In this case retribution may be defined and likened to justice being served to We the People as a requital for those who acted against the public trust and best interest. Enter one Elena Kagan, last justice appointed to the Court of Nine to be the final adjudicant on the validity of law made by Congress. It is a proven fact that while acting in the position of Solicitor General, an Executive Branch position, for Great Leader that Ms. Kagan did act in a manner that would be considered as lobbying for ObamaCare in her capacity in that position of great influence. This story was covered here:
(CNSNews.com) – The House Judiciary Committee is launching an inquiry to probe the involvement that Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan had in “health care legislation or litigation” when she was serving as President Barack Obama’s solicitor general and was responsible for defending the administration’s position in federal court cases.
The inquiry will look at whether Kagan is required by law to recuse herself from judging cases challenging President Obama’s health-care law and whether her answers to questions posed by the Senate Judiciary Committee during her confirmation process were accurate.
Here fact ends and my opinion begins for it’s my position in belief that Great Leader’s appointment of her was with great intent as she could be the deciding vote in validating ObamaCare against any high court challenge that was certain to come and very likely prior to NOvember 2012. Seizing government control of the US health care delivery system is endemic to the progressive agenda and socialist influences. It was the first strategy in the socialism one-two punch offense. The second was Cap and Trade, which failed, but is still being pursued via piecemeal legislation and Executive Branch agency directive and regulation issuances.
In politics there is only strategy, not coincidence. It’s the dirtiest game around and played for all the marbles all the time. In that prior position Kagan is likely the most conversant person sitting on that court in the minutia of hidden and vague detail in that law. This puts her in a position of being able to handle herself very well in deliberation with other justices and to subliminally, if not directly, influence their thinking. We all know how much text is involved and even for the law clerks of the high court justices translating them to lucid familiarity and relationship to all prior precedents in law is a withering task. It’s likely another reason why this law was drafted in the lengthy and confusing, constant intra-referential construction manner that it was. Anticipation of a future challenge. In and of itself, that manner is suggestive of the commitment of outside influences aligned well prior to Obama’s election having anticipated his election. There is no way, if you’ve had the great displeasure of trying to read the original bill as I have, that such could have been assembled in the time between his election and it’s submission as legislation. Most people fail to think back and grasp that perception. To make that case I went to my files and dug out this titled article include at the source noted(1) and under the title:
If you read and verify this analysis of the original intent of this bill the end goal of malicious intent becomes very obvious.
I intend to follow-up on this inquiry and we all should keep a little file set aside with our representatives’ email contacts and advise them to keep the pressure on to pursue this to a conclusion and not allow the inquiry to die in committee neglect. Forcing her recusal would be a significant victory not to be underestimated as to end effect in adjudicating ObamaCare.
If you agree please consider passing the link to this topic to your mailing lists. It’s how we activate the influence of the ‘net!