The Supreme Court and Healthcare Mandates

[Momo]

Maybe they thought it was both but argued in hopes that it would be ruled as the lesser of 2 evils (fee/ fine over tax).

[BonBon]

Frankly, I always feel lied to. I feel lied to now, and I felt lied to about Bush's WMD, his aircraft carrier landing declaring that the war was over/done/whatever when it really wasn't.

[BonBon]

This is a tangent, but related. Is no one troubled by government subsidies to incentivise (is that a word?) corporate farms to produce massive quantities of corn, wheat, and soy? Because so much is produced, these crops are extremely cheap and make up the bulk of processed foods. These "foods" are very inflammatory and are the root cause of most of our health ills. Obesity, heart disease, etc. So we're paying taxes to subsidize these extremely unhealthy food products, and now we have obamacare to try to clean up the mess caused by said products. You better believe it pisses me off.

[diggitydot]

I have a teenager. I always feel like someone is lying to me. And I'm a cynic.

I take HUGE issue with big ag. Not only because of what is produced, but also because of the socioeconomic and environmental damage, too.

[niener]

Honestly I just try not to think about it too much. Divisive politics, big ag, taxes to fund failed programs, public ed, "middle" class -- there's too much that's fucked up, and if I think about it too hard I turn into a white hot ball of fury and my hair starts falling out. Seriously. This two party system, them vs. them, just isn't working for me.

It sounds like the Supreme Court functioned the way it's supposed to and I'm always pleased to see any part of our government doing it's job well so kudos to them for that.

[Cinderella]

On some online democrat areas I've read they're calling to impeach Scalia after this week. Is that even possible?

[GrayMatterWife]

That is completely idiotic. A justice can be impeached, but not for being rude, terse, or abrupt. Or speaking the truth.

[scrub-jay]

That is completely idiotic. A justice can be impeached, but not for being rude, terse, or abrupt. Or speaking the truth.

Or making a decision that one does not agree with. This is absurd.

[diggitydot]

There has been talk for years about impeaching Thomas for failing to disclose his wife's income and employment information for years (during which time she was actively employed by political organizations) , but none of the Scalia scuttlebutt seems to be anything more than "he's a dick" or "I don't agree" reasoning.

[Cinderella]

They're also talking about Thomas. I was kind of surprised because the comment was coming from a former Congressman of Oregon. His page is open to the public: Link Do Cntl + F and search Scalia and you'll see he posted an article and comments he should be impeached. There are about 40 comments and 65 likes on the thread.

[GrayMatterWife]

It doesn't matter of the entire Facebook community wants his ass in a sling. It is a bunch of people who have zero idea what they are talking about. It is just idiotic.

I find it humorous that people think that Jenny Thomas's profession is a reason for Thomas to have recused. Under the federal recusal statute (which is what actually matters), it was absolutely not necessary. And Judge are required to preside, unless they must recuse. The whole thing was silly: he should recuse because his wife has an opinion? Spouses of judges are considered separate human beings from the judge. They are allowed to have opinions. They are allowed to voice them. Even if it about a political matter. Could you imagine what would happen if a female justice was being asked to recuse because her husband had an opinion? Talk about sexism--that just screams "her mind is made up because hubbie told her how to think."

Now, whether Kagan should have recused herself--a woman who was actually involved with the drafting of the bill and advocates its creation--seems like a much closer call. But, Chief Justice Roberts in fact reviewed the issue and commented that it was proper for her to reside. He may know something about her ability to be impartial that the rest of us don't. I would take his determination as the proper authority on the matter.

[diggitydot]

Nothing I've read has been about whether or not Thomas should have recused himself, just that didn't fill out required information about Ginny's employment and compensation. I think it was probably forms used to help determine the necessity for recusal, but whether he should or shouldn't have been recused didn't seem to be the issue. If I recall the article correctly, he didn't include her information for a VERY long time on forms that specifically asked and it was done in a way that kind of smacked of trying to "hide" her activities. Which seems stupid, because DC isn't a big town and people would definitely know what a SC justice's spouse does for a living.

[GrayMatterWife]

People were screaming on both sides for recusals. Well, let me rephrase: a bunch of self-interested talking heads were screaming for recusal. The parties (the only ones with standing to seek recusal) did not ask for recusal, of either justice. And I think that was a good thing.

In his defense, those forms are a freaking nightmare. I've had to help prepare those for judges (you had to update and so forth). Every.single.time we complete them, they get returned for more info and gaps.

[diggitydot]

Unless there's some serious misconduct, I think impeachment talk is ridic.