Skip to comments.Internal DOJ Email: Kagan Was Brought Into Loop on Mark Levinís Obamacare Complaint
Posted on 12/09/2011 2:03:58 PM PST by Sub-Driver
nternal DOJ Email: Kagan Was Brought Into Loop on Mark Levins Obamacare Complaint By Terence P. Jeffrey December 9, 2011
(CNSNews.com) - Internal Justice Department email communications made just days before the House of Representatives passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act show that then-Solicitor General Elena Kagan was brought into the loop as DOJ began preparing to respond to an anticipated legal complaint that Mark Levin and the Landmark Legal Foundation were planning to file against the act if the House used a procedural rule to deem the bill passed even if members never directly voted on it.
In another internal DOJ email communication that same week, Kagan alerted the chief of DOJs Office of Legal Counsel to the constitutional argument that a former U.S. Appeals Court judge was making against the use of this rule.
Then, during Kagans Supreme Court confirmation process four months later, Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee asked her in writing if she had ever been asked about your opinion or offered any view or comments on the the underlying legal or constitutional issues related to any proposed health care legislation, including but not limited to Pub. L. No. 111-148 [PPACA], or the underlying legal or constitutional issues related to potential litigation resulting from such legislation?"
Kagan answered both questions: No.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
Fat chance of that happening.
Paging Congressman Issa ...
Gee, what’s the penalty for perjury before the Senate Judiciary Committee? This would be a very interesting legal battle.
OK folks, come on why do you think she was nominated in the first place........My opinion is for this very case. You know, friends on the inside...........
Kagan lied to Congress. That is a Federal felony, the penalty of which is time in a Federal penitentiary.
Congress should impeach her and she should spend time in the Gray Bar Hotel.
Mark Levin fighting for us on all fronts!
She might actually enjoy being in jail...
That may be true, but it is not indicated by the present evidence. She was asked her opinion of the "deeming" - that is a far different question than the constitutionality of the act itself. I have not read the briefs, but it seems to me the Court has granted a hearing on two major subject: 1.) the constitutionality of the individual mandate; and 2.) the severability of the mandate from the Act. I have not read anything to indicate the court will hear arguments about whether the legislative process was valid.
I think Kagan should recuse herself - but this email is irrelevant. I think it is a reasonable interpretation of the Congressional Question to believe it was concerned with the Act itself - not the process of its passage. The process is moot to the scheduled Supreme Court hearings.
However, the 2 month gap ...
You mean Gay Bar Hotel? :-)
I do not believe all the email to be irrelevant.
She stated emphatically to Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee when they asked her in writing if she had ever been asked about your opinion or offered any view or comments on the the underlying legal or constitutional issues related to any proposed health care legislation, including but not limited to Pub. L. No. 111-148 [PPACA], or the underlying legal or constitutional issues related to potential litigation resulting from such legislation?”
I think that’s pretty clear she was asked about more than just “constitutionality of the act itself”.
“In another internal DOJ email communication...Kagan alerted the chief of DOJs Office of Legal Counsel to the constitutional argument that a former U.S. Appeals Court judge was making against the use of this rule.
She lied to Congress, period.
The press, if it were independent, should be hardline on this.
Whether or not it’s perjury depends on her state of mind at the time. Thus spake Lord Holder.
This needs to be picked up by all conservative media.
Not only should Kagan be forced to recuse herself, she MUST answer to somebody for her lies on the matter of her involvement.
Who can “impeach” her?
“...Who can impeach her?...”
“We The People” can impeach her
via our elected representatives
in the House of Representatives.
put it on ice for a bit and hold the hearings when the supreme court is in process of reviewing this item. Then, after we take the senate and presidency, remove her ass from the bench and appoint Ted Nugent in her place.
Constitution of the United States
Article I Section 2:
The House of Representatives shall choose their speaker and other officers; and shall have the sole power of impeachment.
Article II Section 4:
The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
Article III Section 1:
The judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behavior, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
It has been long held by legal tradition that the phrase “The judges ... shall hold their offices during good behavior” found in Article III Section I means they are appointed for life as long as their “behavior” is “good”.
Various courts have interpreted the language during good behavior to be of the same level of seriousness as “high crimes and misdemeanors.
Ultimately, The House of Representatives is fully and independently vested with the duty and responsibility of determining what constitutes an impeachable offense.
A Supreme Court Justice may be impeached by the House of Representatives and then removed from office if convicted in a Senate trial the same as any other government official under Article I and II of the Constitution.
Although the mechanism exists, ONLY ONE Supreme Court Justice has ever been formally “impeached” by the House of Representatives, and NO Supreme Court justice has EVER been “removed from office” by the Senate.
1804- Samuel Chase (a signer of the Declaration of Independence) was accused by the House of Representatives of letting his political leanings affect his rulings and served him with eight articles of impeachment. One article concerned Chase’s handling of the trial of John Fries; two concerned his conduct in the trial of James Callender; four concerned Chase’s procedural errors on various matters; and the eighth article had to do with Chase’s intemperate and inflammatory”; “indecent and unbecoming”; “highly unwarrantable”; and “highly indecent remarks made to a Baltimore grand jury. In 1805, the Senate acquitted Chase of all charges, establishing the right of the judiciary to independent opinion. Chase continued to serve until his death in 1811.
1957- Earl Warren, Hugo Black, William O. Douglas, Tom Campbell Clark, Felix Frankfurter, and Stanley Forman Reed were all named in a resolution passed by the Georgia General Assembly and signed by Georgia Governor Marvin Griffin. Nothing ever came of this effort. The resolution was titled The Impeachment of Certain U.S. Supreme Court Justices, and targeted the six Supreme Court Justices who were believed to be enabling communism with their decisions “for usurping the congressional power to make law in violation of Article I, Sections I and 8”; for “violations of Sections 3 and 5 of the 14th Amendment”; and for “nullification of the 10th Amendment of the Constitution.” Signs were erected across the south saying “Impeach Earl Warren”, many of which were still standing when Warren retired from the bench in 1969.
1969- Abe Fortas was almost impeached due to a tax and financial scandal involving Wall Street financier, Louis Wolfson. When President Richard Nixon learned of the scandal, he said Fortas should be off of there. The House of Representatives had already taken preliminary steps toward impeachment. Chief Justice Earl Warren urged Fortas to resign, to save the reputation of the Court. Fortas resisted at first, but eventually stepped down “to avoid damaging his wifes legal career”.
Wow. She is nailed with this one. Liars abound in theO’s cabinet. Now she is enthroned on the SCOTUS. Elections have consequences.
Remember.........fall of 2012 it’s anybody but obama. be prepared to pinch your nose and pull the lever for the GOP.
Could anyone enforce the law impose a recusal on the fat little Marxist? Are we a nation of laws or a nation of fascist pukes?
Teddy on how many drinks he had before driving his car off the bridge. Bill Clinton during the Monica Lewinsky investigation. Eric Holder before Congress.
It's taken for granted--Democrats aren't expected to tell the truth.