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

Skip to comments.

Justice Kagan - Fingers and Toes Are Crossed Today! (sent entitled Email day of Obamacare vote)
director blue ^ | Novembe 29, 2011 | Doug Ross

Posted on 11/30/2011 5:18:12 PM PST by opentalk

In early 2010, then-solicitor general of the United States, Elena Kagan wrote an email to Laurence Tribe cheering for the passage of Obamacare.

...Kagan sent [an email] to Harvard Law Prof. Larry Tribe, who was then working at the Justice Department. This email was sent on March 21, 2010, the day the health-care bill would pass the House. "In an email entitled, 'fingers and toes crossed today!', ... Ms. Kagan happily says to Professor Tribe, 'I hear they have the votes, Larry!! Simply amazing."

The Judicial Crisis Network describes the case for Kagan's recusal in no uncertain terms.

...For the reasons set forth below, we find it impossible for Justice Kagan to deny that she was directly involved in the defense of PPACA, and that she should therefore recuse herself from any consideration of PPACA’s legality before the Supreme Court.

• Kagan took early and aggressive action to involve her office in Obamacare...

• Kagan made key staffing decisions starting in January of 2010...

• Kagan was part of the deliberative process in the Obamacare defense strategy...

...mandatory recusals for the Justices are governed by federal law. Section 455(b)(3) of Title 28 addresses the specific case at hand: the recusal obligations of former government employees. It requires recusal where the judge “has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy.” 28 U.S.C. §455(b)(3)...

...Subsection (a) of Title 28 directs that “[a]ny justice, judge or magistrate of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” 28 U.S.C. § 455(a)...

...Justice Kagan is well acquainted with the recusal process. In her first term on the Supreme Court she recused herself from 29 of the 82 cases decided on the merits – over a third of the Court’s oral argument docket – because of her previous work as Solicitor General. She has recused herself from even considering at least 69 cert-stage cases so far this term.

U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services v. State of Florida, et al. promises to be the most important Supreme Court decision in a century, with broad implications for the role of the federal government and the very nature of our constitutionally limited government. In order to secure the integrity of our Courts and of that decision in particular, Justice Kagan should recuse herself from ruling on the case.



TOPICS: Government; Health/Medicine
KEYWORDS: elenakagan; illegal; obamacare; recusal; remove; scotusobamacare
reference links and rest of article at link site

full Title: Justice Kagan's Fingers and Toes Are Crossed, Baby!

1 posted on 11/30/2011 5:18:17 PM PST by opentalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: opentalk

would somebody impeach her already?


2 posted on 11/30/2011 5:24:27 PM PST by HiTech RedNeck (Sometimes progressives find their scripture in the penumbra of sacred bathroom stall writings (Tzar))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: opentalk

Does anybody know how this works? Can she be forcibly recused or does it have to be voluntary? Who would make it happen and how would it happen if she were forcibly recused?


3 posted on 11/30/2011 5:25:05 PM PST by Gen.Blather
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gen.Blather

Can the chief justice do this?


4 posted on 11/30/2011 5:30:52 PM PST by ExtremeUnction
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck
Michelle Obama, at a recent Obama fundraiser in Rhode Island:

“We stand at a fundamental crossroads for our country. You’re here because you know that in just 13 months, we’re going to make a choice that will impact our lives for decades to come …

let’s not forget what it meant when my husband appointed those two brilliant Supreme Court justices … let’s not forget the impact that their decisions will have on our lives for decades to come.”

link

5 posted on 11/30/2011 5:31:43 PM PST by opentalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: opentalk

And what’s this stuff about “fingers and toes crossed” anyhow. It makes Kagan look like a kid in elementary school.


6 posted on 11/30/2011 5:34:28 PM PST by HiTech RedNeck (Sometimes progressives find their scripture in the penumbra of sacred bathroom stall writings (Tzar))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Gen.Blather

SCOTUS recusals are voluntary. She won’t recuse herself any more than Justice Thomas will recuse himself because of his wife’s work against Obamacare with AHF. While nowhere near as tied to opposition to O’care as Kagan is tied to it, Justice Thomas has received financial benefit as his wife has been nicely compensated for her efforts with AHF. IMO it won’t matter since I expect both Roberts and Scalia to follow Silberman’s affirmation of the mandate and uphold it.


7 posted on 11/30/2011 5:38:01 PM PST by xkaydet65 (IACTA ALEA EST!!!')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: opentalk

She doesn’t sound biased at all... lol

NOT

and she looks a lot like a man... Barney Rubble??


8 posted on 11/30/2011 5:38:50 PM PST by GeronL (The Right to Life came before the Right to Pursue Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

Kevin James.


9 posted on 11/30/2011 5:40:37 PM PST by who knows what evil? (G-d saved more animals than people on the ark...www.siameserescue.org.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

Kevin James.


10 posted on 11/30/2011 5:41:04 PM PST by who knows what evil? (G-d saved more animals than people on the ark...www.siameserescue.org.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: xkaydet65

“SCOTUS recusals are voluntary. She won’t recuse herself any more than Justice Thomas will recuse himself because of his wife’s work against Obamacare with AHF.”

I had to read that twice. What the hell would these two situations POSSIBLY ave in common?


11 posted on 11/30/2011 5:43:08 PM PST by jessduntno ("They say the world has become too complex for simple answers... they are wrong." - RR)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Gen.Blather
Not sure, Holder is blocking other Kagan Obamacare communications from being disclosed, implies it would be more proof of her involvement and activism .
12 posted on 11/30/2011 5:47:47 PM PST by opentalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: who knows what evil?
Oh NNNoooo... she looks exactly like this guy:

Patton Oswalt


13 posted on 11/30/2011 5:47:47 PM PST by GeronL (The Right to Life came before the Right to Pursue Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: opentalk
i've heard of pearls Before swine, but that is pearls ON swine...
14 posted on 11/30/2011 6:00:16 PM PST by Chode (American Hedonist - *DTOM* -ww- NO Pity for the LAZY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jessduntno

Justice Thomas’s wife has campaiged in her position at AHF against Obamacare. She alos receives a six figure salary for all her work with AHF. Now AHF has no measurable stake in the outcome so this is not a real conflict of interest, but many believe a SOTUS justice should not even approach a case with even a hint of conflict. Kagan’s case is different, but she also has no stake in the outcome. The question is not whether she favored O’care, but whether she in any way prepared the soicitor’s attorneys for arguing the case in court and whether she lied during her testimony when she denied having done so.Absent a smoking gun, and her email to Tribe is not it, she won’t recuse herself. If you go by the standard of appearance of conflict or hint of same, both should probably recuse themselves.


15 posted on 11/30/2011 6:01:19 PM PST by xkaydet65 (IACTA ALEA EST!!!')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: xkaydet65
Kagan worked for the government and appears to have worked on this legislation.

from the article

Justices are governed by federal law. Section 455(b)(3) of Title 28 addresses the specific case at hand: the recusal obligations of former government employees. It requires recusal where the judge “has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy.” 28 U.S.C. §455(b)(3)...

16 posted on 11/30/2011 6:10:44 PM PST by opentalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: xkaydet65

Why would they do that?

LLS


17 posted on 11/30/2011 6:13:16 PM PST by LibLieSlayer ("Americans are hungry to feel once again a sense of mission and greatness." Ronaldo Magnus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: xkaydet65

“If you go by the standard of appearance of conflict or hint of same, both should probably recuse themselves.”

Yes, those are well repeated MSM talking points. I’ve heard them a million times.

1. Kagan had direct involvement.
2. CT had NO direct involvement.

So, how are they the same?
Or even comparable?
Or even worth consideration?
What is the precedent?

1. They aeren’t
2. None.
3. Ridiculous.
4. No case.

Next?


18 posted on 11/30/2011 6:14:34 PM PST by jessduntno ("They say the world has become too complex for simple answers... they are wrong." - RR)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: jessduntno

Question: What was there about the term hint/appearance of conflict of interest that I failed to communicate properly? I swear, I have been posting here since Clinton was POTUS and I have never seen the anger and unwillingness to engage in discussion of differing viewpoints that I’ve seen in these last six months.


19 posted on 11/30/2011 6:24:00 PM PST by xkaydet65 (IACTA ALEA EST!!!')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: jessduntno
MSM = Obama

from the article regarding the corrupt media.

Here’s how you know your country is over:

-The White House is able to pitch the media the idea that demanding the recusal of a SCOTUS Justice who, prior to her elevation to the Court, advocated for legislation she will be asked to rule on, is a right-wing political ploy — and the media doesn’t instantly break out into hysterical laughter.

20 posted on 11/30/2011 6:28:20 PM PST by opentalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

She looks like ‘Goo’ from Gumby and Pokey.


21 posted on 11/30/2011 6:50:59 PM PST by bigoil (Study Thy Nixon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: xkaydet65

“What was there about the term hint/appearance of conflict of interest that I failed to communicate properly?”

1. Kagan had direct involvement.
2. CT had NO direct involvement.

Failing to see there not being any possible way these two cases as similar might have something to do with it.


22 posted on 11/30/2011 7:57:24 PM PST by jessduntno ("They say the world has become too complex for simple answers... they are wrong." - RR)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: jessduntno
Okay let's try another route. Justice Thomas's wife worked zealously in AHF's efforts to stop passage of Obamacare.Justice Kagan cheered the passage of Obamacare and may have participated in planning to defend it against legal challenge. She did not take part in the writing or passage of this monstrosity.

When that Wisconsin judge stopped implementation of the governor's labor reforms many pointed to her husband's or son's, I don't recall which, ties to the Wisconsin labor movement, and were angered that she didn't recuse herself. Those demands were absolutely correct, even though the judge had no direct interest in the case before her..

if there is evidence that Justice Kagan was not honest before the Senate about her involvement in preparing Obamacare's legal defense, then I believe she should be impeached, but absent compelling evidence I see recusal of neither or both as the proper course. Certainly this makes me a commie pinko who should be zotted and banned immediately.

23 posted on 11/30/2011 8:42:03 PM PST by xkaydet65 (IACTA ALEA EST!!!')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck

Gee I wonder how she will vote?


24 posted on 11/30/2011 8:58:54 PM PST by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose of a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: xkaydet65

“Certainly this makes me a commie pinko who should be zotted and banned immediately.”

Don’t know if you are a commie or a pinko, but you are certainly out of your mind if you think that way. I appreciate the heads up...I’ll stand off.


25 posted on 11/30/2011 9:07:04 PM PST by jessduntno ("They say the world has become too complex for simple answers... they are wrong." - RR)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: xkaydet65

Oh....from the article;

• Kagan took early and aggressive action to involve her office in Obamacare...

• Kagan made key staffing decisions starting in January of 2010...

• Kagan was part of the deliberative process in the Obamacare defense strategy...


26 posted on 11/30/2011 9:55:38 PM PST by jessduntno ("They say the world has become too complex for simple answers... they are wrong." - RR)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: opentalk
More Kagan Emails (Judicial Watch) DOJ with held from senate confirmation hearings.

--An October 13, 2009, exchange between Kagan and former Deputy Solicitor General Neal Katyal. Katyal informs Kagan, “We just got Snowe on health care,” referring to Senator Olympia Snowe (R-ME). (The bulk of the email exchange reflects a discussion about Kagan, and also provides instructions regarding a hiring decision within the agency, although the nature of the position is unclear. When Katyal asks if Kagan wants to handle the hire via email or in person meeting, Kagan responds, “In person. I’ll call a meeting when I return.”

--A March 16, 2010, email from Kagan to David Barron, then-acting head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, asked if he had seen an article by Michael McConnell published in the Wall Street Journal that discussed a strategy by Democrats to “‘deem’ ObamaCare into Law without voting.” “Did you seee [sic] Michael McConnell’s piece in the wsj?” Kagan writes in an email with the subject line “Health care q.” “YES, HE IS GETTING THIS GOING,” replied Barron.


27 posted on 12/01/2011 4:02:52 AM PST by opentalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

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