• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should Kagan recuse herself from the BOCare case?

Should Kagan recuse herself

  • yes

    Votes: 17 70.8%

  • no

    Votes: 7 29.2%
  • Total voters
    24
  • Poll closed .
conservativeguy said:
Given her involvement in the administration that signed the law under review and her delight with its passage as Solicitor General, should she step aside and not be involved in this SCOTUS review of the BOCare challenges?
Click to expand...

Of course she should recuse herself. Of course, any judge who thinks it is constitutional for the Federal Government to force people to buy specific products from government approved vendors shouldn't be on the court to begin with.
 
conservativeguy said:
I saw it and started laughing. So now you think Thomas should recuse himself based on the work his wife once did for a firm that opposed the legislation. I think that strawman is so silly it doesn't deserve a reply.
Click to expand...

:prof You do not know what a strawman is if you think that I used one.


The most asinine thing about your previous post is that you yourself provided enough of an argument to support my point. Let me give you a tip...
 
LaMidRighter said:
To the first point. Anyone who has a pension has a vested interest in the health market, including insurance, bio-chems, pharma, and manufacture. This being said this could sway any of them either way in this case, they can't all recuse themselves and hear the case. To the second point, Kagen's words can be interpreted as being for the bill, and any questions that would raise tend to lead to asking whether she will hear the arguments or have her opinion already formed. I understand you are following the money, in my opinion Thomas will follow the law first, I don't know that Kagen is of the same judicial temperment.
Click to expand...

The part in bold makes no sense. Why would anyone other than a supreme court justice need to recuse themselves?

And receiving a pension and the hypothetical possibility it is affected by the legislation is a far cry form receiving direct income for opposing the legislation. It's not exactly an apples to apples comparison you are making.

Normally I would agree with you, in this particular case however she has rendered a statement that could show a bias and conflict. Justice Thomas to my knowledge has not rendered any statements yet. If you have some I'll take a look.
Click to expand...

If rendering such statements were the only way to show potential bias and conflict, then I'd be of the belief that I must show them.

But they aren't.
I do agree here, which is why I don't think Ginsberg, Sotomayor, Kennedy, etc. should recuse. Unless of course they have said something suspect as well.
Click to expand...

Because of the realities that anyone invested in the market in some way has ties to the health sector I disagree. However with Kagen's seemingly solid statement I feel the case for her recusal is stronger. Well, it may actually be a moot point since Kagen doesn't look like she'll recuse, and I'm sure Thomas won't leave the court lopsided on this one with her sitting on the decision.
Click to expand...

Your comparison is apples to apple-flavored candy made from gelatin and containing no actual apples or apple byproducts.

His money came directly from opposition to the legislation specifically. That's not the same as it being affected by the legislation.
 
Tucker Case said:
The part in bold makes no sense. Why would anyone other than a supreme court justice need to recuse themselves?
Click to expand...
That's my fault, I didn't further explain the point. Just about everyone serving the public sector has a vested pension at the least, many of the elected and appointed officials also have money in mutual funds, hedge funds, stocks, or other investment vehicles. This being said depending on whether they have short or long term investments, the law will have dangerous effects at some point. Knowing this if the SCOTUS justices have these pensions and other investments they could fall to the human trappings of self preservation and render improper decisions. This is why I've made that particular point. The health sector is literally in any kind of investment vehicle and we all know that these justices know that, hence, my point that no one is without some level of interest in rendering the decision.

And receiving a pension and the hypothetical possibility it is affected by the legislation is a far cry form receiving direct income for opposing the legislation. It's not exactly an apples to apples comparison you are making.
Click to expand...
This is true, but again Kagen has a more immediate monetary interest than Thomas. Kagen was solicitor general for the healthcare law whereas Thomas's wife was paid to represent against. Thomas has one degree of seperation while Kagen doesn't even have that.


If rendering such statements were the only way to show potential bias and conflict, then I'd be of the belief that I must show them.

But they aren't.
Click to expand...
I get that. But to me Kagen's statements in this particular case are damning.

Your comparison is apples to apple-flavored candy made from gelatin and containing no actual apples or apple byproducts.

His money came directly from opposition to the legislation specifically. That's not the same as it being affected by the legislation.
Click to expand...
His wife's earnings came from that. Kagen's money came from arguing pro.
 
Tucker Case said:
The most asinine thing about your previous post is that you yourself provided enough of an argument to support my point. Let me give you a tip...
Click to expand...

You were saying his impartiality was compromised since he would be influenced by what benefits his wife. If that is true, we can expect Thomas to support BOCare since his wife would make a ton on money fighting his decision. Wrong again. Your tortured and meritless theory goes up in flames when it appears Thomas would vote like he always does, conservative, and this vote would not help his wife's lobbying career since this issue would die if Thomas gets his way. How exactly did that support your point?

If Thomas votes to support BOCare, I will completely agree with you.
 
conservativeguy said:
That is hardly compelling.
Click to expand...

If his wife is getting paid to work for the same people pushing states to strike down the Health Care law, there is as much a conflict of interest as having written the law in the first place.
 
99percenter said:
Thomas should not have been put in because of his treatment of women.
Click to expand...

that's really stupid. Anita Hill should have been indicted for perjury. she asked him out for dinner after he allegedly harassed her. that alone proved she was a liar
 
TurtleDude said:
that's really stupid. Anita Hill should have been indicted for perjury. she asked him out for dinner after he allegedly harassed her. that alone proved she was a liar
Click to expand...

Was there a pube on his coke when they went out? Inquiring minds want to know! (joke!)
 
Oh, and yes, she probably should recuse herself. She probably won't, but she should.
 
TurtleDude said:
that's really stupid. Anita Hill should have been indicted for perjury. she asked him out for dinner after he allegedly harassed her. that alone proved she was a liar
Click to expand...
okay how about this then. Thomas should not be on the court because the only reason he was appointed was because of his race. His appointment was a case of affirmative action and he even acknowledges that. I though thomas opposed affirmative action? Why make an exception for himself?
 
99percenter said:
okay how about this then. Thomas should not be on the court because the only reason he was appointed was because of his race. His appointment was a case of affirmative action and he even acknowledges that. I though thomas opposed affirmative action? Why make an exception for himself?
Click to expand...
right after BO quits you can raise that question again.
 
99percenter said:
Obama was democratically elected not appointed because of his race. Nice try. You fail.
Click to expand...
Just like Thomas was nominated for the court and was elected by the senate to sit on that court. He is on the court due to a democratic vote, not an appointment. You should pick up history book and study how our government works, I am certain you will learn a lot.
 
conservativeguy said:
Just like Thomas was nominated for the court and was elected by the senate to sit on that court. He is on the court due to a democratic vote, not an appointment. You should pick up history book and study how our government works, I am certain you will learn a lot.
Click to expand...

Lets be honest. Anyone bush had appointed would have been appointed unless the person was really extreme like bork. Bush decided to appoint thomas because of his race. That was the only reason. They wanted to keep racial balance on the bench. Do you seriously think thomas would be on the court if it wasn't thurgood marshall's seat that was vacant? You fail again.
 
Last edited:
99percenter said:
Lets be honest. Anyone bush had appointed would have been appointed unless the person was really extreme like bork. Bush decided to appoint thomas because of his race. That was the only reason. They wanted to keep racial balance on the bench. Do you seriously think thomas would be on the court if it wasn't thurgood marshall's seat that was vacant.
Click to expand...
If you have decided to turn over a new leaf and start being honest, well ok then.

Thomas is a rock solid conservative judge, that's why he was picked. It may have crossed Bush's mind the nomination of a black jurist would be a good thing as well. At the end of the day Thomas has written numerous solid legal opinions and he has voted consistently on all matters before him.

BO, on the other hand, received a large number of votes by racist aholes that picked him based on the color of his skin. They certainly didn't voted for him based on his record or the idiotic BS like Hope and Change. BO's entire pedigree is a textbook affirmative action career path. His degrees imply he is a smart man when we all know he is a blithering idiot without a prepared speech to read.
 
IMO, the entire supreme court should excuse themselves...
Affordable health care should not even be considered by the court.
But, this law is in need of reform, reform that did not begin to go far enuff.
Our health care for the privileged and wealthy is great, for all others its terrible.
Its long past time to change this.
 
conservativeguy said:
If you have decided to turn over a new leaf and start being honest, well ok then.

Thomas is a rock solid conservative judge, that's why he was picked. It may have crossed Bush's mind the nomination of a black jurist would be a good thing as well. At the end of the day Thomas has written numerous solid legal opinions and he has voted consistently on all matters before him.

BO, on the other hand, received a large number of votes by racist aholes that picked him based on the color of his skin. They certainly didn't voted for him based on his record or the idiotic BS like Hope and Change. BO's entire pedigree is a textbook affirmative action career path. His degrees imply he is a smart man when we all know he is a blithering idiot without a prepared speech to read.
Click to expand...

Actually obama graduated in the top 15% of his class at Harvard. Something you don't get by affirmative action. You think obama won swing states like ohio and virginia because of his skin color? People were fed up with bush and the GOP. Even racists voted for obama. Thomas on the other hand was only picked because of his skin color. Undeniable fact. He should not even be on the SCOTUS. You should really get an education. It might do you some good.
 
earthworm said:
IMO, the entire supreme court should excuse themselves...
Click to expand...
No, this needs to be settled or repealed.
Affordable health care should not even be considered by the court.
Click to expand...
Considering the bill has cost nothing but cost increases and availability shrinkage then repeal or adjudicating it dead are the only two options.
But, this law is in need of reform, reform that did not begin to go far enuff.
Click to expand...
You got the prefix correct, not the suffix. Repeal , not reform
Our health care for the privileged and wealthy is great, for all others its terrible.
Its long past time to change this.
Click to expand...
Emotionalized talking point with no substance. Usesless to the debate.
 
99percenter said:
He wasn't born in kenya but even if he was he would still be allowed to be president. He was NATURAL born citizen because of his mom. Just like george romney and john mccain were allowed to run even though they were not born in america.
Click to expand...

I probably shouldn't be feeding the troll at this point, but actually that's not true. Ann Dunham would have been below the legal age for her son to have been a natural-born citizen if she had given birth to him outside of US territory.
 
StillBallin75 said:
I probably shouldn't be feeding the troll at this point, but actually that's not true. Ann Dunham would have been below the legal age for her son to have been a natural-born citizen if she had given birth to him outside of US territory.
Click to expand...

This is what i found. I see nothing about an age requirement. Can you send me a link?
Birth to U.S. Citizen Parents ("Acquisition")

In many circumstances, even though a child is born outside the United States, if at least one parent was a U.S. citizen at the time of the child's birth, the child automatically "acquires" citizenship. When this child marries and has children, those children may also acquire U.S. citizenship at birth.
 
Last edited:
99percenter said:
Actually obama graduated in the top 15% of his class at Harvard. Something you don't get by affirmative action. You think obama won swing states like ohio and virginia because of his skin color? People were fed up with bush and the GOP. Even racists voted for obama. Thomas on the other hand was only picked because of his skin color. Undeniable fact. He should not even be on the SCOTUS. You should really get an education. It might do you some good.
Click to expand...
Prove BO earned that ranking? Shown us how he even got into Harvard when he didn't graduate from Columbia with honors? How did he get into Columbia in the first place? How did he become president of the Harvard Law Review? He never published anything either before or after he was given that affirmative action slot. I assume you do know the Harvard Law Review had changed it's policy prior to BO and decided they needed to have more people of color in the ranks........you do know this don't you? What Wasserstein his SAT score?

BO is the greatest affirmative action tool bag to walk the planet. Don't believe me, listen to him talk without a TelePrompTer.
 
conservativeguy said:
Prove BO earned that ranking? Shown us how he even got into Harvard when he didn't graduate from Columbia with honors? How did he get into Columbia in the first place? How did he become president of the Harvard Law Review? He never published anything either before or after he was given that affirmative action slot. I assume you do know the Harvard Law Review had changed it's policy prior to BO and decided they needed to have more people of color in the ranks........you do know this don't you? What Wasserstein his SAT score?

BO is the greatest affirmative action tool bag to walk the planet. Don't believe me, listen to him talk without a TelePrompTer.
Click to expand...

Why should he release his grades? bush didn't. his grades were leaked. Only republicans use affirmative action. Clarence thomas and michael smith both got their spots because of affirmative action. We can tell by their incompetence. You still can't get through your head that obama was elected by a majority of americans (thanks to bush's incompetence) so any affirmative actions claim are baseless.

And for the teleprompter thing, every president uses one. Obama is just good at it. Bush was bad at it.

Its okay. Its your right to be uneducated and ignorant and i will fight for that right.
 
99percenter said:
Why should he release his grades? bush didn't. his grades were leaked. Only republicans use affirmative action. Clarence thomas and michael smith both got their spots because of affirmative action. We can tell by their incompetence. You still can't get through your head that obama was elected by a majority of americans (thanks to bush's incompetence) so any affirmative actions claim are baseless.

And for the teleprompter thing, every president uses one. Obama is just good at it. Bush was bad at it.

Its okay. Its your right to be uneducated and ignorant and i will fight for that right.
Click to expand...
Like I said before.....you think BO is the Chosen One, I say "prove it". We have never had a president that we know so little about........never. Everything about that clown is hidden, erased, locked down.........untouchable. If BO was half the intellect you libtards dream he is, he and his handlers would have published all of his accomplishments years ago. He's got nothing to brag about.

It's always hysterical watching the BO tools spin and spin and spin as they try to create the image BO is anything other than an affirmative action clown that talks cool, is half black and he isn't Bush.

For the record, BO isn't qualified to sniff Thomas' shorts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom