I'm sure all the justices will insist they have no personal biases. Of course, you can always appeal that to a higher court.

I bet that is how it plays out.

I don't know enough about the facts concerning either Kagan or Thomas, but it would probably be best if both recuse themselves. Otherwise, the losing side will say the outcome is tainted, which only erodes public confidence in the Supreme Court.

I fearlessly predict that the vote will be 6-3 in favor of the bill, so neither Kagan nor Thomas will be called upon to cast the deciding vote. Scalia is on record as supporting a broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause, so I say that he will break with his buddies on the right in this case. Roberts, Alito, and Thomas will vote against the bill. The other six will vote for it. That's my story and I sticking to it. So confident am I that I will wager a total of zero dollars on the outcome.

A SCOTUS vote for upholding the commerce bill will all having us all driving electric cars made by government motors. If the Commerce clause goes down the government then can force you to buy what they tell you to buy. Do you want to bring a child into this world and have them start paying for health insurance the day that they are born. Why gut health insurance and delivery to the elderly while covering the illegal aliens who pay nothing. Wow, this is a fair deal!

What :confused::confused:

I have nothing to gain or lose by anything in this bill... I'm not an American, but I would bet that if you looked at the trust stock protfolios that they're beneficiary to, the 2 judges talked about have something to gain in their ruling... Any investment in the insurance industry should be suspect...

Can the Federal government make you buy health insurance? Well, they have been doing it since about 1798 or so. Read up on a law titled 'An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seaman' and see what you think.

The current HCA has been said to be, by some anyway, against what the Founding Fathers would have allowed. Since the 'Act' from 1798 was passed when most of those voting to enact it into law were the Founding Fathers if you are wondering what their views on government run health care were then all you have to do is read up on the Act.

The State of Florida took this Act to court and lost, and this law has been on the books ever since.

I guess you could buy health insurance on a child from the day they were born if you wanted to, but I cannot understand why anyone would.

Under the HCA they are covered on their parents' or guardians' insurance until they are 25 years of age.

No government can tell you which brand of car to buy, but they can tell you what type of safety features it will have on it and what type of fuel it can burn. It is all a part of that 'promote the general welfare' stuff.

The government can indeed require you to buy insurance. It already does, it's called "Social Security INSURANCE" which is actually originally titled "Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance". Everyone has to buy it, whether they like or not.

I'm not sure I understand the statement, since quite a few parents immediately have coverage for newborns through their existing health insurance coverage. Coverage for infants and children is nearly a necessity since their use of medical services is fairly high during their early life.

Was your wife teaching in the same district you were a board member for? If so, that's interesting. Illegal in AZ. One of our few good laws. :D

Actually ... there are ways to avoid social security payments.

Yes.

It's not the product of a private company.

Is that true?
Are people that do not work forced to contribute to it?

I took a closer look at the email exchange that Fox is citing in support of their effort to get Kagan to recuse herself. If that's all there is, then I say baloney, there is no basis for her to recuse herself. She received an email from Professor Tribe in which he expressed his optimism that the health care bill would pass. She expressed no preference one way or the other, but simply said, "I hear they have the votes Larry!! Simply amazing..." http://cnsnews.com/sites/default/files/documents/TRIBE-KAGAN%20EMAIL%20EXCHANGE-03-21-10.pdf

Is that it? That's the basis for recusal? If so, then I say baloney to the calls for recusal. Here's the relevant statute:If that email is enough to disqualify Kagen, then all nine of the justices should have been disqualified in Bush v. Gore. I can't believe that's what the law requires.

All Kagan did was express amazement that Obama/Pelosi/Reid were able to get the votes. I don't see how anyone could really disagree with that statement. It was amazing, especially in the House. Pelosi further cemented herself in history with that one.