Court announcement raises recusal questions for Kagan, Thomas

Wshington Times ^ | Nov. 14, 2011 | Stephen Dinan

[relee]

I think Justice Kagan and Justice Thomas’ wife should both recuse themselves from the case but Justice Thomas should remain on the case.

[AmericanVictory]

Kagan did not recuse herself in Hollister v. Soetoro and a motion filed by Hollister for her and Sotomayor to recuse themselves, though supported by SCOTUS precedent, was simply ignored. So much for the Rule of Law where the One might be offended.

[Venturer]

I agree with you.

It is definitely another trick by the liberal left.

But I also know that Kagen is not going to recuse herself.
I would bet the farm on it.

At least if Thomas stays it should neuter her vote.

[Retired Greyhound]

Let’s see - Kagan was the Solicitor General, i.e. the administrations lawyer. Were she still in that role, she would likely be the one arguing in favor of the bill.

Her replacement, the current Solicitor General, will be the one making oral arguments in court.

If that is not cause for recusal, nothing is.

The left will insist that, if she go, that Thomas also goes. I’m not sure who gets to make the final decision on the matter.

[SoJoCo]

Nobody can force a Supreme Court justice to recuse themself. However, failure to do so may be an impeachable offense.

If there is no law that says when a justice must recuse themselves then what would the impeachable offense be?

[Red_Devil 232]

Holder was lying IMO during his Senate Hearing concerning Kagan's involvement in discussions and meetings concerning Obamacare. He was definitely covering for her - he and they would have had to know she was going to the SC way back when these discussions were taking place.

Check out this video of Sen. Lee (R-Utah) asking Holder a question about Obamacare. His question begins at 111:00 into the video. You can go directly to that time no need to wait for it to load.

"Oversight of the U.S. Department of Justice" 11-08-2011

[Georgia Girl 2]

She won’t rule impartially. She needs to be pressured to recuse herself. Highly pressured.

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

High crimes and misdemeanors. They don’t have to say what.

[Salvation]

**However, failure to do so may be an impeachable offense.**

Is this written somewhere. Do you have a source.

[newzjunkey]

Someone called into Mark Levin and mentioned the Militia Act of 1792 as a case of gov't requiring Americans to buy things.

It's true, but the caller misses the constitution specifically mentions a "well regulated militia" in the 2nd amendment. The act also limits the requirement to own and maintain arms to registered militiamen who fit criteria of being able-bodied white men between 18 and 45. (Yes, it specifies white men.)

That's much different from requiring all Americans to buy healthcare.

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

http://www.constitution.org/cmt/high_crimes.htm

[runninglips]

Fairness in this case to the liberals, would be Thomas recusing himself, because it is unfair that there seems to be 5 justices that will rule against health care. I mean, it is only fair if we have a 4-4 vote, with room to Persuade, using logic, intelligence, and pressure from the radical left....lol

[SoJoCo]

High crimes and misdemeanors. They don’t have to say what.

And the high crime and misdemeanor in this case is...?

[hal ogen]

Wait a minute...don’t we need the ruling of a “wise latina” on this case? This is an obvious witch-hunt...with an obvious witch.

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

http://www.constitution.org/cmt/high_crimes.htm