Posted on 03/29/2012 5:59:26 PM PDT by agee
Supreme Court – 03.28.12 An exchange between Justice Kagan and Lead Plaintiff Attorney Clement…
Clement had barely finished his first sentence when Kagan immediately asked him why it was coercive for the federal government to give billions of dollars in additional aid to the states. “There are no matching funds requirements, there are no extraneous conditions attached to it, it’s just a boatload of federal money for you to take and spend on poor people’s healthcare,” she declared. “It doesn’t sound coercive to me, I have to tell you.”
To that, Clement said the government’s money was still coercive because it assumed the states would take the money and that Congress was leveraging their prior participation in the program. Kagan pressed further with a hypothetical asking Clement if he’d accept a lucrative job. He said it would depend on where that money came from.
“Wow! Wow!” Kagan exclaimed in wonderment. “I’m offering you $10 million a year to come work for me and you are saying this is anything but a great choice?” Clement sharply replied, “Sure, if I told you, actually it came from my own bank account.”
(Excerpt) Read more at foundingideals.com ...
And this embarrassing mental colossus is on the bench of the Supreme Court for the next 30 years. God help the United States.
What was embarrassing was that Kagan was arguing the government’s case from the bench. She was better prepared than the Government’s attorney. I guess that’s what happens when you help write a law. (Not like she has a conflict of interest or anything.....)
Justice Breyer's nonsensical musings, when combined with those of Justice Kagan, should alarm every citizen who cherishes the Constitution's underlying principles, as articulated and explained by America's Founders and Framers of that Constitution's protections for liberty.
My post from another thread related to Kagan:
"Kagan: "'The exact same argument so, so that really reduces to the question of: why is a big gift from the federal government a matter of coercion?
"'In other words, the federal government is here saying: we’re giving you a boatload of money. There are no, is no matching funds requirement. There are no extraneous conditions attached to it.
"'It’s just a boatload of federal money for you to take and spend on poor people’s healthcare. It doesn’t sound coercive to me, I have to tell you.'"
This statement tells us everything we need to know about Justice Kagan's concept of "coercive power" versus "individual liberty" and the Constitution's protections for the latter.
America's Founders viewed "government" as "coercive" by nature.
America's Founders understood that "government" creates no money, has no money, and cannot "gift" money without first "taking" it from someone--a "coercive" act in itself.
Besides, this "boatload of money" is not "federal money." It is "the People's" money, and who is naive or uninformed enough to believe that "taking" it from the people, sending it to Washington, and then doling it out to the States is an efficient way to provide "poor people's health care"????
Oh, how far we have come from the genius and wisdom which gave birth to America's Constitution, America's liberty for all, and America's prosperity and greatness!!!
I hope that these members of the Supreme Court will understand that future generations of Americans and individuals all over the world, given the new technologies which enable them to study the Founders' ideas, will judge them by the Framers' standards, not by the standards of the so-called "progressive" politicians in this Administration.
"Ideas have Consequences" (Weaver). America's Founders' ideas produced freedom, opportunity, prosperity and plenty for hundreds of millions of oppressed people.
The "progressives'" ideas of redistribution (socialism) have produced approaching tyranny and oppression, mediocrity, and want, in every society where they have been tried.
1. Maybe Kagan realizes Bernacke will just print the money used to pay the states. So it is free (monopoly) money.
2. Maybe the role of the states is not to protect the freedoms of its residents and not to accept free bribes to abridge the freedoms of the people.
1. If Bernake isn’t careful the only thing the US dollar will be good for is toilet paper. (See Germany early 30s)
2. If the enough states get together and start rejecting the funding coming from Washington, it will shift power back to the states. The problem is that the states are addicted to the dollars collected by the IRS and redistributed freely.
They are supposed to be deciding whether its Constitutional, not if its a “good idea” or “wehats wrong with free money?”
What a mental midget.
What a moron.
She has no business being on SCOTUS
So, is that what Miss Piggy thinks of my taxpayer dollars? That "federal money" has been stolen from Americans.
Monetary systems always break down when Government officials and Financial Institutions forget certain basic facts.
Are we citizens satisfied with the level of service we are receiving from our government?
Sales people must love her.
“It’s all free ma’am. We’ll take the price out of your paycheck so you don’t have to pay anything!”
Every time I hear a justice discuss “is it a good idea” or “will it work” and not “is it constitutional” I cringe. At least 4 members on the court gave up caring if it’s constitutional the day they were appointed.
Every time I hear a justice discuss “is it a good idea” or “will it work” and not “is it constitutional” I cringe. At least 4 members on the court gave up caring if it’s constitutional the day they were appointed.
bump
Stolen right out of everyone's retirement and savings, by B Wacky and Bernacky's Magic Money Machine!
Also, this shows how liberals-leftists believe that once you get any support from the government, no matter how small, they already own you, and you have no right to object to any further expansion of government power. Once you receive, say, Social Security, you have no right to object to the government taking over the entire health insurance industry, and then the entire economy. In the leftists' book, if you receive any government benefit, and you object to Obamacare, or to totally subsidized birth control and sterilization, or to sex change operations for criminal illegal aliens, you are a hypocrite.
Our Republic is in great peril. God save us.
Some think that if Obama is defeated for reelection, Paul Clement himself may be headed for the Surpeme Court.
Obama is worse than 10 9/11 attacks put together.
We have to elect a new President this November. I’m not certain that the United States could survive a second Obama term.
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.