Virginia Thomas' group backs off on calling healthcare law unconstitutional

[deminks]

Source: Tribune Washington Bureau

Reporting from Washington —

A conservative group founded by Virginia Thomas, the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, removed references to the "unconstitutional" healthcare law from its website Thursday and blamed staff errors for statements indicating she and her group believed the law should be struck down.

"Liberty Central assiduously avoids taking a position on the constitutionality of this, and other issues, and will continue to do so in the future," said Sarah Field, the group's chief operating officer.Field's comments came in response to a Tribune Washington Bureau story noting that Thomas, a longtime conservative activist who recently has raised her profile, had taken positions on legal issues likely to come before her husband. Her name appeared on a memo posted on the group's website.

Field said Thomas did not intend to sign a memorandum that called for the repeal of the "unconstitutional law." The memo was circulated by another group, the Conservative Action Project, and posted on Liberty Central's website. It has since been removed.

Thomas "did not review the memo; it was reviewed by staff who mistakenly signed off with her name on it. As a result, we have asked CAP to remove her name and they did so immediately," Field said in a statement. "Liberty Central assiduously avoids taking a position on the constitutionality of this, and other issues, and will continue to do so in the future."

Read more: http://www.latimes.com/health/la-na-virginia-thomas-20101022,0,2068362.story

---

Whew...for a minute there I thought we were going to have supreme pronouncements sent to the masses through the supreme wife, Ginny. /sarcasm off.

[Xipe Totec]

1. I guess she does not want Clarence to recuse himself when the issue comes up in the Supreme Court nt

[saltpoint]

2. If she could she'd probably call James Madison and demand

he apologize for the Constitution.

[Solly Mack]

3. Snort

[davidthegnome]

4. The irony is

Is that there is a part of this law that actually IS unconstitutional. Simply put, it is the federal mandate requiring American citizens to purchase insurance from private insurance companies. Hopefully this will be to the benefit of the American people, but it will certainly profit the insurance companies.

Can't deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions? Good, that's a good step in the right direction. Federally mandating the purchase of insurance? I really don't think that's constitutional. They did the same thing under Romney in MA and I thought it sucked then too.

That said, Virginia Thomas is a joke, nothing she has to say regarding the constitution should be taken too seriously.

[SemperEadem]

6. Hmmm..

Simply put, it is the federal mandate requiring American citizens to purchase insurance from private insurance companies.

so now I have a legal basis for not having to carry car insurance?

[daylan b]

8. That is a state law

There is no federal law requiring you carry car insurance.

There is a difference between what the federal and state governments are able to do.

[tinrobot]

11. The law doesn't "require" you to buy insurance.

But it will hit you with a $695 tax if you don't buy it.

Taxes are constitutional - and that's the workaround.

[daylan b]

12. If only it were that simple.

The Sixteenth Amendment allows for income taxes and would not protect this fee.

Other provisions for taxes allow for excise taxes and the question is going to be whether that applies or whether taxing somebody for existing is more like a direct tax and thus would have to be given directly back to the states based solely upon population.

If it were as simple as you imply it is we would have had federal property taxes a long time ago.

[tinrobot]

15. Buying insurance simply gives you a deduction on your income taxes

Just as buying an electric car or solar panels gives you a similar tax break.

The break is a flat fee, not indexed to income, and totally constitutional.

[daylan b]

16. Even you called it "a $695 tax"

Which is something that not even the administration and the bill agree on. The administration has called it a tax but the bill does not.

BTW, it would actually be $1,250 for somebody with the average household income of ~$50,00

It only takes a brief attempt to learn the details of the penalty/tax/tax-break/mandate/"whatever the source you read wants to call" it to realize it's not as simple as you claim it is.

[tonekat]

14. There's a reason to require the purchase of insurance

Which is to avoid adverse selection. There has to be a large enough pool to make it all work. Insurance companies have done this forever, if they just insure sick people who use services heavily, the premiums will go through the roof. Plus, if the Invincibles don't purchase insurance, then fall off that mountain they're climbing, they still need care, which the rest of us will pay for if they don't buy a policy.

[SemperEadem]

5. that refrigerator is in so much hot water right now

she needs to go sit down and STFU.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

7. of course they did because it will be part of the grounds for IMPEACHMENT...but we have CACHE

[Historic NY]

9. Sorry Virgina the cats out of the bag.

[ensho]

10. kick

nt

[OnyxCollie]

13. Don't call it unconstitutional.

You'll lose your 501(c)3 tax-exempt status.