Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

85 Call for Kagan Recusal on Obamacare
Townhall.com ^ | November 19, 2011 | Bob Beauprez

Posted on 11/19/2011 4:20:53 AM PST by Kaslin

The call for Congress to hold hearings on the need for Justice Elena Kagan to recuse herself from the ObamaCare case now on the docket of the Supreme Court has exploded.  The number of organizations signing on to a letter to House Judiciary Chairman Lamar Smith has more than tripled in just 48 hours since our original blog post calling for her to stand aside.  Following is a link to the final draft of the letter signed by the leaders of 85 citizens organizations and related other articles and documents.

Leader's to House Judiciary Chairman Lamar Smith

Judicial Action Group's

Judicial Crisis Network brief: Elena Kagan, The Justice Who Knew Too Much

Judicial Watch November 10, 2011 background article

Leaders of two dozen citizen organizations are urging the House Judiciary Committee to hold hearings on the need for Elena Kagan to recuse herself from the ObamaCare case now scheduled to be heard by the Supreme Court.  In a letter to Judiciary Chairman  Lamar Smith (), and copied to House Republican Leadership, the group concludes that "a reasonable person would certainly have sufficient basis to question the impartiality of Justice Kagan if she were permitted to prepare the defense of a case as an advocate and then switch roles and judge the defense of the same case as a justice." (Emphasis included)

The effort is spearheaded by Phillip Jauregui, President of Judicial Action Group, a Washington based organization dedicated to "judicial renewal" by returning "the judiciary to its proper role of deciding cases and not legislating from the bench."  

The letter from the distinguished group of leaders outlines five essential grievances and questions that they feel should be explored regarding the need for Kagan to recuse herself from the ObamaCare case, as follows:

  1. During her Supreme Court Confirmation hearing, Kagan admitted she was present for "at least one" meeting in which the PPACA (ObamaCare) litigation was discussed.
  2. Solicitor General Kagan made the unusual, but not unprecedented, decision for The Solicitor General’s office to coordinate with the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) while preparing the earliest defenses of PPACA rather than following standard practice of waiting until the act reached the appellate courts.
  3. Kagan personally appointed the over-sight of the PPACA defense to her top deputy – a political appointee – who zealously stated his desire to “crush” those challenging the constitutionality of PPACA.
  4. Kagan both received and responded to emails about the PPACA litigation.
  5. The Department of Justice now refuses to produce in whole in response to the aforementioned FOIA requests, claiming that such documents are “privileged” under an exemption traditionally reserved for those participating in their role as attorneys in a case.

The final grievance above is in reference to the DOJ's continued refusal to provide documents as originally requested by Chairman Smith last July such that the Judiciary Committee might "properly understand any involvement by Justice Kagan in matters relating to health care legislation or litigation while she was Solicitor General."  More than just a stiff-arm refusal, the DOJ called the Judiciary Committee's reasonable request "unseemly." 

Elena Kagan's fingerprints and DNA are all over the White House's efforts to muscle through passage of ObamaCare and anticipate the legal defense of the legislation.  The Leader's Group raises the obvious question of how can the same person be both advocate and impartial jurist on the same issue.  Imagine for a moment if the shoe was on the other foot – if we were talking about a conservative judge and a conservative issue?  Say Henry Hyde, the great pro-life champion and author of the Hyde Amendment, was a member of the SCOTUS and a pro-life question was before the Court?  The liberal media and the left would be incensed, animated, and outraged at even a slight consideration that Hyde might not recuse himself.  Yet, all we hear about the obvious need for Kagan to recuse herself from the ObamaCare case is silence, and charges that to even raise the question is "unseemly."  


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Government
KEYWORDS: elenakagan; harvardresumefraud; kagan; kaganresumefraud; obamacare; recusal; resumefraud; supremecourt

1 posted on 11/19/2011 4:20:57 AM PST by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

There’s no way in hell she’ll recuse herself.


2 posted on 11/19/2011 4:45:19 AM PST by Utmost Certainty (Our Enemy, the State)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Utmost Certainty

Correct. She’ll never recuse herself. Her ilk don’t have a care for justice or the will of the people. She’s a communist through and through.


3 posted on 11/19/2011 4:58:11 AM PST by albie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: albie

And not only that, the Marxist media in this country won’t say a freaking word about it.


4 posted on 11/19/2011 5:00:40 AM PST by Marathoner (Occupy Wall Street = Useful Idiots on Parade)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Utmost Certainty
And, if it appears eminent, they have already laid the foundation to call for the recusal of Justice Thomas through his wife. He failed to report her income.

The Hill:Dems Ramp up Attacks...

Don't let this blatant "dirty pool" procedure go unnoticed!

5 posted on 11/19/2011 5:02:08 AM PST by Aevery_Freeman (Can we send a drone after a hostile leader on foreign soil - even if he is ours?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

She wont recuse herself and there is nothing you can do about it,SO THERE! Blah Blah Blah,Im rubber your glue whatever you say to me will bounce off and stick to you.
Sticks and stones will break your bones nad names will never hurt you.


6 posted on 11/19/2011 5:05:53 AM PST by ballplayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ballplayer

I know you are but what am I?


7 posted on 11/19/2011 5:06:40 AM PST by ballplayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

If she wont recuse herself, then she needs impeached and removed from the bench.


8 posted on 11/19/2011 5:12:13 AM PST by simplesimon (You are entitled to your own opinions but not your own "facts"...........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Here’s the problem: Only Republicans are calling for her recusal.

The Republicans in Congress DO NOT YET RECOGNIZE that the Democrats are not playing the same game by the same rules that they are.

The Democrats don’t want Kagan to recuse herself, BECAUSE THEY BELIEVE IT WOULD BE WRONG.

It would be wrong because the Democrats believe the purpose of Presidential appointment and Senate confirmation of Federal judges is to overthrow the system. THey got Kagan on for exactly this reason.

For Democrats, would make no more sense for her to recuse herself than it would make sense for her to dress in purple underwear and deliver her opinions in Norwegian.


9 posted on 11/19/2011 5:17:07 AM PST by Jim Noble (To live peacefully with credit-based consumption and fiat money, men would have to be angels.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble
It would be wrong because the Democrats believe the purpose of Presidential appointment and Senate confirmation of Federal judges is to overthrow the system.

You nailed it.

10 posted on 11/19/2011 5:20:33 AM PST by Erik Latranyi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: All

You know, I’ve often wondered: since we see many cities establishing themselves as “sanctuary cities” in regards to breaking what they see as an unjust law, can states declare themselves “sanctuary states” in regards to this law?


11 posted on 11/19/2011 5:42:19 AM PST by Maverick68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Maverick68
Ohio just voted it down. Maybe the rest of us could opt out. I believe in States rights. That includes the right to State healthcare if a State wants it.
12 posted on 11/19/2011 5:57:09 AM PST by originalbuckeye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

I called my congressman’s office yesterday and demanded him to start the wheels rolling on impeachment if she doesn’t do the right thing. Personally I think she should be impeached anyway based solely on the fact that she is so freeking ugly.....as are the other two! Don’t they make good looking rat judges?


13 posted on 11/19/2011 6:27:03 AM PST by New Jersey Realist (America: home of the free because of the brave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: simplesimon

Impeaching Kagan would be a worthwhile goal for the Congress once we sweep the libs from power in 2012.

The=is stupid woman needs to be made an example.


14 posted on 11/19/2011 7:15:52 AM PST by X-spurt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

This is all just pissing into the wind. We won’t even get the satisfaction of news coverage.


15 posted on 11/19/2011 7:21:48 AM PST by ChildOfThe60s ( If you can remember the 60s....you weren't really there)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Did You Know?

The Current FReepathon Pays For The Current Quarters Expenses?

Now That You Do, Donate And Keep FR Running


16 posted on 11/19/2011 7:21:48 AM PST by DJ MacWoW (America! The wolves are here! What will you do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: simplesimon

they should do that simply based on the fraud she committed while working for Clinton.

She changed sworn testimony during the partial birth abortion debate.
She changed it so it was interpreted as meaning the opposite of it’s intended message, and the statement influenced the Court’s decision.

She is a criminal


17 posted on 11/19/2011 7:29:25 AM PST by Scotswife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

It doesn’t matter if all 535 members of Congress “call for [a] Kagan recusal”.

Being a doctrinaire leftist with her “eyes on the prize”, she is NOT going to recuse herself from this case. And there will be no way to force her to do so, because recusal, by its own standard, is a “removal of one’s self” — that is to say, it must be she who makes the decision to step back herself. And of course, we know what her decision will be.

Having written that, perhaps her “refusal of recusal” may become so glaring a violation of ethics in pursuit of a political goal that it might sway _other justices_ on the Court towards our side. I’m thinking in particular of Anthony Kennedy, who too often “swings with the prevailing winds” of “moderation”.

If Justice Kennedy is put-off by her behavior enough, perhaps (just perhaps) that may provide the impetus for him to “swing towards our side” on this one....


18 posted on 11/19/2011 7:37:10 AM PST by Road Glide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Can Roberts force her to recuse herself?


19 posted on 11/19/2011 7:54:54 AM PST by PhiloBedo (You gotta roll with the punches and get with what's real.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PhiloBedo

The pirate Roberts was put there to protect these leftist appointments. He wil however educate us on why he cannot do anything regarding a fellow ‘justice’ and only the legislative can change the situation.


20 posted on 11/19/2011 7:57:23 AM PST by MHGinTN (Some, believing they cannot be deceived, it's impossible to convince them when they're deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: New Jersey Realist

The rat judge that gave Sandusky a free get out jail card is pretty.


21 posted on 11/19/2011 7:59:43 AM PST by MHGinTN (Some, believing they cannot be deceived, it's impossible to convince them when they're deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Scotswife
She's a dyed in the stinky wool democrat, so we have grown to expect criminality as a career enhancement.
22 posted on 11/19/2011 8:01:56 AM PST by MHGinTN (Some, believing they cannot be deceived, it's impossible to convince them when they're deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: PhiloBedo

No..each Justice makes the determination based upon their own sense of ethics and propriety..


23 posted on 11/19/2011 8:04:52 AM PST by ken5050
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Utmost Certainty
There’s no way in hell she’ll recuse herself.

They need to keep the heat turned up anyway. Every Republican in Congress that voted against ObamaCare needs to sign on to the letter. Republican Governors and state reps as well. Every GOP candidate for prez too. Hammer it loud. Over and over. SCOTUS follows public opinion whether they admit it or not. This Kagan thing has to be brought to critical mass so Kennedy gets the point driven home to him.

24 posted on 11/19/2011 8:22:23 AM PST by Poison Pill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ken5050

ETHICS? ‘Rats don’t care ‘bout no stinkin’ ethics!


25 posted on 11/19/2011 3:11:21 PM PST by originalbuckeye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson