Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
then you must also believe the federal government has the power to make you buy a gun.
It does. And it's done it before.
Will Justice Kagan recuse herself?
Ok, you disagree.Also, universal health insurance would require a captive market where privately funded insurance or direct pay to medical professionals must be outlawed.
I don't think that would be necessary. Coverage from the government does not preempt one from having additional, private coverage. It just reduces the demand for private coverage.
That will no doubt not stand up to Constitutional muster.
I disagree with that too. Even if private insurance were outlawed completely, it would be valid under the commerce clause IMO, just like the sale of illicit drugs is a valid prohibition under the constitution.
Not according to SCOTUSBLOGWill Justice Kagan recuse herself?
Also, universal health insurance would require a captive market where privately funded insurance or direct pay to medical professionals must be outlawed.
That will no doubt not stand up to Constitutional muster.
Will Justice Kagan recuse herself?
The law in question is 28 U.S.C. 455.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Supreme Court agreed on Monday to decide the fate of President Barack Obama's healthcare law, with an election-year ruling due by July on the healthcare system's biggest overhaul in nearly 50 years.
The decision had been widely expected since late September, when the Obama administration asked the nation's highest court to uphold the centerpiece insurance provision and 26 states separately asked that the entire law be struck down.
The justices in a brief order agreed to hear the appeals. At the heart of the legal battle is whether the Congress overstepped its powers by requiring that all Americans buy health insurance by 2014 or pay a penalty, a provision known as the individual mandate.
Supreme Court agrees to hear Obama healthcare law - chicagotribune.com
If Kagan participates, the Kennedy Court will vote to uphold; if not, not.
5-4 split vote is highly likely, one person will make the call.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Supreme Court agreed on Monday to decide the fate of President Barack Obama's healthcare law, with an election-year ruling due by July on the healthcare system's biggest overhaul in nearly 50 years.
The decision had been widely expected since late September, when the Obama administration asked the nation's highest court to uphold the centerpiece insurance provision and 26 states separately asked that the entire law be struck down.
The justices in a brief order agreed to hear the appeals. At the heart of the legal battle is whether the Congress overstepped its powers by requiring that all Americans buy health insurance by 2014 or pay a penalty, a provision known as the individual mandate.
Supreme Court agrees to hear Obama healthcare law - chicagotribune.com
If Kagan participates, the Kennedy Court will vote to uphold; if not, not.
The politics of the issue are of course telling: conservatives want the ACA struck down having nothing to do with the law or facts of the case, but rather because they would cherish a major defeat for Obama. The fact that millions of Americans would again be without insurance given the fact Congress would be unable or unwilling to pass healthcare reform again is of no consequence to the right.
Thanks for posting that. My post was a bit rhetorical I must admit...I have read a few stories over the past few months that discussed the issue.Will Justice Kagan recuse herself?
Maybe?
10/19/11
U.S. District Judge Ellen Huvelle, a Clinton appointee, ironically provided evidence last week that seals the case that Justice Elena Kagan is required by law to recuse herself from cases challenging Obamacare.
The law in question is 28 U.S.C. 455. It mandates that a justice "shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might be reasonably questioned" or "(w)here he has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceedings ..."
Court Ruling Proves: Kagan Must Recuse | CNSnews.com
Elena Kagan breezed through her recent confirmation hearings, but there's some crucial unfinished business the Senate should insist on before voting on her nomination to the Supreme Court. To wit, she ought to recuse herself from participating as a Justice in the looming legal challenges to ObamaCare.
In response to Senate queries, Ms. Kagan has said she'll recuse herself from participating in 11 cases on which she represented the government in her current job as Solicitor General. The challenge to ObamaCare isn't one of them, though the cases brought by Florida and 20 other states were filed in March, well before President Obama announced her nomination on May 10.
Ms. Kagan was never asked directly at her hearings about her role as SG regarding the health-care lawsuits. The closest anyone came was this question from Oklahoma Republican Tom Coburn: "Was there at any timeand I'm not asking what you expressed or anything elsewas there at any time you were asked in your present position to express an opinion on the merits of the health-care bill?"
Ms. Kagan: "There was not."
Regarding a potential recusal, that's not the right question. Ms. Kagan was unlikely to have been consulted on the merits of health-care policy, and even if she did express an opinion on policy this would not be grounds for recusal. The legal precedents on that are clear.
Recusal arises as a matter of judicial ethics if as a government official she expressed an opinion on the merits of the health-care litigation. This is what she would have to render a judgment on were she to be confirmed for the High Court. It is also the question on which she is likely to have participated given her role at the Justice Department
You should like him deany why don't you give him all your support.WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Supreme Court agreed on Monday to decide the fate of President Barack Obama's healthcare law, with an election-year ruling due by July on the healthcare system's biggest overhaul in nearly 50 years.
The decision had been widely expected since late September, when the Obama administration asked the nation's highest court to uphold the centerpiece insurance provision and 26 states separately asked that the entire law be struck down.
The justices in a brief order agreed to hear the appeals. At the heart of the legal battle is whether the Congress overstepped its powers by requiring that all Americans buy health insurance by 2014 or pay a penalty, a provision known as the individual mandate.
Supreme Court agrees to hear Obama healthcare law - chicagotribune.com
Gingrich Backs Obamacare's Individual Mandate Requiring Health Insurance
Appearing on NBCs Meet the Press, Gingrich told host David Gregory that he continues to advocate for a plan he first called for in the early 1990s as a Congressman, which requires every uninsured citizen to purchase or acquire health insurance.
Gregory played a clip of Gingrich speaking during an appearance on Meet the Press in October 1993:
I am for people, individuals -- exactly like automobile insurance -- individuals having health insurance and being required to have health insurance. And I am prepared to vote for a voucher system which will give individuals, on a sliding scale, a government subsidy so we insure that everyone as individuals have health insurance.
Oops.
If Kagan participates, the Kennedy Court will vote to uphold; if not, not.
The politics of the issue are of course telling: conservatives want the ACA struck down having nothing to do with the law or facts of the case, but rather because they would cherish a major defeat for Obama. The fact that millions of Americans would again be without insurance given the fact Congress would be unable or unwilling to pass healthcare reform again is of no consequence to the right.
The Individual Mandate will go down. The Rest of the law will likely remain, which will be a problem considering the Entire Law is based on the Idea of the Individual Mandate reducing costs, and generating Funding.
The Individual Mandate will go down. The Rest of the law will likely remain, which will be a problem considering the Entire Law is based on the Idea of the Individual Mandate reducing costs, and generating Funding.
Looks like 5-4 once again
Will the court go by case law or their individual political leanings? Should be interesting