Posted on 06/18/2012 3:41:16 AM PDT by Perdogg
Today the court is handing down decisions, possibly in the Arizona Immigration Law case.
Make your Prediction on:
1. Az Immigration law 2a. Heathcare Mandate 2b. Heathcare Servability 3. Stolen Valor Act
I meant “ratify” the constitution not write it.
If I work hard I can come up with a sparkling new line for next year’s spring fashion shows.
Az Immigration Law - Upholds Az law 5-4
Healthcare Mandate - Mandate goes down 5-4
Healthcare Severability - The entire bill goes down 5-4
Stolen Valor Act - Valor Act goes down 6-3
The first three are political to the libs, so they’ll see the decisions divide along political lines.
“Even Thomas Jefferson could not affect the Court to his rage and mortification and he was a heck of a lot smarter than any of today’s politicians.”
Much smarter.
And, of course neither the president nor congress can require a recusal of a S.Ct. justice. However, a conflicted justice should recuse herself sua sponte where her impartiality might reasonably be questioned. It has been more than questioned in Kagan’s case.
Even a writer in the L.A. Times in February was calling for recusal or good reasons why Kagan shouldn’t recuse herself:
“Was Kagan a “counselor or advisor” on the constitutionality of the healthcare act for the administration? This is a substantial question because even though Kagan may not have been directly involved in the administration’s litigation strategy defending the act while she was the head of the solicitor general’s office, her deputy, Neal Katyal, was. It exalts form over substance to suggest that Katyal, had he been named to the Supreme Court, would have to recuse himself but his boss, who knew of and supported his participation, does not.
“But, even that isn’t the point. The litigation is likely to be the highest-profile Supreme Court case since Bush vs. Gore. The court has set the argument for 5½ hours over three days, which is almost unheard of in modern times, and the decision may factor into the presidential election. Yet Roberts tells us just to trust Supreme Court justices to do the right thing, and Kagan doesn’t even offer an explanation for her decision to stay on the case despite a substantial formal motion that she recuse herself. This request for blind allegiance and judicial silence smacks of hubris.”
But just as Obummer has no time for legal niceties, Kagan too is above the rule of law and ethics—they’re hardcore Alinkyites after all, and ensuring a massive federal take-over of health care is too important to take a chance on losing if one has to abide by the Code of Judicial Ethics.
I’m not at all surprised at Fat Girl. I am disppointed that Roberts has not spoken to the issue. Maybe he is afraid it would affect the comity of the court.
In Roberts’ silence, Republican congressman should have been more vocal in my view. However, most have had very little to say about it for some reason.
Kennedy citing a UN treaty as precedent for the Graham v. Florida decision here.
Kennedy also, in Lawrence v. Texas, cites Dudgeon v. United Kingdom for the majority opinion here.
Sen. McConnell expressing outrage over Obama attempting to intimidate SCOTUS before ruling on ObamaCare here.
1. Az Immigration law (7-1 upheld)
2a. Heathcare Mandate (5-4 against)
2b. Heathcare Servability (5-4 against)
3. Stolen Valor Act (8-1 against)
Kagen recused herself on the Az law, as I found out, so I guess you are saying 5-3.
Thanks, Perdogg. I hadn’t heard that. But, yes, to the extent that the decision is political, it will be along political lines.
I LIKE the Stolen Valor Act, but too many have pointed out a free speech problem with it. As a retired military member, I take a very dim view of anyone who wears medals they did not earn, and especially the medals for courage in combat that I would prefer to be very strictly defined even by the military with one standard across all services.
I believe false representation should be prosecuted under business fraud laws if any misrepresentation by a valor stealer separates a person from their money. An organization should also be able to use some kind of fraud defense if they get taken in by a valor stealer.
The act, as I’m told, infringes on free speech, and I can see that if a person wants to go around saying they are a Martian they should be able to do so, that we should have a “buyer beware” attitude and take care of ourselves regarding all con men.
But to claim to be a medal of honor winner is repugnant to me, and I’d just as soon have a firing squad at dawn. /hyper
I totally agree with you about the First Amendment problems in the "Stolen Valor Act" per se; but since the MOH comes with a stipend and other government benefits, I think you could construct a law, similar to laws against impersonating an active duty soldier, or Federal Official, that would pass Constitutional muster.
I agree, pawdoggie, and especially if the person is attempting to both claim the MOH and collect the federal stipend and benefits.
Then you have only yourself to blame for the next four years of Obama.
And let's be perfectly honest with ourselves: Obama and Romney are, for all intents and purposes, the same.
"Obama or Romney" is an excellent example of Morton's Fork.
Overturn AZ.. Uphold Obamacare but Overturn Mandate, Uphold Valor Act.
You are correct. So, what should I do? If you have a better idea please let me know and I would be overjoyed to somehow implement it.
And please, I really do want to know. You can tell me I am wrong, and point out the obvious, but unless you present me with a viable alternative your words are not worth much.
Vote your conscience; since both main parties are offering up morally repugnant candidates this means voting third-party.
By offering someone who is the same, the Republican party now is not even 'the lesser of two evils', but an equal evil. Therefore, why should you put yourself in a place where your conscience can condemn you? There is not a single reason for you to do so because the outcome is the same as voting "for the other guy."
Me, I'm probably going to vote for Goode (Constitution Party), maybe Tom Hoefling (a Freeper here), or perhaps write-in Ron Paul.
I am no longer concerned that Obama will have a second term, because he will, even if he's just going by the name 'Romney.' I certainly won't be able to see the difference. But the Republican Party, as an organization, has to realize that it can't "play ball as normal." In fact it refuses to admit that, so I refuse to support them any more.
And please, I really do want to know. You can tell me I am wrong, and point out the obvious, but unless you present me with a viable alternative your words are not worth much.
Well, what I think the best course of action is is to concentrate on building logistics and intelligence networks. Join the militia, be suspicious of government officials, and get ready. The very best, though painful, outcome is that the people-as-a-whole refuse to continue to support an unjust government and oppose it... this, in turn, will cause those in power to use that power to retain their power. (And then there will be unpleasantness.)
The second-best outcome is that the headlong slide into every horrid policy is stopped, though temporarily.
America as you (and I) know it is over.
We must either become fully-totalitarian, or [mostly-]free, if the latter then there will need to be a cleaning out of corrupt officials [and laws], a trimming away of government agencies, and all that will result in something that is far different than you or I know.
Sorry if this is a bit less than helpful -- I'm trying to convey both long and short term at once.
International law has always been a critical part of US law from even before the Constitution.
Treaties are part of the Law of the Land as per the Constitution.
CITING international law is not the same as BASING a ruling on it. L vs T was decided upon DUE PROCESS not international law.
You would be well advised to understand these matters before going off on rhetorical Big Game Hunts. And don’t link to things which do NOT support what you claim, someone who can understand what he reads might actually read them.
I am no fan of Jefferson and his conduct during the Burr Inquisition and Trial is nothing short of outrageous. And I HATE Burr being a huge Hamilton admirer.
It is, of course, totally outrageous that Kagan does not recuse herself on Obamacare just as it is that Ginsberg does not wrt any abortion cases. ‘
BTAIM there are NO constitutional mechanisms to force a recusal. Not Congressional, not Executive, not Judicial. Partially this is because the Founders considered the Court to be outside of politics.
The main reason Congress has been quiet is that there is no gain from speaking up. Unless hearing your own voice gives pleasure. Clearly any objection would fall on deaf ears and the objector would just be put squarely in the media’s crosshairs. Definitely Lose Lose. And most of these guys have as much courage as a mouse.
Once again the Lovers of Losers pop up to convince FReepers to aid the Enemy.
Do you meam to tell me that John Q. Adams was wrong?
“Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.”-John Quincy Adams
Under that logic she should have refused herself from the Obamacare case as she defended it as well.
It is “severability”. The ability to split something into parts or just apart.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.