Skip to comments.New Documents Show Supreme Court Justice Elena Kaganís Comments on Obamacare Legislation While...
Posted on 11/10/2011 1:23:22 PM PST by jazusamo
Complete title: New Documents Show Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagans Comments on Obamacare Legislation While Serving as Solicitor General
Kagan: I hear they have the votes!! Simply amazing.
Washington, DC -- November 10, 2011
Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it has obtained three new documents that provide additional information about Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan and the Affordable Care Act (also known as Obamacare) while she served as solicitor general. Justice Kagan has said she was not actively involved in the Department of Justice (DOJ) discussions regarding Obamacare. Moreover, the Supreme Court justice did not recuse herself from the High Court decision in April 2011 not to fast-track for Supreme Court review Virginias lawsuit challenging Obamacare.
The following are highlights from the documents obtained by Judicial Watch pursuant to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed on February 24, 2011. (Judicial Watchs lawsuit has been consolidated with a similar FOIA lawsuit that had been first filed against the DOJ by the Media Research Center.):
These new emails are bound to raise additional questions about whether Justice Kagan ought to participate in High Court deliberations on Obamacare. Certainly, if these documents were known at the time of her confirmation, there may have been quite a different Senate debate. The Obama Justice Department dumped these documents just before a holiday weekend, hoping they would go unnoticed. This slow-walking of documents out of the Obama Justice Department is scandalous and makes one wonder what other information they are sitting on, said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.
Kagan graduated from the Eric H0lder Sch00l of Law?
And it happens all the time.
What SHOULD be done, is Impeachment proceedings should be started, as she LIED UNDER OATH AT THE CONFIRMATION HEARINGS, claiming she had no personal involvement in the Obamacare that was shoved up our a$$es!
This series of e-mails raises the question of whether Kagan is fit to render ANY decisions from the Supreme Court bench.
Second order of business after Obamacare is repealed in January 2013: Respectfully ask Elena Kagan to step down from the Supreme Court. If she refuses, commence immediately with impeachment proceedings.
There should be no difficulty whatsoever in finding grounds.
Impeachment is the only way to get rid of her. It’s a shame we don’t have enough honest members of the Senate and House to do it.
Yep, that’s what we’ll get from all the enemedia.
Agreed, they’ll be grounds but not enough votes to do it.
We suspected as much!
Holder lied [again] just the other day to US Senator Lee, IIRC.
It’s simply preposterous that she was confirmed to the Supreme Court and in fact any Court in the first place.
It’s been obvious all along that she has an activist perspective in her liberal beliefs and has no desire to separate her activism from any work she performs in the field of law.
That’s how lawyers work if they represent causes they care about in their career and that’s a fundamental part of the practice of law in America, which is wonderful.
A Judge, however, needs to have a different kind of personality and attitude - obviously - because a Judge needs to instinctfully (and there are people who think like this and love doing it) go for the legally appropriate decision even if it works to the detriment of their own personal causes that they hold near and dear. It’s a judicial way of thinking, the way every trade or profession has a way of thinking. The judge should pride themselves on being able to sacrifice the way they would prefer the case to work out, undermining their personal goals. Sometimes cases go their way, sometimes they don’t and a good judge is quite willing to accept that, knowing that they are helping to provide society with impartial justice, which should be their ultimate ambition while they are a judge.
It would seem much more prudent to select SCOTUS Justices from the ranks of Judges with years of history to evaluate them on rather than from the ranks of liberal academia.
Samuel Chase, the only Supreme Court justice EVER to be impeached, was impeached for partisan leanings, but acquitted (not removed).
bttt (for later)
She Must RECUSE
The Judiciary is SUPPOSED to be impartial. While, in actuality, this can NEVER be fully attained - this prohibition AT LEAST removes SOME of the appearance of partiality ...
There are plenty of qualified people out there with bona fides and that HAVE NOT served in a particular President's term ...
Thanks for the ping, jazusamo.
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.