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

Skip to comments.

Thomas, Kagan asked to sit out health care case
AP Via OO ^ | AP

Posted on 11/26/2011 10:37:39 AM PST by Enosh

WASHINGTON – Conservative interest groups and Republican lawmakers want Justice Elena Kagan off the health care case. Liberals and Democrats in Congress say it’s Justice Clarence Thomas who should sit it out.

Neither justice is budging — the right decision, according to many ethicists and legal experts.

None of the parties in the case has asked the justices to excuse themselves. But underlying the calls on both sides is their belief that the conservative Thomas is a sure vote to strike down President Barack Obama’s health care law and that the liberal Kagan is certain to uphold the main domestic achievement of the man who appointed her.

The stakes are high in the court’s election-year review of a law aimed at extending coverage to more than 30 million people. Both sides have engaged in broad legal and political maneuvering for the most favorable conditions surrounding the court’s consideration of the case.

Taking away just one vote potentially could tip the outcome on the nine-justice court.

Republican lawmakers recently have stepped up their effort against Kagan, complaining that the Justice Department has not fully revealed Kagan’s involvement in planning the response to challenges to the law. Kagan was Obama’s solicitor general, the administration’s top Supreme Court lawyer, until he nominated her to the high court last year.

“The public has a right to know both the full extent of Justice Kagan’s involvement with this legislation while she was solicitor general, as well as her previously stated views and opinions about the legislation while she was serving as solicitor general,” the House Judiciary Committee chairman, Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, said Tuesday in a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder.

(Excerpt) Read more at oddonion.com ...


TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: elenakagan; kagan; scotus; scotusobamacare

1 posted on 11/26/2011 10:37:43 AM PST by Enosh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Enosh

Neither will. Perhaps they should but they won’t.


2 posted on 11/26/2011 10:40:26 AM PST by napscoordinator (Anybody but Romney, Newt, Perry, Huntsman, Paul. Perry and Obama are 100 percent the same!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Enosh

I wonder how many maggots on Capitol Hill have spouses who are going to make millions BECAUSE of the passage of Barry’s “Healthcare” law. This crap with Justice Thomas is just a bunch of communist bovine scatology.


3 posted on 11/26/2011 10:41:53 AM PST by FlingWingFlyer (Stop BIG Government Greed Now!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Enosh

Kagan has to recuse. She was directly involved and openly biased. Thomas does not have to recuse, the attacks on him are a smoke screen with no no basis done by democrats to cover for their real problem with their Obamacare pushing judge.


4 posted on 11/26/2011 10:42:47 AM PST by Mechanicos (Why does the DOE have a SWAT Team?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Enosh

Thomas? No Way! He has absolutely no reason to recuse himself. He wasn’t part of drafting the bill, nor was he on the WH staff writing the defense for it, as was Mzzz. Kagan.


5 posted on 11/26/2011 10:45:05 AM PST by FrdmLvr (culture, language, borders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mechanicos

Kagan has to recuse. She was directly involved and openly biased. Thomas does not have to recuse, the attacks on him are a smoke screen with no no basis done by democrats to cover for their real problem with their Obamacare pushing judge.


While true, our side is too stupid to publicize this...the fact that we have to beg our side to do publicity is sad.Truly there should be a social media campaign on this, but it appears only Dems know how to use such tools. Where is Ralph Reed? He used to be a great, savvy guy...did he fizzle away?


6 posted on 11/26/2011 10:45:45 AM PST by CincyRichieRich (Keep your head up and keep moving forward!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator

It is a bit like a teenage girl throwing the kitchen sink worth of arguments in order to get her way, leaving the rest of us wondering what the hell she just said.


7 posted on 11/26/2011 10:46:01 AM PST by Enosh (†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Enosh

The GOP has to impeach if she won’t recuse.


8 posted on 11/26/2011 10:46:01 AM PST by Poison Pill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Enosh

The design of the Supreme Court is not pretty. I haven’t thought about what the answer really is, but it’s lacking. But perhaps there is no better answer; perhaps that ugly solution is the best. It’s unwise to make changes when one really does not know what one is doing.

But it’s almost like perhaps during their terms, Supreme Court Justices should be sequestered, have no access to news, whether via TV, internet, print, radio - anything.

They have always been too aware of the politics of the day.

This is a good design in some ways, like much of the government design, that results in an imperfect mechanism but allows for continual correction. They don’t decide cases in a vaccuum, they are aware of the societal context of their decisions.

It’s just frustrating that so many opinions are politically motivated and simply a rationalization of the desired results.


9 posted on 11/26/2011 10:47:52 AM PST by PieterCasparzen (We have to fix things ourselves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Enosh
They are trying to equate Thomas and Kagan as the same.

Thomas's wife is not in government. Kagan was directly involved in the legislation

10 posted on 11/26/2011 10:48:09 AM PST by opentalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator
Neither will. Perhaps they should but they won’t.

Kagan is the only one of the two with an actual conflict of interests. Justice Thomas has no conflict whatsoever.

11 posted on 11/26/2011 10:48:54 AM PST by WXRGina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: WXRGina

Well I said neither will leave so it does not matter who leaves and who stays. They both will stay.


12 posted on 11/26/2011 10:49:42 AM PST by napscoordinator (Anybody but Romney, Newt, Perry, Huntsman, Paul. Perry and Obama are 100 percent the same!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator
No, Thomas' wife should not.

The only reason they made her an issue is because they knew there were grounds for Kagan's recusal so they made something up for our side to make it sound like is it a case of moral equivalancy.

It's not.

13 posted on 11/26/2011 10:53:17 AM PST by Siena Dreaming
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Enosh

Elena Kagan is on the Supreme Court bench for one reason only: as a cheerleader for the Obama agenda, most of which will be tested by court challenges for many years to come. The “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” is only the first of many to be presented, but by no means the last.

She does not have judicial temperment, nor sufficient practical experience in Constitutional law, to rule competently on ANY issue concerning the interpretation of existing law, precedents, and ramifications of rulings relating to the constitutional basis for any of the Obama agenda.

With no clue as to the meaning of most of the Bill of Rights, or the spirit behind which these provisions came to be included in the Constitution, she is unfit for the office to which she is appointed.

Harriet Miers would have been a far better choice to be placed on the Supreme Court, but she was threatened with a much more rudely applied anal exam than Kagan has ever been subjected to.


14 posted on 11/26/2011 10:54:13 AM PST by alloysteel (Are Democrats truly "better angels"? They are lousy stewards for America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Enosh

The left pulls the “moral equivalence” card yet again.

I am really, really angry that the Republicans refuse to speak out on this. Clarence Thomas basically has been left to defend himself, ever since he was first appointed, even though he is one of the soundest judges who has ever served on SCOTUS.

And what is Kagan’s qualification? That she is an extreme leftist who wrecked the program at Harvard Law School?


15 posted on 11/26/2011 10:55:58 AM PST by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Enosh

Seems obvious Kagan should excuse herself...she’s already done so on several other instances. I don’t know about Thomas...that looks like a grey area to me. I can kinda see their point about Thomas but I’m not so sure its a strong one.


16 posted on 11/26/2011 10:57:15 AM PST by mamelukesabre
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator

The MSM will go after Thomas. The MSM won’t see any conflict for Kagan even if she wrote the thing. lol


17 posted on 11/26/2011 10:58:24 AM PST by GeronL (The Right to Life came before the Right to Pursue Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator
Well I said neither will leave so it does not matter who leaves and who stays. They both will stay.

I'll bet you're right. That's what so sickening about this. This commununist regime is completely unaccountable--lawless, actually. And, where are the people who apply the law to Obama's regime? I guess they're scared.

18 posted on 11/26/2011 10:59:13 AM PST by WXRGina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Enosh

Why should Justice Thomas recuse himself?

Because the left doesn’t like him?

Kagan actually advocated for the new law. It was her job. She was paid to lobby for the law. She favors it.

She is beyond biased and needs to recuse herself

Thomas is none of those things. He has no relationship with the case.

Liberals are insane.


19 posted on 11/26/2011 11:02:59 AM PST by Cringing Negativism Network ("Galts Gulch" <> Communist China)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Enosh

Thomas shouldn’t have to. His “involvement” is via his wife.


20 posted on 11/26/2011 11:04:17 AM PST by albie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mamelukesabre

The liberals are going after Thomas on this to deflect attention away from Kagan. They are drawing an equalivance between the two, as if to say that Kagan won’t recuse if Thomas doesn’t recuse.

And the bottom line to liberals is the vote, as it may well be a 5-4 decision. Liberals look at courts as super legislatures, as just another political tool to get their policies enacted.


21 posted on 11/26/2011 11:05:19 AM PST by Dilbert San Diego
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: PieterCasparzen

I say fire the lot of them.

Then design a computer program that can read the constitution and decide if the law in question is covered by it.

Shouldn’t take more than an afternoon to write the code, the consitution isn’t that long.


22 posted on 11/26/2011 11:19:35 AM PST by TexasFreeper2009 (I had considered voting for Gingrich... but on second thought ... it would not be "humane")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Enosh

So, what is the action/solution when Kagan does’t recuse herself? Can the Cheif Justice force her to recuse? Is there something we as the “People” can do against obvious judicial bias? I honestly don’t know if we have any recourse...


23 posted on 11/26/2011 11:30:57 AM PST by LaRueLaDue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Enosh
The argument for Thomas to recuse himself is baseless and ridiculous.
24 posted on 11/26/2011 11:32:39 AM PST by Caipirabob ( Communists... Socialists... Democrats...Traitors... Who can tell the difference?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LaRueLaDue

I would think there is a provision for impeachment of a judge, but I could be wrong.


25 posted on 11/26/2011 11:33:47 AM PST by mamelukesabre
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator
“Neither will. Perhaps they should but they won’t.”

Thomas has absolutely no direct conflict of interest. It doesn't matter what his wife does. She's a private citizen, and as long as he isn't financially conflicted he has no reason to recuse himself.

Kagan, on the other hand, has a direct conflict of interest. She was part of the inception of this plan and has a personal stake in it. She should definitely be recused. The two situations are not equivalent.

26 posted on 11/26/2011 11:35:06 AM PST by pieceofthepuzzle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Enosh

Congressman John Tierney (D-MA) should not be involved in any decision on budget since his wife was convicted for tax evasion. And perhaps Charles Rangel (D-NY) too.


27 posted on 11/26/2011 11:38:05 AM PST by paudio (0bama is like a bad mechanic who couldn't fix your car; he just makes it worse. Get somebody else!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LaRueLaDue

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Chase


28 posted on 11/26/2011 11:40:07 AM PST by mamelukesabre
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Enosh

Well...IF Thomas has to recuse himself because of his WIFE...then the ONE should have to RECUSE himself of MANY things based on HIS wifey...


29 posted on 11/26/2011 11:44:50 AM PST by goodnesswins (Being Thankful I was born in the great U S of A!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mechanicos
Exactly, and everyone knows it. Because everyone knows Kagan must recuse the left, in typical fashion, is attempting to create moral equivalence. This is just another lie of the left, yet no Republican will fight this, they will lay down... again.
30 posted on 11/26/2011 11:45:21 AM PST by Obadiah (If Reagan were alive today he'd be spinning in his grave.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Enosh

Kagan was head of the staff preparing the defense of the Healthcare bill. That means to my point of view that she had input to the bill as she of course wouldn’t want to allow anything that she couldn’t defend be in the bill.

She should recuse herself as she had to have had input into the creation of it.


31 posted on 11/26/2011 11:57:07 AM PST by rockinqsranch (Dems, Libs, Socialists, call 'em what you will, they ALL have fairies livin' in their trees.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CincyRichieRich
While true, our side is too stupid to publicize this...the fact that we have to beg our side to do publicity is sad.

Doesn't "our side" include US? Post it on every (appropriate) message board and blog, in letters to the editor, on the signs of our small businesses and churches, in our front yards and windows, anywhere it will be seen. Reply strongly to every online article about the topic or reasonably parallel to it. Maybe that will shame our elected into speaking out.

32 posted on 11/26/2011 12:01:31 PM PST by JimRed (Excising a cancer before it kills us waters the Tree of Liberty! TERM LIMITS, NOW AND FOREVER!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Poison Pill
The GOP has to impeach if she won’t recuse.

DING! DING! DING!

We have a winner, folks!

33 posted on 11/26/2011 12:05:23 PM PST by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Enosh

But underlying the calls on both sides is their belief that the conservative Thomas is a sure vote to strike down President Barack Obama’s health care law and that the liberal Kagan is certain to uphold the main domestic achievement of the man who appointed her.


Oh, really? Not actual law that prevents a judge from presiding over a case she worked intimately for?

I continue to despise the MSM.


34 posted on 11/26/2011 12:07:55 PM PST by Yaelle (This weekend, donate $9.99 to Herman Cain!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: paudio

Congressman John Tierney (D-MA) should not be involved in any decision on budget since his wife was convicted for tax evasion. And perhaps Charles Rangel (D-NY) too
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Next thing you know we will have a President’s wife who owns construction companies that are ‘given’ lucrative contracts in war zones.
Oh wait, we already had that. Sorry.
I get those two idiot Senators from Cal mixed up but ones hubby has a big interest in Dole and the other has something to do with either MRE’s or Commissary/PX’s etc.
But that is ok.
Oh yes, don’t forget the D Senate leader whose wife was either a lobbyist or on the board of an airline while deregulation etc hearings were going on and HE was an integral part of it.
The “D’s” do it continually, the R’s weakly complain, then when something somewhat similar happens to an R, The D’s say “Make up your mind. You complained when so & so did it”


35 posted on 11/26/2011 12:16:18 PM PST by xrmusn ((6/98) If govt involved, the more outlandish a scheme appears, the truer it probably is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: TexasFreeper2009

There is such software dealing with language semantics; it is a whole system of various fields of study. There is a lot of software out there related to these fields, i.e., AI, language processing, etc.

Such a program that would really do the job perfectly could not be written today, as the size of the problem is not based on the amount of text but the amount of meaning. Meaning results from what is explicitly stated as well as what is implied, etc. However, it is not at all a far-fetched idea.

That being said, people can still corrupt the process if they so choose. Goes back to what the founders of America noted, that (to paraphrase) how well a nation’s government functions is limited to the character of it’s citizens. Ergo, focusing efforts on improving the character of citizens will produce the benefits we seek. The alternative, somehow forcing government to be righteous and then having it impose it’s will on a morally-bankrupt citizenry has never worked in practice, as both the former and the latter inevitably fall woefully short of the goals of even the most well-thought-out and well-intended of plans.


36 posted on 11/26/2011 12:17:14 PM PST by PieterCasparzen (We have to fix things ourselves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: alloysteel

I’d see Kagan replaced with Miers in a New York minute, but as a Republican/conservative standard bearer, Miers was underwhelming. Bush did a lot better with Roberts and Alito.


37 posted on 11/26/2011 12:44:32 PM PST by HiTech RedNeck (bloodwashed not whitewashed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Mechanicos

Exactly.

Once again, they resort to one of their top 3 strategies: projection.

I’m only surprised that the left didn’t start hammering away their demands that Thomas recuse months before we started saying, “Hey, is that Kagan on the USSC the same one that wrote briefs supporting the legality of the issue and urging others to support it??


38 posted on 11/26/2011 12:48:55 PM PST by Ghost of Philip Marlowe (Prepare for survival. (Karl Denninger has jumped the shark. Do not visit his blog.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Poison Pill

The GOP has to impeach if she won’t recuse.

&&&
Not holding your breath on that one, I hope.

I haven’t heard of any spine implants among the leadership lately.


39 posted on 11/26/2011 1:25:24 PM PST by Bigg Red (Maryland girl on the Cain Train)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Enosh

The Left should quit playing tit for tat. The only reason they want Justice Thomas off is they perceive him as their biggest obstacle. He does not need to be off the case.

Kagan is another matter. She clearly has a conflict of interest.


40 posted on 11/26/2011 1:42:10 PM PST by freekitty (Give me back my conservative vote; then find me a real conservative to vote for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Enosh
Republican lawmakers recently have stepped up their effort against Kagan, complaining that the Justice Department has not fully revealed Kagan’s involvement in planning the response to challenges to the law. Kagan was Obama’s solicitor general, the administration’s top Supreme Court lawyer, until he nominated her to the high court last year.

Kagan was directly involved with supporting Obamacare. She mislead or lied to the lawmakers who approved her selection as a member of the Supreme Court.

Mr. Thomas has a spouse who works. He was NOT directly involved with the Obamacare issue. The Democrats are loud and boisterous over nothing, maybe to distract from the Kagan issue. She should resign in disgrace.

41 posted on 11/26/2011 2:16:38 PM PST by olezip
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mamelukesabre

I don’t see that they have a point at all about Thomas, they are simply saying that as a bona fide conservative justice and a strict constructionist it can be assumed that he will vote against Obama care. That is absolutely no reason to expect that he should excuse himself. In fact the matter is so unconstitutional that any justice who would even consider finding it constitutional should resign. Of course that applies to the bulk of federal law as it exists. If we actually went BACK to the constitution most of the federal government would have to be shut down.


42 posted on 11/26/2011 2:56:49 PM PST by RipSawyer (This does not end well!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: TexasFreeper2009

First you would have to agree on definitions for every word in the constitution! Too many now believe that “make no law” means make all kinds of law, “shall not be infringed” means shall be infringed in every possible way, silence means consent, “promote the general welfare” means socialism, “a Republican form of government” means democracy, fascism, dictatorship or whatever etc. If the document had no more meaning than MOST Americans assign to it and I don’t mean just the left, I include many who call themselves strict conservatives, there would have been no reason to write it, let alone struggle for months and haggle over every word. A simple, “Do what you wish, after all the blood, sweat, tears and agony of a revolution we have no energy left to worry about setting down rules for the future”, would have sufficed.


43 posted on 11/26/2011 3:15:21 PM PST by RipSawyer (This does not end well!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator

Kagan yes, Thomas no,


44 posted on 11/26/2011 3:32:30 PM PST by goat granny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | 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