Skip to comments.Leading senators: Kagan may have to recuse herself from health case
Posted on 11/18/2011 4:30:01 PM PST by jazusamo
Top Republican senators said late Friday the Justice Department has been stonewalling their request for more information on Supreme CourtJustice Elena Kagan, and said her previous work as solicitor general may satisfy both requirements for recusal from the upcoming health-care case.
The senators, led by Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, are demanding Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. comply with requests for more documents about Justice Kagans role in planning the administrations defense, and said unless he provides the information it could undermine confidence in the courts eventual ruling on the case.
President Obama chose to nominate a member of his administration to the Supreme Court knowing it was likely that, if confirmed, she would be in a position to rule on his signature domestic policy achievement, said the four senators, who also included Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl of Arizona; Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee; and Sen. Mike Lee of Utah.
The Supreme Court announced early this week that it would hear a challenge to the health-care law, which Mr. Obama signed last year. Questions have floated for months over whether Justice Kagan could rule impartially in the case. She was solicitor general at the time the law passed, and acknowledged during her confirmation hearing that she attended at least one meeting where litigation was discussed.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
She should absolutely not be sitting on this case. She’s 100% conflicted.
Your right. but..
“She should absolutely not be sitting on this case. Shes 100% conflicted.”
She ain’t conflicted at all...that’s the problem.
May? She should not be sitting on the court when this is heard.
She’s not conflicted at all. One needs a conscience for that. She is a democrat. They have seared their conscience long ago.
Yeah, we’ll wait for that to happen.
Recusal is the prerogative of the individual justices. She will never step away from this one. They know the furor will be temporary and the media will give her a pass.
Agreed and I’ll go one step further, she’s an activist judge that shouldn’t be on the SCOTUS bench.
Obama knew the conflict when he nominated her. If he says he did so expecting her to recuse herself then she should recuse herself. If Obama says he did not expect her to recuse herself for such an obvious conflict of interest then Obama should be impeached.
I agree, she’ll never recuse herself.
The decision to recuse is up to the judge himself/herself and I would be highly surprised if she did that on this case. After all, the reason Obama put her on the court was to rubber stamp his policies.
You’re dead on the money. This is but one thing Obama should be impeached for though.
She can be impeached and put up for trial in the senate and then removed from office. A conflict of interest would be an impeachable offense. Would boner and. Cantor do it, hell no.
It won’t matter. The remaining 3 liberals will vote to uphold, the 4 conservatives will vote to strike down, Kennedy will be the swing vote. If it is 4-4 the law stands.
Thanks for linking. This shows she was darn well in it.
Nobody pays any attention to McC except the Kentuckians, who think he is “in charge” up there.
Not only was she in on it- but it strongly appears that she was covering her tracks and coaching her colleagues in the DOJ about what to say/not say about her involvement with the defense. Really, really shady.
No, if it is 4-4 the decision being appealed stands. The nlower courts are split, so a 4-4 vote would mean that the Act is constitutional in some Circuits and not others.
If it is a 4-4 tie, the lower court’s decision stands.
Yep, looks like you’re right. So without Kagan there is no chance of the law being upheld and hence no chance of Kagan recusing herself
More proof that we are living in a FREAK show.
What is this "financial gain" that Justice Thomas is supposed to be getting from his wife's "activities" -- according to Dems?
Can anyone 'splain that to me?
she also committed a crime against the Supreme Court during the partial birth abortion case by altering statements made by physicians to mean the exact opposite of what they stated.
She should have been disbarred long ago.
That she was nominated and even approved is a disgrace.
wouldn’t this more likely make the vote 5-3?
(And then there's that little perjury thing during her confirmation hearings)
I can’t think of a thing or shed any light on how there could be any financial gain, it’s a typical leftist attack on the both of them.
Absolutely right, but then leftists don’t believe the law pertains to them.
The case at hand is the Florida case (11th Circuit) and not the Virginia case (4th Circuit). Correct me if I am wrong, but the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta struck it down. so that decision will stand without a fifth vote in favor of overturning the appellate decision. I don’t believe the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the Virginia case yet. Are you saying that a 4-4 decision will mean that it remains unconstitutional in the 11th Circuit only? Or will it apply in all 26 states that brought the suit?
I agree with you on Kennedy and Kagan will never ever recuse herself, as someone else has already stated, it's the reason she is an S.C. Justice to begin with.
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!
What makes you think Scalia and Kennedy will vote against the whole package? Scalia gave full-throated endorsement to the expansive New Deal Commerce Clause in Raich. He and Kennedy are 100% on board with fedgov control of health care.
One of many consequences of having a president whose actions are dictated by a very immature and erroneous world view. Anyone who believes that all the social ills of the country are the consequence of selfish rich people and racist Caucasian men is pathetically and dangerously ill informed. Obama appears to fall into that camp.
Oh, yeah? Force me! Nanny, nanny, nanny! We got such perfect Constitutional system (as you all say)! HA! Force me, you fools!
Her loyalty and unwavering support of Obamacare is the reasson she was appointed in the first place.
This is the reason why we need a Monarchy. Because who can check such abuses of power? (to anticipate: the Monarch’s decision can be overriden by the legislature.)
With SCOTUS ruling on it, there is at least the possibility it will be declared unconstitutional.
How would we be better of without a court review of the law?
Dems would be relentless and merciless. Their media hounds would fan the flames and as usual...they would get their way. I am tired of these punks winning.
START PLAYING HARD BALL! And don't quit until the B******S squeal.
If She doesnt recuse herself the Courts Credibility will be undermined? OH NO NOT THAT! Oh the Humanity,I dont know if The Country can handle that,we are about to go over a Cliff ,total Collapse and Kagan wont recuse herself .The Democrats are shaking in their Boots
Well thank you for at least trying to think of a logical answer!
Even Greta van Susteren, who is normally reasonable, was parroting this line on her show a few nights ago.
Even more perplexing was the consensus of Greta's panelists -- that it would be a good thing for Justices Thomas and Kagan to both recuse themselves, partly because that would make the numbers "fair" (i.e. their absences would "cancel each other out").
Greta and her panelists are all law school grads. How can they be so absurdly stupid?
The question before us is who reviews the judiciary? What can be done when Kagan won’t recuse herself?
Greta is a democrat. That is how it makes sense to her for Thomas to be excluded along with Kagan. She does not want the conservatives on the court having an advantage after her side rightly loses Kagan.
There is no logical comparison to Kagan’s conflict of interest in her role as a legal advisor to the Obama administration on the health care bill and Thomas whose wife demonstrated an opinion about Obamacare. Justices are permitted personal opinions about life in America!
What changes do you propose to the Constitution to better review the judiciary?
My proposal, like all proposals here, is a pipe dream, so why even bother.
But we do have a dead end here, don’t we, even with the Constitutional remedies you list, as Kagan and everyone else knows that she’ll never be impeached. Imperial court, that’s what it is.
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.