Skip to comments.What if Kagan had Recused Herself?
Posted on 06/29/2012 7:34:52 AM PDT by Sopater
What would have happened if the voter were tied 4-4 if Kagan has recused herself from the case?
A tie would have allowed the Law to stand as is which would have validated the mandate under the Commerce Clause in lieu of it being labled a Tax.
There were conflicting lower court rulings. Wouldn’t that have left the entire issue “undecided”?
Only the case appealed to the SCOTUS pertains. It would be remanded to the court which made the decision being appealed.
Would it have been thrown out 4-3-1. At that point Roberts might have flipped to be 5-3.
As you had 4 for total repeal, 3 for commerce clause is groovy, and Roberts as for it but not the commerce clause.
Thank you for the clarification.
Ha, as if. She was appointed for a reason. It wasn’t just happenstance. She did her job as she was told.
First of all, it wouldn’t have been called a case of the court proving its neutrality, and second of all, one of the other conservative justices would have crossed the aisle in the name of neutrality, and teaching the American people a lesson in representative Democracy. That’s their job these days.
No, Kennedy would have had a visit from Soros thugs and it still would have been upheld.
Right. There was never any question of her recusing herself.
Could someone please correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe CJ Roberts could have asked her to recuse herself. Then had he voted in the majority the Constitution could have been upheld with a nice 5-3 vote.
(CNSNews.com) - When the Supreme Court on Monday began hearing oral arguments in the cases challenging the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care ActAKA ObamacareSupreme Court Justice Elena Kagan showed up to hear the arguments and gave no indication she would recuse herself from judging the cases even though she had cheered enactment of Obamacare as an Obama political appointee and had personally assigned her top deputy in the Obama Justice Department to defend the law in federal court.
A federal law, 28 USC 455, says a Supreme Court justice must recuse from any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned or anytime he has expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy while he served in governmental employment.
Laws? We don’t need no steenkin’ laws!
Roberts said he had confidence that Kagan would know whether to recuse herself or not. She inoculated herself further by recusing on the Arizona case.
What would have happened if McCain and Palin had won?
Veto,one would assume.One might also assume that he would have lobbied against the law during debate.But with McLame you can't even be sure of that.
Still seems as if that’s playing into his leftist ‘coming out’ over the past two weeks.
Agreed. I couldn’t figure out why he’d leave recusal up to Kagan. Now we know.
If this thing is founded upon a tax or taxes to be accurate, is it Constitutionally allowed that little barry bastard commie can unilaterally exempt groups from this legally passed tax?
Has the Oval Office stinker just given himself unenumerated powers? And what the hell can the Congress do about it?
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.