“She just recused herself on the SCOTUS Arizona case.”
Did she? The article I read yesterday, put it in somewhat confusing terms. It seemed to me that she might have recused herself from the decision to take the case, but not the case itself. Hope I’m wrong about that!
“Did she? The article I read yesterday, put it in somewhat confusing terms. It seemed to me that she might have recused herself from the decision to take the case, but not the case itself. Hope I’m wrong about that!”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I saw that blurb but did not see the article. Do you have a link?
If that turns out to be the case, she will look like an even bigger stooge...and a deceitful stooge at that because she led the press to believe she was recusing herself, without correcting....
BUT, even if she is following orders and her statement was designed to mislead, and she eventually “recinds” her recusal, she has the Obamacare issue and history to answer to.
She may be a Obot dim bulb (by SCOTUS standards), but I hold out hope she doesn’t intend to set out on a SCOTUS career of corruption.
Did not find the article but there is this from Lurking Libertarian:
When a Justice recuses from a case, that is announced when the Court announces that they voted to hear the case, because the recused Justice doesn’t vote on the decision to hear the case. (That is why Kagan’s recusal was announced today, together with the Court’s decision to hear the Arizona case.) Kagan did not recuse from the vote to hear the Obamacare cases.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2819322/posts?page=30#30
See also his post 42 in same thread.
The Supreme Court's Order said that the petition for certiorari was granted (lawyer-speak for "SCOTUS will hear the case"), and that Kagan did not participate in the vote. That means that she is recused from the case; if she wasn't recused, she would have participated in the vote. So she will not participate in the argument or decision.
There are sometimes exceptions to this, but none that apply here. In one or two recent cases, Roberts recused from a vote to hear the case because he owned stock in the company that was a party, but then sold the stock after the vote to hear the case so he could vote on the case. But that doesn't apply here; Kagan is recused because she was a lawyer in the case, so she's out for good.