Skip to comments.Kagan Sits in Judgment of ObamacareóDespite Cheering Its Passage and Assigning Lawyer to Defend It
Posted on 03/28/2012 4:06:09 PM PDT by yoe
When the Supreme Court on Monday began hearing oral arguments in the cases challenging the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care ActAKA ObamacareSupreme Court Justice Elena Kagan showed up to hear the arguments and gave no indication she would recuse herself from judging the cases even though she had cheered enactment of Obamacare as an Obama political appointee and had personally assigned her top deputy in the Obama Justice Department to defend the law in federal court.
A federal law, 28 USC 455, says a Supreme Court justice must recuse from any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned or anytime he has expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy while he served in governmental employment.
During her confirmation process in the Senate Judiciary Committee, Kagan assured the committee in written responses to (its questionnaire) that she would follow the letter and spirit of 28 U.S.C. 455.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
Awwww it’s all on the (dis)honor system.
Unless Congress had the moxie to impeach and convict her.
Hard liberals such as Kagan have no shame. They operate with the motto “end justifies the means”.
“A federal law, 28 USC 455, says...”
Might as well stop reading. Laws don’t apply to democrats.
Does mendacious mean lesbian?
Kagan should have recused herself.
,,,,, CORRUPTION in the high court ,,,, what’s new here ???
Mendacious means to tell lies.
She is a rookie Justice who has chosen a scorched earth approach that exposed her lack of Judicial ethics and has cost her the respect and trust of her peers on the court, even those on the left. No one likes a hack for a Judge and Kagan has shown herself to a hack.
Soon the judgment on ObamaCAre will be rendered but the black mark she has made for herself will live on for the rest of her tenure on the court. This black mark will limit her effectiveness as a Justice. She will pay a high price going forward for her support of ObamaCare
If there is big change in Congress and a Republican President is elected there is a good chance that more evidence of her direct involvement in ObamaCare will surface and her ethical violations will be exposed to the public.
Her reputation as an ethical Justice will be destroyed and she may be forced to resign or be impeached by a Congress that is under pressure from the public
Obama and other left wingers surely don’t care about anything more than a reliable vote for their causes (although something even these pawns do something surprising like taking part in the unanimous tell-off to the EPA the other week, but that could just be the repayment of a favor to Roberts).
She can posture all she wants...she will support Obamacare forever.
Either way she comes out looking like a dummox... not that it’s going to matter so much to HER, but it will reflect on Obama.
Why can’t Chief Justice Roberts direct Kagan to recuse herself?
You can bet Kagan is an embedded SPY FOR THE REGIME. Watch your backs, Justices! They probably should sweep for listening devices and other spy equipment which Kagan may be using on them. I wouldn’t so much as SHOW HER my notes let alone hand them to her.
That reminds me.. Is Boehner bound, gagged and locked up in a Democrat’s closet somewhere? /crickets.. That dude has about as much fight in him as a marshmallow.
Really sucks to have the criminals in charge!
(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States **shall** disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
(b) He **shall** also disqualify himself in the following
(1) Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a
party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts
concerning the proceeding;
(2) Where in private practice he served as lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom he previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter, or the judge or such lawyer has been a material witness concerning it;
(3) Where he has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy;
The purpose of the statute mandating recusal is to assure the rest of us of the impartiality of the justices.
I suppose this justice believes the question turns on the meaning of the word “shall.”
A scofflaw US Supreme Court Justice, mmm mmmm mmm.
As aware and wise as we are, I think even WE are surprised as to just how deeply those seeking to overthrow our Republic have infiltrated our government. The progressives have been working on this.. p r o g r e s s i v e l y. Of course it doesn’t help that they have total control of the public school system and are churning out more dumbed-down students-turned-socialists as we speak.
“...Kagan should have recused herself....”
An honorable person would have.
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.