FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
Posted on 11/14/2011 1:11:15 PM PST by libstripper
The Supreme Court’s announcement Monday that it will hear challenges to President Obama’s health care law have put the spotlight on Justice Elena Kagan, who worked in the administration while the law was being written and, conservatives argue, helped craft its legal defense.
“Before the Supreme Court case is heard we need to know if Justice Elena Kagan helped the Obama Administration prepare its defense for Obamacare when she was solicitor general. The Justice Department must answer serious questions about whether Justice Kagan has an inherent conflict of interest which would demand that she recuse herself from the Obamacare case,” said Rep. John Flemming, Louisiana Republican.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
One should not have to recuse one’s self because of the actions of his or her spouse.
“Elena Kagan helped the Obama Administration prepare its defense for Obamacare when she was solicitor general”
And was appointed by him to the court!
How can anyone think she is going to rule impartially?
The left is just muddying the waters by going after Thomas.
There is clearly a case for Kagan’s recusal, and they know it. They went after Thomas to make it look like the case against Kagan was just as partisan as their attack on Thomas.
She won’t recuse herself, and no one will do a thing about it, and the left will demand Thomas’ recusal to muddy the waters.
:Lets see they want Thomas to recuse himself,because his wife didn’t like the Bill they want Kagen to recuse because SHE was for it.
Kagen should recuse, but won’t who knows what Thomas will do, but they may as well both stay as we know which way both will vote and they will neutralise each other.
Nobody can force a Supreme Court justice to recuse themself. However, failure to do so may be an impeachable offense.
Bingo!
Exactly. I don’t know why they’re worried. Leftist judges are not particularly well known for doing the right thing.
Most... shall we say, “pragmatists”,
instead of having a moral yardstick by which to live their lives,
have a balance scale.
“Do the ends justify the means on this scale” is what they live their lives by.
To a Marxist/Communist/Utopian, the ends they have been promised are so desirable, nigh on perfection, that ANY means necessary to achieve those ends are justified.
Yes, in terms of simple numbers; possibly "no" in terms of the case's outcome. Kagan's failute to recuse herself will be really crass and may antagonize the four originalist Justices plus Justice Kennedy. Given the Illegal's vile attack on Kennedy for Kennedy's decision in Citizens United, there's at least a possibility that a Kagan failure to recuse would just enough to tip Kennedy to the side of the angels. We can only hope.
Kagan is a no brainer for recuse. Thomas is a huge stretch. The left can pound if they think we are not going to make a stink about someone who worked in the Regime on this BS law being allowed to play “impartial” jurist.
As would perjury ....
Fools chasing after rainbows, no doubt...
They can demand all they want.
There is nothing either side can do about it if the justices do or don’t recuse themselves..........
Thomas's is just bait thrown out to take one of "ours" out. The left knows Kagan has a clear conflict, the solution is to take one of ours out too.
This is like a hockey game where Kagan is penalized for punching another player. Justice Thomas, who wife was for the other team calls out from the stands "Clarence" high stick her back. He declines, but he wanted to, so both sit in the penalty box.
Even though a Supreme Court justice is appointed to serve a lifetime term, he or she can still be impeached if they do not hold the office during "good behavior," as Article III, Section 1of the Constitution says.
... the U.S. House of Representatives voted to impeach federal Judge G. Thomas Porteous Jr. of Louisiana. Though Porteous is not a member of the Supreme Court, his situation is a good example of what could happen to a justice were he or she to be served an impeachment.
The House approved articles of impeachment contained in a resolution, charging that Porteous ... made false statements during his confirmation hearing process.
Imagine the left demanding a female judge to recuse herself because of her husband’s views LOL!
Dishonest people miss so much of the humor in life...
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
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.