Justice Kagan’s Ineligibility to Rule on ObamaCare


It is no secret that whatever ruling the United States Supreme Court reaches on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), the decision will have monumental repercussions for the nation and the Obama administration. Critical to that ruling is the ability by individual justices to render an impartial decision on the issue. Considering her history regarding healthcare reform previous to her court appointment, Justice Elena Kagan’s ability to be impartial is highly questionable.

In fact, during testimony by the Obama administration’s current Solicitor General, Donald Verrilli Jr., Kagan seemingly advocated on behalf of the government’s central argument for the individual mandate, contending that young Americans should be required to purchase health insurance because other Americans will subsidize their health care in the future, finishing one of Mr. Verrilli’s sentences for him. The critical part of the exchange:

Verrilli: To live in the modern world, everybody needs a telephone. And the–the same thing with respect to the–you know, the dairy price supports that –that the Court upheld in Wrightwood Dairy and Rock Royal. You can look at those as disadvantageous contracts, as forced transfers, that–you know, I suppose it’s theoretically true that you could raise your kids without milk, but the reality is you’ve got to go to the store and buy milk. And the commerce power–as a result of the exercise of the commerce power, you’re subsidizing somebody else–”

Kagan: And this is especially true, isn’t it, General–

Verrilli: –because that’s the judgment Congress has made.

Kagan: –Verrilli, because in this context, the subsidizers eventually become the subsidized?

Yet questions about Kagan’s impartiality go beyond her apparent effort to coach Mr. Verrilli. With respect to law, Section 455 (b) (3) of Title 28 requires recusal when a judge “has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy.” The law further states that a justice must recuse him- or herself from “any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”

Prior to her court appointment, Kagan was the Obama administration’s Solicitor General for 15 months. The Office of Solicitor General is tasked with supervising and conducting litigation on behalf of the government before the Supreme Court. Thus, there is no question that Ms. Kagan has served in governmental employment and, as a result, would be forced to recuse herself from a ruling on the healthcare bill if she participated as counsel, advisor or material witness in the government’s effort to prepare a defense of the healthcare bill.

Did she? During her court confirmation process in July of 2011, Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee asked Ms. Kagan if she had offered or been asked her opinion on the healthcare law or its constitutional merits. She answered, “No.” At that time, the most salient challenge to the PPACA was  U.S. Department of Health and Human Services v. State of Florida, et al. This case, filed by 26 state attorneys general, was considered the most likely challenge to the PPACA or its constitutional merits.

But there was also an indication that Kagan may have been splitting legal hairs. When the question of recusal came up, she contended that it was only necessary to withdraw from a case where she had “officially formally approved something,” “served as counsel of record” or “played any substantial role” in it. Kagan’s name does not appear on any filings regarding the healthcare law, and the statute in question does not clearly define “council” or “participated.” Yet case law gives guidance on the issue, and case law indicates that any personal participation is sufficient to trigger recusal, as Carrie Severino of the Judicial Crisis Network points out. The United States v. Gipson notes that judges must recuse themselves if they have “previously taken a part, albeit small, in the investigation, preparation, or prosecution of a case.”

Furthermore, other cases, including Laird v. Tatum, reveal that recusal can be trigged by one’s involvement in a case prior to the commencement of litigation. There is also case law suggesting that Kagan’s position as Solicitor General per se during the period when her office was preparing litigation to defend the healthcare bill is sufficient grounds for recusal. The critical distinction here is that while Kagan has testified that she was not involved with the case after it was filed on March 23, 2010, the possibility that she participated in meetings organized by top Justice Department officials three months earlier, when the DOJ was putting together strategies to defend the law against likely challenges, remains open to question.

And then there are the emails. Beginning in March of 2010, several emails from or to Ms. Kagan contained the words “Health care litigation meeting” in the subject heading. And those are the emails made available. Despite a Freedom of Information (FOIA) request, the Obama administration refused to turn over several others, stating that they were “protected by the attorney work product doctrine.” According to the DOJ, that protection included discussions by the Office of Solicitor General attorneys regarding “legal issues, arguments, and strategy concerning anticipated” litigation against the healthcare bill.

When Kagan’s nomination to the Supreme Court was announced, a particularly telling email exchange occurred. Neal Katyal, who succeeded Ms. Kagan as solicitor general, was her Deputy SG at the time. Tracy Schmaler, deputy director of the Justice Department’s Office of Public Affairs, sent him an email asking if Kagan had been involved in preparation for litigation of the PPACA. “No, she never has been involved in any of it,” he responded. “I’ve run it for the Office, and have never discussed the issue with her one bit.” That email was forwarded to Kagan. Her response is telling. Less than two minutes later, she replied, “This needs to be coordinated.” She also directed part of her response towards Ms. Schmaler. “Tracy, you should not say anything about this before talking to me.”

Thus, the obvious question arises: if Justice Kagan had no involvement with the case, what needed to be “coordinated”?

There is also an email sent by Mr. Katyal to Deputy Attorney General Tom Perelli on March 18, 2010. It states, “In light of this, for what it is worth, my advice (I haven’t discussed this with Elena, but am cc’ing her here) would be that we start assembling a response, [material redacted] so that we have it ready to go.” This reveals that Kagan had received “privileged information,” which also demonstrates a sufficient level of personal involvement to trigger the aforementioned statute.

Three days later, yet another email exchange between Ms. Kagan and Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe, who was then working at the Department of Justice, further reveals that Kagan’s enthusiasm for the healthcare bill belies her purported impartially. Once again, the subject heading is telling: “Re: fingers and toes crossed today!” The critical parts of exchange begins with Tribe. “So the healthcare bill is basically done. Remarkable! And with the Stupak groups accepting the magic of what amounts to a signing statement on steroids.” Kagan’s response to Tribe? “I hear they have the votes, Larry!! Simply amazing.” The two exclamation points used by Kagan may indicate a number of things. Yet it strains credulity to believe that impartially is one of them.

Justice Kagan is well-versed on the recusal process, having removed herself from 29 of the 82 cases the Supreme Court has decided during her first term, due to her work as Solicitor General. She has also recused herself from 69 certiorari, or cert-stage cases (when the Court is deciding whether or not to hear a case) so far this term. Based on the evidence presented here, reasonable people can conclude that Justice Kagan’s impartially with respect to the PPACA is questionable at best.

She should recuse herself from the case.

  • heleneadamss

    You know what You guys should stop complaining because, one the health care we have now isnt as good as it was supposed to be. also the law has just been signed so give it some time. so if u want to say u have the right to choose tell that to ur congress men or state official. If you do not have insurance and need one You can find full medical coverage at the lowest price by searching online for "Penny Health" If you have health insurance and do not care about cost just be happy it and trust me you are not going to loose anything!

    • tagalog

      your garmmer and speeling is atroshous.

    • Nick Shaw

      Despite the fact that I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that we are "not going to loose anything", whatever that means, I'm glad to see someone like you can find affordable insurance so easily, Helen (you make this too damn easy!)
      Do you think you could have dropped a note to Zero about how easy it is to get affordable insurance before he wasted all of our time?
      Maybe you can pass this information on to that Fluke woman? She seems to be having a heck of a time affording stuff!
      What a dweeb!

    • BS77

      go back to grade school

  • epaddon

    Whether the law is "good" or not so good is not relevant to this particular question which is the fact that under ALL proper standards of jurisprudence, Elena Kagan should not be casting a vote on this case.

    Try READING about the subject of the article some time instead of engaging in spam left wing junk unrelated to the topic.

  • jacob

    Only in a country lie the USA could a classic political parachutist get elected Presdent, as proven
    previously by JIMMY WHO in a worse position than that of OBAMA and made possible by the
    foolishness of the Republican Party in both opportunities because, if JIMMY WHO was for all
    intent and purpose an unknown quantity, OBAMA’s baggage, books and Senate trajectory left no
    doubts whatsoever about his leanings and what was to expect from his Presidency, falling
    instead for his mermaid song of he promised “CHANGE” which was just the TROJAN HORSE
    the country has been facing since…

    Same as her President, Ms. KAGAN if thumbing her nose not only to the people of the USA but
    also to her fellow colleagues of the Supreme Court who should have ordered her to recuse in
    the event she failed to do it by herself, which is what we are witnessing now…

    As CATO said at the Roman Senate ‘QUOQUE TANDEM CATILINA, ABUTERE PATIENTIA
    NOSTRA” …( “How much more, Catilina will you abuse our patience”), it is time to mput a stop
    to the power abuses of this CATILINA we have for President or else, weep like women for what
    we refused to defend as men….
    recused in the OBAMACARE issue

  • Amused

    Kagan is no more "inelligible " than Scalia .

    • Stephen_Brady

      And Scalia is ineligible because? …

      • Nick Shaw

        It's been six hours as of this writing and Helen hasn't come back, Steve.
        I don't think she will, do you?
        It's actually hilarious. MMfA or some other lefty organization tells them what to write without giving them a clue as to why they are writing it.
        Drive by commenting by dolts.

        • mrbean

          Is Amused a female? Ohh that explains it. Borat told me that the woman have a smaller brain theregore are less intelligent.

          • Nick Shaw

            How you glean from my comment that I think woman of lesser intelligence is beyond me, Helen.
            Of course, liberals are finely tuned for code words and such so perhaps my bias was showing and I didn't notice. Thank God we have ladies like you about to point out the error of our ways, eh Helen?
            BTW- "theregore"? Is that code too? Is that how we can spot warmistas? By their little slips?
            Dolt.

          • Ghostwriter

            And your brain must really be small,mrbean. It's bad enough when you bash blacks and Asians. You've crossed the line when you bash women. There are some pretty intelligent women out there. They wouldn't want to spend time with a neanderthal like you.

          • Amused

            Oh well Mr.Bean , you were ontent in proving yourself a racist ….you've accomplished that , and now you're ntent on proving yourself an idiot ….success again . No assshat , I'm not female , and Iguess you and some of your hairbrain freinds only detect bias where you want to see it . Dont worry "beanbrain " you're in good company with your peers .

          • Nick Shaw

            Now this is an entertaining turn of events.
            Trolls bashing trolls.
            You go girl, Helen!

          • Amused

            LOL….go get a room with mr.bean . dumb and dumber , you'll have a ball .

          • wsk

            he/she is probably a metrosexual.

          • fiddler

            Are you capable of dealing with what says LAW (which apparently is subjective from your standpoint) that Kagan should recuse herself because not doing so is against jurisprudence?

            Does LAWfullness matter to you, or merely WHO has the power? Do you care about integrity, or getting your "just deserves". To YOU it's OUR GUY has the power NOW! Yeah, revenge! Or, do you care about what is right according to law?

            Instead of dealing with the issue at hand, you are looking for a loophole. Seems to me that's what anarchists do.

        • Stephen_Brady

          Eleven hours and counting …

          • Nick Shaw

            ;-)

      • drklassen

        Because his wife, and therefore, he, have been *benefiting* *financially* from the cause to overturn it. That is FAR more damning than "coaching" the lawyers—which is done all the time by the Justices of both sides.

        • drklassen

          Sorry, that's Thomas. Thomas must recuse if Kagen "must"

    • wsk

      Just when I think you can't get any dumber……

      • Amused

        You guys need to hold your breath ……you're dumb enough …..now start counting . oh and give your mum Helen the stopwatch .

  • davarino

    Blah, my head just exploded. And you thought Bush was corrupt? Jimmy Carter has just been vindicated

  • Dispozadaburka

    Dhimmi Tax.

  • Schlomotion

    And EVERY, EVERY, and I mean EVERY Jew who lives simultaneously in New York and Boca Raton, West Palm Beach and has a quickly made and as quickly unmade "global" shell corporation should recuse himself from writing articles about corruption and conflict of interest. If there were any justice, then RICO would be used to bulldoze that whole section of the country.

    • guest

      Can you simultaneously live in 3 places at the same time? Is this a quantum mechanics thing?

      • Nick Shaw

        Dims and Zero ignore every other law, why not those covering quantum mechanics?

    • UCSPanther

      And you constantly keep finding ways to inject antisemitism into areas where it is irrelevant.

      A trick that I have to date, seen only Neo-Nazis try.

      • Schlomotion

        There must be a lot of them in British Columbia. You seem obsessed with them.

    • Nick Shaw

      "If there were any justice, then RICO would be used to bulldoze that whole section of the country. "? Just that section, Helen?
      Couldn't RICO be used to bulldoze Detroit, Oakland, Newark or any other Dim controlled city? We are talking about criminal gang associations, right Helen?

      • Amused

        "Dim controlled city " ?? What an asssshole ! You really are stupid ain't ya ?

        • Nick Shaw

          C'mon, Helen, you can do better than that.
          Well, now that I think of it, you can't.
          Sad little girl.

  • Steve Chavez

    DIDN'T THE SUPREMES take a secret vote just to see where they stood? THE MAJORITY RESULT WAS IN FAVOR OF REPEAL AND THAT WAS LEAKED!!! That's why Obama threw a fit! HE FREAKED since this is his, AND PELOSI'S/REID'S, signature piece of legislation THAT NOBODY READ!!! I just hope someone took that gavel away from Nancy because she might start smashing the Capitol Building and a few Republicans proving that she really is the "Wicked Witch of the West!"

    "UNELECTED" SUPREME COURT? And how many of OBAMA'S CZARS WERE ELECTED to sledgehammer through their LEFTIST TAKEOVER of every government department he appoints them to which IS AN INSULT to those who are professionals and lifers? I bet they are seen as pests and actually cause workplace tension. A google search of his CZARS revealed the real extent of their RADICAL ANTI-AMERICANISM!

    Was HILLARY CLINTON ELECTED to be the Secretary of State? What in the HELL EXPERIENCE did she have in this field? Photo-ops with Chelsea holding African babies? LEON PANETTA in CIA and Defense? This man was a Communist dupe in the 80's and in the front, Institute of Policy Studies!

    IN ALL CASES, they were approved by those in Congress, ALL ELECTED! As for Congress approving them? THAT'S ACTIVISM!

    WHY WAS KAGAN allowed to hear the case? WAS SHE THE LEAKER??

    OBAMA'S LAWYER VERILLI CHOKED on stage because he knew he didn't know what he was talking about and couldn't defend it 100% especially in front of his peers. Fifty bucks that Obama couldn't have defended it either! KAGAN WAS THE ONE who was the biggest Obama advocate which proves she knew about Obamacare since she worked on it before and should have recused herself AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN DEMANDED OF HER! This shows her LACK OF RESPECT for the institution! I could call her a "PIG WITH LIPSTICK" but I have too much respect for the Court.

    • Nick Shaw

      Of course she was the "leaker", Steve. She and Sottomayor, hereafter "the twins", have been burning up the intertubez between them and Zero's Blackberry telling him he's lost this one.
      Doesn't matter though, so much money and people have been put in place, another $500M to the IRS just last week, that Zero will come up with an excuse for why the law, with minor modifications, can be put in place.
      Expect the Executive Order 'round about the middle of June.

    • Amused

      That was a pretty good rant Steve ….now go get a towel and wipe the foam from your face .

      • Nick Shaw

        The internet version of jumping up and down, waving your pathetic scrawny arms yelling, "Look at me! I'm important!"
        Sad, Helen.
        Just sad.

        • Amused

          Again Nick , GFY ….do it now .

  • http://freedomradiorocks.com Pat C

    As a practical matter. of Kagan had recused herself, there would remain only 8 members on the court in which case the result could be a 4 to 4 decision, if that is how the vote went. Of course it could be 5 to 3, against but either way, her presence or absence is a vote for the left. As it is, 5 to 4 is the same result as 5 to 3 against or 6 to 2, which is a win for liberty.

    • Nick Shaw

      I figure it will be 6 to three for striking down the law, Pat.

  • tagalog

    Justice Kagan has a clear-cut conflict of interest. The usual rule with regard to reporting violations of the canons of ethics to the appropriate disciplinary organization is that any lawyer who becomes aware of an ethical breach SHALL report the violation to the appropriate regulatory agency.

    How much do you wanna bet that will never happen in this case?

    • Maxie

      Who has jursidiction in this matter? The Justice Dep't/ Holder? Where's the GOP; asleep as usual? Why no objection to Kagan from any quarter? This country has gone to he!!

      • drklassen

        Nobody. The Justices themselves oversee their ideas on conflict. This was spelled out several times by Scalia.

  • Babyann

    Age ain’t nothing but a number for these loved-up A-Listers. ~~Agelessmeet . COM~~ the premiere online community for men & women who don’t rule out relationships with people that are significantly older or younger than themselves. Feel comfortable with the possibility of starting an age-gap relationship in a community where people think just like you. May be you have experienced a lot in life already and now want a totally different type of relationship. Recapture some of your youth and try striking up a relationship, whether romantic or just for friendship.

  • Linda Rivera

    We are rapidly losing our FREEDOM in America!

    It is way past time that the media and Republicans started asking questions of Romney:

    Romney: Will you promise in a signed, legal document to repeal Obamacare?

    Romney: Will you promise in a signed, legal document to repeal the law Obama signed that will place INNOCENT Americans under ILLEGAL, INDEFINITE detention?

    If Romney will not repeal these ILLEGAL laws, he is UNFIT to be a Republican candidate.

    The Republican Party leadership act like Democrats and cooperate fully with Democrats. Where is the two party system we are supposed to have to represent Americans?

  • Rick_in_VA

    We all know that Kagan is legally required to recuse herself from this case. That being said, who is going to do anything about it?
    If she were to recuse herself ,and if the vote was tied, wouldn't that be defacto approval of the law?

    We live in interesting times. Where is John Galt when we need him?

    • Amused

      Uh …."legally required " ??? I dont think so . Go look up example of previous instances were Justices , have and have not recused themselves .

      What , do you guys make up this bullsheet as you go ?

      • Nick Shaw

        "Look! Look over here! I know stuff that you don't! Really I do! Please! I'm really, really smart!"
        Sad, Helen.

  • Moishe Pupick

    M., 04/09/12 common era

    Injustice Kagan is an Ivy League shyster, as is Eric Holder. They should both immediately resign their federal government jobs and go into private law practice together. Chasing ambulances, for them, would be an ethical upgrade.

  • Nick Shaw

    Who has legal standing to call Kagan's eligibility in this case?
    The DoJ?
    Yeah, good luck with that!

    • Amused

      Again more ignorance from a self-proclaimed "superior patriot " . Go look up the rules dimbulb , there are rules as to who cam call another Justices eligibility .

      • Nick Shaw

        You're quite the distasteful little troll, aren't you Helen?
        'Course you already knew that. Your mom probably mentioned it to you.
        See, I can ask a question. That's what folks do among friends. You, on the other hand, have to go and look it up 'cause you have no friends.
        Do ya', Helen?
        Isn't your mom due home about now, you know, being a daytime hooker and all. Wouldn't want to get caught using the computer since you've been banned from using moms. The porn thing.

        • Amused

          you're a dumb schmuck Nicky-boy ….admit it , you're nothing more than a talking point parrot …..who obviously knows nothing of the subject . But if you choose to bring your mum helen in to cover your arse ….feel free …oh and tell your mum to get in line , I'll get io her when I can ..lolololol and I guess you're no better than I when it comes to ad hominem . You're already a proven DUNCE and imbecile , would you like to shoot for ignominious hypocrite ?

          Go for it girl !

  • mrbean

    She is just doing what her master's bidding. She got the Supreme Court appointment by turning to the dark side.

    • Amused

      No Bean brain , just as all other Supreme Court Appointees , she got there by Advise and Consent process . Know wha that is dimbulb ?

      • Nick Shaw

        What are you, like, twelve, Helen?
        Don't know how to use a keyboard?

  • Onar Kahlid

    Obama is a liar without equal. Kagan does his bidding. Evil only spawns evil. She is good muzlim wife and he is good muzlim man. None of this is difficult when in correct view.

  • fightwarnotwars

    so shouldn't Clarence Thomas also have to recuse himself?

    • reader

      Why? He did not argue the case on either side.

      • fightwarnotwars

        Clarence Thomas’s wife, Virginia, has been deeply involved in organizing nationwide opposition to the health reform. She even set up her own political action committee, Liberty Central, whose Web site says that the Affordable Care Act “tramples on the Constitution.”

        • Nick Shaw

          And Virgina is a Supreme Court judge? You think men are sock puppets for their women do ya', Helen?
          Oh, I forgot, you're used to the metrosexual men found at Zero rallies.

  • pyeatte

    While I believe she should recuse herself, it wouldn't matter, we would still need 5 to overturn. If the count is 4-4, nothing happens – no overturn.

    • Nick Shaw

      It's going to be 6 to 3 (or 6 to 2 without Kagan), Pye.

      • pyeatte

        It would be nice, but I don't think it will be. We will probably get the four conservatives plus Kennedy, that makes five and a win. If we don't get Kennedy we lose with or without Kagan voting because a tie is the same as a loss. It is unlikely we will get any of the four liberals – of course it would be great if we did, but unlikely.

  • http://www.americanrepublicspring.com Marvin E. Fox

    The constitutionality of the left seems to hang on whether it believes it can best support the left wing program by claiming its constitutionality, or by claiming democracy demands the the program be eneacted. The Obamacare program has failed the socialists on both of those counts.
    The American "democracy" has been stuffing their Democratic Party judges into our Republic's legal system for decades. How can anyone pretend surprise when a left wing judge is obvious about his/her departure from constitutional government to favor the "democracy's" socialist plan?
    The definition of our Republic is our Constitution; all other definitions are wrong or incomplete. a definition as "our democracy" is a wrong definition for our Republic!

  • Amused

    LOL….by the rational rearings it's head here , that means anyone capable of voting to NOT overturn ,should then recuse themselves …..after all if they vote in favor that makes them bias and incapable of an objective decision ….unless of course they vote to overturn ….that makes them A-OK ….what a bunch of assssssssholes .

    • Nick Shaw

      Such a poor deluded little girl you are Helen.

  • Amused

    Hey Nick GFY ….do it now , dont waste anymore time asssswipe .

    • Nick Shaw

      Really straining now, aren't ya', Helen?
      Damn, it must be infuriating! Being so smart n' all and no one listening to you.
      I know. Why don't you take a dump on a cop car. That will impress all those people who keep ignoring you.
      Yes siree! Might even get yer pitcher in the papers!
      Sad little girl, Helen.
      Scared too, I'll bet.

  • Amused

    BTW Nick , who;s Helen ? your Mum ? Sis ?

    • Nick Shaw

      You know when you go up to groups of people who are having a conversation and you try to join in, in that special way you do, and they all stop talking and turn away?
      How does that feel, Helen?
      I've always wondered what those sad little people think as I turn away from them.
      Do you cry, Helen?
      Do you go home to your mom and tell her how mean people are to you, even though you're so super smart? You even tell them you're so super smart and they ignore you!
      Or do you just go home to an empty room 'cause even your mother can't stand the sight of you?
      I thought I might feel a little sorry for you. A little compassion.
      Huh, I don't.
      Imagine that.

      • Amused

        Not really Nick , you're an assshole , and I simply expose it . Save your …lol….barf , barf …..compassion , you phony imbecile .Uh ….and I seem to recall YOU "jumping in " .
        So who's helen Nick , your mum or sister . LOL…or maybe YOU huh ?

        • Nick Shaw

          See, there's the difference, Helen.
          If I join the conversation, other people "speak" to me. Sometimes I have something to say that interests them and they respond. Very infrequently in a negative way because nearly every one here knows I'm open to rational argument, as are they.
          You, on the other hand, join a conversation (in that special way that you have) and everyone turns their back on you like you have an extreme case of halitosis or haven't bathed in a week, had you been here physically.
          You don't have bad breath do you, Helen? Or green teeth? You do, don't you?
          How do I know this? By that points thingy in the corner up there.
          It's not perfect but, it's a pretty good indication of what people are like on the "outside".
          And nobody likes you very much on the "outside", do they Helen?
          That's just sad.
          Nobody will ever pay attention to you, ever. And yet, you are so smart! You tell us this all the time!
          Well, unless you rob a liquor store and take hostages. Then we'll pay attention, won't we, Helen! Are you at that point yet, Helen?

          • Amused

            got anymore "theories" dumbasss ? And you're clairvoyant too ? haha "green teeth " .."bad breath " ." .no baths " …really nicky boy ? Sounds more like your attempting to transfer your own shortcomings in personal hygiene to someone else ..no ? LOL…or maybe that's what Helen looks like eh chump ? And llok at all the attention I'm getting from you , you dumb dolt !! And all because I name you for what you are …a f—-ng idiot . Glad to be of service chump . Good luck in 5th grade next year .

          • Nick Shaw

            Nope, not "attention". Though you crave it so much you need to characterize it as that, Helen.
            Mild curiosity is all.
            Like we all have a compulsion to look at car wrecks.
            Or the surly drunk with the green teeth at the end of the bar.
            We know we're not gonna' like it but, we look anyway.
            Sad, Helen.

          • Amused

            still hanging on my every word are ya ? LOL….run along little boy and kick yourself to sleep tonite .

  • WilliamJamesWard

    There is no way that Kagan is impartial and does that make her give a damn about what is right conduct,
    obviously no. Her disgrace in acting on Obamacare while definitely conflicted should be outlined by
    the Supreme Court in a resounding denunciation. This will not happen due mostly to the support she
    has on the Court by fellow leftist subversives, sickening and beyond belief but this is all that Obama
    gives America, one failure after another, failed people and failed conduct, Kagan should be thrown
    off of the Court and I wonder why our elected officials are not providing oversight into this affront to
    the American people and disgrace to the Court…………………………….William

    • Whitehunter2

      Perfectly put, William. Anyone who claims that Kagan can judge Obamacare objectively would also, no doubt, insist that Lynne Stewart should be a judge in a terrorism trial.

      • WilliamJamesWard

        If we are lucky and this monstrosity goes down we are still stuck with Kagan who should be censured
        at a minimum. It could be that normal values are now a thing of the past……………….William

  • Amused

    Yea Ward , the whole Supreme Court's been infiltrated , and that must be so if they even consider Obamacare . So what if the majority of the electorate mandated it , and so what if the Republicans REJECTED it before they even read it , and SO WHAT if Republicans rather than reach a compromise rejected it out of hand . And so what if they haven't even come up with anything better other than to ,maintain the staus quo on a system everyone knows is broken . So now your lot rails against the Supreme Court Justices , who may not vote in your favor ….typical partisan narrowmindedness .
    Most Americans were for a change in the healthcare system which is rising in cost about 17-20% every 2 or 3 years , and most would have liked to see Republicans and Democrats hammer out a compromise since they as well as myself are not for ALL of this plan , but Republicans chose to simply keep the game personal , attack Obama , focus on a birth certificate and reject debate . The "Party of NO " is not a misnomer . SCOPTUS will no doubt reject some but not all of Obamacare , and I approve that , but you'll choke on it as will the rest of your lot , and THAT will come back to bite you in Nov .

    • WilliamJamesWard

      The Republicans chose to keep it personal, hardly, Pelosi said it all "vote for to find out what is in the bill",
      which is and unmitigated disaster. My health care is expensive and not worth the cost and for it to
      go up any higher I have to go without, so anyone who has a reasonable plan please take the floor.
      Giving the nation a heart attack is not a way to provide health care, maybe there is a little greed in
      the profession that needs to be surgically removed…………………………………..William

      • Amused

        What did you expect her to say ? Republicans had 2 months to read it . So what was it ? Too lazy ? Can't read ? Or too full of hatred for the blackman in the White House to even consider it .

        • Nick Shaw

          And you're a racist too, Helen.
          Hard to imagine.
          Well, maybe not.

          • Amused

            still hanging on my every word eh nicky boy ? lololol….but you .thought I should be ignored …no telling what an airhead like you would find hard to imagine . Run along scrub , you helen routine is getting old and besides we both know it's used to cover your ignorance of the issues . Go try twiiter , it more your speed .

          • Nick Shaw

            And spelling ain't yours, Helen.

          • Amused

            that bother you Nick ? ….remind to keep on doing it .Well you stick to spelling corrections girl because you dont know shiiit about the Supreme Court or how it works .

        • fiddler

          Where do you get your venom? Do you think a resonable thought? All about race, hey Amused? Every white person in the WORLD is under suspicion of racism according to you. Is HAS to be about race. You nurse racism as your last line of defence. You need it; It is your secret weapon. You use it to get the upper hand in "debates". You are to be ignored because you do nothing but name call. That is your answer. It is the leftist last bastion accuse, accuse, accuse to blame and put others on the defense. You will ensure that there is NEVER a useful debate because you are bitter and cannot write one sentence without calling someone a name. Sad.

    • Whitehunter2

      "REJECTED it before they even read it," huh? Wonder why that was. Could it have had anything–anything at all–to do with the fact that the 2,000+ page document wasn't even delivered to the members until 10 p.m. the night before the vote was scheduled? Or maybe that Republicans were literally locked out of the conference room by Pelosi? Yuh think?

      As usual with this administration–another example would be the raft of punitive Warmist regulations–there were hysterical demands to PASS IT NOW! THERE ISN'T TIME TO DEBATE OR DISCUSS! PASS IT NOW!…and anyone who protested that it might be a good idea to read, understand, and discuss the issue before voting was "obstructionist."

      • Amused

        Discuss what ? That they reject it out of hand and REFUSE to read it ? There was never any possibility of discussion and compromise , Republican made it clear on Election night , before Obama even took office , and a few of them were dumb enough to mouth it right behind the overfed , oxycodone addict Rush …."I want to see Obama fail " …. who ya kidding dimbulb , you think everyones deaf dumb and blind ? Independents and Centrists will remember the contentious, obstinate, hatefull , and arrogant behavior of the Republican on election day . And whaddya got ? LOL….a double-talking , flip flopping , ultra-rich , money in the Cayman Islands , jellyfish , who has successfully convinced everyone that he is completely out of touch with anyone in this country who works for a living . Good luck with that .

      • Amused

        oh gee , the men in Washington running our country , most of which are allegedly educated and lawyers to boot could not skim through 2000 pages in two months or more with so much at stake ? Well you may be right , some of those republicans are pretty damn stupid , and such a task is well above their intellectual capacity ….afterall checking out that birth certifiacte took prec edence over such menial thinmgs as the nations healthcare system .
        But hey you got your parrot memes down pat bunky …..10 pm the night before huh ? You're a duped sucker , pally .

  • cetude

    And Scalia with his broccoli (what this has to do with health insurance is beyond me) is unbiased to make a ruling? We already know how he and Clarence Thomas will rule.

    • wsk

      Yes, he will use the Constitution to make his ruling. With that as his guide there can only be one outcome.

    • Nick Shaw

      So, you're saying only conservative judges have a bias? That you can't imagine Kagan and the "wise latina" don't have any bias?
      Interesting point of view you have, Helen.

  • cetude

    Anita Hill testified that Clarence Thomas talked about how he enjoyed watching bestiality videos, bragged about the size of his dong and how it gave women oral pleasure, and who put pubic hair on his Coke. This man will be ruling on health care.

    • Nick Shaw

      Nobody lies in your world, do they, Helen?
      It must be a wondrous place.

      • reader

        no, marxists never lie. ever.

  • babyanng

    Age ain't nothing but a number for these loved-up A-Listers. My BF and I both think so! He is almost 10 years older than I. We met via ~~Agelessmeet . COM~~ a nice place for younger women and older men, or older women and younger men, to interact with each other! Maybe you wanna check it out or tell your friends: )

    • Amused

      Maybe you oughta be hawking on another blog , for it won't be long before th locals start calling you a lefdty , and the "helen obsessed" Oedipus complexed – Nick Shaw starts calling you …what else ? ….but Helen ………..yea he's dumb enough .

  • Jaladhi

    agan, in or out, the healthcare bill will be declared unconstitutional, probably,6-3 or 6-2!!! LOl…

  • Jaladhi

    Typo:

    Kagan, in or out, the healthcare bill will be declared unconstitutional, probably, 6-3 or 6-2!!! LOl…

  • Amused

    We'll see , and how much of it to boot . So stop squealing about Kagan ,Scalia's no less opinionated . ..Oh Wait ! That dont count , because he 's on your side ……that how it works ? LOL….you people are pathetic .

    • Nick Shaw

      C'mon, Helen! Go brush your teeth and have a bath before you comment. Maybe someone will listen to you.
      Probably not but, it's worth a try.

      • Amused

        I'm begining to think you live in a place with no shower and an outhouse chump .First you obsess about ole' mom , and it seems you are unfamiliar with brushing your teeth and bathing …..hmmm.that how helen brought you up dimbulb . lol….and I see ou're still listening eh bingo ?

        • WilliamJamesWard

          I don't think that you are getting it, Kagan worked on the legislation before taking the bench and
          that disqualifies her to take a voting position, it is blatant conflict of interest, egregious in every
          aspect. No judge can take on any case that they worked on prior to ascending to the bench,
          it is that simple and what she is doing is and outrage and the case itself is not the issue when
          it comes to conflict. I have seen conflict come to a point where and attorney can be disbarred
          for even arguing with a client on the appearance of conflict………………..William

  • Amused

    well atleast idiots can agree on something , yup , Advise and Consent , no matter who picks the appointed Justice , none get there without that process . And Brady , looks like you caught some STUPID from your boy Nick a.k.a. Helen .
    I'm gonna have to start charging idiots like you two for Civics lessons regarding your own country eh ?

    And btw mr.Oedipus Complex Shaw , do my typos really bother you that much ? I know , you're too stupid to know the word with a letter missing ….a sign of poor connective thought ….I'll be sure to cntinu doin it . SCHMUCK.

  • Amused

    Every justice on the bench of the SCOTUS , has had an interest in something before being seated as Justice of the Supreme Court . That in your rational should have led to numerous recuses . But hey Ward , so what if you know nothing about how judges are chosen and what their decisions should be based in . You are ASSUMING Kagen can not be fair or objective , and following that rational , so can Scalia who already expressed a disfavoring pre-disposition using your rules . However you'll just have to suck it up , because if a justices does not recuse themself , and the others do not request it ….guess what ? What you forget is that HALF the damn country favors Obamacare and thus HALF the damn politicians in Washington had something to do with it .
    Sorry Bunky , you're just gonna havce to do what's been done since the SCOTUS was originated – trust the judgement of the Court .

    • WilliamJamesWard

      I put it plainly for you and you still are blind to the judicial process of recusal due to conflict of interist.
      As far "But hey Ward, so what if you know nothing about how judges are chosen and what their decisions
      should be based in" in this you can't know but I have appointed Judges as a Mayor and have dealt
      with situations of conflict of interest in very difficult circumstances, furthermore I ran for a Judgeship
      in the past and am quite familiar with all that can happen in law while having written it and passed
      many Ordinances in which I worked on their wording. Now I am speaking to legal attitude and approach
      to the law and not the lower bench of personal bias which should not enter a court of law, I am
      saying that the issue of Constitutionality is applying Obamacare to the big rule book, the Constitution
      and can it pass scrutiny. The basis of this is done on the ethical character of the Justices or Judges
      involved before review and this is where Kagan fails. Obamacare itself is a very large issue……….William

  • WilliamJamesWard

    Furthermore Musi…… when deciding such a large issue the opinions should use the law and the
    Constitution solely. The law shall not exceed the prohibitions of the Constitution and violate the
    rights of citizens and this is where legal expertise comes in honed by experience which is a
    great educator. It may be impossible to keep out personal prejudices in the task but the test is
    there for each Justice as they know what they write becomes history and their time to shine or
    be the lesser person. Todays decisions become the roadway of tomorrow in how rules make or
    stifle generations to come. "trust the judgement of the Court"……….I wonder, if there is not a
    higher power smiling down on the efforts and it is purely the work of men I will have more than
    reservations and certainly not trust…………………………………….William

    • Amused

      That's right Ward , and Kagan is no less capable of using Law and the Constitution to form opinion . She's no less ethical than any other Justice .
      No if your of the opinion that any Justice appointed by a Democrat Pres . is no good to beginm with , then you're simply an unreasonable child and no argument would suit you . And further if you're attem,pting to sell the notion that only Conservative Justices are capable of rendering an opinion based on Law and The Constitution , then you're deluded by your blind partisanship .

      • WilliamJamesWard

        You still do not see or understand the idea of recusal due to the need for impartiality, what she
        worked on she can not judge, I can not make that any more simple. She would be a world less
        ethical than any Justice or Judge if she votes on this legislation due to and overwhelming
        conflict of interest………..there is no getting through to you………..so on another item, would
        you clarify for my hamster Napoleon and cat Charlie who argue that you are none other than
        the husband of Phyllis Diller, the famous or infamous "Fang". What say you, there is sufficient
        evidence to justify such a calim………Napoleon says you are and Charlie says you are worse.
        Inquiring minds want to know………………………ur bud……………William

  • fiddler

    How about we vote to get Amused 'recused'? Looks like he has nothing more to do than unload invective. Amused is all about POWER — who has the POWER. S/he salivates over power; the ability to get back at people. Amerika (deliberate spelling) is not a country but an evil white oppressive construct. To Amused the Civil War solved nothing; it was all about economics. Amused has a bone to pick with anyone who crosses him. Amused could care less about law or honor. Amused is a raging individual who want to see others made miserable; those who he envies. That is justice to him.