JW Takes Two Key Actions in the Battle against Obamacare on Eve of Supreme Court Oral Arguments

From Judicial Watch:

JW Takes Two Key Actions in the Battle against Obamacare on Eve of Supreme Court Oral Arguments Judicial Watch took two significant actions this week on Obamacare, just days before the United States Supreme Court hears oral arguments in a consolidated Obamacare lawsuit.  First, there is the matter of Justice Kagan and any role she may have had in crafting Obamacare's legal defense when she served as Obama's Solicitor General. The evidence uncovered by Judicial Watch seems to contradict the Obama administration's claim that Justice Kagan was "walled off" from these discussions. On the basis of our discoveries, many have called on Justice Kagan to recuse herself from hearing the lawsuit. On Thursday, I sent a letter on behalf of Judicial Watch directly to Justice Kagan.  The letter respectfully asks that she disclose the facts and legal analysis surrounding any recusal decision she has made on Obamacare so that the American people can have absolute confidence in the fair administration of justice in this historic Supreme Court litigation. The following are key excerpts from the Judicial Watch letter, which you can read in full here:

 

"The failure of the Justice department to produce requested records in a timely manner, the dribbling out of requested records over time, the redaction and withholding of other records, and the refusal to respond to requests for records and information from several members of Congress have contributed to the substantial impression that additional details about your tenure as Solicitor General and the enactment and subsequent legal defense of the PPACA [Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act] are being withheld from the American people. However, the Court ultimately rules on the various legal challenges to the PPACA, it would be extraordinarily unfortunate if the Court's decision were overshadowed by controversy over your participation in the matter. It would leave a cloud hanging over the Court's decision and could undermine public confidence in the impartiality and integrity of the Court as an institution."

Corruption Chronicles Billions To Fight Global Warming In Poor Countries -- March 23, 2012 U.S. Gives Leftist Groups $42 Mil For Housing Counseling -- March 23, 2012 Race-Hustling Anti-Semite Running Obama DOJ -- March 21, 2012 Malia Obama Vacations In Mexico With 25 Secret Service Agents -- March 20, 2012 Mexican Drug Lord Freed After Pledging To Cooperate, Keep In Touch -- March 19, 2012

"Judicial Watch is not calling on you to recuse yourself from the PPACA litigation at this time, just as Judicial Watch did not call on Justice Scalia to recuse himself from the litigation involving the National Energy Policy Development Group ('NEPDG') - to which Judicial Watch was a party - in 2004.  When a controversy arose during the course of the NEPDG litigation over whether Justice Scalia should recuse himself from that matter, Justice Scalia issued an opinion stating: 'The decision whether a judge's impartiality can "reasonably be questioned" is to be made in light of the facts as they existed, and not as they were surmised or reported.' Justice Scalia then provided a comprehensive recitation of the facts 'as they existed,' not as they were 'surmised or reported,' and an articulation of the reasoning behind his decision not to recuse himself." "During your confirmation process, you wrote that you would 'consider carefully the recusal practices of current and past Justices' as well as consult with your colleagues if questions about recusal in particular cases arose.  Judicial Watch believes that it would be of substantial benefit to the Court's consideration of the legal challenges to the PPACA if, like Justice Scalia in the NEPDG matter, you were to address the facts surrounding your tenure as Solicitor General and the enactment and subsequent legal defense of the PPACA as they 'existed,' not as they are being 'surmised or reported,' as well as provide an articulation of your reasoning behind any decision regarding recusal." Second, on Thursday we hosted an educational panel/press event at Judicial Watch's headquarters, entitled, "Obamacare Update:  In the Courts and In Practice." This panel contemplated the major legal and logistical problems with Obamacare, specifically the so-called "individual mandate," which would require American citizens to buy healthcare insurance or pay a fine.  Not to overstate it, but the panel was great. Our event included top experts on the issue, including former Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum; Betsy McCaughey, President of Defend Your Healthcare, former Lieutenant Governor of New York; and Lee A. Casey, Partner at Baker Hostetler. (Unfortunately, South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson, who was scheduled for the panel, could not attend because his plane was waylaid by fog.)  These three individuals are leaders in the push to put Obamacare back on its heels.  Here's a squib from my opening remarks.  (You can watch the panel in full here.) Tomorrow marks the second anniversary of the imposition of Obamacare on the American people. And next week we will hear historic constitutional challenges to Obamacare, otherwise known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.  Obamacare is an unprecedented government power grab and is a fundamental threat to our nation's constitutional order. The challenges being next week by the High Court seek to vindicate federalism, individual liberty, and limited, constitutional government. Many Americans (including, thankfully, some federal court judges) simply reject the notion that the federal government can, for example, force Americans to buy health insurance.  As U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson, who ruled against the individual mandate, wrote:  It is difficult to imagine that a nation which began, at least in part, as the result of opposition to a British mandate giving the East India Company a monopoly and imposing a nominal tax on all tea sold in America would have set out to create a government with the power to force people to buy tea in the first place. If Congress can penalize a passive individual for failing to engage in commerce, the enumeration of powers in the Constitution would have been in vain for it would be "difficult to perceive any limitation on federal power" [Lopez, supra, 514 U.S. at 564], and we would have a Constitution in name only. Surely this is not what the Founding Fathers could have intended. "A Constitution in name only." Well the Founding Fathers didn't intend that, but "a Constitution in name only" is but one of the awful possible outcomes if the Obamacare constitutional court challenges don't succeed.  But in the meantime the crisis is ongoing: from the corruption of Obamacare's passing -- remember the Cornhusker Kickback -- to the controversy of its implementation, which has seen a vicious attack on the church, waivers to Obama campaign supporters, and taxpayer-funded propaganda (starring Andy Griffith). And don't even get me started on its $2 trillion in costs and regulatory webs beyond comprehension. I realize I've dedicated quite a bit of space to Obamacare this week. This upcoming decision by the Supreme Court can either reaffirm limited, constitutional government or completely untether federal power from any practical limits on its authority to regulate America. It's that important.  The briefs are in, including our amicus brief, and the arguments will be heard.  Let's pray that a majority of the justices are blessed with the wisdom, discernment, and courage to rule in a way that protects our republican form of government.  Today marks Obamacare's second birthday.  Whatever the High Court decides, let's work to make sure that Obamacare doesn't see a third.