Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

Justice Kagan’s Previous Healthcare Work May Hinder Impartial Decision-Making

July 7, 2011 by  

Some are worried that Kagan's previous work could harm her impartiality.On June 30, a group of 49 Republican members of Congress asked the House Judiciary Committee to investigate Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan’s role in the preparation of a legal defense for President Barack Obama’s healthcare law.

According to The Washington Times, the group, which includes GOP Presidential candidates and Representatives Ron Paul (R-Texas) and Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), is arguing that Kagan’s time spent working with the Obama Administration should disqualify her from considering any challenges to the law.

The group of lawmakers wrote a letter to Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) and the committee’s top Democrat, John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.), urging them to consider the recently released Justice Department documents that show that Kagan “actively participated” with the Obama Administration in forming a defense for the healthcare law, according to The Times.

“This Congress and the American people deserve to have confidence in the integrity and impartiality of our Supreme Court and its justices,” the letter said.

According to The Wall Street Journal, Republicans have been wary of Kagan since her appointment, and they are watching to see if she lives up to the pledge she made to “consider every case impartially, modestly, with commitment to principle.”

Special To Personal Liberty

You Sound Off! is written by our readers and appears the last Wednesday of each month. If you would like to submit an article or letter to the editor for consideration for You Sound Off!, send it to yousoundoff@personalliberty.com by the Friday before the last Wednesday of the month. To be considered, a submission should be 750 words or less and must include the writer's name, address and a telephone number. Only the writer's name will be published. Anonymous submissions will not be considered.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Justice Kagan’s Previous Healthcare Work May Hinder Impartial Decision-Making”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at newstips@personalliberty.com

  • s c

    The overriding philosophy behind the abomination known as Obama healthcare is “the fix is in.” Pelosi’s disgusting declaration that only by passing such damnable legislation could ‘we find out what’s in it’ is akin to an admission of guilt. The Apollo Alliance, inseparable from Kagan’s stewardship, demands more than a superficial awareness of the stakes involved and the cast of characters who conspired to create this infamy.
    Justice Kagan has dared to play the role of the ‘persona behind the wizard’s curtain.’ This is
    much more than a red flag, and those who pooh pooh the idea that a S C judge would put philosophy over character are no better than domestic enemies the Founding Fathers specifically mentioned so many years ago.
    Kagan will either recuse herself, or she will forever carry with her the stench of a S C judge who worships at the altar of Benedict Arnold and all who would destroy America. Let her prove she is worthy, or let her resign.

    • Kinetic1

      s c,
      When are you folks going to stop quoting people out of context? Are you even aware that you are doing it? Have you ever even heard the context in which Speaker Pelosi made that statement? It is widely presented as her reaction to Republican lawmakers who wanted to know all the ins and outs of the bill before voting, but in fact she was speaking at the 2010 Legislative Conference for the National Association of Counties. The bill had been available on line for months, though you’d never hear that from those who use this as an attack line, but it was being so consistently assailed and misrepresented by opponents that people were unclear as to what the bill was really about and what was in it.

      “You’ve heard about the controversies within the bill, the process about the bill, one or the other. But I don’t know if you have heard that it is legislation for the future, not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America, where preventive care is not something that you have to pay a deductible for or out of pocket. Prevention, prevention, prevention—it’s about diet, not diabetes. It’s going to be very, very exciting.” “But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.”

      It had nothing to do with hiding the bill’s contents and everything to do with months of attacks from well funded opponents. “…away from the fog of controversy.” Funny how you never hear that part.

      • Karolyn

        Thanks for clearing that up, Kinetic.

        • Elevenarrows

          That didn’t clear anything up for me. I think it is an established fact that most Congressmen didn’t even have a chance to read the enormous bill…how were citizens supposed to know its contents???

          • eddie47d

            It was on the Internet.

          • s c

            Elevenarrows, this is a good topic and a great example of why conservatives are so reluctant to consider an ultraliberal progressive a peer. Conservatives try to rely on facts, and stay away from emotions (before some airheads get a chance, SCREW ‘Republicans’ AND ‘Dems’). Progressive thrive on emotions, and they try to avoid facts.
            It’s like trying to carry on an adult conversation with a child. Whizzing up a tall tree is more likely to get results than wasting time on a typical progressive.
            If progressives would take the time (or learn to read and think independently), they’d realize that this administration acts more and more like Hitler. The German people said ‘give him a chance.’ ‘How much damage can he do? Don’t be so quick to judge.’ Some people can read the handwriting on the wall, elevenarrows, and some will never see it and they’ll claim they were ‘misled.’

          • Kinetic1

            No Elevenarrows, the only “established fact” in all this is that the drug companies and insurance industry will stop at nothing to protect their huge profits. Remember, in studies of health and life expectancy in 30 advanced industrial nations America ranks number 1 in expendatures and 24th in life expectancy. Now that, as far as I’m concerned is something to get angry about.

            Both the Senate and the House health Care bills were posted in Dec. 2009 and the final vote was in March 2010. Politicians and their staff had plenty of time to review, but the Republicans also used that time to cast more dispersions and turn public opinion. Opponents used the public confusion surrounding the release of the reconciliation bill as an excuse to suggest that the whole bill was only released days before the vote.

            As to the public knowing what was in the bill, how many people do you know that read these bills before they are voted on? Most of us depend on our representatives and the news and that’s what the opponents to the bill were depending on. There were so many erroneous claims about what this bill included that the average person didn’t know what to think. Since we tend to react quickly to fear and trust one group over another Americans were soon hearing stories of limited funds, rationing and poor health care. We all heard about how bad health care is in Canada with long lines and the wealthy crossing the border to get decent care here in the States, which came as a surprise to my Canadian friends. There was no proof, but that didn’t stop people like Sarah Palin and her “death panels”. And if death panels were such an issue, why wasn’t she worried about the private health insurance companies? Anyone who knows anything about private insurance knows that they turn down treatments for patients with life threatening illnesses everyday for economic reasons.

          • Kinetic1

            s c,
            “Conservatives try to rely on facts, and stay away from emotions”
            Yes, that would explain Palin’s claims of “death panels” and your jump to compare this administration to the Nazis. So much for facts.

          • Jana

            kintic,
            It cleared NOTHING up at all. This bill was pushed through too fast and it was wrong to do so.
            Sure eddie, it was on the net. How many of us have the time to read that jumbled up legaleze bill of 2000 pages? Did you read it all? Certainly not even our legistlators had time to read it. They had to hire lawyers, and had their staff read parts of this bill and then try and tell them about it in a condensed version. This was typical Obama, Pelosi, and Reid Chicago style tactics.

            Justice Kagan (putting justice before her name sticks in my throat) should be exempt from making any further decisions or judgements on this bill since she was so heavily involved in the defense preparations.
            Talk about Obama paying off his cronies. Kagan is just an Obama crony.

          • Jana

            The death panels WERE in there. Thankfully after Palin made it known for what it was they took it out.
            THANK YOU SARAH PALIN!!!

            I heard about the death panels BEFORE Sarah said anything. I was thankful that she spoke up.

          • s c

            As of today, elevenarrows, I doubt if there are as many as FIVE elected #^&@s in Washington who have READ that damned legislation or UNDERSTAND IT. Those who are protecting Herr Obummer’s Frankenstein healthcare creation at all costs are relying on nothing but emotions to ‘make their case.’
            The main flaw in that insane legislation stems from the fact that it was rammed into existence without any regard for elected ‘leaders’ being responsible enough to have read it before they sold their arses and then voted like preadolescents. Sadly, that is state-of-the-art with progressives.
            If elected types have since managed to read the damned bill, we need to know who they are. If any elected criminal hasn’t yet read it, he/she should be wienerized and run out of Washington.
            NO ONE in their right mind signs on to something without knowing what the hell is in it (regardless of their “party”). Progressive twits on this website who line up to bless anything der Obummer wants think they can absolve themselves because they’re on the side of ‘social justice.’ Blah. Hitler would be proud of them. He can have them.

          • Jay

            Elevenarrows:That didn’t clear anything up for me.

            Kinetics ranting and ravings rarely do.

        • eddie47d

          The Republicans seem to love the “fog of controversy”.Some one should be vetting them before they are allowed to quote anybody.

          • Jana

            Fog of controversy? Then YOU read the bill eddie, ALL 2000 PAGES OF IT, then come back and expalin it to us. See how foggy it can get.

          • Bob from Calif.

            Eddie,

            You are showing your true Marxist colors. Stay away from my freedom of speech and Vett yourself while you are at it.

          • eddie47d

            You can talk about your insanities all you want.Knock yourself out!

        • Push comes to shove

          Not a damn thing is cleared up, Karolyn. There were so many versions of the bill out there i don’t even thing the liberal demoncraps new which one they were passing. The damn thing was so enormous even if you had read one version did not mean that that was the one that was being voted on. I think this was done intentionally to confuse even the democrats who were wavering on weather or not to vote for the thing, hence the comment “We will have to pass it find out whats in it”. This is just more forked tongue talking and behind the scenes shinanigans by politicians.

          IT STINKS TO HIGH HEAVENS. It is time to clean out the stalls and put down fresh hay.

        • Jay

          Karolyn:Thanks for clearing that up, Kinetic.

          Karolyn, really? Then can you explain to us what exactly did “mr. context” actually made clear! I suspect you haven’t the foggiest!

      • Bob from Calif.

        A pig is still a pig no matter what angle you look at it.

  • Kinetic1

    If it is true that “Kagan “actively participated” with the Obama Administration in forming a defense for the healthcare law” then she may have to recuse herself. It’s hard to argue with the idea that any decision made under a cloud of such controversy will always be suspect. But why did the Republicans wait until now to show such concern?

    Where were they when then Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justice Sandra Day O’Connor were deciding Bush v Gore. Both were known to be considering stepping down and both were reportedly reluctant to do so unless a Republican was in the White House. Not a strong enough case? it was also widely reported that two of Justice Scalia’s sons were lawyers in firms representing Bush and that Justice Thomas’ wife was collecting applications from candidates who wanted to be recommended by the Heritage Foundation for positions in a Bush Administration. Republicans brushed both of those issues aside without a second thought.

    Too far back? Well, Justice Thomas’ wife Virginia Thomas was busy founding Liberty Central when he was considering the Citizens United case. Liberty Central used $500,000 in undisclosed money to support Republican candidates in the 2010 midterm elections, which is fine now that Justice Thomas helped decide that case. And speaking of donations for Republicans, the then newly founded Citizens United spent more than $100,000 on ads supporting Justice Thomas’ nomination. And since this article is about the health care bill, Justice Thomas failed to report his wife’s six figure income from a group she helped fond to fight the health care bill. You might think that those sorts of connections would be reason for recusal, but I don’t recall any concern among these Republicans. You might almost get the idea that their concern is not for judicial integrity so much as it is about politics.

    • TexasPatriot

      Make no mistake. This law, it’s unabashed tyranny, any decision to uphold it, and most horribly, presence in a thin SCOTUS majority by a justice who worked in this abominable administration to prepare a defense for it WILL BE REMEMBERED IN INFAMY.

      • Christin

        Texas Patriot,

        You are right.

        Kagan is an enemy of the American Constitution, the Military & Veterans, the Family (she is homosexual), the Conservatives and The Tea Parties, the Church, and Patriotic Freedom & Liberty loving Americans.

        Why anyone in Congress voted to let her in as SCOTUS for life is beyond me… (Tyranny)

    • s c

      K, get this through that thick head of yours, comrade. Conservatives are the ones who are “concerned.” ‘Republicans’ are playing a pre-scripted game, and they’re almost predictable.
      If you can’t tell the difference between a conservative and a ‘Republican’ [or a frickin' neocon] after all the chances you’ve had to get it STRAIGHT, look in the nearest mirror. THAT’S where the real problem is.

      • Kinetic1

        s c,
        I apologize for referring to these 49 Conservative icons as Republicans, though they are Republicans. I further apologize for not making it clear that their concern for justice, just like their less admirable “Republican” cohorts was nowhere to be seen when other justices were clearly in conflict.

        If you want to play Conservatives and Liberals v Republicans and Democrats that’s fine, but the right wing hypocrisy in this matter still sticks.

        • Jay

          Kinetic:If you want to play Conservatives and Liberals v Republicans and Democrats that’s fine, but the left wing hypocrisy in this matter still sticks.

          • eddie47d

            SC; The majority of Conservatives vote Republican so that is why they get labeled Republicans. Now was that so hard?

          • Jay

            The Conservatives vote for common-sense, something you’re unable to comprehend eddie!

    • Bob from Calif.

      She should recuse herself, plain and simple.

  • home boy

    this will go nowhere. obama and crew are ignoring the congress and are doing end arounds to get what he wants which is, if you where listing to him in his campaign speeches, to fundamentally change this country. he has shown that he could care less if the congress acts on anything. you wanted him so you live with him.

  • newspooner

    “Obamacare” is so clearly unconstitutional and unAmerican that any Supreme Court Justice who votes otherwise should be immediately impeached and removed from office. If SCOTUS ultimately rules that Obamacre is valid legislation, then the only action item that patriots should being working on is getting rid of the offending Justices and having Congress pass new legislation to repeal it.

  • Freddie

    When a SC Justice believes that portions of the U.S. Constitution are not “fundamental law”, we have a problem, and that should have been a red flag to our Senate; they should not have confirmed her for that alone.

    • Jana

      Obama and his minions (Democrats) pushed her through against the wishes of most of the Republicans. Just like they did with the Health Care Fiasco.

  • Freddie

    I’m sorry, I confused her with Sotomeyer. Kagan didn’t meet the minimum requirements to be a SC Justice.

    • Doc Sarvis

      How’s that?

      • Push comes to shove

        DOC,
        This is from Wikipedia

        “Kagan was born and raised in New York City. After attending Princeton, Oxford, and Harvard Law School, she completed federal Court of Appeals and Supreme Court clerkships. She began her career as a professor at the University of Chicago Law School, leaving to serve as Associate White House Counsel, and later as policy adviser, under President Clinton. After a nomination to the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which expired without action, she became a professor at Harvard Law School and was later named its first female dean.

        President Obama appointed her Solicitor General on January 26, 2009. On May 10, 2010, Obama nominated her to the Supreme Court to fill the vacancy from the impending retirement of Justice John Paul Stevens. After Senate confirmation, Kagan was sworn in on August 7, 2010, by Chief Justice John G. Roberts. Kagan’s formal investiture ceremony before a special sitting of the United States Supreme Court took place on October 1, 2010.”

        She has never agrued case law in court or presided over any court case and she is not a lawyer. Her only credit is she went to law school and taught at law school. HOW IS THAT FOR A REASON.

        • Doc Sarvis

          Not very good I’d say. The justice must undergo the approval process which she did. Other than that there are no requirements given in the Constitution for becoming a Supreme Court justice. No age, experience, or citizenship rules exist. In fact, a Supreme Court justice does not need to even have a law degree.
          [Other than the first two sentences the above information comes from About.com.]

          • Doc Sarvis

            The “not very good I’d say” is in response to the question you posed at the end of your post.

          • Jay

            The full quote: Ironically, there are no requirements given in the Constitution for becoming a Supreme Court justice. No age, experience, or citizenship rules exist. In fact, a Supreme Court justice does not need to even have a law degree.

            The part you didn’t include Doc: However, since the Senate confirms justices, experience and background have become important factors in the confirmations.

          • Kinetic1

            Jay,
            With or without that final sentence the fact remains that court room experience is not a requirement.

          • Jay

            Kinetic: With or without that final sentence the fact remains that court room experience is not a requirement.

            And you’re ok with that? Would you disregard lack of experience if Janet had been Conservative? Come on, lets hear your spin, spin doctor!

          • Kinetic1

            Jay,
            It’s not as if she is ignorant of the law. The fact that she has not adjudicated or served as a judge is of no great concern to me. Of the 112 Justices so far, 42 have not had previous experience as a lower court judge. And while all the modern day Justices have passed the bar, several in our nation’s history never attended law school, but apprenticed. If an apprentice could pass the bar, don’t you think that a person who attended some of our nation’s greatest schools of law, served as a clerk to the Supreme Court and taught law at Harvard might have learned enough to pass the bar if she had chosen to? Would you also argue that one cannot teach the law unless they have been a lawyer? The Congress had a chance to vet her and there was ample evidence of her opinions and legal history, unlike some nominees in the past.

  • Raggs

    Looks like yet another holder/oblama cover-up coming out of the sewer.
    holder is attempting to BLOCK investigations into the fast and furious mexican gun give-away…
    To me… I think all of these crooks should be ran out of this country or worse.

    • eddie47d

      Well then Freddie and Raggs Clarence Thomas should be recuse himself from any issue involving Corporations or polital finance. Kinetic above explained his dealings. You want honest “Democrats” but have a hard time keeping the “Republicans” out of the hen house. Should we abolish the Supreme Court since everything that involves government is on the chopping block and is a waste of taxpayers money. As several of you repeatedly say. Now I see nothing wrong with Kagan staying out of the Healthcare debate but only if you agree to keep Thomas out of the aforementioned. Deal!

      • Kinetic1

        eddie47d,
        With his wife’s hand in the health care cookie jar, Thomas will have to recuse himself on the Health Care bill as well. In fact, once you take a close look at all of Thomas’ conflicts and outright lies it’s clear that he can’t be included in much of anything. You might as well replace him with someone honest.

        • Jana

          Carville and his wife are on opposite sides of the fence as he is a Democrat and she is a Republican, but no one suggested that he step down from anything.
          Get real. Wives are allowed to have their jobs and their choices.

          • eddie47d

            Is that why the right attacked Hillary and said it was a conflict of interest for her to be so involved as a First Lady. You talk with forked tongue Jana.

          • Kinetic1

            Jana,
            This is not Jr. High debate. Your example is useless as it fails to consider that Carville is not a Supreme Court Justice (or any kind of justice for that matter) who’s wife could profit from his decisions. In the case of Justice Thomas, his decision in Citizens United directly effects his wife’s ability to pull down a six figure income, and by extension he profits as well. The basis for conflict of interest where a spouses income is concerned is well established and numerous examples are available should you choose to look.

            This also brings us back to Justice Kagen’s need to recuse herself. If faced with making a decision on the Health Care legislation, how will she benefit by voting in favor of supporting the administration? The best you could argue is that her decision is a quid pro quo for her nomination to the court, though even that falls flat since Congress had the power to block her appointment.

        • Jay

          Kinetic from Kenya, your problem is that you have your nose so far up your comrade’s obama’s azz, you can’t see the sun for the moon! You want to look for someone with BOTH hands in the cookie jar? Then look to fellow countryman, obama. You left-wing, hypocrite, libetards stink to the high heavens!

          • eddie47d

            We didn’t expect you to read or listen to Kinetic because you’re one sided thought process won’t allow it. Maybe you should pull your head out of last weeks left overs. You think that might be what you are smelling?

          • Jay

            What i’m smelling eddie is left-wing liberal flatulence of which both you and kinetic have ample supply.

          • Kinetic1

            Thanks eddie, but it’s clear from Jay’s post that he just want’s to get a rise. There’s no substance to his argument, just insults and innuendo. In the end his words have little worth in this debate, but speak volumes about his own limitations. Let him have his moment if it makes him feel big and strong.

          • Jay

            Kinetic:There’s no substance to his argument, just insults and innuendo.

            Kinetic, speaking of no substance, have you read any of your posts lately?

          • Kinetic1

            eddie,
            And with a retort worthy of PeeWee Herman, Jay proves my point.

  • Elevenarrows

    I think that many Americans forget that the court gives its OPINION. The two other branches of government are free to ignore that opinion. The three branches are equal and are supposed to provide checks and balances. Somewhere along the way, most people (including the other branches) have confused that and now believe the Supreme Court is the final authority in our lives…not so.

    • TexasPatriot

      If that is true, then any opinion on the Constitutionality of Obamacare is moot. The Communist in Chief disregards any relativity of Congress and will do the same for the SCOTUS when he pleases. Don’t wait til 2012 – IMPEACH OBAMA NOW!

      • Jana

        Elevenarrows,
        Sadly in this past decade it seems that the Supreme Court has the final say on everything important. Then it becomes law. It’s not supposed to be that way, but this new turn of events is a dangerous one.

        • S.C. Murf

          Jana, this is exactly the way the dems want it, muddles the facts and that’s the way they want to keep it

          up the hill
          airborne

          • eddie47d

            Ben Crystal muddles the facts.Does that bother you Murf? Now don’t tell me you don’t read his verbiage.

          • Jay

            The problem for you eddie is that Ben doesn’t speak moron, and the problem for Ben is that there are to many morons listening!

        • Elevenarrows

          All the more reason, Jana, for Americans to research candidates and understand what their hidden agendas are. There was never any doubt in my mind that acting-president Obama would appoint exactly what he has to SCOTUS. I knew we were in trouble when he spoke of a compassionate court. I want a court that stays within its constitutional boundaries. Judicial activism is at the root of most of our troubles. SCOTUS was never intended to decide if a student can pray at a ball-game, for Pete’s sake.

          As for what will happen with SCOTUS looking at Obamacare…I, personally, believe that Obama has placed himself above the law and ignored the most basic values of our nation…not-to-mention, his complete disdain for our Christian heritage…he will do exactly as he chooses with Obamacare. It is up to Congress to disallow funding. No money–no program.

          • GregS

            It’s also up to the voters to get that jerk out of office in 2012, so that Congress can repeal the damned thing, before it fully kicks in, in 2014, as a full-blown entitlement! If Obummer is re-elected in 2012, all chances for repeal will be lost!

  • soldiermom11

    Kagan should not be involved in Obamacare decisions. The Republicans raised the issue from the very beginning and have been misdirected and dismissed at every opportunity. When the opinion comes down that Obamacare is OK they are essentially in compliance with the writers of the law and Obamacare is a law. They have hired 16,000 IRS agents to prosecute offenders including fines and jail time. When the opinion comes down that obamacare is not OK the government then begins its campaign to overturn the ruling. What choice does the american citizen have for redress other than to vote for those who can defend them? and as long as judges are appointed by the president there is no voice.

    • GregS

      That’s exactly why it will be so important to vote Obummer out of office in 2012!

  • Doc Sarvis

    Whether or not Kagan removes herself from the decision on this issue (and other) it is still a very conservative court so the leaning is against progressive issues.

    • Jana

      Doc,
      I really wish that were so.

    • Jay

      Doc, you are either ignorant or you are a liar. Either way, you provide no useful service!

      • eddie47d

        You sure throw that word liar around. The Supreme Court is still more Conservative than Liberal and that is okay on several issues.Even I wouldn’t be pleased if it was 8-1 Liberal.

        • Jay

          BULLS**T!!!

    • GregS

      I think Justice Kennedy will be the one to watch. He’s usually the swing vote on a lot of the issues.

  • i41

    Since Bob Livingston thinks the description of everything the marxist/communist democrats and the marxist muslim moron has done to the USA and its citizens, isn’t just niggardly progressive beliefs as usual since the party inception.. Everything this jug eared muslim is and has done with his lap pups from the Soros kennel is niggardly and is vindictive to America.. Then I guess more citizens can finally see that what our nation future of living under UN mandates are coming closer, when people play the PCed card all the time.

    • newspooner

      Get the US out of the UN, and get the UN out of the US. Otherwise, all liberty will be lost.

    • Kinetic1

      i41,
      Aside from being offensive, do you have any clue what “niggardly” means? Based on your posts it sure doesn’t seem like you do.

      • Jay

        Kinetic, had you read all his posts you would know that he knows what “niggardly” means. Why don’t you go troll somewhere else, like Kenya perhaps!

      • libertytrain

        Kinetic – on this we agree, several posters explained it to him months ago as well as a few from Mr. Livingston in the last week or so. He’s intentionally been/being ridiculous.

        • Kinetic1

          Thanks Libertytrain. I’ll try to make a point of ignoring him from now on.

  • Thinking About

    How many former business justices stepped back in making the decision to allow corporations to donate to political funds. If Justice Kagan should step back on health care decisions then which party should have made the decision on Gore-Bush. Get the drift. Have not had tome to read the bill then those should be the ones replaced, they are not doing their job. Deadheads

  • northbrook

    There is no doubt that she should recuse herself from this case.

  • 45caliber

    It should hinder it but since she’s a flaming liberal anyway, it wouldn’t matter as far as she is voting. She’d vote for a dog for office if it ran under a Democrat label. (Hum … wonder if I can get a dog on the next election as a Dem and see what vote he would get …)

    • Elevenarrows

      Your dog wouldn’t even get on the ballot because I’m fairly sure the “anointed one” will “win” the nomination and NOTHING will stop that. I’m convinced that even if Obama’s approval rating dropped to 3 among his own party, he may still be “elected”. I think they still think we can’t see the man behind the curtain….doesn’t give much confidence in those fancy voting machines, does it?

  • chuckb

    unfortunately, we have allowed the minority to rule over the majority, our country professes to be a majority conservative nation, the liberal faction rules. the president ignores the law of the land and does as he wishes. at this moment he is bombing the nation of libya, ignoring congress. the supreme court has four ultra liberals, the makeup doesn’t represent the culture view of america. it represents the ultra left, one so called conservative jurist makes the difference. we csn blame congress again for this lop sided makeup, rino republicans. they afraid of beiing called a racist or anti semitic, bow their head and give in, this is my belief why we have these marxist type jurist sitting on the court, this is why they steer this country towards socialism with their rulings. thank you mr. republican wimp politician.

    • Elevenarrows

      Unfortunately, you have summed this up accurately. We might not be able to do much to stop judicial activism…although, there are ways to rid ourselves of unconstitutional judges…however, Congress can be influenced by We the People when they fear losing their jobs. More than once, jamming congressional switchboards has been effective in swaying Congressmen to the right side of things. There will always be those who will listen to the people and vote accordingly only out of fear of reprisal at the polls. It is up to the citizens to engage in this battle. I can’t tell you how many people I still meet who are good, decent people that are not registered to vote. Shame on them and shame on us if we don’t pressure them to do right.

  • i41

    What are you thinking about, is it how damn dumb and uneducated marxist/communist democrat people are. Like wanting the elections to be controlled by the total combined votes from all states. Instead of 50 states, only the likes of Kaliforia illegals, NY pervert muslims and Ill. mobsters, all controlled and blessed by the party from its inception, has been rigging elections. Tamminy Hall AKA the marxist/communist democrat party, the group of the most tax cheats and perverts, beating all the other parties put together, definately niggardly actions and behavior, including beliefs.

    • eddie47d

      Bye,Bye i41!

      • Jay

        There is nothing in his statement that would warrant his expulsion. Keep dreaming!

  • Jay

    The Kagan Six–”Progressive” does not mean “cheaper insurance”

    McClatchy news reports that Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan was asked if she was a “legal progressive.” She replied, “I honestly don’t know what that label means.” Later, Kagan admitted that she had been a Democrat all her life and that “my political views are generally progressive.” It takes no imagination to know that Kagan is a liberal. Her views from supporting homosexual rights to abortion to lamenting that socialism was vanishing in America are all very leftist. But nothing she has said in response to questions from Senators is more revealing than the six words, “my political views are generally progressive.”

    It would stand to reason that the man who occupies the Oval Office would appoint a like minded person to the Supreme Court. After all, the entire Administration’s political appointees carry more than a fair share of Islamists, radical socialists, and incompetent bureaucrats. But in the Kagan Six–the six words–”my political views are generally progressive”–the world sees very clearly the entire embodiment of this Administration. Kagan has been very coy in presenting herself to the Senate confirmation hearing. She said she “honestly” didn’t know what a “legal progressive” label means. But she openly admits that she is a political progressive.

    In the Kagan Six belief, every American should stand in opposition to not only Kagan, but everyone and anyone who would try for office of any kind, elected or appointed. Trouble is, most Americans think “progressive” is a cheaper way to buy insurance. A political progressive, to put it bluntly, is a Democrat with communist political views. More government, environmental controls, same sex marriage, universal health care, proportional representation, government owned housing, government mandated wages, government control of private enterprise, social justice are all tenets of the political “progressive.” These are people who make liberal Democrats look like mainstream conservatives.

    When these people say they want to change America, it is code for making America into a humanist socialist state. The president himself recently said, “One of the interesting things that’s happened over the last 18 months as president is for some reason people keep on being surprised when I do what I said I was going to do.” He mentioned healthcare reform and promotion of the homosexual agenda in the military as two examples. Many Christians hit the unsubscribe button when they read such characterization of this Administration. But as Jesus said, you cannot serve two masters. Here, it is either humanism or God. As Joshua said in Joshua 24:15, “as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.”

    Bill Wilson
    Word of Life Ministry
    http://www.dailyjot.com

    • Christin

      Jay,

      Very, very well said, …thank you.

  • pete

    The RePUBS in Congress are so inconsistent. They could have blocked Kagan from joining the Supreme Court (?) .

    The RePUBS let things slide – then they bitch and complain later before an election to get us all worked up.

  • http://PersonalLibertyDigest Wiselady

    7-10-11

    Wiselady says:

    To Kinetic1:

    Do you always sign documents without reading the full contents? It is no wonder we have the demise of failed mortgages and a real mess in Congress. Now I know why Nancy never seems to understand what she is doing. I quit counting the number of stupid things she kept saying and repeating.

    Also, look what happens when people don’t read the fine print. They must not have read the small it on their credit card applications

    I am into preventative care and prefer to pay the full amount rather than depend on Gov. to sticking its nose and interfering with my good health care. I still have to pay for Medicare and private insurance! I am very healthy and do not need to take any prescription drugs! I thank God for my good health and superb Osteopthic Physician!

    To Pete:

    The Democrats were a majority in the Judicial Committee. They all voted for her; I will agree with you, there are too many Republican wimps in that group that could have been more outspoken against Sotomayor and Kagan. I worked hard informing them on how radical is Sotomayor’s ideology. Only one Senator thanked me.

Bottom
close[X]

Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to PersonalLiberty.com,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.