Did Judge Vinson order the Govt to stop Obamacare immediately? Answer: YES.

[Little-Acorn]

Turns out that Judge Vinson, in his ruling yesterday, DID order the Obama administration to stop implementing any and all provisions of Obamacare immediately. See the second and third quotes (from Judge Vinson's ruling) below:

-----------------------------------------

http://market-ticker.org/

Health Care Unconstitutional: Obama Sedition?
Posted 2011-02-01 11:17 by Karl Denninger

Yes, that's a strong word.

It may also be appropriate.



The White House officials said that the ruling would not have an impact on implementation of the law, which is being phased in gradually. (The individual mandate, for example, does not begin until 2014.) They said that states cannot use the ruling as a basis to delay implementation in part because the ruling does not rest on "anything like a conventional Constitutional analysis." Twenty-six states were involved in the lawsuit.

So now we have a White House that has declared its intent to ignore a declaratory judgment.

The Administration has no right to do this.

Obama's White House has exactly two options:

* Comply with the ruling. This means that any and all activity authorized or mandated by the Statute cease now.

* File an appeal and ask for a stay pending its hearing. If said stay is granted, then the ruling is held pending consideration.

That's it.

Folks, this is clear. The Judge in question, Judge Vinson, in fact sets forth exactly this in the opinion:




(5) Injunction

The last issue to be resolved is the plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief enjoining implementation of the Act, which can be disposed of very quickly. Injunctive relief is an “extraordinary” [Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U.S. 305, 312, 102 S. Ct. 1798, 72 L. Ed. 2d 91 (1982)], and “drastic” remedy [Aaron v. S.E.C., 446 U.S. 680, 703, 100 S. Ct. 1945, 64 L. Ed. 2d 611 (1980) (Burger, J., concurring)]. It is even more so when the party to be enjoined is the federal government, for there is a long-standing presumption “that officials of the Executive Branch will adhere to the law as declared by the court. As a result, the declaratory judgment is the functional equivalent of an injunction.” See Comm. on Judiciary of U.S. House of Representatives v. Miers, 542 F.3d 909, 911 (D.C. Cir. 2008); accord Sanchez-Espinoza v. Reagan, 770 F.2d 202, 208 n.8 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (“declaratory judgment is, in a context such as this where federal officers are defendants, the practical equivalent of specific relief such as an injunction . . . since it must be presumed that federal officers will adhere to the law as declared by the court”) (Scalia, J.) (emphasis added).

Except in this case The White House has now declared its intent to intentionally disobey the law as declared by the court.




There is no reason to conclude that this presumption should not apply here. Thus, the award of declaratory relief is adequate and separate injunctive relief is not necessary.

Well, as of today, there is such a reason to so conclude.

The Plaintiffs need to make their way back to court this morning and file an emergency request for both an injunction and a citation of contempt of court against the members of The Obama Administration, including President Obama personally, Kathleen Sebelius and The Internal Revenue Service, all of which are staffing up for and acting as if this law remains in full force and effect.

This is now a full-blown Constitutional Crisis. The Executive's willful, intentional and publicly-stated refusal to honor a declaratory judgment is an open act of willful and intentional violation of The Separation of Powers in The Constitution and, if combined with the use of or threat of use of force as is always present when government coercion is employed, treads awfully close to the line, and may cross it, of 18 USC Ch 115 Sec 2384, to wit:




If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

The exercise of power by the Executive and Judicial branch, under which the Internal Revenue and Health and Human Services operate, inherently constitutes the use of force.

When such is used to "prevent, hinder or delay the execution of any law of The United States" the parties that have done so, it can be argued, have engaged in a Seditious Conspiracy.

Unless the Obama Administration either stands down now or files an appeal and seeks a stay and stands down until said stay is granted, if it is, then they have indeed crossed the line.

The statement from The Obama Administration is a declaration that he is not a President, but rather a King and he arrogates to himself a "divine right." The willful and intentional refusal of an organ of government to abide a lawful decision of a court of competent jurisdiction is a declaration of tyranny and lawlessness.

[Palin Rider]

Nobody is ignoring the order. It has been stayed.

[Kathianne]

Nobody is ignoring the order. It has been stayed.

The ruling? Link, please.

[texastom]

The ruling? Link, please.The OP cannot provide a link because the ruling has not yet been stayed. The Obama administration has requested one, but none has been issued - yet.

[Little-Acorn]

Nobody is ignoring the order. It has been stayed.

(sigh) The usual made-up "facts" from the usual fact maker-uppers*.

Meantime, we have quotes like this from the White House:


The White House officials said that the ruling would not have an impact on implementation of the law, which is being phased in gradually.

Now, does anyone else want to tell us that "nobody is ignoring the order"?

________________________________________

* I've been advised not to call people "liars", no matter how blatant their, umm, "new facts".

[Psychoblues]

Don't worry, folks!!!!!! The Patients Rights and Affordable Care Act may become modified or improved at some point but we're going to enjoy it's benefits for many years to come. American citizens have desperately needed and sought after something like this for more than a century. One piss-assed activist judge don't stop no show.

Psychoblues

[texastom]

Don't worry, folks!!!!!! The Patients Rights and Affordable Care Act may become modified or improved at some point but we're going to enjoy it's benefits for many years to come. American citizens have desperately needed and sought after something like this for more than a century. One piss-assed activist judge don't stop no show.

PsychobluesSo any judge that doesn't agree with you and your ilk is "activist"? LMFAO! :lame2:

[Psychoblues]

So any judge that doesn't agree with you and your ilk is "activist"? LMFAO! :lame2:

Agree with me or not, Judge Vinson has a very definite history. I've actually read a good part of it and it appears to me that he is indeed like I said, a piss-assed activist judge. His intent from the get go was to strike down the law as written knowing full well his ruling didn't mean shit to anyone other than the Heritage Foundation or some other right wing think tank where he may retire to in the future. The antics of the right wingers on this healthcare issue would be hilarious if they weren't so serious and hurtful about them.

Outside the "activist" thing what else did you not understand in that post, tommy turdlicker. What's all this "ilk" shit about?

Psychoblues

[texastom]

Agree with me or not, Judge Vinson has a very definite history. I've actually read a good part of it and it appears to me that he is indeed like I said, a piss-assed activist judge. His intent from the get go was to strike down the law as written knowing full well his ruling didn't mean shit to anyone other than the Heritage Foundation or some other right wing think tank where he may retire to in the future. The antics of the right wingers on this healthcare issue would be hilarious if they weren't so serious and hurtful about them.

Outside the "activist" thing what else did you not understand in that post, tommy turdlicker. What's all this "ilk" shit about?

PsychobluesHe used Obama's own words when writing his decision.....

[Kathianne]

Agree with me or not, Judge Vinson has a very definite history. I've actually read a good part of it and it appears to me that he is indeed like I said, a piss-assed activist judge. His intent from the get go was to strike down the law as written knowing full well his ruling didn't mean shit to anyone other than the Heritage Foundation or some other right wing think tank where he may retire to in the future. The antics of the right wingers on this healthcare issue would be hilarious if they weren't so serious and hurtful about them.

Outside the "activist" thing what else did you not understand in that post, tommy turdlicker. What's all this "ilk" shit about?

Psychoblues

You want to be taken seriously, I understand that. I've even gone to bat for you. Then you use things like, 'tommy turdlicker' and claim seriousness? So, why should I chastise others?

[Psychoblues]

He used Obama's own words when writing his decision.....

That is an often used legal ploy but usually used by an unscrupulous defense lawyer taking words out of context and trying to rescue his client from whatever. Perhaps the Obama team will use a few of the good judge's own words in their appeal. Don't you think?

Some of you cats just get all giddy pissing down your legs when you think someone is being mistreated. Why is that?

Psychoblues

[Psychoblues]

You want to be taken seriously, I understand that. I've even gone to bat for you. Then you use things like, 'tommy turdlicker' and claim seriousness? So, why should I chastise others?

You obviously aren't keeping up in the conversation, Kath. Tommy Turdlicker had just for no reason got all up in my face with this "you and your ilk" bullshit. I took it personally and responded in a like manner. I've never indicated in any way that I would not do that. Fair is fair. I do recognise and appreciate your input and advise, Kath, but in this case it's Tommy Turdlicker that needs to straighten this out on his own. Or maybe not. He may only be 8 years old and doesn't know how to play grownup games, think so?

Maybe I was a little quick on the trigger but maybe he should have thought out his ilk shit just a little longer before he hit that submit button.

Thanks, Kath.

Psychoblues

[texastom]

You obviously aren't keeping up in the conversation, Kath. Tommy Turdlicker had just for no reason got all up in my face with this "you and your ilk" bullshit. I took it personally and responded in a like manner. I've never indicated in any way that I would not do that. Fair is fair. I do recognise and appreciate your input and advise, Kath, but in this case it's Tommy Turdlicker that needs to straighten this out on his own. Or maybe not. He may only be 8 years old and doesn't know how to play grownup games, think so?

Maybe I was a little quick on the trigger but maybe he should have thought out his ilk shit just a little longer before he hit that submit button.

Thanks, Kath.

Psychobluesike: A type, race or category; a group that have common characteristics such that they may be grouped together; The same

Ilk:

–noun
1. family, class, or kind: he and all his ilk.

–adjective
2. same.

—Idiom
3. of that ilk,
a. (in Scotland) of the same family name or place: Ross of that ilk, i.e., Ross of Ross.
b. of the same class or kind.

Origin:
bef. 900; ME ilke, OE ilca (pronoun) the same, equiv. to demonstrative i (c. Goth is he, L is that) + a reduced form of līc like1 ; cf. which, such

[texastom]

That is an often used legal ploy but usually used by an unscrupulous defense lawyer taking words out of context and trying to rescue his client from whatever. Perhaps the Obama team will use a few of the good judge's own words in their appeal. Don't you think?

Some of you cats just get all giddy pissing down your legs when you think someone is being mistreated. Why is that?

PsychobluesBoth sides use what you call "legal ploys", but it's only a "ploy" when it goes against your wishes.

Here's BHO's exact words:


‘If a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house,’.

[BoogyMan]

Nobody is ignoring the order. It has been stayed.

Are you claiming that the president can stay an order of the judiciary? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Const itution)

[Psychoblues]

Ilk:

–noun
1. family, class, or kind: he and all his ilk.

–adjective
2. same.

—Idiom
3. of that ilk,
a. (in Scotland) of the same family name or place: Ross of that ilk, i.e., Ross of Ross.
b. of the same class or kind.

Origin:
bef. 900; ME ilke, OE ilca (pronoun) the same, equiv. to demonstrative i (c. Goth is he, L is that) + a reduced form of līc like1 ; cf. which, such

Ilk is commonly used in this country as a slur, particularly in the political world but present about everyway. I know of no American that would not be offended if accused of being "you and your ilk" like you intimated towards me, turdlicker. You knew better but you did it anyway. Your bad.

Psychoblues

[texastom]

Ilk is commonly used in this country as a slur, particularly in the political world but present about everyway. I know of no American that would not be offended if accused of being "you and your ilk" like you intimated towards me, turdlicker. You knew better but you did it anyway. Your bad.

PsychobluesPerhaps instead of being offended, you should just take time to learn the English language. I guess you'd be offended if I said you were ignorant about the inner workings of high-temperature superconductors too since you'd probably take umbrage to my using the word ignorant.

Well, I for one will readily admit that me and my ilk are ignorant about the inner workings of high-temperature superconductors because it's not my expertise. I also understand the definitions of the words I use.

[Mr. P]

That is an often used legal ploy but usually used by an unscrupulous defense lawyer taking words out of context and trying to rescue his client from whatever. Perhaps the Obama team will use a few of the good judge's own words in their appeal. Don't you think?

Some of you cats just get all giddy pissing down your legs when you think someone is being mistreated. Why is that?

Psychoblues
The only pissing here is directly on the American people and the U.S. Constitution by this Administration blatantly disregarding the will of the people, the Constitution, AND the separation of powers.

Process and law are not ignored in a free country. I'd advise Bambam along with his supporters to study the current goings on in Egypt,

This DOG won't hunt.

[Psychoblues]

Perhaps instead of being offended, you should just take time to learn the English language. I guess you'd be offended if I said you were ignorant about the inner workings of high-temperature superconductors too since you'd probably take umbrage to my using the word ignorant.

Well, I for one will readily admit that me and my ilk are ignorant about the inner workings of high-temperature superconductors because it's not my expertise. I also understand the definitions of the words I use.

You meant that word as a slur towards me. No doubt about that. Now you're trying to whine your way out of it. Admit what you did, turdlicker. It ain't no thing and besides I saw you come in the other night in the announcements and spoke to you. I repeat, it just ain't no thing and I hope you agree, turdlicker.

Psychoblues

[red states rule]

Actually the Judge used CANDIDATE Obama's own words in his ruling.

CANDIDATE Obama was OPPOSED to forving people to buy health insurance becauee Hillary Clinton was for it

So is you attack the Judge and his ruling - you are also atttacking Obama

The Judge was right - Obamacare is unconstitutional - and CANDIDATE Obama knew it as well

<object width="640" height="390"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/7-1SMV3ok58&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/7-1SMV3ok58&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></embed></object>

[texastom]

You meant that word as a slur towards me. No doubt about that. Now you're trying to whine your way out of it. Admit what you did, turdlicker. It ain't no thing and besides I saw you come in the other night in the announcements and spoke to you. I repeat, it just ain't no thing and I hope you agree, turdlicker.

PsychobluesNo I didn't. I meant for it to mean exactly what it means. Too bad your grammatical abilities are too weak for you to understand.

[Psychoblues]

No I didn't. I meant for it to mean exactly what it means. Too bad your grammatical abilities are too weak for you to understand.

I won't continue this any further with you other than to tell you that I don't believe you and that I took your remark personally and as a slur towards me and perhaps those like me that in some way support the Patients Rights And Affordable Care Act. I'll withdraw my moniker for you without prejudice for the time. Considering that you have gone this far in trying to clear this up I'll do that. I hope we can continue on more amicable terms.

Later, Alligator or can I just call you tom?

Psychoblues

[Psychoblues]

The only pissing here is directly on the American people and the U.S. Constitution by this Administration blatantly disregarding the will of the people, the Constitution, AND the separation of powers.

Process and law are not ignored in a free country. I'd advise Bambam along with his supporters to study the current goings on in Egypt,

This DOG won't hunt.

The Patients Rights and Affordable Care Act is polling in the high 60%ages, P. And getting higher the more people understand about it. Considering that our congress, Senate and President passed this into law and it remains polling so high, then it is you in the minority and are holding up the much needed progress and health considerations of all others than your own selfish selves. I'm not at all happy with the law but it beats anything we've ever had before. The American population has demanded this for over a century. It's time has come. And there's no need to piss down your legs about that, P.

Psychoblues

[Palin Rider]

The OP cannot provide a link because the ruling has not yet been stayed. The Obama administration has requested one, but none has been issued - yet.

First, I'm not the OP. Second, if you believe that no stay has been issued, why don't you post a link to prove it?

[Palin Rider]

Are you claiming that the president can stay an order of the judiciary? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Const itution)

Don't be stupider than usual. The order is automatically stayed while it's appealed to a higher court.

[texastom]

First, I'm not the OP. Second, if you believe that no stay has been issued, why don't you post a link to prove it?Here you go....

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/02/02/3127388.htm?section=justin

If a stay has been issued, why is ABC reporting <i>... the US government quickly said it would challenge the ruling, and <b>consider all options - including a stay of the verdict pending appeal </b>- to ensure the health care law can go into force.</i>

[Little-Acorn]

You want to be taken seriously, I understand that. I've even gone to bat for you. Then you use things like, 'tommy turdlicker' and claim seriousness?

Four words, Kathianne:

Don't feed the trolls.
:slap:

[texastom]

Don't be stupider than usual. The order is automatically stayed while it's appealed to a higher court.It hasn't yet been appealed.

[texastom]

Don't be stupider than usual. The order is automatically stayed while it's appealed to a higher court.

http://i282.photobucket.com/albums/kk244/fig_n3wton/WelcomeToFail.jpg

[logroller]

It hasn't yet been appealed.

I think an appeal is a foregone conclusion; kinda like the Supreme Court will eventually decide on the matter. They haven't agreed to hear the case YET, but they eventually will. The question at this point is -- how soon? I hope they fast track the case by skipping the appellate courts, as it is an issue of such contention that not ruling upon it ASAP is distractive of more beneficial pursuits.

Although, dragging the issue out to the next election could be advantageous to the GOP gaining more seats in congress, and thus make repealing the law easier; but lets hope it doesnt take that long!

[SassyLady]

Are you claiming that the president can stay an order of the judiciary? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Const itution)

Perhaps PR believes that the all-powerful Obama can, in fact, do just that. Who knows? The way this country is headed he might be right...it seems Obama doesn't believe laws are applicable to him. .... uh oh, I'm having a Nixon moment...."well, when the President does it, it's not illegal!"

[Little-Acorn]

Judge Vinson said in his ruling that since Obamacare is unconstitutional, his ruling is an order to the government to stop implementing it.

If the govt appeals to a higher court (Circuit Court of Appeals, or the Supreme Court)... AND if they apply for a stay of execution of the District court's ruling, AND if the higher court grants that stay, then the govt can keep implementing Obamacare until a final hearing.

I have heard no reports that the govt has appealed (though I'm sure they will), or that they have filed for a stay.

A poster on another board has pointed out that there is a Federal law saying that, if a court throws out a law, there is a two-week grace period in which the govt can keep enforcing the law. After that, they must stop, unless a court issues a stay or overrules the first ruling.

So, in two weeks, if any insurance company in those 26 states announces that 25-year-olds are not allowed on their parents' policy, they are acting legally, and the Fed govt can do nothing to force them to do otherwise.

Whether that situation continues, depends on what higher courts say in the future - either regarding a stay, or an appeal of the case itself.

[DragonStryk72]

(sigh) The usual made-up "facts" from the usual fact maker-uppers*.

Meantime, we have quotes like this from the White House:



Now, does anyone else want to tell us that "nobody is ignoring the order"?

________________________________________

* I've been advised not to call people "liars", no matter how blatant their, umm, "new facts".

Actually, he isn't ignoring it. Ignoring would state that he was somehow unaware, he simply doesn't care

[Nukeman]

First, I'm not the OP. Second, if you believe that no stay has been issued, why don't you post a link to prove it?

here ya go numbnuts... You will note they will SEEK a stay, not that they have or one has been issued....


Other attorneys general and governors have taken a variety of positions about the decision’s effect. Meanwhile, the Obama administration is proceeding with its implementation plans, and has indicated that it will seek a stay of Judge Vinson’s decision.
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/obamacare-after-judge-vinsons-ruling/

[Palin Rider]

It hasn't yet been appealed.

How much sense would it make to have the law struck down and then reinstated a few weeks later while it's appealed? :slap:

Your "ilk" seems so desperate for good news that it's funny.

[fj1200]

How much sense would it make to have the law struck down and then reinstated a few weeks later while it's appealed? :slap:

Makes perfect sense given rules and procedures and all that, ya know, legal stuff.

[texastom]

How much sense would it make to have the law struck down and then reinstated a few weeks later while it's appealed? :slap:

Your "ilk" seems so desperate for good news that it's funny.Me and my ilk take pleasure of pointing out ignorance.

[Psychoblues]

Perhaps PR believes that the all-powerful Obama can, in fact, do just that. Who knows? The way this country is headed he might be right...it seems Obama doesn't believe laws are applicable to him. .... uh oh, I'm having a Nixon moment...."well, when the President does it, it's not illegal!"

You people have short memories or should I say selective memories. gwb pulled this type thing all the time and ALWAYS prevailed right, wrong or indifferent. On the other hand I think President Barack Hussein Obama will abide the law and use whatever tools that are at his disposal to undue any wrongs that may have occured in this or any other case. I still say one piss-assed activist judge ain't gonna stop no show.

Psychoblues

[Psychoblues]

Me and my ilk take pleasure of pointing out ignorance.

You and your ilk don't have to look very far for it either, do you? J/K Tommy

Psychoblues

[red states rule]

Me and my ilk take pleasure of pointing out ignorance.

and with people like PR that is a full time job with unlimited overtime

[red states rule]

You and your ilk don't have to look very far for it either, do you? J/K Tommy

Psychoblues

Did I miss it PB or did you spin the fact the Judge used Candidate Obama's own words to rule Obamacre was unconstitutional?

You do know Candidate Obama said the government did not have the power to force people to buy health insurance - correct?

If they did where would it stop?

Does the government have the power to force people to buy dental insurance?

Or vitamins?

Or a gym membership?

Where is the US Constitution PB does it allow the government to force people to buy any product/service?

I think you have forgotten the US Constitution LIMITS the power of the government - not expand it

[red states rule]

Damn, seems like both PB and PR have left this thread with their tails tucked between their legs

Amazing what a steady stream on incoming facts can do to a liberal. it has the same effect as sunlight does on a vampire

[Palin Rider]

Damn, seems like both PB and PR have left this thread with their tails tucked between their legs

Amazing what a steady stream on incoming facts can do to a liberal. it has the same effect as sunlight does on a vampire

I'm still here, Burger King Kid, but of course that makes no difference to you, as you listen to nobody. Yourself included.

[red states rule]

I'm still here, Burger King Kid, but of course that makes no difference to you, as you listen to nobody. Yourself included.

Yea, you have the unfinished business of winning the title from Virgil

and I will help you all I can

[red states rule]

The left is now offering their defense when Obamcare is tossed out by the USSC

Those who vote it is unconstitutional are political hacks

This from the guy who Obama Constitutional law




Only a crude prediction that justices will vote based on politics rather than principle would lead anybody to imagine that Chief Justice John Roberts or Justice Samuel Alito would agree with the judges in Florida and Virginia who have ruled against the health care law. Those judges made the confused assertion that what is at stake here is a matter of personal liberty — the right not to purchase what one wishes not to purchase — rather than the reach of national legislative power in a world where no man is an island.

It would be asking a lot to expect conservative jurists to smuggle into the commerce clause an unenumerated federal “right” to opt out of the social contract. If Justice Clarence Thomas can be counted a nearly sure vote against the health care law, the only reason is that he alone has publicly and repeatedly stressed his principled disagreement with the whole line of post-1937 cases that interpret Congress’s commerce power broadly.

There is every reason to believe that a strong, nonpartisan majority of justices will do their constitutional duty, set aside how they might have voted had they been members of Congress and treat this constitutional challenge for what it is — a political objection in legal garb.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/08/opinion/08tribe.html?_r=2&ref=opinion

[Palin Rider]

Yea, you have the unfinished business of winning the title from Virgil

and I will help you all I can

It's almost entirely thanks to you, and maybe only 4 others will ever know.

You're a truly sad individual.

[Little-Acorn]

Nobody is ignoring the order. It has been stayed.

You still haven't provided any links to the order staying this decision, that you claimed had been done.

[Palin Rider]

You still haven't provided any links to the order staying this decision, that you claimed had been done.

Unless you're claiming that nobody's appealing Vinson's ruling, it's an entirely moot point.

[NightTrain]

It's almost entirely thanks to you, and maybe only 4 others will ever know.

You're a truly sad individual.


There's more than 4 of us cheering you on to victory! I feel you will be triumphant in your quest for the title. Shall I refer to you from here on as 'Champ'?

[Palin Rider]

There's more than 4 of us cheering you on to victory! I feel you will be triumphant in your quest for the title. Shall I refer to you from here on as 'Champ'?

Whatever floats your boat, Squiggy.

[NightTrain]

Whatever floats your boat, Squiggy.


Roger that, Champ.

[red states rule]

Libs are worried about Obamacare going before the USC and they are demanding Justice Thomas not take part in the ruling





Seventy-four House Democrats are asking Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to recuse himself from any health care reform cases, citing reports that his wife financially benefited from efforts to repeal the legislation.

The members, led by Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.), ask that he “maintain the integrity of this court.”

Continue Reading Text Size-+reset Listen
POLITICO 44
“The appearance of a conflict of interest merits recusal under federal law. From what we have already seen, the line between your impartiality and you and your wife's financial stake in the overturn of healthcare reform is blurred,” the members wrote.

They cite Thomas’s wife, Virginia, advertising herself as a lobbyist who has “experience and connections” and appeals to clients who want to overturn health reform.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/49166.html



However Dems are ignoring Justice Kagan was Solicitor General when Dems rammed thru Obamacare

[Palin Rider]

Libs are worried about Obamacare going before the USC and they are demanding Justice Thomas not take part in the ruling

Only because Uncle Clarence is as rigidly partisan as you are.

[Missileman]

Libs are worried about Obamacare going before the USC and they are demanding Justice Thomas not take part in the ruling




However Dems are ignoring Justice Kagan was Solicitor General when Dems rammed thru Obamacare

WTF would Weiner know about integrity?

[Kathianne]

WTF would Weiner know about integrity?

Nothing, which is one of the reasons the op was spot on.

[red states rule]

Only because Uncle Clarence is as rigidly partisan as you are.

He is like me. He is very partisan to the US Constitution

The last things liberals like you want is a Justice on the USSC who follows the US Constitution

That would block the Obama agenda from becoming the law of the land