Why Isn't the Obamacare EMPLOYER Mandate Unconstitutional?

[somarco]

His lack of experience becomes more glaring with each day. He never spent enough time in the legislature, state or federal, to really learn the process . . . other than heavy handed, Chicago style politics.

His voting record as a US Senator speaks for itself. Between missed votes and voting "present" it becomes quite obvious he is just as incompetent in politics as he is in the machinations of real world economics.

Obamacrap really is a misnomer. Should be Pelosicrap since she is the one who cracked the whip and pushed through the majority of the bill.

 

[AndreaSti]

His lack of experience becomes more glaring with each day. He never spent enough time in the legislature, state or federal, to really learn the process . . . other than heavy handed, Chicago style politics.

His voting record as a US Senator speaks for itself. Between missed votes and voting "present" it becomes quite obvious he is just as incompetent in politics as he is in the machinations of real world economics.

Obamacrap really is a misnomer. Should be Pelosicrap since she is the one who cracked the whip and pushed through the majority of the bill.

He is incompetent, real world ecomonics and especially politics, especially international politics. Seems to me very interesting when all of a sudden he invites John McCain to come and visit him right when sh*t is really starting to hit the fan in Egypt. That is what is really scary. Health care reform is only one, very big thing that is screwed up right now.

 

[HealthGuy]

Obama likes to think that by just passing his monstrosity that the discussion, the laws, the rules for health insurance are moving in the "right" direction. It matters nothing to him that he is making a mess in his pants over this piece of garbage with Pelosi's fingerprints all over it. This type of chaos is par for the course for the leftist revolutionary type - keep the issue on the edge of chaos - and influence 'change' barring consequence and real world Fups. Commie types don't care. They LOVE this Obamacare. Its their priceless social experiment. One step closer to their equality in theory utopia. Kinda like Leninism / Marxism.

 

[jbage007]

The question of whether Kagan will recuse is separate from my point that you cannot force a Supreme Court justice to recuse and there is no appellate court or legal sanction to compel it, unlike in the lower courts where the parties can work it around a bit or it has implications for the case. Kagan might very well recuse, again, that was not the point being made.

In cases, where a justice's actions rise to the level of impeachment then a case could be made that sanctions could ultimately be applied that way but as a practical matter cases come to the court every session where some of the parties would like some of the justices to recuse. Again, as a practical matter, they are simply dependent on what the justice decides to do. Otherwise, what are they going to do about it. Not in theory, in practice. There is nothing they can do (unlike in lower courts). Yes, public scorn and loose talk about disbarment might have an effect on a justice but in th end, you are dependent on what they decide all by their lonesome and there is nothing you can do about it unless one thinks it rises to the level of impeachment. Even disbarment would not be much for them to worry about as their is no requirement under the Constitution that a Supreme Court justice be a lawyer or even be an American citizen for that matter. (also, even if you hypothetically impeached the justice, that would not reverse any cases they participated in),

Kagan may well decide to recuse. Point being, it is her decision. We can churn some academic or hypothetical stuff but if you think there is a practical way of forcing a supreme court justice to recuse or forcing a third-party review or compulsion of it, then that certainly would be something that those practicing before the court would like to know because that has always been their cross to bear.

Kagan will recuse is she wishes or not if she does not so wish and she is appointed for life unless removed through an impeachable offense.

Your post infers that as a Justice of the Supreme Court, Kagan is one of only 9 people who are exempt from the Rules. I reject that proposition. Like every other member of the Bar, she (like every other Supreme Court Justice) is obliged to abide by the Rules, and here, the Rules require her recusal if she had any involvement in the case, or cases.

It's not any more complicated than that.

 

[Winter_123]

It's not any more complicated than that.

Actually it is. She could be disbarred and still be on the court. As I said before, there is no requirement that a Supreme Court justice be a lawyer, be an American citizen, be a member of the bar, and so on. It is desireable but not a legal standard. So even if the justice were completely disbarred there is no basis for removal unless an impeachable offense occurred which a difference of opionion about whether the justice should recuse or not would not be. Bill Clinton, for example, has already been disbarred. If Obama appoints him and he can confirmed then he is good to go. Again, not sayin it is desireable, only that being a member of the bar is not a requirement to being on the Supreme Court and losing your membership does not take you off. You have to impeach to do that.

Anyway, you are sidetracking off on to an issue that is of importance down at the law school cafeteria but has no practical implications for the case at hand. In your view Kagan should recuse herself but if she does not there is not a damn thing anyone can do about it. Don't think so? See what happens if she doesn't. Nothing. The lawyers can sputter and make her a subject of public scorn to see if that helps to influence her but they have no legal remedy. NONE. And even impeachment would not achieve the same effect as recusal because impeachment tries to remove a justice from the bench, not from a particular case. If Kagan participated in the Florida case and (just for giggles) she were subsequently impeached and removed, that doesnt automatically reverse that case unless the court allows it to come up again.

The Constitution is clear that you can only remove a sitting justice by impeachment- not through disbarment. If the underlying issue rises to the level of impeachment then that is another matter but the point is still the same: It is an impeachment.

Scalia, for example, outraged the legal community by refusing to recuse in a case involving Dick Cheney. Scalia and Dick Cheney are of course hunting and drinking buddies and Scalia was hanging around with Cheney all while the case was brewing. The lawyers had a pantload of legal and ethical opinions about why Scalia should recuse but Scalia just shrugged them off. Nothing anyone could do about it short of impeachment. Oh by the way, you guessed it, Scalia voted in Cheney's favor. The Supreme Court justices pretty much do what they want.

I will leave it there and we will see how it goes.

 

[VolAgent]

Your post infers that as a Justice of the Supreme Court, Kagan is one of only 9 people who are exempt from the Rules. I reject that proposition. Like every other member of the Bar, she (like every other Supreme Court Justice) is obliged to abide by the Rules, and here, the Rules require her recusal if she had any involvement in the case, or cases.

It's not any more complicated than that.

You are forgetting something, punishment to judges is meted out by a superior court. What court is superior to the Supreme Court? There is no one to punish her, except for Congress through impeachment, or the rest of the Supreme Court.

 

[jbage007]

Actually it is. She could be disbarred and still be on the court.

Your legal theory is, ahem, interesting but thankfully, it has no basis in fact or reality.

For those of you who actually think there is no legal remedy for Supreme Court justices who go off the deep end, I assure you this theory has no merit.

All federal judges must follow the law, which is created by Congress. The Rules we have mentioned in this thread and numerous other ones we have glossed over all are federal laws. There are consequences for failing to follow the law, regardless of whether your current job happens to be as a member of the Supreme Court. For that matter, Congress could pass new Rules tomorrow that apply retroactively to all federal judges. There are many different avenues of recourse from a legislative perspective.

And as for that wacko theory about a Supreme Court justice not needing to be a member of the Bar, that is patently incorrect. Every lawyer who practices before the Court must be a member of the Supreme Court Bar. Likewise, all sitting justices are required to be members of the Supreme Court Bar. One of the requirements of being a member of the Bar is, guess what? - you must be a practicing lawyer.

It is, therefore, irrelevant that the Constitution does not specify that a Supreme Court Justice must be a lawyer because as a practical matter, a Justice must be a lawyer to join the Supreme Court Bar. Interestingly, the Court itself has very little to do with the Bar - it is an administrative arm of the Court and it is through those channels that ethical complaints, etc., are handled.

FYI, in the Scalia case, recusal was not required because none of the statutory mandates were triggered; thus, Scalia did not recuse. He could have voluntarily recused, but was not obligated to do so under the Rules.

Winter - I take it you are not a real lawyer, you only play like one on the internet - that much is obvious from your posts.
I regret that I have neither the time nor the fortitude to continue your legal education in these forums (and yes, Virginia, I am a real lawyer).

 

[b61mack]

remember obama, is a good neigborhood organizer

 

[somarco]

and yes, Virginia, I am a real lawyer

So is Obama.

Both of them . . .

http://www.supremecourt.gov/faq.aspx

Are there qualifications to be a Justice? Do you have to be a lawyer or attend law school to be a Supreme Court Justice?
The Constitution does not specify qualifications for Justices such as age, education, profession, or native-born citizenship. A Justice does not have to be a lawyer or a law school graduate, but all Justices have been trained in the law. Many of the 18th and 19th century Justices studied law under a mentor because there were few law schools in the country.

The last Justice to be appointed who did not attend any law school was James F. Byrnes (1941-1942). He did not graduate from high school and taught himself law, passing the bar at the age of 23.
Robert H. Jackson (1941-1956) did not attend an undergraduate college, but took some law school classes without graduating.

 

[VolAgent]

And as for that wacko theory about a Supreme Court justice not needing to be a member of the Bar, that is patently incorrect. Every lawyer who practices before the Court must be a member of the Supreme Court Bar. Likewise, all sitting justices are required to be members of the Supreme Court Bar. One of the requirements of being a member of the Bar is, guess what? - you must be a practicing lawyer.

Could you please point out the section of the Constitution that requires a Supreme Court Justice to be a member of the bar? Just because the Justices have been lawyers, doesn't require they be lawyers.