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 ...
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.
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.
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...
I would think there is a provision for impeachment of a judge, but I could be wrong.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
DING! DING! DING!
We have a winner, folks!
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.
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”
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.
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.
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??
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.
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.
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.