argue the case before the high court.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/...

Tafoer...She won't have to recuse herself. Don't you know that the Supremes, Congress and the president are above the law? At one time in this country -- a long time ago -- laws applied even to the ones who make the laws, but no more. The BEST job in the world today, with the possible exception of queen of England, is to be a justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. It's a lifetime gig, the pay is good, you can't be fired, there is NO performance review from the boss, because there IS NO BOSS. The term is only nine months long so there is a three month vacation every year. Heck, there isn't even a Constitutional requirement that a justice has to be a lawyer. In the words of a local car dealer, "What a deal!"

I don't think Justice Thomas or Kagan will have to recuse themselves and Congress cannot compel them to. They can put up a partisan political fight, as they're doing right now, but that's about it. That's the same argument that was made when Justice Scalia went duck hunting with Dick Cheney just before the ruling on the secret energy meeting.

While there are similarities between mandates for auto insurance and health care insurance, I don't think that's where the arguments will come from. Since it's under the commerce clause, I believe the administration will argue that not having mandates will put an undue burden on health care cost. They will argue that health care insurance companies will not be able to insure the 31,000,000 new customers nor would it be able to continue insuring those with pre existing conditions.

As I said it's not cut and dry, either way it's time for the legal battles to begin. The conservatives will use United States v Lopez 1995,and at one time the administration was pointing to Wickard v. Filburn, 1942

"The court said Congress’s power under the commerce clause allows it to regulate activities that have even an indirect effect on interstate commerce. That meant that the Agricultural Adjustment Act applied even to Ohio farmer Roscoe Filburn, who was growing wheat for use on his own farm."

Do we not own a body that is subject to breakdown? Do we not demand that someone else fix our bodies when it is broken and seek help if we cannot pay for it? Seems simple to me. Unless we are able and willing to pay for our own bodies and it's upkeep, than we do not have the right to make someone else pay for fixing it "IF" we are able to afford insurance and opt not to buy it.

If you don't have a automobile , you don't have to purchase auto insurance. How would you feel if they mandated purchasing auto insurance and you didn't own a vehicle!

Hon. Elena Kagan will have to recuse herself. According to 28 USC 455, a Supreme Court justice must recuse from “any proceeding in which impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” The law also says a justice must recuse anytime they had “expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy” while they “served in governmental employment.”

The state mandates I buy auto insurance and if I don't pay a fine. There are a lot of things that are mandated to us - like it or not.

Right now I know of people who want to buy medical insurance but can't at any price - maybe Obamacare will change that. Others can buy it but would pay more for it than the up coming additional tax they will pay for not having it.

And of course there are those that right now say - I don't need any insurance - I just go to the hospital emergency room - and stiff the hospital because I won't pay the bill. They will continue to do the same probably - but at least pay the additional taxes.

I haven't read the thousands of pages in the bill - so am not an expert - but I believe that it is going to be expensive for all of us - mandated or not.

This is going to sound hard-hearted, but if the individual mandate is struck down, they ought to at least give the hospitals the right to deny treatment for those who opt to not have insurance and cannot pay for their bill. It is their choice to forgo coverage, so why expect the taxpayer to cover them?

I contend that it is easier to predict a horse race than how the Supreme Court will rule. Who would have believed the Supreme Court would have ruled against the rights of the individual in favor of more governmental power when it came to "eminent domain", now many states are trying to correct the rulings within the state.

Writein

You're right, it will probably come down to a 5 to 4 decision, either way. The four conservative judges voting one way, the four liberal judges the other way, and Supreme Court Justice Kennedy will be the deciding vote.

The Supreme Court has been very lenient in the past when deciding issues such as the" Commerce Clause" in the constitution.

They may well decide that the " individual mandate" is unconstitutional but that the rest of the Affordable Health Care Act is not. As was the case in the last lower court case ruling.

It was federal Judge Laurence Silberman, Reagan appointee, favorite of the conservative, anti-government set. Silberman, writing for a unanimous federal appeals court based in Washington, handed a victory to the White House on Tuesday when the court backed the most contentious element of President Obama’s health care initiative. Opponents have challenged the so-called individual mandate, which requires people to have health insurance or pay a penalty.

Silberman said their argument holds no water.

The appeals court decision was not the final word on the matter. That will doubtless come from the U.S. Supreme Court, which may decide any day whether it will hear a case on the matter. But Silberman’s ruling is a strong argument in favor of Congress and the White House. The judge didn’t mince words, saying Congress has broad regulatory powers under the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution.

The individual mandate is fundamental to the law. Insurance only works when risk is spread out broadly. Congress recognized that and acted accordingly. And, said conservative Judge Silberman, legislators acted constitutionally, too.

http://www.masslive.com/opinion/index...

It will be an interesting case...I'm looking forward to the ruling.

Writein: "Some of the bill will be strike down because of the makeup of the court".

And because it is unconstitutional, which at least some of the court will realize and then do their jobs.

Some of the bill will be strike down because of the makeup of the court.