The U.S. Supreme Court will begin hearing arguments in NFIB vs. Sebelius, the cardinal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, also known as ObamaCare, on Monday, March 26th. As an indication of its importance, the Justices have allotted six hours for arguments— the most time granted in any case since Brown vs. Board of Education.

1) The American ideal of freedom

2) The freedom to purchase whatever product you want with your own money

 

3) The right to own and operate your small business

 

4) The power to decide what is medically best for our families and businesses

5) The economic future of this country

 

Top 5 Freedoms At Stake If ObamaCare Is Upheld | Fox News

I only wonder if the government picks my doctor for me, will it be same one the Obama girls have?

 

Should I be allowed to pick and choose my dr?

Should I have better health care than a person on welfare since I pay more in taxes?

Will illegal immigrants get,free health care?

I get her points but she's off on a few things. Americans for the most part are required to buy auto insurance. Sure they can not own a car to avoid it but that's not really an option for many. We are already forced into a retirement program which is really another taxpayer funded welfare program. This is not groundbreaking, it's just another step down the slippery slope.

When you believe in the Welfare State you want everyone to be on Welfare and beholding to the government. Everyone knows this will destroy company provided insurance. While not perfect by any means it mostly works - or did. Companies will dump this benefit and eventually force everyone to get 'government provided' insurance.

 

It does not take a crown or a dictator to impose tyranny. Tyranny can be implemented by the elected members of a constitutional republic as well. The fact that deals to get this done were done behind closed doors and the votes occurred in the middle of the night are telling on this. No other piece of social engineering legislation was ever done in this manner in such a heavy handed manner.

Kagan:

 

Kagan Health Care | Kagan, Thomas pressed to stay out of healthcare fight - Los Angeles Times

“The DOJ documents that have been made public show that Kagan was personally involved in advising how to defend against challenges to” the healthcare law, said Edward Whelan, president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center and a former clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia. “Federal law requires recusal when a judge previously served as a government lawyer on the matter.”

 

The Obama administration has insisted that it walled off Kagan from any deliberations on healthcare strategy, but Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, said that’s part of the issue.

 

 

Emphasis added.

 

Nothing to worry about.

Kagan:

 

Kagan Health Care | Kagan, Thomas pressed to stay out of healthcare fight - Los Angeles Times

 

 

Emphasis added.

 

Nothing to worry about.

 

In my opinion, Kagan has to recuse herself. She was an active advocate of the law and played as best (for her position) a minimum role, and at worst a bigger role.

 

As for Thomas, I think he should step down but doesn't have to. With him, it's the appearance of bias that is concerning. The fact that his wife has been an advocate for repeal is not as compelling to me. Henry and I regularly see issues differently and it would be foolish to presume that just because Henry is opposed to something, then I am also.

In my opinion, Kagan has to recuse herself. She was an active advocate of the law and played as best (for her position) a minimum role, and at worst a bigger role.

 

As for Thomas, I think he should step down but doesn't have to. With him, it's the appearance of bias that is concerning. The fact that his wife has been an advocate for repeal is not as compelling to me. Henry and I regularly see issues differently and it would be foolish to presume that just because Henry is opposed to something, then I am also.

 

Not if Henry had a lot of household income coming in on her side of the issue. This view is at best a partisan rationalization or at worse pollyannish. I don't have a problem if they both stay or both recuse themselves but in no way IMO can it be argued that one should stay and the other not.

In my opinion, Kagan has to recuse herself. She was an active advocate of the law and played as best (for her position) a minimum role, and at worst a bigger role.

 

As for Thomas, I think he should step down but doesn't have to. With him, it's the appearance of bias that is concerning. The fact that his wife has been an advocate for repeal is not as compelling to me. Henry and I regularly see issues differently and it would be foolish to presume that just because Henry is opposed to something, then I am also.

 

Actually I thought all the recuse decisions were already made and the rosters were set.

 

But just to churn the butter a little bit more....

 

HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor hanging out at Restaurant Nora in Washington DC : Fire Andrea Mitchell!

 

Sotomayor and HHS secretary Sebelius at the same somewhat out of the way restaurant during the proceedings...

 

It is Washington's 'first organic' restaurant. 'Organic' may be an alternate polite description for this matter!

From the sounds of CNN reports, ObamaCare may not survive these hearings.

 

Have a hard time picturing this being overturned and President Obama getting re-elected. :idunno:

Not if Henry had a lot of household income coming in on her side of the issue. This view is at best a partisan rationalization or at worse pollyannish. I don't have a problem if they both stay or both recuse themselves but in no way IMO can it be argued that one should stay and the other not.

 

Hogwash. My wife's beliefs, even if it brings her income, do not govern mine. You may be different. and if so, that's your situation. But don't dare tell me that my wife's income will dictate my beliefs, as to do so questions my integrity to the core.

Actually I thought all the recuse decisions were already made and the rosters were set.

 

But just to churn the butter a little bit more....

 

HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor hanging out at Restaurant Nora in Washington DC : Fire Andrea Mitchell!

 

Sotomayor and HHS secretary Sebelius at the same somewhat out of the way restaurant during the proceedings...

 

It is Washington's 'first organic' restaurant. 'Organic' may be an alternate polite description for this matter!

 

I think a Justice can recuse her/himself at any time prior to a decision being rendered.

From the sounds of CNN reports, ObamaCare may not survive these hearings.

 

Have a hard time picturing this being overturned and President Obama getting re-elected. :idunno:

 

As many people as will be pleased if it's overturned, there will be plenty of people that will then people that can point to it and say "Look, all those Republican appointed judges are still out to make sure only rich people can get good health care." This is pretty entrenched and the spin will come so fast it's going to make our heads... well... spin.

Hogwash. My wife's beliefs, even if it brings her income, do not govern mine. You may be different. and if so, that's your situation. But don't dare tell me that my wife's income will dictate my beliefs, as to do so questions my integrity to the core.

 

I'm sorry and I certainly don't want to question anyones integrity but I have a very difficult time believing that statment. If money doesn't buy influence then Mrs. Thomas wouldn't be paid for her "advocacy". If she wanted to advocate do it for free and no one can object, take money for it to pool with your husband and it's influence buying.

I'm sorry and I certainly don't want to question anyones integrity but I have a very difficult time believing that statment. If money doesn't buy influence then Mrs. Thomas wouldn't be paid for her "advocacy". If she wanted to advocate do it for free and no one can object, take money for it to pool with your husband and it's influence buying.

 

That's not true at all.

 

Most relationships don't involve one spouse forcing their political beliefs on the other.

That's not true at all.

 

Most relationships don't involve one spouse forcing their political beliefs on the other.

 

I disagree, especially when money is involved to increase that influence. I bet neither you or LN would publically go against your spouses employer, at least if you are depending on their income.