Posted on 02/25/2012 6:54:55 PM PST by Steelfish
Kagan Must Recuse Herself from Obamacare Case -Sen. Jeff Sessions February 23, 2012
As solicitor general of the United States, Justice Elena Kagan served as the head of an office responsible for formulating the Obama administration’s legal defense of its domestic agenda priority — Obamacare. It could be no surprise to President Obama who appointed her to the Supreme Court that any former solicitor general would have many conflicts for years to come. Now, the Court will soon hear a constitutional challenge to the health-care law. Despite mounting evidence of her substantial participation in the administration’s legal defense of that law, she still has not announced whether she will recuse herself from presiding over the case as a justice.
According to Section 455(b)(3) of Title 28 of the U.S. Code, justices must disqualify themselves in cases where they have “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 or controversy.”
In United States v. Gipson, the Tenth Circuit held that judges must recuse themselves if they have “previously taken a part, albeit small, in the investigation, preparation, or prosecution of a case.”
Other courts have suggested that, merely by virtue of a lawyer’s position as the head of an office during the preparation of a case, he or she is disqualified to sit as a judge on that case. For example, several U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal have held that U.S. attorneys who later become judges must recuse themselves from any proceeding that had been pending in any way in their offices, even if they were not substantively involved.
Previously undisclosed e-mails that the Justice Department has released pursuant to court order demonstrate Kagan’s direct involvement in the administration’s defense....
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
She will not recuse herself. The House will not impeach because the Democrats hold the Senate and they will not allow her removal from the bench.
She will hear the case, vote in favor of the mandate, and no one will do a bloody thing.
The House needs to take the historical step and pass a resolution demanding her recusal. Public opinion needs to be shaped on this issue. Write or call the Republican leadership.
She “must” but alas, she “won’t”.
Yep.
The 1st amendment. Use it or lose it:
We have a lawless, irresponsible and incompetent executive branch, unimpeded by either remaining branch so that its arrogance and ineptitude flows downward to his cabinet choices, e.g. Geitner, Holder & Napolitano, throughout his party, and even draws in `moderate’ Republicans and SCOTUS justices.
Specifically, Kagan: an unethical, unqualified political hack—all aided & abetted by a network of `news’ partisans.
Our government these past three years has become corrupted by socialist autocrats into a third world banana country.
If the country survives the rest of this year, as we try to re-build the lessons learned won’t soon be forgotten.
Thanks Steelfish.
In Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice John Marshall stated:
"It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is ..."
WHAT's she gonna do? Take it all the way to the Supreme Court for relief?
If Roberts can get four other justices to join him we don’t need her to recuse herself.
They would give her the opportunity to recuse herself - in order to save face. BUT, if she didn't - they would do it for her ...
Yes, I just meant that if Roberts were able to muster a 5-4 majority vote on the recusal issue he could almost certainly manage the same 5-4 vote against Obama Commiecare anyway.
Although she should recuse, she won’t, because the primary purpose of her appointment by Obama was to vote “yes” on the Constitutionality of Obamacare. It was all part of the plan, and the Repubs, again, were outwitted by Obama. Repubs in DC need to realize that Obama’s playing hardball, and they need to stop playing softball.
Don’t you know?
Roberts wants to be a nice guy and he does not want her(or was it the other female) to recuse herself. He does not care about the law or its reason either. I wish I could find the link to the recent article on this.
I’m not the one arguing for a recusal vote.
I agree with you. I can’t imagine Roberts trying for a recusal vote, and he’d never win it anyway.
I'd like to think that, but our body politic is pretty far gone. We need less experience in Washington and more Constitution.
Oh, this is just the beginning. When Big Ears somehow thru fraud & media exposure wins another term you ain't seen noth'in yet & there is no one in Congress that will protect the people. BTW, I heard that Alito likes Ginsberg.
This is disgraceful. If Republicans do not fight this it will signal their intention to let Obamacare stand.
If the Supreme court Finds that the Mandate is a Tax thats it,its Constitutional. In Fact the Court has announced that it has extended the time for Argument about that very fact of whether it is a Tax when it hears arguments next month.
They have raised the prospect that they will not rule on the Merit of the mandate if they decide it is a Tax because of a Law from the 1800s that says they can not Judge cases that deal with taxes until they are imposed and someone is harmed so a Final determination on this may not come until 2014. So since the Marxist in the White House is arguing that it is not a Tax,but the Justice Dept. is going to argue Before the Court that it is,our fate may be sealed folks. If its a Tax it is COnstituitonal and Obamacare will be fully implemented by 2014 and we are all screwed
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.