Skip to comments.Judicial Watch Asks Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan to Directly Address Obamacare Recusal...
Posted on 03/22/2012 3:20:06 PM PDT by jazusamo
Complete title: Judicial Watch Asks Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan to Directly Address Obamacare Recusal Controversy
(Washington, DC) Judicial Watch, the nations largest government watchdog group, today sent a letter asking Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan to address the facts surrounding her tenure as Solicitor General and the enactment and subsequent legal defense of the PPACA (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act), as well as to provide an articulation of her reasoning behind any decision regarding recusal.
Emails previously obtained by Judicial Watch suggest that, during Justice Kagans tenure as Solicitor General, the Office of the Solicitor General had been more involved in the legal defense of the PPACA than had previously been disclosed. Late last year, another set of records were produced that included an email showing what appeared to be then-Solicitor General Kagans excitement and support for the passage of the PPACA.
In the letter, Mr. Fitton notes, The failure of the Justice department to produce requested records in a timely manner, the dribbling out of requested records over time, the redaction and withholding of other records, and the refusal to respond to requests for records and information from several members of Congress have contributed to the substantial impression that additional details about your tenure as Solicitor General and the enactment and subsequent legal defense of the PPACA are being withheld from the American people. However, [as] the Court ultimately rules on the various legal challenges to the PPACA, it would be extraordinarily unfortunate if the Courts decision were overshadowed by controversy over your participation in the matter. It would leave a cloud hanging over the Courts decision and could undermine public confidence in the impartiality and integrity of the Court as an institution.
The letter states, Judicial Watch is not calling on you to recuse yourself from the PPACA litigation at this time, just as Judicial Watch did not call on Justice Scalia to recuse himself from the litigation involving the National Energy Policy Development Group (NEPDG) to which Judicial Watch was a party in 2004. When a controversy arose during the course of the NEPDG litigation over whether Justice Scalia should recuse himself from that matter, Justice Scalia issued an opinion stating: The decision whether a judges impartiality can reasonably be questioned is to be made in light of the facts as they existed, and not as they were surmised or reported. Justice Scalia then provided a comprehensive recitation of the facts as they existed, not as they were surmised or reported, and an articulation of the reasoning behind his decision not to recuse himself.
Mr. Fitton further notes, During your confirmation process, you wrote that you would consider carefully the recusal practices of current and past Justices as well as consult with your colleagues if questions about recusal in particular cases arose. Judicial Watch believes that it would be of substantial benefit to the Courts consideration of the legal challenges to the PPACA if, like Justice Scalia in the NEPDG matter, you were to address the facts surrounding your tenure as Solicitor General and the enactment and subsequent legal defense of the PPACA as they existed, not as they are being surmised or reported, as well as provide an articulation of your reasoning behind any decision regarding recusal.
Justice Kagan has said that she was not substantially involved in the DOJ discussions regarding Obamacares constitutional or litigation issues. The White House, despite repeated inquiries, has refused to confirm to Judicial Watch that Justice Kagan was walled off from Obamacare defense discussions while at the Department of Justice (DOJ).
The Judicial Watch letter also references is the lack of cooperation by the DOJ in responding to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests previously submitted by Judicial Watch for records pertaining to Justice Kagan and the PPACA.
On February 21, 2012, Judicial Watch filed another FOIA lawsuit against the DOJ, seeking access to calendars, schedules, and phone logs for Justice Kagan and her deputies inside the Solicitor Generals office.
We hope that Justice Kagan will give serious consideration to addressing this recusal controversy, so as to provide greater transparency and increase public confidence in the impartiality and integrity of the Supreme Court, stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.
Your probably right, he looks like one stout fellow!
In 25 years as a Prosecutor I only had a judge recuse themselves one time and that was because they were neighbors with one of the witnesses.
NO chance of any recusal.
Did I write stout fellow? I meant Lou Costello!
Agreed, no way she’ll recuse herself.
How about both. lol
Having attained her seat on the Supreme Court, I don't expect Kagan to follow the example of Scalia, or anyone else.
Kagan withheld information about his role with the PPACA in order to become a USSC justice - I don’t expect he will start playing by the rules now.
(S)he looks more like Doug Heffernan (King of Queens)
I guess someone needs to push the question but Tom knows (hopefully) that she was put on the court for these specific reasons. The chance of her recusal is the same as no sun tomorrow.
That is a man in drag, the first transvestite to the court. Until someone goes under the robe, and I most certainly do not volunteer, to find out differently - I'm sticking with the masculine pronoun, because that is not feminine.
That's Kevin James in drag.
lolol.....my wrong! chuckle
Might be a lousy Supreme Court justice, but his ‘Paul Blart’ movie was hysterical.
Lou Costello - could have been twins separated at birth.
“I Believe in Magic!”
Dang-it.. there is another actor who is on the tip of my tongue.. image in my head that is almost an exact match.. just can’t remember then name.. been searching for about 15 minutes now.. was an 80’s actor.. not Rob Lowe (close).. not Judd Nelson (still close).. was another coke head washout.. dang-it... Hmm.. name Morton Downy keeps popping into my head, for some reason..
If she recuses herself, Barry would just re-appoint her or someone worse.
Bump to truth!
LOL!!....That can't happen.
Darnit! Now every time I Robert Downey Jr., I;m going to think of Elena Kagan!
I don’t disagree with your conclusion, but I can add that, in my 22 years doing mostly civil litigation, I have probably seen 15 to 20 recusals. Typically, the judges in our area are selected from practicing attorneys in the county (I suppose this is not unlike other states). Since these judges had been practicing attorneys for 15 or 20 years before going on the bench, they would be bound to come across litigants or witnesses who were former clients or adversaries. In fact, one time the SOB who represented my first wife in our divorce became a judge and recused himself from some garden-variety motion I had filed.
Kagan is no Sherlock Holmes nor is he an Iron man, but a stark raving liberal on the bench.
Now that JW is involved we can officially declare the beaten horse dead. It’s the legal equivalent of a shark being jumped. Aaaayyy, Fonzie!
When the Senate confirmed her, it said in effect, “We trust your decision-making.” That included her decision whether or not to recuse herself.
That is an understatement:/ She is evil, pure and simple. And she, and her cohorts, are destroying our country and need to be stopped :/
The attempt probably won’t work, but it’s a good try and it puts Kagain in an embarrassing position.
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.