Posted on 08/22/2019 10:22:09 AM PDT by jazusamo
65 million out of 320 million are on Medicaid? That’s astounding! The qualifications must be no more then 50 grand a year or something. That’s nuts.
This so-called judge has gone way beyond his authority. We need to remove all Obama judges from office and replace them with real judges who respect the proper limits of FedGov as delineated in the Constitution.
I want a body transplant....
Rob Lowe face
Stallone body
Dillinger “member” implant...
I demand it.
The slippery slope in defining “Elective” Surgery.
I assume Medicaid currently pays for reconstructive Surgery for Women who have had a Mastectomy.
I guess this ruling will expand that to include Breast Enhancement Surgery for Women because they have a poor body image.
It's twue! It's TWUE!! :D
I'm reminded of a line from an old Eagles song ... "Lay down your law books now, they're no damn good."
Don’t see how that can stand if it’s not in Medicaid policy coverage.
Medicaid reimburses at lower rates, especially for this case and this mentally ill faggot will never match the co-pay which the hospital system must eat the cost.
Taxpayers should bum rush his and the judge’s dwelling place to look for items that can be sold so the public at large can be reimbursed.
Also, the judge should be tarred and feathered and rode out on the Wisconsin rail due to economic and Constitutional ignorance.
Medicaid currently pays for... a low percentage of fee-for-service rates of many procedures and expects hospitals to pick up the rest of the cost. Why is Tylenol charged up the ying-yang in the hospital? Blame the voters, not the hospitals trying to recoup the loses incurred by government mandates/low reimbursement rates driven by, again, the voters.
The first person in U.S. history to be impeached and removed from office: John Pickering, Judge, U.S. district court, District of New Hampshire.
Impeached March 2, 1803, on charges of intoxication on the bench and unlawful handling of property claims. Senate trial: March 3, 1803–March 12, 1804. Found guilty; removed from office.
The second person to be impeached: Samuel Chase, Associate Justice, U.S. Supreme Court, Impeached March 12, 1804, on charges of arbitrary and oppressive conduct of trials. Senate trial, December 7, 1804–March 1, 1805; Justice Chase was Acquitted.
The third person to be impeached: James H. Peck, Judge, U.S. district court, Western district of Tennessee; Impeached April 24, 1830, on charges of abuse of the contempt power. Senate trial, April 26, 1830–January 31, 1831; Judge Peck was Acquitted
The fourth person to be impeached and the second person to be removed: West H. Humphreys, Judge, U.S. district court, Western district of Tennessee; Impeached May 6, 1862, on charges of refusing to hold court and waging war against the U.S. Government, Senate trial June 9, 1862–June 26, 1862 Found guilty; removed from office and disqualified from holding future office.
Wow, now you can get paid for getting someone to cut off your schvontz.
You might find this of interest.
https://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2012/01/womens-suffrage-and-size-of-government.html
We no longer have to look very hard for those with mental problems who need to be removed from the rest of ‘normal’ society.
My point is that since the founding of the nation the judicial branch has always had the most controversial, inept and criminal members. The only way to get rid of them is by impeachment since they have lifetime appointments.
Doing their job by lying about what the law is, has long ago ceased to be an acceptable reason to toss them out.
This does not mean we should simply blindly accept what they say. When they are wrong, we should denounce and ridicule their rulings, and point out what is the correct interpretation of the law.
That’s why 2 out of 3 appellate court judges can overturn a ruling that is wrong on the law or 5 out of 9 judges if an appeal gets to the Supreme Court.
But there never has been a time and there won’t ever be a time when the approach to constitutional interpretation is controlled by only one judicial ideology on all court decisions.
We just have to deal with the fact that Bill Clinton appointed 378 Article III federal judges and Barack Obama appointed another 329 federal judges. Those justices and judges usually will reflect the philosophy of the president who appointed them.
The problem we are having with Clinton Judges and Obama Judges is that they do not care about what is factually and objectively correct. They care about advancing a political agenda which they like, and this should not be tolerated as the basis of Judicial decisions.
When a Judge is tasked with enforcing a law he doesn't like, I do not expect him to invent new ways to see the law so as to arrive at a decision more to his liking, I expect the f***ing judge to apply the law as written and as intended by the framers of that law, even if he doesn't like the law.
Judges are not tasked with creating law. They are tasked with applying law, and all those who do not grasp this simple fact of their vocation, should not ever be allowed to work as a judge.
This is not a "philosophy", this is objective reality.
James Madison in Federalist #37: “All new laws, though penned with the greatest technical skill, and passed on the fullest and most mature deliberation, are considered as more or less obscure and equivocal until their meaning be liquidated and ascertained by a series of particular discussions and adjudications.” He maintained that there is an “unavoidable inaccuracy” in law-making since “no language is so copious as to supply words and phrases for every complex idea.”
Alexander Hamilton in Federalist #78: contended that the knowledge that judges will strike down bad laws “operates as a check upon the Legislative body in passing them.”
Hamilton, also in Federalist #78, was adamant that there be no direct democratic control of the Judiciary, for “Nothing can contribute so much its firmness and independence as permanency in office.” In Federalist #79, he argues that the power to remove judges from office “would be more liable to abuse than calculated to answer any good purpose.”
In Federalist #81, Hamilton let it be known he abhored the idea of politicians having the final word on their own passed laws. In elected bodies, “the pestitential breath of faction may poison the fountains of Justice,” where… “the habit of being continually marshalled on opposite sides will be too apt to stifle the voice both of law and of equity.”
Hamilton believed that legislators possess a different skillset from judges. The members of the Legislature Hamilton wrote, “will rarely be chosen with a view to those qualifications which fit men for the stations of judges.” And he labels it an “absurdity” to subject the “the decisions of men, selected for their knowledge of the laws, acquired by long and laborious study, to the revision and control of men who, for want of the same advantage, cannot but be deficient in that knowledge.”
What was “truth” in Dred Scott v Sandford. How should the law have been applied correctly? How about Marbury v Madison?
When the nation was founded there were two opposing judicial ideologies:
Federalists and Anti-federalists.
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.