[libstripper]

The best article to date on the recusal issues involving Justices Thomas and Kagan. In short, it looks lilke neither will recuse himself or herself.

[ez]

One should not have to recuse one’s self because of the actions of his or her spouse.

[VanDeKoik]

“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?

[Venturer]

: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.

[paul51]

the justice department is not to be believed on any issue, including this. kagan’s excited email regarding passage of zerocare is hardly an indication of impartiality.

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

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

[Lazlo in PA]

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.

[mrsmith]

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...

[BuckeyeTexan]

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.