Why Isn't the Obamacare EMPLOYER Mandate Unconstitutional?

[djs]

Actually, supreme court is unique. You do not need to be a lawyer to be on the supreme court. I think there have been a few judges that were not lawyers, but it is rare.

As such, there is no requirement for being a member of the bar. Strange, but true.

Unless wikipedia is wrong (again).

Supreme Court of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dan

 

[somarco]

Dan, see my link (above) to supremecourt.gov which is a more credible source than Wiki

 

[VolAgent]

Dan, see my link (above) to supremecourt.gov which is a more credible source than Wiki

The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

This is generally held to mean unless impeached by Congress. You could argue being disbarred is not good Behavior, but guess who'd have to decide the issue?

 

[houcoogster]

Your legal theory is, ahem, interesting but thankfully, it has no basis in fact or reality.

For those of you who actually think there is no legal remedy for Supreme Court justices who go off the deep end, I assure you this theory has no merit.

All federal judges must follow the law, which is created by Congress. The Rules we have mentioned in this thread and numerous other ones we have glossed over all are federal laws. There are consequences for failing to follow the law, regardless of whether your current job happens to be as a member of the Supreme Court. For that matter, Congress could pass new Rules tomorrow that apply retroactively to all federal judges. There are many different avenues of recourse from a legislative perspective.

And as for that wacko theory about a Supreme Court justice not needing to be a member of the Bar, that is patently incorrect. Every lawyer who practices before the Court must be a member of the Supreme Court Bar. Likewise, all sitting justices are required to be members of the Supreme Court Bar. One of the requirements of being a member of the Bar is, guess what? - you must be a practicing lawyer.

It is, therefore, irrelevant that the Constitution does not specify that a Supreme Court Justice must be a lawyer because as a practical matter, a Justice must be a lawyer to join the Supreme Court Bar. Interestingly, the Court itself has very little to do with the Bar - it is an administrative arm of the Court and it is through those channels that ethical complaints, etc., are handled.

FYI, in the Scalia case, recusal was not required because none of the statutory mandates were triggered; thus, Scalia did not recuse. He could have voluntarily recused, but was not obligated to do so under the Rules.

Winter - I take it you are not a real lawyer, you only play like one on the internet - that much is obvious from your posts.
I regret that I have neither the time nor the fortitude to continue your legal education in these forums (and yes, Virginia, I am a real lawyer).

This is a great post!

I know how you feel about educating people in complex subjects.
Some people think they are an authority by taking one or two courses in History, Economics or Law. Or even worse a major in Political Xcience.

 

[VolAgent]

This is a great post!

I know how you feel about educating people in complex subjects.
Some people think they are an authority by taking one or two courses in History, Economics or Law. Or even worse a major in Political Xcience.

So you can point us to the section of the Constitution that requires a Supreme Court justice to be a lawyer or member of the bar? Also, can you point out what remedy is available for failure to be a member the bar, except for Congress removing the judge from office?

 

[somarco]

You could argue being disbarred is not good Behavior, but guess who'd have to decide the issue?

The Star Chamber.

 

[VolAgent]

The Star Chamber.

Close, but no. Those decisions get appealed to the Illuminati.

 

[Winter_123]

Tell me again how you are going to get Kagan to recuse other than via her own discretion.

Chief Justice Won't Address Merits of Request for Scalia Recusal | Discourse.net

Online NewsHour Update: Scalia Rejects Recusal Request in Cheney Case -- March 18, 2004

 

[AndreaSti]

The Star Chamber.

You're cracking me up again!!

 

[Winter_123]

Bloomberg article linked here takes the view that the administration will probably succeed in taking the long slog approach rather than expedited, and that Obama will attempt to benefit from letting some of the provisions kick in and become institutionalized which will build public support in theory.

I suppose that is possible but is fraught with risks too. Premiums and costs are going to do nothing but go up during that period leaving people to continue to wonder what kind of crock the whole thing is. And if people fall in love with the idea of having children on their parents policy until age 26 then the pubs can just cherry pick out some things and convince people that you dont need a monstrosity just to have that feature.

Also of course, if Obama gets hit with an appeals court decision that goes against him along the way then that works against him too but the writer in this article believes that the appellate courts might treat him better in theory.

Other problem with the long slog approach is that that is not what the people, the states, and congress want so you have to manage that aspect as well. Quite a bit of grumbling already, eh? You drag it out too long and the Tea Party will be riding into the 2012 campaign with a constitutional amendment in their hip pocket. Regardless of what the court does or does not do they will finish up just in time to take it right into the 2012 election to make sure that the mess just gets messier as is the nature of a first class mess.

As an aside, I said in another post that I thought that the chances of the court hearing the case by skipping the appellate level were slim but possible. The writer here places the chances at zero but I actually agree with that too. I was referring to a scenario where both parties request an expedited review and he is making the point that if the government resists it, then there is zero chance. I agree with that. You have some chance if both want it expedited. Probably none if one does not. Of course now Obama has to answer to congress and the public on why he won't support getting it done and over with. Good luck with that. Obama thinks it is about him and his strategy. The people think it is about them. Same old difference in perspective. Election coming right up.

Anyway, here it is.
Obama's Slow Legal Approach on Health Law May Build Support - Bloomberg