# Handicap PPACA/Obamcare in the SCOTUS **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 5, 2011, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handicap-ppaca-obamcare-in-the-scotus/570306 "2011-02-05T20:09:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2011, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handicap-ppaca-obamcare-in-the-scotus/570306/61 "2011-02-10T14:58:15Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > I think we can all agree that none of the judges _are_ recusing themselves, regardless of whether or not they _should._ > [@yorick73](#): > > Agreed. Apparently, I was wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2011, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handicap-ppaca-obamcare-in-the-scotus/570306/62 "2011-02-10T15:16:16Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > And should Judge Reinhardt also have recused himself in the same-sex marriage case - he being the actual author of the opinion I posted? > [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > Sure. Well, I disagree; I think Reinhardt’s opinion was quite convincing. But I admire your consistency. ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2011, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handicap-ppaca-obamcare-in-the-scotus/570306/63 "2011-02-10T18:21:00Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > And you are \*refusing \*to suspect that. Why? So, no evidence whatsoever of any impropriety and you wonder **why** we aren’t questioning the wrongdoing so evident to you and the progressive caucus. Oh, except not even the progressive caucus suggested that there was any impropriety. > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Why do you think so? Remember that you didn’t even know she had the position until a day or so ago. Um…because it is her job. She has been working for one of the three branches that her husband does not work for, off and on, since the early 80’s. She had a career inside the beltway before she and her husband even knew each other. She has worked for Heritage and started a lobbying group. I’m sure you are aware that justices are not lobbied. There is zero to suggest that Liberty Central is trying to influence any court and even less evidence that Justice Thomas has been compensated for any vote. That’s quite a limb you find yourself out on there. > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > You’ve already been told where that income comes from, and why. As Ann Landers used to say, “Wake up and smell the coffee, Buttercup.” Yes, and neither have anything to do with influencing her husband’s vote. > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > If you have any basis whatsoever outside partisanship to think so, then tell us. If you think political views have no role in a lawmaking organization like the Supreme Court, then that’s just silly. Do you have any basis outside partisanship to suggest that anything justice Thomas has done is improper? If anything you are being _hyper_partisan. Kagan, admittedly, sat in on at least one meeting concerning health care legislation as Solicitor General. Now, compare that to the wild conspiracy theories you are spinning. Sure, it’s possible she just sat in a corner and took notes. Anybody with half a brain would think she was probably involved in molding the legislation or, at the very least, commenting on the constitutionality of certain provisions. Either case should result in a recusal. Of course we will never know what her role was in those meetings. > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > You now know that she did not. What is your problem? No, but apparently you do. Cite? > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Clear, direct financial interest is a “whiff of impropriety”, and hypothetical political leanings are comparable? Take off the partisan blinders - you’re fooling no one. There is nothing clear or direct about the conspiracy theory you propose. Hypothetical political leanings have nothing to do with this…every justice would have to recuse him/herself if that was the case. The problem is that you are trying to hold the spouse of a Justice to standards that are higher than for the Justices themselves. You should read over the codes of conduct for US judges. Pay special attention to the definition of financial interest. [http://www.uscourts.gov/Viewer.aspx?doc=/uscourts/RulesAndPolicies/conduct/Vol02A-Ch02.pdf](http://www.uscourts.gov/Viewer.aspx?doc=/uscourts/RulesAndPolicies/conduct/Vol02A-Ch02.pdf) (pdf warning) ---
**Author:** ![WreckingCrew](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wreckingcrew/32/4080_2.png) [@WreckingCrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WreckingCrew)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2011, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handicap-ppaca-obamcare-in-the-scotus/570306/64 "2011-02-10T18:43:55Z")
I got nothing to add, except that the first time through I was wondering why the delightful star of “Fast Times as Ridgemont High” kept coming up in a discussion of judicial recusal. > **[Judge Reinhold](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judge_Reinhold)** > > Edward Ernest "Judge" Reinhold Jr. (born May 21, 1957) is an American actor who is best known for his work in Hollywood films during the 1980's. He has starred in several popular films such as Stripes (1981), Fast Times at Ridgemont High (1982), Gremlins (1984) and Ruthless People (1986). He has co-starred in all of the films in the Beverly Hills Cop (1984, 1987, and 1994) and The Santa Clause franchises (1994, 2002 and 2006). > Reinhold was born in Wilmington, Delaware, the son of Regina Celeste ... ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2011, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handicap-ppaca-obamcare-in-the-scotus/570306/65 "2011-02-10T23:25:38Z")
**yorick** , you’re simply amazing. I’ll just leave it at that; no point in trying further. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2011, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handicap-ppaca-obamcare-in-the-scotus/570306/66 "2011-02-11T00:27:04Z")
The thing is that we know how Thomas will vote whether his wife works where she does or works at a Strip Club off of DuPont Circle. And we know how Kagan will vote whether she did or did not offer legal advice/opinions on the Health Care bill. Can’t we just recognize that is an attempt by partisans on each side to knock off a potentially deciding vote? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2011, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handicap-ppaca-obamcare-in-the-scotus/570306/67 "2011-02-11T00:29:49Z")
If we can also recognize that you’re indulging in false equivalence. ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2011, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handicap-ppaca-obamcare-in-the-scotus/570306/68 "2011-02-11T01:55:55Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > **yorick** , you’re simply amazing. I’ll just leave it at that; no point in trying further. Great argument as usual. I understand how frustrating it can be when people don’t buy the BS you are peddling. Better to just pretend it’s not worth the effort… ---
**Author:** ![China\_Guy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/779978/32.png) [@China\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/China_Guy)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2011, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handicap-ppaca-obamcare-in-the-scotus/570306/69 "2011-02-12T01:42:53Z")
No one is denying that Judge Thomas has a right leaning conservative viewpoint and that’s part of the way he makes his decisions. The same holds for the left leaning Kagan. The issue is impropriety or the appearance thereof. I personally think that Supreme Court Justices should be held to the highest level. Supreme Court Justices basically get a salary of $200k plus benefits. They also get very generous retirement benefits. While comfortable, this isn’t quite in the “fuck you” money league. And it’s not like what a senior partner in a high profile firm would get. Judge Thomas’ wife gets a $500k donation to set up her own non-profit and per IRS guidelines can basically pay herself whatever she wants. You do not see the potential conflict of interest? Or how John Q Public might think that this calls into question whether or not said judge is fair? Do you think it would be ok for Michele Obama to collect millions in healthcare donations and set up a non profit for herself? I mean she was a high powered hospital executive that could legitimately consult. Or I’m sure you can paint a much more questionable scenario. But I think that would be legal. Is that OK? ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2011, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handicap-ppaca-obamcare-in-the-scotus/570306/70 "2011-02-12T02:37:24Z")
> [@China\_Guy](#): > > No one is denying that Judge Thomas has a right leaning conservative viewpoint and that’s part of the way he makes his decisions. The same holds for the left leaning Kagan. > > The issue is impropriety or the appearance thereof. I personally think that Supreme Court Justices should be held to the highest level. > > Supreme Court Justices basically get a salary of $200k plus benefits. They also get very generous retirement benefits. While comfortable, this isn’t quite in the “fuck you” money league. And it’s not like what a senior partner in a high profile firm would get. > > Judge Thomas’ wife gets a $500k donation to set up her own non-profit and per IRS guidelines can basically pay herself whatever she wants. > > You do not see the potential conflict of interest? Or how John Q Public might think that this calls into question whether or not said judge is fair? > > Do you think it would be ok for Michele Obama to collect millions in healthcare donations and set up a non profit for herself? I mean she was a high powered hospital executive that could legitimately consult. Or I’m sure you can paint a much more questionable scenario. But I think that would be legal. Is that OK? You are confusing two branches of government. A judge can think something is a horrible idea but still determine that is constitutional…and vice-versa. Ginny Thomas is lobbying legislators to repeal the law. This has nothing to do with its constitutionality. If she were fighting in court on the constitutionality of the law then there would be a conflict of interest. Ginny Thomas will still be able to fight the good fight regardless of the SC decision…and make plenty of money doing it. These are two separate issues: repeal and constitutionality of the law. Or are you suggesting that supreme court judges vote based on their opinion of the legislation as opposed to their opinion on the constitutionality? ---
**Author:** ![China\_Guy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/779978/32.png) [@China\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/China_Guy)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2011, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handicap-ppaca-obamcare-in-the-scotus/570306/71 "2011-02-12T03:06:43Z")
Not confusing jack. Ginny Thomas is getting an not insubstantial amount of money with minimal disclosure and accountability and can pay herself basically whatever she wants. And she’s married to the Supreme Court justice. You don’t think bags of cash maybe just maybe might also influence Judge Thomas. Or let’s put it a different way, you think that the wife getting large donations for her non-profit has zero influence and the appearance of zero influence on her husband the Supreme Court Justice? I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but could you answer please? ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2011, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handicap-ppaca-obamcare-in-the-scotus/570306/72 "2011-02-12T04:00:06Z")
> [@China\_Guy](#): > > Not confusing jack. Ginny Thomas is getting an not insubstantial amount of money with minimal disclosure and accountability and can pay herself basically whatever she wants. And she’s married to the Supreme Court justice. You don’t think bags of cash maybe just maybe might also influence Judge Thomas. Or let’s put it a different way, you think that the wife getting large donations for her non-profit has zero influence and the appearance of zero influence on her husband the Supreme Court Justice? > > I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but could you answer please? Influence him to do what? Ginny started a lobbying group to lobby legislators to, among other things, repeal a law she disagrees with. This has absolutely nothing to do with the courts. Did you even bother to think about what I wrote? Also, maybe you should click on that link I provided a few posts back and look at how they define financial interest. What you are referring to is bribery. ---
**Author:** ![China\_Guy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/779978/32.png) [@China\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/China_Guy)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2011, 4:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handicap-ppaca-obamcare-in-the-scotus/570306/73 "2011-02-12T04:46:18Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > Influence him to do what? Ginny started a lobbying group to lobby legislators to, among other things, repeal a law she disagrees with. This has absolutely nothing to do with the courts. Did you even bother to think about what I wrote? Also, maybe you should click on that link I provided a few posts back and look at how they define financial interest. What you are referring to is bribery. By the way, your link above ([http://www.uscourts.gov/Viewer.aspx?doc=/uscourts/RulesAndPolicies/conduct/Vol02A-Ch02.pdf](http://www.uscourts.gov/Viewer.aspx?doc=/uscourts/RulesAndPolicies/conduct/Vol02A-Ch02.pdf) ) calls out: A judge must avoid all impropriety and appearance of impropriety. This prohibition applies to both professional and personal conduct. \*A judge must expect to be the subject of constant public scrutiny and accept freely and willingly restrictions that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen. \*Because it is not practicable to list all prohibited acts, the prohibition is necessarily cast in general terms that extend to conduct by judges that is harmful although not specifically mentioned in the Code. Actual improprieties under this standard include violations of law, court rules, or other specific provisions of this Code. A judge should avoid lending the prestige of judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge or others. For example, a judge should not use the judge’s judicial position or title to gain advantage in litigation involving a friend or a member of the judge’s family. end quote The above seems pretty clearcut that Clarence Thomas is not avoiding all impropriety and appearance of impropriety given the actions of his wife and her non-profit. ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2011, 5:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handicap-ppaca-obamcare-in-the-scotus/570306/74 "2011-02-12T05:47:24Z")
> [@China\_Guy](#): > > By the way, your link above ([http://www.uscourts.gov/Viewer.aspx?doc=/uscourts/RulesAndPolicies/conduct/Vol02A-Ch02.pdf](http://www.uscourts.gov/Viewer.aspx?doc=/uscourts/RulesAndPolicies/conduct/Vol02A-Ch02.pdf) ) calls out: > A judge must avoid all impropriety and appearance of impropriety. This prohibition applies to both professional and personal conduct. \*A judge must expect to be the subject of constant public scrutiny and accept freely and willingly restrictions that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen. \*Because it is not practicable to list all prohibited acts, the prohibition is necessarily cast in general terms that extend to conduct by judges that is harmful although not specifically mentioned in the Code. Actual improprieties under this standard include violations of law, court rules, or other specific provisions of this Code. > > A judge should avoid lending the prestige of judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge or others. For example, a judge should not use the judge’s judicial position or title to gain advantage in litigation involving a friend or a member of the judge’s family. > > end quote > > The above seems pretty clearcut that Clarence Thomas is not avoiding all impropriety and appearance of impropriety given the actions of his wife and her non-profit. His wife is not involved in any litigation. Period. Also from my link, although it is not even an issue here, judges are allowed to advocate for causes they believe in: > [@](#): > > Complete separation of a judge from extrajudicial activities is neither possible nor wise; a judge should not become isolated from the society in which the judge lives. As a judicial officer and a person specially learned in the law, a judge is in a unique position to contribute to the law, the legal system, and the administration of justice, including revising substantive and procedural law and improving criminal and juvenile justice. It also states: > [@](#): > > “financial interest” means ownership of a legal or equitable interest, however small, or a relationship as director, advisor, or other active participant in the affairs of a party So, receiving money from someone who may, in some way, benefit from a ruling is not disallowed. This is beside the point, though, because there is absolutely no indication that Thomas has received money from anyone who would benefit from a negative ruling on health care. As I’ve stated, regardless of the outcome, Ginny will still be able to raise money to fight for repeal. The simple fact that you are missing is that repeal is not the same as the law being found to be unconstitutional. His wife’s organization has absolutely nothing to do with any challenge on the constitutional merit of the individual mandate. ---
**Author:** ![China\_Guy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/779978/32.png) [@China\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/China_Guy)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2011, 6:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handicap-ppaca-obamcare-in-the-scotus/570306/75 "2011-02-12T06:48:46Z")
The simple fact you are missing is that his wife is getting a lot of money and somehow this is not at a minimum the appearance of impropriety? really? ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2011, 7:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handicap-ppaca-obamcare-in-the-scotus/570306/76 "2011-02-12T07:06:37Z")
> [@China\_Guy](#): > > The simple fact you are missing is that his wife is getting a lot of money and somehow this is not at a minimum the appearance of impropriety? really? You are grasping at straws and not even doing that very well. Legislative versus judicial. You are ignoring this distinction, even though I’ve mentioned it repeatedly, and I suspect you see the distinction clearly. In reality she stands to lose money if the law is ruled unconstitutional. All those supporters won’t need her help anymore. Give it up…there is absolutely no conflict of interest at all here. ---
**Author:** ![Typo\_Knig](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/cdc98d/32.png) [@Typo\_Knig](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Typo_Knig)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2011, 12:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handicap-ppaca-obamcare-in-the-scotus/570306/77 "2011-02-12T12:32:43Z")
One news article I saw claimed that Thomas reported his wife’s income on disclosure forms as zero. He failed to report it at all! If a federal employee reported zero income on a disclosure form when there was in fact income, said employee would be in big trouble, possibly fired. My employer, a private company, would definitely fire me if I similarly failed to disclose material family income. Maybe we should start a separate thread on “Should Kagan/Thomas recuse from PPACA?” The conclusion for this thread looks like it’s all on Kennedy. With recusals it might be a tie, and we’ll have different health care reform laws in different parts of the country. Is that an argument for letting the appeals process go forward, not taking the case directly to the SCOTUS, and telling “Crazy Ken” Cuccinelli to pound salt? Telling Cuccinelli to pound salt is always a good thing, IMNAAHO. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2011, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handicap-ppaca-obamcare-in-the-scotus/570306/78 "2011-02-12T15:03:25Z")
> **[Clarence Thomas Failed to Report Wife's Income](https://www.outsidethebeltway.com/clarence-thomas-failed-to-report-wifes-income/)** > > Clarence Thomas has amended 13 years' worth of disclosure reports. Interestingly, this article points out that Thomas does recuse himself on occasion, for example, when things involve his son’s company. But not disclosing your wife’s income for (six, 13, 20) years is possibly a federal offense, some people are saying. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2011, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handicap-ppaca-obamcare-in-the-scotus/570306/79 "2011-02-12T17:33:12Z")
> [@China\_Guy](#): > > No one is denying that Judge Thomas has a right leaning conservative viewpoint and that’s part of the way he makes his decisions. The same holds for the left leaning Kagan. > > The issue is impropriety or the appearance thereof. I personally think that Supreme Court Justices should be held to the highest level. > > Supreme Court Justices basically get a salary of $200k plus benefits. They also get very generous retirement benefits. While comfortable, this isn’t quite in the “fuck you” money league. And it’s not like what a senior partner in a high profile firm would get. > > Judge Thomas’ wife gets a $500k donation to set up her own non-profit and per IRS guidelines can basically pay herself whatever she wants. > > You do not see the potential conflict of interest? Or how John Q Public might think that this calls into question whether or not said judge is fair? > > Do you think it would be ok for Michele Obama to collect millions in healthcare donations and set up a non profit for herself? I mean she was a high powered hospital executive that could legitimately consult. Or I’m sure you can paint a much more questionable scenario. But I think that would be legal. Is that OK? None of them matter to me. I KNOW that Thomas will not vote the healthcare law unconstitutional BECAUSE his wife is getting paid this money. Does anyone honestly think that? Is there someone that thinks that Clarence Thomas is ready to uphold this law, but damn, he can’t afford to lose all of that money? Likewise, does anyone think that Kagan would have weighed this controversy carefully otherwise, but damn, damn, she already thought about it and made up her mind when she talked to Obama about the constitutionality of the bill a couple of years ago. I know, the appearance and all of that, but anyone who studies the philosophy of these Justices knows that the appearance is not accurate in these cases? ---
**Author:** ![China\_Guy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/779978/32.png) [@China\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/China_Guy)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2011, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handicap-ppaca-obamcare-in-the-scotus/570306/80 "2011-02-12T21:17:34Z")
Ah, the old “it’s not bribery if I was going to do it that way anyway” defense. Just in case you missed the memo, this defense does not work for Sarbannes-Oxley, the Corrupt Foreign Practices Act or a host of other standards. At least you’ve conceeded on the appearance of impropriety. \*\*Bricker \*\*- would you care to weigh in with your legal background on the appearance of impropriety and how that applies to Justice Thomas? Thanks in advance. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handicap-ppaca-obamcare-in-the-scotus/570306.md?page=3)