Skip to comments.Chief Justice Roberts Defends Kagan, Thomas Hearing Health Care Case
Posted on 12/31/2011 8:24:14 PM PST by Nachum
In the face of a growing controversy over whether two Supreme Court justices should disqualify themselves from the challenge to the 2010 health care overhaul law, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. on Saturday defended the courts ethical standards.
The chief justices comments came in his annual report on the state of the federal judiciary. In it, he made what amounted to a vigorous defense of Justices Clarence Thomas and Elena Kagan, who are facing calls to disqualify themselves from hearing the health care case, which will be argued over three days in late March. He did not, however, mention the justices by name.
I have complete confidence in the capability of my colleagues to determine when recusal is warranted, Chief Justice Roberts wrote. They are jurists of exceptional integrity and experience whose character and fitness have been examined through a rigorous appointment and confirmation process.
Federal law requires that judges disqualify themselves when they have a financial interest in a case, have given advice or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case or when their impartiality might reasonably be questioned. For lower court judges, such a decision can be reviewed by a higher court, but the Supreme Court has no such review.
(Excerpt) Read more at patdollard.com ...
The list, Ping
Let me know if you would like to be on or off the ping list
I’m beginning to think that the problem with the SCOTUS is Roberts.
That was an irrational comment. The problem is 4 liberal justices on SCOTUS and more to come if Obama is reelected. I
That was an irrational comment. The problem is 4 liberal justices on SCOTUS and more to come if Obama is reelected.
If they have to strangle this monstrosity 5-4, so be it.
Get ready for the big screw job.
His statements are what is called foreshadowing.
Obama: What headline did you send the NYTimes to use?
Aide: Chief Justice Roberts Defends Kagan, Thomas Hearing Health Care Case
Obama: Say, thats pretty good!
First of all, Roberts lies-—Kagan has no integrity and she should NEVER have been confirmed.
And if she doesn’t recuse herself—she will be in violation of Federal Law. (But then, she lied when she took the oath of office—like her puppet master muslim did.
Since the likes of Kagan and Sotomayer are so brilliant, wouldn't you think that the MSM would display their written decisions for all the world to see?
Are they out there? Maybe I just don't know about it. Can someone point me in the right direction?
Roberts is just being a good leader. He is standing up for the institution of the Supreme Court.
It has always been a politically-oriented court.
I always cite the slavery issue and how the court did an about face within about 2 decades.
Much of the history of SCOTUS is filled with just such about faces.
If the Constitution didn’t change during a two-decade timespan, then it was the interpretation that changed.
At the march towards liberalism is a “ratchet”; it never gets more conservative, it just holds the line for a while, then gets more liberal.
Now we have a government that far exceeds it’s Constitutional limitations. It remains to be seen if we can actually get a SCOTUS to ratchet government back at all towards the Constitution.
The court getting involved in forcing Federal big-goverment handouts continues to expand, as does the court siding with a perceived “popular” view on “rights”. It’s much more difficult to be the “parent” who has to play “bad cop” and either a) limit how much the government has to splurge, b) tell a large, politically powerful group what they don’t want to hear or c) tell people they have to behave.
If there is a major grassroots revival of conservatism then a SCOTUS may react according to b) if it’s balanced or right-leaning and go along with the idea of reintroducing some limits on government.
Roberts is a liberal, get used to it.
Geez, you're just as cynical as I am.
It always seems that the Supreme court is "just so", teetering between "liberal" and "conservative".
And Oh, that dirty little word "conservative", those who think the law of the land, i.e. Constitution, means what it says.
Just enough of one, or the other, to appease the ignorant masses, no matter who's in charge.
God, it's frustrating, and sickening.
Unfortunately Roberts doesn’t get to hire his associates.
Roberts and the rest of the Justices should be able to convince Kagen to stand down, especially if things are going to go 5-4 anyway.
Anybody here actually read the article?
Typical NYT slanted headline
BS Kagen has no business hearing this case!!!
I guess Roberts is, after all, just another politician with a law degree.
I was thinking the same thing.
Article doesn’t really say what the headline does.
If Thomas’ wife were Bawwwwnnnneeeeeyyy Frank, there would be no issue.
Roberts has children, no?
I think Roberts is gonna turn on conservatism. It’s a pattern. sigh
KAGAN??? ROBERTS DEFENDS KAGAN?
WHAT A FREAKING (long string of deleted bad words)!!!
Yup, the twin carpet munchers that Zero appointed is just the beginning, if the communist bastard gets re-elected
Kagan is NOT a Supreme Court justice. She is an leftwing activist placed on the SCOTUS by Barry Soetoro.
They are jurists of exceptional integrity and experience whose character and fitness have been examined through a rigorous appointment and confirmation process.
This from the guy that swore in the Usurper.
And to think I was so happy when Roberts became Chief Justice. Since 2008 all I want to do is hurl.
Yeah, those are two equal situations...
I have believed for almost 3 years there was something in Roberts not tuned to the belief of the Founders. It began when he gave Obama that private in chambers redo of the oath of office instead of taking a few moments and redoing the oath publicly. Is there anyone who besides Roberts and Obama who can honestly, knowingly and validly say how the redo oath was worded. I recall it was done without use the Bible. Either he was a shill or just plain foolish. Too many judges and politicians drink from the same cup as Obama and his enablers.
Read Mark Levin’s Men In Black. The Supine Court has always been a cesspool. It has harbored racists, bigots and social engineers since it’s inception. The biggest mistake that can be made is to attribute nobility and character to those occupying the bench. By their fruits and no excuses.
SCOTUS MAKES ME SICK!! THEY are sooooo afraid of Obama they are pitiful! We The People are so screwed!
Three words from the cesspool:
Roe Versus Wade.
I’m with you. Read the article. I’m just wondering what everyone here thinks he was supposed to say? He’s damned if he does, damned if he doesn’t. If he says Kagan should recuse herself over Obamacare, then he will also have to say Thomas should as well, especially if he wants to maintain impartiality or at least the appearance of it.
I have said from the beginning that they will not overturn Ocare, if the do then they have cost the taxpayer several hundred billion dollars for no reason.
They are implementing the plan as fast as they can, and there will be no undoing it. All in the progressive plan. Politicians have been letting the court take the blame for their progressive agenda for decades, we should be used to it.
Better to toss a few hundred billion than squander multiple trillions
They are not afraid of Obama, they just happen to agree with his agenda, as all good progressives do.
Well it’s too early to say that Roberts will turn liberal, or ‘evolve’ as the champions of judicial activism like to say about Republican’s long list of mistaken Sup Court picks. So far he has voted the right way on pretty much everything, including high profile Second Amendment and partial-birth abortion cases.
This sounds more like a case of the top judge defending his club. That may be rather innocent and without much consequence, or it may indicate that while conservative in his jurisprudence, he nonetheless sees the judiciary as somehow superior to the other branches, as if they are on an elevated plain. So we can probably be sure that if for example the idea and practice of judicial supremacy is ever challenged under his watch, he will defend it vigorously. And on that, I would guess the same would be true of the other 3 good judges. Part of the reason why judges like Scalia, Roberts, Thomas, and Alito are superior to the 4 leftwing usurpers and the unpredictable (in a bad way) Kennedy is that they can restrain themselves. They don’t seek to rule the country and impose their beliefs from the bench. But this restraint is voluntary...I have no doubt that all four of the good judges firmly believe that the Sup Court does properly have the final word on all things Constitutional, and that their decisions MUST be obeyed.
Gingrich is dreadful, but I do applaud him for saying he would ignore particularly awful Sup Court decisions. That is the only way that the Constitutionally unsound and unfounded practice of judicial supremacy will ever be successfully challenged. Therefore it will probably never be successfully challenged.
The point is they could have taken this case at anytime but they have put it off until it probably couldn’t be undone if they wanted to, but they don’t want to.
“If there is a major grassroots revival of conservatism then a SCOTUS may react according to b) if its balanced or right-leaning and go along with the idea of reintroducing some limits on government.
Last seen in the 1920s.
What’s so prickly. They nullify Obamacare, it’s left to Obama to explain what to do. Not the USSC’s yob, mon.
Roberts was one of the only things that Baby Bush got right.
MSM is AWOL
MSM is AWOL
"This business will get out of control. It will get out of control and we'll be lucky to live through it."
--- Admiral Josh Painter - (Fred Dalton Thompson) Hunt for Red October - 1990
The liberals just made a noise about Thomas to introduce moral-equivalence games that would preserve Kagan's deicision to sit on a case when she should recuse herself.
Just more liberal camouflage for their usual stink.
Good morning LG!
Former NYT chief editor Howell Raines said in an October, 2008 article in Conde Nast's Portfolio that the RiNOcracy and the Left had struck a bargain already on healthcare: the Democrats would be allowed their takeover, so that Fortune 500 companies could ditch their (expensive) health-care plans (the ones for the peons, anyway).
This would result in great joy among the blue-haired ladies that both Bushes regarded as the proper objects of their most tender and dogged solicitude, junking entire fleets of aircraft carriers to get them their tax cuts from the "peace dividend"...... and now they'd get a "healthcare dividend" by throwing their employees on their own resources.
According to Raines, it was a done deal, awaiting only the election to pass.
He was right. Boehner won't touch Obamacare. He's already changed the subject once, from Obamacare repeal -- what the People sent all those Tea Party congressmen up the Hill to do -- to budget games and fiscal strategerizing and footsie with Harry Reid and Obozo.
The GOP sold the People out, bigtime, for 30 pieces of silver.
Of course Justice Roberts is going to come out with such pap. The Supreme Court is a club and a mutual admiration society. They will join together to defend themselves against the peasants
Happy New Year! Counting the days until Obozo's unemployed.
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.