Oh my: Documents reveal that Kagan may have helped craft legal defense of ObamaCare

posted at 9:17 pm on May 18, 2011 by Allahpundit

She won’t recuse herself, needless to say. Defending their signature domestic “achievement” when it’s under mortal threat from a constitutional challenge is much, much more important to the left than observing ethical rules. Which is why, of course, they’ve been hassling Clarence Thomas about a supposed conflict of interest in his own right vis-a-vis ObamaCare. They know Kagan is compromised, so they’re setting up a “tu quoque” rejoinder for when, not if, the GOP takes up this point in earnest.

I wonder if they know how compromised she is.

On March 21, 2010, Katyal urged Kagan to attend a health care litigation meeting that was evidently organized by the Obama White House: “This is the first I’ve heard of this. I think you should go, no? I will, regardless, but feel like this is litigation of singular importance.”

In another email exchange that took place on January 8, 2010, Katyal’s Department of Justice colleague Brian Hauck asked Katyal about putting together a group to discuss challenges to Obamacare. “Could you figure out the right person or people for that?” Hauck asked. “Absolutely right on. Let’s crush them,” Katyal responded. “I’ll speak with Elena and designate someone.”

However, following the May 10, 2010, announcement that President Obama would nominate Kagan to the U.S. Supreme Court, Katyal position changed significantly as he began to suggest that Kagan had been “walled off” from Obamacare discussions…

“Any reasonable person would read these documents and come to the same conclusion: Elena Kagan helped coordinate the Obama administration’s defense of Obamacare. And as long as the Justice Department continues to withhold key documents, the American people won’t know for sure whether her involvement would warrant her recusal from any Obamacare litigation that comes before the High Court,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

March 21, 2010 was the day ObamaCare passed the House and, for all intents and purposes, became law. It’s hard to believe Kagan, as solicitor general, wouldn’t have showed up for a legal strategy session held that day, let alone at any point over the previous six months as the bill was working its way through Congress. But here’s the excuse they’re going to offer the public:

On May 17, 2010, for example, Tracy Schmaler, a Department of Justice spokesperson wrote to Katyal, “Has Elena been involved in any of that to the extent SG office was consulted … ?”

“No, she has never been involved in any of it. I’ve run it for the office, and have never discussed the issues with her one bit,” was Katyal’s response. He then forwarded the correspondence to Kagan, saying “This is what I told Tracy about Health Care.”

Kagan’s response: “This needs to be coordinated. Tracy you should not say anything about this before talking to me.”

Other email chains between Kagan, White House lawyers and Vice President Joe Biden’s then-Chief of Staff Ronald Klain show a coordinated effort on how to respond to questions about the health-care law that may have arisen in the confirmation hearings.

Just so we’re straight on the timeline here: On March 21, the day ObamaCare was passed, Katyal is inviting Kagan to strategy sessions about the new law. On April 9, John Paul Stevens resigns and speculation erupts about Kagan succeeding him. On May 17, Katyal is suddenly telling people that Kagan’s never been involved in anything — even though she is, in fact, the solicitor general of the United States and even though he explicitly invited her to a meeting about the law less than two months earlier — and Kagan is warning people via e-mail to make sure everyone has their story straight on what she knew by “coordinating.” Is that about right? I want to make sure we’re all square on this nonsense for when the mandate challenge finally reaches the Court and we’re told by her office that everything is magically copacetic.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Could this be used to get her impeached? If she hears the case that she helped write the defense on that could be grounds to impeach Obama also, he HAD to know, along with our wonderful Attorney General. WOW, maybe this could be used to clean house before the election. Wouldn’t that be great? But as we know, so far Obama has managed to ride his Black half to keep the wolfs away.

old war horse on May 18, 2011 at 10:34 PM

amerpundit on May 18, 2011 at 9:48 PM

with lindsey and the maverick in the senate would this even proceed?

cmsinaz on May 18, 2011 at 10:37 PM

I guess crr6 is frantically waiting for her talking points. What to say, what to say….hurry up already with the emails….let’s see, best outcome if Kagan is off case is 4-4, but that is if Kennedy buys the Commerce Clause and Necessary and Proper argument….what if he doesn’t, then 5-3…looks like they will say she didn’t sign her name on anything written, so no harm no foul, oh and emails don’t count anyway….well, Thomas should be gone also, so there….does that about cover it????

txmomof6 on May 18, 2011 at 10:39 PM

I agree. But can it be done?

Well … hmmm:

A Supreme Court Justice may be impeached by the House of Representatives and removed from office if convicted in a Senate trial, but only for the same types of offenses that would trigger impeachment proceedings for any other government official under Articles I and II of the Constitution.

Article III, Section 1 states that judges of Article III courts shall hold their offices “during good behavior.” “The phrase “good behavior” has been interpreted by the courts to equate to the same level of seriousness ‘high crimes and misdemeanors” encompasses.

In addition, any federal judge may prosecuted in the criminal courts for criminal activity. If found guilty of a crime in a federal district court, the justice would face the same type of sentencing any other criminal defendant would. The district court could not remove him/her from the Bench. However, any justice found guilty in the criminal courts of any felony would certainly be impeached and, if found guilty, removed from office.

In the United States, impeachment is most often used to remove corrupt lower-court federal judges from office, but it’s not unusual to find disgruntled special interest groups circulating petitions on the internet calling for the impeachment of one or all members of the High Court.

crosspatch on May 18, 2011 at 10:40 PM

crr6 on May 18, 2011 at 9:56 PM

I remember you saying she should recuse herself on this case, have you changed your position? Sorry if I missed it above.

bluemarlin on May 18, 2011 at 10:41 PM

CANON 2: A JUDGE SHOULD AVOID IMPROPRIETY AND THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY IN ALL ACTIVITIES

flyfisher on May 18, 2011 at 10:42 PM

You know who this helps? Lindsey Graham’s future primary opponent.

Theworldisnotenough on May 18, 2011 at 10:42 PM

with lindsey and the maverick in the senate would this even proceed?

cmsinaz on May 18, 2011 at 10:37 PM

Impeachment takes place in the House. The trial would take place in the Senate. Surely she would recuse herself or resign to avoid that outcome.

txmomof6 on May 18, 2011 at 10:43 PM

txmomof6 on May 18, 2011 at 10:43 PM

i wonder, if you have a D next to your name, you usually double down on stupid and get away with it (with the help of lsm)…

other folks in congress still need to see their day in ‘court’ ala maxine waters…

cmsinaz on May 18, 2011 at 10:46 PM

What the people like crr6 and the scorched earthers on the left fail to understand is that a critical pillar of our system of justice is the belief by the citizenry that justice is impartial. That is why even the appearance of impropriety is corrosive. Especially in this day and age of distrust in government. Look how tormented the left has been over their belief that Gore v. Bush was politically motivated. Recusal is an option for the good of the judiciary and our system of government, in addition to the good of the parties involved.

txmomof6 on May 18, 2011 at 10:24 PM

Excellent points – the most transparent and ethical administration since the dawn of time proves to be neither.

So what can a government do when it has lost the trust of the people?

Chip on May 18, 2011 at 10:52 PM

So what if she flat-out lied.

Sotomayor said in her confirmation hearings that DC v Heller was “settled law.”

In McDonald, she concurred in the dissent which said that Heller was wrongly decided and should be reversed.

It seems that lying in a confirmation hearing is no biggie.

eeyore on May 18, 2011 at 10:54 PM

House Sub-Committee Chairman on the Courts is Howard Coble from North Carolina.
House Chairman of the Judiciary Committee is Lamar Smith of Texas.

txmomof6 on May 18, 2011 at 10:55 PM

Maybe I’m mis-reading something, and perhaps this is a dumb question, but why, from the get-go, did the folks drafting Obamacare assume it was destined for the Supreme Court in the first place? I’ve been assured by certain folks that no reasonable person could see it as anything less than obviously above-the-board, so what gives?

BlueCollarAstronaut on May 18, 2011 at 10:58 PM

So what can a government do when it has lost the trust of the people?

Chip on May 18, 2011 at 10:52 PM
Assume more power.

Better yet, what can the people do that have lost faith in the government?
Replace it.

txmomof6 on May 18, 2011 at 10:59 PM

So what can a government do when it has lost the trust of the people?

Chip on May 18, 2011 at 10:52 PM

Issue Executive orders to maintain “public safety” and such; restrict the ability of the people to interact with each other; monitor all communications media to insure that subversive or anti-government communications are halted and perpetrators jailed; appoint special executives (czars) to manage the extra-governmental processes and keep from the public all deliberations involving government’s plans and intentions; stifle dissent by any means possible; round up all privately held firearms; declare a national emergency and suspend habeas corpus; and enjoin the judiciary to pursue “proper” outcomes in all cases involving dissent…and then welcome the people to the new 1933.

If done swiftly…in the name of public safety, of course, and announcing that all is being done for the good of the people…most citizens will be unaware until well after the dust settles.

Obama did promise fundamental change to how America is governed, didn’t he?

coldwarrior on May 18, 2011 at 11:00 PM

It’s a good this this is a transparent administration or we wouldn’t have anything to look at at all. The propagandists who call themselves reporters have been shirking their duty for years. I can’t wait for little Georgie Snuffleupagus; et al to make up excuses for her.

gitarfan on May 18, 2011 at 11:00 PM

House Sub-Committee Chairman on the Courts is Howard Coble from North Carolina.
txmomof6 on May 18, 2011 at 10:55 PM

FWIW, Coble is a homosexual.

flyfisher on May 18, 2011 at 11:01 PM

FWIW, Coble is a homosexual.

flyfisher on May 18, 2011 at 11:01 PM

And it looks like they have a vacancy on the sub-committee. Oh well, if Coble votes to start impeachment proceedings against Kagan they can’t claim he did it because he is homophobic.

txmomof6 on May 18, 2011 at 11:06 PM

I’m sure she’s already made it known that she’s going to recuse herself. If there’s anything I know about Democrats and liberals, it is that they are ethical.

besser tot als rot on May 18, 2011 at 11:13 PM

they can’t claim he did it because he is homophobic.

txmomof6 on May 18, 2011 at 11:06 PM

Right … like MSNBC can’t say that a black man carrying a gun at an anti-ObamaCare rally is a white racist?

besser tot als rot on May 18, 2011 at 11:16 PM

This administration has already proven to be a stranger to ETHICS.

GarandFan on May 18, 2011 at 11:35 PM

You couldn’t defeat it democratically, so you opted for the courts.

crr6 on May 18, 2011 at 9:56 PM

That’s a rather lame argument. We never had a democratic referendum on the exact “Obamacare” package that was enacted by Congress. The best case you could make along these lines is that a (slim) majority of voters had a general notion that they wanted the government to do something about health care costs and availability because they voted in Obama.

Dr. ZhivBlago on May 18, 2011 at 11:37 PM

You couldn’t defeat it democratically, so you opted for the courts.

crr6 on May 18, 2011 at 9:56 PM

Funny, I don’t remember voting to legalize abortion.

flyfisher on May 18, 2011 at 11:54 PM

You couldn’t defeat it democratically,
crr6 on May 18, 2011 at 9:56 PM

Scott brown. 41st vote. Referendum on obamacare which failed democratically in the most liberal incubator in the nation. Again, 41st vote. Democratically decided. Yet, circumvented and still jammed down our thoats rather, how should I put it? Undemocratically?

Zetterson on May 18, 2011 at 11:57 PM

To recuse, or not to recuse. What a bunch of horsesh*t.

They are going to do whatever they damned well feel like doing, no matter how lawless, anti-constitutional, inappropriate, or just plain corrupt it is. This is the Democrat party and the Obama Administration we’re talking about here.

You all can cut the silly-a$$ed hypothetical musings now. Have you learned nothing since Jan 21, 2009?

PD Quig on May 19, 2011 at 12:04 AM

You couldn’t defeat it democratically,
crr6 on May 18, 2011 at 9:56 PM

You’re not a fool, because you claim so. Therefore, you must be a charlatan.

Schadenfreude on May 19, 2011 at 12:13 AM

While it’s unlikely Kagan’s ever going to be forced into a full-fledged Abe Fortas over this one, it will be interesting to see if her and the White House’s disingenuousness on this rubs Anthony Kennedy the wrong way. Everyone knows he’s going to be the swing vote if the case comes before the current court, and how he reacts to Kagan playing the health care virgin in chambers while having worked on the plan might not sit well with him when he decides on the law’s constitutionality.

jon1979 on May 19, 2011 at 12:19 AM

crr6 on May 18, 2011 at 9:56 PM

“Any reasonable person would read these documents and come to the same conclusion

INC on May 18, 2011 at 10:02 PM

I think I see your problem here; you’ve got a bad assumption that is throwing your entire logical premise off.

Double check your assumptions when you’re having a problem with the logic not working. You almost always find one of your assumptions wasn’t valid.

gekkobear on May 19, 2011 at 12:20 AM

You know who this helps? Lindsey Graham’s future primary opponent.

Theworldisnotenough on May 18, 2011 at 10:42 PM

Nicely done.

Jaibones on May 19, 2011 at 12:23 AM

You couldn’t defeat it democratically, so you opted for the courts.

Hey, I have a great idea. Let’s dump this Constitution stuff and minority rights blather and just institute mob rule.

CJ on May 19, 2011 at 12:23 AM

Kagan will recuse herself. She has to.

Captain Kirock on May 19, 2011 at 12:28 AM

So…what happens when this case comes to SCOTUS and she doesn’t recuse herself? What authority rules over the Supreme Court when the judges cheat?

Jaibones on May 19, 2011 at 12:38 AM

So what can a government do when it has lost the trust of the people?

Chip on May 18, 2011 at 10:52 PM

Said differently, what should the people do once they see beyond shadow of a doubt that their government has become an untrustworthy tyranny?

Midas on May 19, 2011 at 1:03 AM

Kagan will recuse herself. She has to.

Captain Kirock on May 19, 2011 at 12:28 AM

LOL, aw, that’s so cute.

Midas on May 19, 2011 at 1:04 AM

a “tu quoque”

“Morticia! You spoke French!”

Shy Guy on May 19, 2011 at 1:09 AM

Midas on May 19, 2011 at 1:04 AM

Just shooting from the hip here but when it becomes clear that Kennedy is siding with the Conservatives and Kagan’s vote no longer matters, she will recuse herself in the “interests of justice.”

Captain Kirock on May 19, 2011 at 1:26 AM

MOST ETHICAL, EVAR !

tx2654 on May 19, 2011 at 1:57 AM

There isn’t a chance in the world she would recuse herself.

Liberals are very consistent about using whatever means (immoral or moral) to reach what they consider a “moral” end.

scotash on May 19, 2011 at 1:58 AM

Kagan may actually have a bigger issue in this than it first appears.

Kagan told the senate committee under oath in her confirmation hearing that she was not involved in the defense of Obamacare at any time. IF she did lie under oath to the Senate bad things can happen to her career.

Freddy on May 19, 2011 at 2:33 AM

Lawsuit regarding Obamacare goes to Supreme Court.
One side loses.
This side then sues the Supreme Court for conflict of interest.

albill on May 19, 2011 at 7:16 AM

scotash on May 19, 2011 at 1:58 AM

tru dat

cmsinaz on May 19, 2011 at 7:23 AM

Nasty socialist cow should never have gotten past the committee. This is what happens when neutered a$$wipes refuse to oppose the black Jesus.

SKYFOX on May 19, 2011 at 7:39 AM

Most transparent administration evah! NOT!
Can you say perjury and obstruction of justice?

eaglewingz08 on May 19, 2011 at 7:42 AM

Seriously, how do you sleep at night?

crr6 on May 18, 2011 at 9:56 PM

It is extremely funny to watch you turn yourself into pretzel-like positions in order to support your unsupported marxist positions. You are truly the definition of a useful idiot.

Sporty1946 on May 19, 2011 at 7:48 AM

So in sum, there’s absolutely zero evidence showing she crafted the legal defense, and zero hard evidence that she even so much as attended a meeting in connection with the litigation. And the only definitive statements are from Katyal, who said that Kagan was never involved. Got it.

Prediction: You guys will continue to use dishonest back-door tactics like this in an attempt to throw out the PPACA. You couldn’t defeat it democratically, so you opted for the courts. You can’t defeat it through the courts, either, so now you need to play cheap games like this to knock off judges you think won’t reach the “right” outcome.

Seriously, how do you sleep at night?

crr6 on May 18, 2011 at 9:56 PM

U mad?

Good Lt on May 19, 2011 at 8:02 AM

So what can a government do when it has lost the trust of the people?

Chip on May 18, 2011 at 10:52 PM

Issue Executive orders to maintain “public safety” and such; restrict the ability of the people to interact with each other; monitor all communications media to insure that subversive or anti-government communications are halted and perpetrators jailed; appoint special executives (czars) to manage the extra-governmental processes and keep from the public all deliberations involving government’s plans and intentions; stifle dissent by any means possible; round up all privately held firearms; declare a national emergency and suspend habeas corpus; and enjoin the judiciary to pursue “proper” outcomes in all cases involving dissent…and then welcome the people to the new 1933.

If done swiftly…in the name of public safety, of course, and announcing that all is being done for the good of the people…most citizens will be unaware until well after the dust settles.

Obama did promise fundamental change to how America is governed, didn’t he?

coldwarrior on May 18, 2011 at 11:00 PM

Freedom is never lost all at once – Edmund Burke

It is far easier to accomplish those tasks incrementally in the name of commonsense and for the good of the people and the children. And it is far easier to do that if the government has a carrot to go along with the stick – and what better carrot than one’s health?

Which leads us back full circle.

Chip on May 19, 2011 at 8:02 AM

You couldn’t defeat it democratically, so you opted for the courts. crr6 on May 18, 2011 at 9:56 PM

You completely dishonest POS hack – you call that end run around the process, i.e. “reconciliation”, something that was done democratically?? Every thing from the outright lying about the federal funding of abortion, the bribes in the bill to buy off senators, to the way that bill was passed was completely corrupt and undemocratic. Wow, that speaks volumes about your world view…

specialkayel on May 19, 2011 at 8:12 AM

You couldn’t defeat it democratically, so you opted for the courts. crr6 on May 18, 2011 at 9:56 PM

Of course it wouldn’t bother a good socialist that the WH and Kagan lied to the Senate in order to get her on the Court.

Anything to obtain power to increase gov’t control over everything. No need for ethics, honesty, principal or the Constitution. How sad being a good little commy must be – only caring about gov’t and not believing in anything else and not having any principals or ethics outside of the belief in gov’t. Being willing to lie and change position every second of every day to further teh cause. Does it ever bother you to have to support such dishonesty and corruption? Probably not. In your mind “everyone does it” so it is o.k. that your team does it all the time.

Monkeytoe on May 19, 2011 at 8:20 AM

You couldn’t defeat it democratically, so you opted for the courts. crr6 on May 18, 2011 at 9:56 PM

This is funny coming from a leftist when the left politicized the courts and have used the course to enact their agenda for the last 40 years b/c they cannot get their agenda enacted democratically. And coming from an Obama supporter who probably supports the use of regulations to push through things that congress specifically did not enact. And coming from a leftist when teh left complains that Alito or Scalia should recuse themselves from a case when the own stock in a company through a mutual fund, but will find nothing wrong with Kagan not recusing herself in this case.

The lack of any integrity is spectacular.

Monkeytoe on May 19, 2011 at 8:23 AM

A critical pillar of our system of justice is the belief by the citizenry that justice is impartial. That is why even the appearance of impropriety is corrosive. Especially in this day and age of distrust in government. Look how tormented the left has been over their belief that Gore v. Bush was politically motivated. Recusal is an option for the good of the judiciary and our system of government, in addition to the good of the parties involved.

txmomof6 on May 18, 2011 at 10:24 PM

One other thing – has anyone noticed that the term appearance of impropriety seems to vanish from the NSM’s lexicon when the National Progressive Worker’s Party holds sway over the government?

Can it not be said that most Democrat administrations are one big appearance of impropriety and the Obama administration in particular?

Chip on May 19, 2011 at 8:29 AM

While it’s unlikely Kagan’s ever going to be forced into a full-fledged Abe Fortas over this one, it will be interesting to see if her and the White House’s disingenuousness on this rubs Anthony Kennedy the wrong way. Everyone knows he’s going to be the swing vote if the case comes before the current court, and how he reacts to Kagan playing the health care virgin in chambers while having worked on the plan might not sit well with him when he decides on the law’s constitutionality.

jon1979 on May 19, 2011 at 12:19 AM

Good insight. It offers some hope. A backlash is possible.

parteagirl on May 19, 2011 at 8:31 AM

Like Sotomayor, the planet benefits from her “richness of her life experience”
So we need laws interpreted by a gender confused woman.
In Leftist law, grey is good.
Kagan is the same law school manager that dumped a required class for graduation called constitutional law and inserted international laws as a requirement.

seven on May 19, 2011 at 8:38 AM

Someone needs to file a lawsuit or something to have her removed.

Darvin Dowdy on May 19, 2011 at 8:54 AM

Will this be the LSM narrative on the subject?

“The devastation to the health of seniors, children, and women, that will result from a repeal of Obamacare is too abhorrent to allow the evil republicans to smear Elana Kagen in an attempt to sway the courts decision in their favor. What has this country come to if we allow such an injustice to be perpetrated onto the weakest among us by the party of rich white men?”

csdeven on May 19, 2011 at 9:00 AM

But to get to your other point, since Obama is not releasing the information he has been requested to release regarding her participation, people have to start with what evidence is provided…and that evidence points to complicity.When the “most transparent administration evah” finally gets around to being co-operative, than you can talk the big talk, until then—-shhhhhhhh!

right2bright on May 18, 2011 at 10:10 PM

So crr6, who has posted & run, what have you to say about this reality?
We have a few escaped nuggets of evidence that are very damning.
So if the BO admin won’t pony up anything else, we are to just assume there’s no impropriety?
And BTW-if you had enough time to post once here, you had enough time to further respond. Bcs you knew people here would instantly challenge you.
I call the posting & running COWARDLY & TELLING.

Badger40 on May 19, 2011 at 9:02 AM

If it weren’t for news sites such as this one, we would never know of such developments thanks to a media complex that is dedicated to an ideology rather than reporting news… Thanks for a good report AP.

Keemo on May 19, 2011 at 9:15 AM

Prediction: You guys will continue to use dishonest back-door tactics like this in an attempt to throw out the PPACA. You couldn’t defeat it democratically, so you opted for the courts. You can’t defeat it through the courts, either, so now you need to play cheap games like this to knock off judges you think won’t reach the “right” outcome.

Seriously, how do you sleep at night?

crr6 on May 18, 2011 at 9:56 PM

The IRONY in this post is so thick you can cut it with a chainsaw.

fossten on May 19, 2011 at 9:18 AM

Seriously, how do you sleep at night?

crr6 on May 18, 2011 at 9:56 PM

Being that a strong majority despises this legislation in poll after poll, we actually sleep quite easily.

Chuck Schick on May 19, 2011 at 9:21 AM

While it’s unlikely Kagan’s ever going to be forced into a full-fledged Abe Fortas over this one…

jon1979 on May 19, 2011 at 12:19 AM

I won’t hold my breath waiting for Bob Woodward to investigate Kagan as he did Fortas. While Fortas had already resigned by the time Woodward began investigating, at least he eventually got around to it. Fortas was a liberal appointed by LBJ, so if Woodward smells blood, Obama and Kagan cannot be certain how he might respond.

flyfisher on May 19, 2011 at 9:29 AM

Just so we’re straight on the timeline here: On March 21, the day ObamaCare was passed, Katyal is inviting Kagan to strategy sessions about the new law. On April 9, John Paul Stevens resigns and speculation erupts about Kagan succeeding him. On May 17, Katyal is suddenly telling people that Kagan’s never been involved in anything — even though she is, in fact, the solicitor general of the United States and even though he explicitly invited her to a meeting about the law less than two months earlier — and Kagan is warning people via e-mail to make sure everyone has their story straight on what she knew by “coordinating.” Is that about right? I want to make sure we’re all square on this nonsense for when the mandate challenge finally reaches the Court and we’re told by her office that everything is magically copacetic.

For crr6, the Obama Administration said it, she believes it, and that settles it.

Good Lt on May 19, 2011 at 9:30 AM

Seriously, how do you sleep at night?

crr6 on May 18, 2011 at 9:56 PM

Very well thank you knowing it isn’t my political ideology that murders 1.4 million babies every year.

How are your rest cycles?

hawkdriver on May 19, 2011 at 9:34 AM

You couldn’t defeat it democratically, so you opted for the courts.

crr6 on May 18, 2011 at 9:56 PM

Funny, I don’t remember voting to legalize abortion.

flyfisher on May 18, 2011 at 11:54 PM

And the 6.5+ million people in Massachusetts don’t remember voting to legalize gay marriage, either. Proponents of that legislation couldn’t get it enacted at the ballot box, so they (successfully) opted for Activist Judges to force it into law.

Del Dolemonte on May 19, 2011 at 9:38 AM

For crr6, the Obama Administration said it, she believes it, and that settles it.

Good Lt on May 19, 2011 at 9:30 AM

Because crr6 is probably a paid stooge. He/she might be a part of Eric Holder’s illegal blogger brigade, which was reported a few months after Obama took office.

flyfisher on May 19, 2011 at 9:42 AM

And the 6.5+ million people in Massachusetts don’t remember voting to legalize gay marriage, either. Proponents of that legislation couldn’t get it enacted at the ballot box, so they (successfully) opted for Activist Judges to force it into law.

Del Dolemonte on May 19, 2011 at 9:38 AM

I wonder just how many ballot initiatives have been voided by courts.

flyfisher on May 19, 2011 at 9:44 AM

Speaking of liberal activist judges, aren’t they voting on the filibuster of Godwin Liu today? I just called Lamar Alexander’s office and couldn’t get through in D.C. Are people ringing the phone off the wall on this?

pannw on May 19, 2011 at 9:47 AM

old war horse on May 18, 2011 at 10:34 PM

We can only dream.

Mr. Grump on May 19, 2011 at 9:56 AM

Speaking of liberal activist judges, aren’t they voting on the filibuster of Godwin Liu today? I just called Lamar Alexander’s office and couldn’t get through in D.C. Are people ringing the phone off the wall on this?

pannw on May 19, 2011 at 9:47 AM

Don’t worry about Lamar. He always does what’s best for the country, except when he sells his vote for something like a new $6 billion uranium processing facility for Oak Ridge.

Alexander needs to go! He has been wreaking RINO havoc since the Nixon Administration.

flyfisher on May 19, 2011 at 9:57 AM

Del Dolemonte on May 19, 2011 at 9:38 AM

I wonder just how many ballot initiatives have been voided by courts.

flyfisher on May 19, 2011 at 9:44 AM

As far as MA goes:

Currently, the legislature is considering whether to submit a question to the voters that, if passed, would amend the state constitution to prohibit ballot initiatives dealing with the curtailment of “civil rights” or “matters of equal protection.” In the interim, should another ballot initiative seeking to ban same-sex marriages make its way to the voters, the soonest it could appear on the ballot is 2012.

Del Dolemonte on May 19, 2011 at 10:04 AM

Alexander needs to go! He has been wreaking RINO havoc since the Nixon Administration.

flyfisher on May 19, 2011 at 9:57 AM

He’s not so much of a RINO, but a corrupt-o-crat scumbag.

Jaibones on May 19, 2011 at 10:05 AM

Great post, but what’s with the pictue of Keven James?

iurockhead on May 19, 2011 at 10:10 AM

Seriously, how do you sleep at night get to work without hurting yourself?

crr6 on May 18, 2011 at 9:56 PM

Nitwit.

Jaibones on May 19, 2011 at 10:11 AM

Alexander needs to go! He has been wreaking RINO havoc since the Nixon Administration.

flyfisher on May 19, 2011 at 9:57 AM
He’s not so much of a RINO, but a corrupt-o-crat scumbag.

Jaibones on May 19, 2011 at 10:05 AM

Republican voters in TN are among the most conservative in the nation, yet the Howard Baker wing of the GOP continues to have a stranglehold on power. These guys run as conservatives, but carry the GOP establishment’s water in office.

flyfisher on May 19, 2011 at 10:13 AM

The Obama administration doesn’t care about the constitution. It’s a negative document, and an obstacle to all they want to do.

Ward Cleaver on May 19, 2011 at 10:14 AM

You couldn’t defeat it democratically, so you opted for the courts.

Hey, I have a great idea. Let’s dump this Constitution stuff and minority rights blather and just institute mob rule.

CJ on May 19, 2011 at 12:23 AM

PR and I have written about this before. There’s nothing wrong with challenging things in court if you have a good faith, non-frivolous argument. But that’s not the case here. Most of the arguments against the PPACA are borderline frivolous, and they’re certainly not in good faith. They’re not based on any broad principles and they have little to no basis in SCOTUS doctrine. They’re constructed ad hoc to strike down one law and one law only. It really is an abuse of the court process.

Even that doesn’t bother me that much, God nows federal court judges are used to hearing bizarre arguments and most of them know how to deal with them. But it’s not enough for you guys to gum up the courts with stupid litigation, you have to actually try to knock judges off the case because you’re frightened they won’t reach the “right” outcome.

Being that a strong majority despises this legislation in poll after poll, we actually sleep quite easily.

Chuck Schick on May 19, 2011 at 9:21 AM

Oh please. This has been debunked over and over again. Several polls show a plurality supporting it, and if you count those who wish the law had gone further (the Dennis Kucinich types) among the supporters you guys are in the clear minority.

crr6 on May 19, 2011 at 10:19 AM

Prediction: You guys will continue to use dishonest back-door tactics like this in an attempt to throw out the PPACA. You couldn’t defeat it democratically, so you opted for the courts. You can’t defeat it through the courts, either, so now you need to play cheap games like this to knock off judges you think won’t reach the “right” outcome.

Seriously, how do you sleep at night?

crr6 on May 18, 2011 at 9:56 PM

I just read the entire liberal playbook in one post!

search4truth on May 19, 2011 at 10:20 AM

oh, other than race baiting and character assassination. She left those out.

search4truth on May 19, 2011 at 10:22 AM

I will write this again. If you notice anything unconstitutional being a member of the House or Senate, DO something about it; not just say it is.

If a member of the press confirmes or tattle-tells that he has adviced POTUS on foreign policy matters, DO something about it; not just sweep it under the rug.

It’s like the game “Tag” where you freeze a person until that person is freed by a member of your team. Or you can barely stand still and get tired of the game.

Use social media, old fashioned snail mail, classic phones and faxes and follow through with your state rep. Lather, rinse, repeat, write the local and international newspapers.

I mean, MOVE, politicos! Ultimate ballz: Go on TV and call them on it-force the media to fold their cards live. Then listen to their comments afterwards.

Gotta love The Hemmer! Yesterday: “That guys’ gotta get a girlfriend-and a haircut!” re: the McDonald’s geeky eatin’ Big-Mac box collecting hoarder.

ProudPalinFan on May 19, 2011 at 10:27 AM

“I wonder if they know how compromised she is.”

Yes, but as stated, they don’t care.

locomotivebreath1901 on May 19, 2011 at 10:32 AM

So crr6, who has posted & run, what have you to say about this reality?
We have a few escaped nuggets of evidence that are very damning.

Badger40 on May 19, 2011 at 9:02 AM

1) What’s “damning”? No one seems to be able to take issue with my characterization of it…

So in sum, there’s absolutely zero evidence showing she crafted the legal defense, and zero hard evidence that she even so much as attended a meeting in connection with the litigation. And the only definitive statements are from Katyal, who said that Kagan was never involved. Got it.

Seriously, there’s absolutely nothing in there that would constitute a basis for her recusing herself. If you actually read all of the documents, you’d see that it appears she was aware she might be nominated fo SCOTUS in early March, and that the SG’s office began taking steps to wall her off from the matter. There’s actually circumstantial evidence she was aware of the recusal issue as early as January 2010, when she asked Katyal to attend meetings on behalf of the SG’s office on potential defenses of the statute.

There’s absolutely zero evidence she had any substantive involvement in the litigation, and all indications are that Katyal became the office’s “lead” on PPACA litigation.

And LOL at you saying there are only a “few escaped nuggets.” All of this stuff was voluntarily released by the SG and DOJ in response to a FOIA request, and there are pages and pages of documents. Yet you guys have absolutely no evidence that she had any real involvement in the matter.

Needless to say, that won’t stop you from whining about this for months on end. Oh, and of course you’ll claim that any SCOTUS decision upholding the mandate is illegitimate.

crr6 on May 19, 2011 at 10:35 AM

Most of the arguments against the PPACA are borderline frivolous, and they’re certainly not in good faith. They’re not based on any broad principles and they have little to no basis in SCOTUS doctrine.

This fight against Obamacare is all about core principles, just not principles important to liberals. An individual mandate is hostile to the principles of liberty.

You should write a book and call it The Audacity of B.S.

Or how about Fascist Propaganda for Postmodern Minds.

flyfisher on May 19, 2011 at 10:39 AM

Being that a strong majority despises this legislation in poll after poll, we actually sleep quite easily.

Chuck Schick on May 19, 2011 at 9:21 AM

Oh please. This has been debunked over and over again. Several polls show a plurality supporting it, and if you count those who wish the law had gone further (the Dennis Kucinich types) among the supporters you guys are in the clear minority.

crr6 on May 19, 2011 at 10:19 AM

OK, let’s look at the LATEST polling on Health Care. All cites from Polling Report. Thanks for playing!

George Washington University/Politico Battleground Poll conducted by the Tarrance Group (R) and Lake Research Partners (D). May 8-12, 2011. N=1,000 likely voters nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.1.

“Now, thinking about the health care reform law that was passed last year, do you favor or oppose repealing and replacing this national health care reform law?”

Favor repeal: 49%
Oppose repeal: 42%
Unsure: 9%

No “clear minority” on either side.

Quinnipiac University Poll. April 26-May 1, 2011. N=1,408 registered voters nationwide. Margin of error ± 2.6

“Do you think Congress should try to repeal the new health care law, or should they let it stand?”

Try to repeal: 44%
Let it stand: 45%

No “clear minority” on either side.

Kaiser Family Foundation Health Tracking Poll. April 7-12, 2011. N=1,207 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.

“As you may know, a health reform bill was signed into law early last year. Given what you know about the health reform law, do you have a generally favorable or generally unfavorable opinion of it?”
Options rotated

2010: “As you may know, a new health reform bill was signed into law earlier this year. Given what you know about the new health reform law, do you have a generally favorable or generally unfavorable opinion of it?”

Favorable: 41%
Unfavorable: 41%

Fox News Poll conducted by Anderson Robbins Research (D) and Shaw & Company Research (R). April 3-5, 2011. N=914 registered voters nationwide. Margin of error ± 3. 1/11 & earlier: Conducted by Opinion Dynamics Corp.

“Which one of the following comes closest to what you would like to see lawmakers do with the new health care law? Would you like lawmakers to repeal the law entirely, repeal parts of the law, expand the law, or leave it as is?”

Repeal entirely: 31%
Repeal parts: 29%
Expand: 18%
Leave as is: 16%

“Several court cases have challenged the new health care law. Some lower courts have ruled that the law is constitutional, while others have ruled that it is unconstitutional. If it were to go to the U.S. Supreme Court, how would you like the Court to rule? To uphold the new health care law as constitutional. To invalidate the health care law as unconstitutional.”

Uphold: 42%
Invalidate: 49%

And finally, the biased AP “poll”; remember that just last week they ran one that sampled twice as many Democrats as Republicans.

AP-GfK Poll conducted by GfK Roper Public Affairs & Corporate Communications. March 24-28, 2011. N=1,001 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 4.2. Trend includes surveys conducted with CNBC.

“And please tell me if you approve, disapprove or neither approve nor disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling each of the following issues. How about health care?” If unsure: “If you had to choose, do you lean more toward approving or disapproving of the way Barack Obama is handling health care?”

Approve: 52%
Disapprove: 48%

Del Dolemonte on May 19, 2011 at 10:40 AM

Most of the arguments against the PPACA Zerocare are borderline frivolous, and they’re certainly not in good faith.

crr6 on May 19, 2011 at 10:19 AM

FIFY

Did you just say that the Constitutional as well as the anti-Liberty implications of Zerocare are borderline frivolous?

Moreover, the apparent lack of impartiality and its potential damage to the Feral Government’s credibility isn’t any concern to you?

Chip on May 19, 2011 at 10:41 AM

There are few surprises from this administration.

It only gets worse.

TimBuk3 on May 19, 2011 at 10:48 AM

Documents reveal that Kagan may have helped craft legal defense of ObamaCare

So why did Obama make her the nominee?

And senators on her confirmation should have a legitimate excuse to retrack their affirmative vote, because she (and whatever dept prepared for her defense) did not reveal the full content of her involvement.

Sir Napsalot on May 19, 2011 at 10:53 AM

That SHOULD be:

Most of the arguments against the PPACA Unconstitutional Zerocare are borderline frivolous, and they’re certainly not in good faith.

crr6 on May 19, 2011 at 10:19 AM

FIFM

Chip on May 19, 2011 at 10:54 AM

Oh please. This has been debunked over and over again. Several polls show a plurality supporting it, and if you count those who wish the law had gone further (the Dennis Kucinich types) among the supporters you guys are in the clear minority.

crr6 on May 19, 2011 at 10:19 AM

When you’re at best pointing to a plurality in support, your argument that we’re in the clear minority needs a fairly large salt grain.

And to talk about how we can sleep because of our ethics in a discussion about the bill that was rushed through with reconciliation and closed door meetings… WTF.

Of course this is the piece of legislation so popular that the White House has lost count on all the waivers its given to those wanting out.

But you supposedly have your polls. Where are they? I actually looked, and here’s what I’ve found.

Gallup gives the plurality to those who favor repeal as recently as January.

Over a year ago, CNN’s poll, the same one where the majority claim to trust Obama more than anyone else to solve our biggest problems, has those same people opposing ObamaCare by 59% with only 39% in favor.

And CNN has an update to that story, explaining that things have only gotten worse for your side, but more than two links puts a comment in blog limbo, so if you need that link, I’ll post it later. Back in March, support was down to 37% with 59% still opposed.

Now, yes, it does mention that some people who oppose the bill do so only because it didn’t go far enough. That number is 13%, not even a majority if you were to disingenuously count them among the supporters (many who don’t think it went far enough, think the bill is completely inept without their revision and do not find it at all acceptable in its current form – to call them supporters is to pretend that the GOP supported Bush on immigration cause he pretended to build a fence). So even if we break them all down, we have 37% who favor the bill, 13% who think it didn’t go far enough, 43% who think it went too far, and an extra 3% who oppose it but not because it was too liberal or not liberal enough. Those truly in the minority are the far left, followed by those who still support the bill.

The way the CNN article puts it is that 50% oppose what the GOP is doing, and that’s entirely correct. However, 59%, for whatever reason, oppose what the Democrats have done, so please keep talking about how we’re the ones who are afraid of democracy here.

Esthier on May 19, 2011 at 11:07 AM

More polling for crr6′s edification. Enjoy!

Gallup Poll. March 18-19, 2011. N=1,038 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 4. Interviews conducted as part of Gallup Daily tracking.

“As you may know, a year ago, Congress passed a law that restructures the nation’s health care system. All in all, do you think it is a good thing or a bad thing that Congress passed this law?”

Good thing: 46%
Bad thing: 44%

Within the MOE.

CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. March 11-13, 2011. N=1,023 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.

“As you may know, a bill that makes major changes to the country’s health care system became law last year. Based on what you have read or heard about that legislation, do you generally favor or generally oppose it?”

Favor: 37%
Oppose: 59%

Bloomberg Poll conducted by Selzer & Company. March 4-7, 2011. N=1,001 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.1.

“Turning to the health care bill passed last year, what is your opinion of the bill? It should be repealed. We should see how it works. It should be left alone.”

Should be repealed: 41%
See how it works: 42%
Should be left alone: 12%

“Part of the law that has not yet taken effect is a requirement that every American have health insurance coverage or pay a penalty. This has been challenged in court. Do you favor or oppose this part of the health care law?”

Favor: 32%
Oppose: 65%

Del Dolemonte on May 19, 2011 at 11:27 AM

FIFY

Did you just say that the Constitutional as well as the anti-Liberty implications of Zerocare are borderline frivolous?

Moreover, the apparent lack of impartiality and its potential damage to the Feral Government’s credibility isn’t any concern to you?

Chip on May 19, 2011 at 10:41 AM

LOL. I love you Chip.

crr6 on May 19, 2011 at 11:31 AM

Polls from this week on O’bama Care:

Both polls below released on Monday, May 16

Rasmussen (a racist poll to be sure LOL)
Favor repeal: 55%
Oppose repeal: 38%

Politico/GWU/Battleground:
Favor repeal: 49%
Oppose repeal: 42%

Del Dolemonte on May 19, 2011 at 11:51 AM

Needless to say, that won’t stop you from whining about this for months on end. Oh, and of course you’ll claim that any SCOTUS decision upholding the mandate is illegitimate.

crr6 on May 19, 2011 at 10:35 AM

Yeah, I guess your side wouldn’t know anything about whining for months/years on end and claiming a SCOTUS decision/two-term presidency is illegitimate.

Esthier on May 19, 2011 at 11:52 AM

Remember, it is only a conflict of interest and unethical if a conservative does it…

JIMV on May 19, 2011 at 11:58 AM

Kagan will recuse herself. She has to.

Captain Kirock on May 19, 2011 at 12:28 AM

“Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can’t stop them from doing.” ~~ Joseph Heller, in Catch-22 (1961)

RedPepper on May 19, 2011 at 12:12 PM

The swamps drain is plugged and has been. Has anyone seen the Drano?

rjoco1 on May 19, 2011 at 12:22 PM

FIFY

Did you just say that the Constitutional as well as the anti-Liberty implications of Zerocare are borderline frivolous?

Moreover, the apparent lack of impartiality and its potential damage to the Feral Government’s credibility isn’t any concern to you?

Chip on May 19, 2011 at 10:41 AM

LOL. I love you Chip.

crr6 on May 19, 2011 at 11:31 AM

Well, I’m just speechless, I almost don’t know what to say ….. almost..

Actually, in all honesty, I like to think of you as a kid sister, ill informed and naive to the dangers of socialism but like a kid sister just the same.

You see, I have quite a few dear friends that most would consider Left of center and we get along famously, we just don’t talk politics.
Here, that is different, but I would like to think that you are like them in that they may be Left leaning, they still want the best for the country.

There seems to be two types of Leftists out there – those on the extreme Left (Socialists or Progressives or what have you) and those that are not. I would like to think of you in that second category.

By all indications, it would seem like the extreme-Left would like to destroy this great nation and replace it with a dysfunctional progressive third world state much like Cuba or Venezuela.

I would like to make it clear to you that many of the extreme-left’s ideas like Zerocare will serve to simply serve to quicken our eventual demise if we don’t Change course (one can only Hope on this).

Maybe your support for Zerocare springs from this ideal, or maybe it’s just that you want to support ‘Your side’ no matter what the cost. I would like to think this is the latter and not the former.

Thank you for your time.

Chip on May 19, 2011 at 12:24 PM

And one final poll cite, from Hooterville

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/30/healthplan_n_725503.html

Their most recent tracking had O’bama care ranked as follows:

Oppose the plan 47.4%
Favor the plan: 37.6%

Del Dolemonte on May 19, 2011 at 12:43 PM

Del Dolemonte on May 19, 2011 at 12:43 PM

FYI the url on my cite says “2009″ but the polling data is relatively up to date.

Del Dolemonte on May 19, 2011 at 12:53 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3