CBS poll shows only 36% support Obamacare as Supreme Court review begins. But Obama's appointee Kagan still refusing to recuse herself despite blatant conflicts of interest. Should Obamacare be found unconstitutional?

by tncdel Posted 2012/03/27 16:19:28

Related Topics: Obamacare, Supreme Court, Obama, CBS, Poll, Court, Conflict, Interest, Unconstitutional, 2012

Read More

21 votes
Read all 29 opinions
View Results and Demographics + View Demographics

Loading Demographics... Click an icon to see demographic results Display unknown and private
	YES [explain why you think so].	19 votes	90%
	NO [explain why you think not].	2 votes	10%

See:
http://www.lifenews.com/2012/03/26/just-36-back-obamacare-as-...

Add a comment above

CUDDLY BUT STILL CRABBY 2012/03/27 16:35:05

YES [explain why you think so].

+8
IF Elena Kagan had ANY class or ethics, she would've recused herself long ago.

People are known by the company they keep or are appointed by.
>> See Replies

More polls by tncdel

Brian Tristan MacQuillan 2012/03/29 07:56:02

YES [explain why you think so].

+1
Kagan, Sotomayor, Ginsburg, and Breyer could find a reason for just about left wing thing. Freaking horrifying as they are suppose to defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States.

Remember when casting your ballot in November, the next President will get to name at least one, and possible up to three Supreme Court appointments. If it is Obama, then it is game over for personal freedom, the Constitution, and the United States as we know it.

reply
princess 2012/03/27 21:59:44

YES [explain why you think so].

+2
Kagan's appointment was all by design to protect OVomit....she's not going anywhere, much less to recuse herself.
Pray that the Supreme Court does the only right thing and declares this atrocity unconstitutional---which it is.

reply
T Bevan 2012/03/27 21:10:49
TheTruth1313 2012/03/27 20:17:29

YES [explain why you think so].

+2
Kagan needs to be removed or shot for treason(either would be ok with me) and obamacare needs to be repealed with extreme prejudice. It is pure socialist garbage.

reply
Mike 2012/03/27 18:29:46 (edited)

YES [explain why you think so].

+2
Kagan will vote for anything Obama and his cronies are for - I still say she's not qualified for that position

reply
LarryFine 2012/03/27 18:13:03

YES [explain why you think so].

+3
It will be found unconstitutional and it could not happen at a better time. Just line it up along with all of Obama's other failures as we approach November.

reply
MsTlynne 2012/03/27 17:52:11

NO [explain why you think not].

Justice Clarance Thomas should recuse himself on the grounds that his wife has earned significant income (which he failed to report on income disclosures) working for organizations which would profit greatly from repealing health care reform. THAT'S A REAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST. I could live with both Kagan AND Thomas recusing.

reply
tncdel to MsTlynne 2012/03/27 18:21:32

+3
Nope. What HIS WIFE does is her right, for she is not on the Supreme Court. But Kagan is. THAT is the glaring deficiency of your argument parroted by Libs.

reply
MsTlynne to tncdel 2012/03/27 19:01:19

Yep, HE also benefits from his wife's earnings. He might want to keep that money rolling in(HUGHE conflict of interest). As I said before, I'd be ok with both of them recusing. THAT is the glaring deficiency of your argument parroted not by replicans, but by people who figure which side of an argument PRESIDENT Obama is on and automatically take the opposing position.

reply
micha77 to MsTlynne 2012/03/27 18:57:06

+1
Justice Thomas wife is not on the Supreme Court. Kagan is. And she is there for one reason only. You know it and I know it.

reply
MsTlynne to micha77 2012/03/27 19:02:39

Thomas directly benefits from his spouse's earnings, which he would like to keep rolling in, thus creating a conflict of interest. You know it and I know it.

reply
micha77 to MsTlynne 2012/03/28 15:43:27

+1
Mrs. Thomas does not have a vote, nor will she be rendering an opinion. I hope you realize that.

reply
MsTlynne to micha77 2012/03/28 16:11:11

Pillow talk is a hell of an influence. So is wanting to keep that money coming in.

reply
micha77 to MsTlynne 2012/03/28 16:37:28

+1
You're really reaching. Besides, the whole misguided abomination is poised to go over the cliff and be declared unconstitutional. This will be the end of the dictatorial Obama regime. Romney/Rubio will be elected in November.

reply
MsTlynne to micha77 2012/03/28 18:48:41

It's not a reach. Others have had to recuse for the same kind of issue.

reply
micha77 to MsTlynne 2012/03/28 20:41:23

+1
The case for Kagan is recuse is a lot stronger than the liberal line against Thomas.

reply
schjaz 2012/03/27 17:14:08

YES [explain why you think so].

+4
Because it is!

reply
bob'45 2012/03/27 16:52:12

YES [explain why you think so].

+6
KAGAN....Champion of Obamacare. Should have recused herself before the hearings began. But NO....Bias on the Supreme Court. Say it ain't so!!!!

reply
tncdel to bob'45 2012/03/27 18:23:30

+2
Libs try concocting a conflict of interest for Thomas for something his wife, not he himself did. Last I heard Thomas' wife wasn't on the Supreme Court.

reply
bob'45 to tncdel 2012/03/27 19:31:02

+1
Oh yes...I know about that. It's the only argument they have, but fortunately it won't do 'em any good.:-)

reply
micha77 to bob'45 2012/03/28 16:39:56

+1
Liberal bias on the Supreme Court? I'm shocked!

reply
Demonic Rat Hunter 2012/03/27 16:44:38

YES [explain why you think so].

+6
That 36% must be the welfare line and those getting exemptions from paying for it,

reply
tncdel to Demonic... 2012/03/27 18:23:59

+2
No doubt that has something to do with it.

reply
CUDDLY BUT STILL CRABBY 2012/03/27 16:35:05

YES [explain why you think so].

+8
IF Elena Kagan had ANY class or ethics, she would've recused herself long ago.

People are known by the company they keep or are appointed by.

reply
BrianD3 to CUDDLY ... 2012/03/27 18:04:39

+3
yep

reply
T Bevan to CUDDLY ... 2012/03/27 21:13:18

+2
Class , ethics?

Democrats?

reply
frank 2012/03/27 16:33:25

YES [explain why you think so].

+7
If it is ruled constitutional then the government can tell us what car we will buy, what size house we need for our family, and only God (can I still say God) knows what is next.

reply
Hotcho to frank 2012/03/27 16:34:24

+4
yep..who we can sleep and have sex with who knows..Maybe dogs

reply
BrianD3 to frank 2012/03/27 18:05:14

+2
it it is rules to be constitutional they can force us on Jenny Craig diets

reply