With the chances steadily increasing on nearly a daily basis that the Supreme Court will eventually be taking up the constitutionality issue of “Obamacare,” the battle lines have now officially begun to be drawn for the political battle that looms just over the horizon. So far there have been two rulings that have come out in favor of this law and tow that have shot down all or part of it. You can pretty much guess the political persuasion of the respective judges. So, at the present time the focus of this first assault is based on the concern of Liberal Democrats over whether a conservative justice should now recuse himself from what is very likely to be a high-profile case that may very well determine the fate of Barry's signature piece of legislation. This is nothing more than the grabbing of straws by corrupt members of a corrupt political party. It makes very clear the fact that they are all very well aware that this disastrous piece of this legislation does nothing of what they have claimed it would do before, during and even after a rather unethical legislative process that resulted in it being successfully rammed down the throats of the American people. So they are now jockeying for the best position possible to thwart any attempt that may be successfully mounted in an effort to have this debacle of "Obamacare" declared unconstitutional, thus rescuing the American people from this insidious form government intrusion into the private lives of every single American citizen.
So it is then that seventy-four stellar House Democrats, led by that ardent protector of the little people, New York Rep. Anthony "Oscar Mayer" Weiner, have sent a letter to Justice Clarence Thomas with the subject being their collective call for him to sit out of any deliberations regarding the "Affordable Care Act," otherwise known as “Obamacare.” Their rationale for such a cockamamie idea is based on his wife's ties to a lobbying group that opposes the health care law. A copy of this idiotic letter, in its entirety, along with the list of pathetic hypocrites who signed onto it, is located at the bottom of this post. But in his letter Mr. Weiner states, "The appearance of a conflict of interest merits recusal under federal law," the letter said. "From what we have already seen, the line between your impartiality and you and your wife's financial stake in the overturn of healthcare reform is blurred." Justice Thomas' wife, Virginia Thomas, founded the conservative group Liberty Central, but stepped down in December amid controversy over a memo under her name calling for the repeal of the "unconstitutional law." The group, which later took down the memo from its site, blamed staff error and said it "assiduously avoids" taking positions on the constitutionality of specific issues. Now this memo seems to have become the basis for the letter sponsored by Mr. Weiner and his cadre of imbeciles hoping that it will cause enough of a stir to put sufficient pressure on Justice Thomas that would then cause him to remove himself from the deliberation of an issue that is sure to come before the Court. Let's all hope that that doesn't happen.
Under federal law, justices have to recuse themselves from cases where they feel that a conflict of interest may arise, or if their spouses have a financial stake in the case, but the decision ultimately rests with each justice. "It's up to the individual justice to determine whether he believes that, in fact or appearance, there's sufficient concern about his impartiality to make recusal appropriate," said Deborah L. Rhode, a legal ethics scholar and professor of law at Stanford University. "So he [Thomas] should be considering whether he believes he can act in a disinterested manner, but also the court's credibility with the public, and will Americans, who may differ with him... believes he comes to the table with an unbiased view." This faux outrage on the part of Weiner and his 73 fellow signatories of this letter, is nothing more than a childish ploy on the part of those who are desperate to keep this fraudulent legislation, that has essentially the wet dream of liberals for 100 years, firmly on the books. They're being able to control the healthcare of every single American is seen as being the ultimate power to these political charlatans and as the keystone to the Democrats ability to maintain their grip on power. I mean, what better way is there for them to convince people of the wisdom in voting for Democrats than the threat to remove the ability of the people to obtain healthcare for themselves and their families for failing to do so. That's why is there is absolutely nothing that these hacks will do in their efforts to keep what they see as being something that they have worked so hard for.
While it's not uncommon for justices to recuse themselves, there has been no case in recent history in which a justice has stepped aside because of a spouse-related conflict of interest. But as the makeup of the Supreme Court changes, spousal connections are increasingly coming under scrutiny. Especially coming from the left and directed at the more conservative members of the Court. That's how Liberals see themselves as needing to play the game. All is fair when it comes to taking whatever steps they see as being necessary in order to successfully advance their extremely toxic agenda. Justice Thomas, who has been on the Supreme Court since 1991, came under heavy criticism last month after reports emerged that he omitted his wife's place of employment in his financial disclosure forms. Justice Ruth "Buzzy" Ginsburg took similar heat several years ago for failing to disclose her husband's holdings in her financial disclosure forms. Ginsburg, an 18-year veteran of the Supreme Court, has faced criticism in the past for not recusing herself from cases involving companies her husband, a tax attorney, has invested in. But according to liberals there's really nothing wrong with old "Buzzy" not recusing herself, because as we all know, we can always trust liberals to be above reproach and we should never question when they tell us that they have no problem when it comes to being totally impartial. The only ones that cannot be trusted are those shifty conservatives. It's those people that we have to watch out for.
Senator Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, has also questioned the appropriateness of Justice Elena Kagan, a former member of President Obama's administration, having any involvement in a potential court case that most assuredly is going to end up before the Supreme Court. "I personally believe she should recuse herself. I'm sure she participated in discussions at the White House. Participated in discussions in the solicitor general's office. These issues were brought up throughout the process," Hatch has said in an interview on Fox News. "That's going to be up to her what she does." Kagan has recused herself from several cases since she was appointed to the Supreme Court last August. Ms. Rhode says in a case of this magnitude, all justices -- whether conservative or liberal -- will need to look closely at their records, as the credibility of the Supreme Court could be affected for years to come. That sentiment of course, most likely, is coming from a devout liberal in a statement regarding the importance, even necessity, of a conservative justice volunteering to take himself out of the game for a reason that has absolute no basis in reality. But then as we all know, Liberal Democrats have a rather difficult time when it comes having to deal with reality, especially if it runs contrary to the rather twisted "progressive" philosophy.
"In a case of this enormous national importance where you're already going to have public concerns about ideological concerns," she said, "you want to be particularly careful that there's no possible personal interest that could be attributed to the justice that might interfere with an objective appraisal." It remains unclear when the Supreme Court will take up the health care case, although experts say it could come within the next year. So from the Democrats point of view, there is not a second to waste regarding the formulation of any number of plans that can be put into action that have as their primary purpose attempts to derail, distract, stall or prevent entirely any attempt to get this issue before the Court as expeditiously or of that fails to somehow sway the court just enough to increase their odds of getting the decision that they need in order to keep this oppressive law firmly in place.
The Honorable Justice Clarence Thomas
United States Supreme Court Building
1 First Street Northeast
Washington, D.C. 20543
Dear Justice Thomas:
As an Associate Justice, you are entrusted with the responsibility to exercise the highest degree of discretion and impartiality when deciding a case. As Members of Congress, we were surprised by recent revelations of your financial ties to leading organizations dedicated to lobbying against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. We write today to respectfully ask that you maintain the integrity of this court and recuse yourself from any deliberations on the constitutionality of this act.
The appearance of a conflict of interest merits recusal under federal law. From what we have already seen, the line between your impartiality and you and your wife's financial stake in the overturn of health care reform is blurred. Your spouse is advertising herself as a lobbyist who has “experience and connections” and appeals to clients who want a particular decision - they want to overturn health care reform. Moreover, your failure to disclose Ginny Thomas’s receipt of $686,589 from the Heritage Foundation, a prominent opponent of health care reform, between 2003 and 2007 has raised great concern.
This is not the first case where your impartiality was in question. As Common Cause points out, you “participated in secretive political strategy sessions, perhaps while the case was pending, with corporate leaders whose political aims were advanced by the [5-4] decision” on the Citizens United case. Your spouse also received an undisclosed salary paid for by undisclosed donors as CEO of Liberty Central, a 501(c)(4) organization that stood to benefit from the decision and played an active role in the 2010 elections.
Given these facts, there is a strong conflict between the Thomas household’s financial gain through your spouse’s activities and your role as a Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. We urge you to recuse yourself from this case. If the U.S. Supreme Court's decision is to be viewed as legitimate by the American people, this is the only correct path.
We appreciate your thoughtful consideration of this request.
Sincerely,
ANTHONY D. WEINER
Member of Congress
The group of those who signed Mr. Weiner's letter is a regular Rogue's Gallery that includes such notable political deviants as: Reps. Al Green, EB Johnson, Wm. Lacy Clay, Carnahan, Sheila Jackson-Lee, Karen Bass, Neal, Welch, Chu, Yarmuth, Sutton, Perlmutter, Connolly, Kucinich, Meeks, Schwartz, Doggett, Moore, Polis, Waters, Payne, Rush, Cohen, Crowley, Engel, Cicilline, Susan Davis, Sires, Doyle, Slaughter, McDermott, Velazquez, Garamendi, Carson, Capuano, Berkley, Wasserman Schultz, Tim Bishop, Barbara Lee, Courtney, DeLauro, Conyers, John Larson, George Miller, Boswell, Edwards, Capps, Becerra, Deutch, Israel, Owens, Richardson, Clarke, Hirono, Ackerman, Ellison, Grijalva, Chris Murphy, Woolsey, DeFazio, Jesse Jackson Jr, Reyes, Maloney, Andrews, Pascrell, Filner, Tonko, Fudge, Hinchey, Honda, Eshoo, Pallone, and Stark.
No comments:
Post a Comment