Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 11/15/2011 12:17:36 PM PST by Free ThinkerNY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: Free ThinkerNY

oh boy (sigh) ... A prayer the fix is not in.


2 posted on 11/15/2011 12:22:45 PM PST by no-to-illegals (Please God, Protect and Bless Our Men and Women in Uniform with Victory. Amen. --> AmeriCain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Free ThinkerNY
A case for recusal doesn’t get much more clear-cut than this.

Says it all. Will she? Is it time for another massive Tea Party rally in Washington D.C. about this very issue? How about right in front of the SCOTUS building?

3 posted on 11/15/2011 12:23:04 PM PST by Art in Idaho (Conservatism is the only hope for Western Civilization.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Free ThinkerNY
The same liberals who insist that Justice Thomas recuse himself for the most tenuous and indirect connections - his wife's involvement in health care - will not say a WORD about this blatant conflict of interest.

Is anyone surprised by that?

4 posted on 11/15/2011 12:25:17 PM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Free ThinkerNY

She shouldn’t’ be on the Supreme Court period. Who were the fools that voted for her. They should go.


5 posted on 11/15/2011 12:27:38 PM PST by freekitty (Give me back my conservative vote; then find me a real conservative to vote for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Free ThinkerNY

It’s my understanding that there is no mechanism to force a Supreme Court justice to recuse, short of public shaming and the threat of impeachment. Since I doubt Kagan cares about the former and knows the later will never happen. I expect her to laugh as she issues her “unbiased” decision.


6 posted on 11/15/2011 12:27:46 PM PST by apillar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Free ThinkerNY

If she were still Solicitor General, she would be the one making the oral arguments for the government in front of SCOTUS. Her successor is the one that will likely be doing so.

She was a huge cheerleader for this bill, sat in on meetings where details of the bill were being hashed out.

If that is not grounds for recusal, then no judge should have to recuse themselves from any case.


7 posted on 11/15/2011 12:31:59 PM PST by Retired Greyhound (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Free ThinkerNY

This is a clear case where she can not be unbiased. She must recuse or she will break the law. The statute is quite clear that she must step aside. She knew that when she got on the court. We can file judicial ethics violations in the federal judiciary and she could lose and be forever scarred .


12 posted on 11/15/2011 12:42:52 PM PST by Ardenroad gal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Free ThinkerNY

This is something as outrageous as, as say, pervert Sandusky being sentenced to community service with Big Brothers.


13 posted on 11/15/2011 12:44:00 PM PST by tumblindice (The First Lady cap snaffler: It Really Really Works)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Free ThinkerNY

I don’t know how the court work but wouldn’t the chief justice have something to say about this?


17 posted on 11/15/2011 1:27:42 PM PST by GregNH (Re-Elect "No Body")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson