Leading senators: Kagan may have to recuse herself from health case

The Washington Times ^ | November 18, 2011 | Stephen Dinan

[jazusamo]

Top Republican senators said late Friday the Justice Department has been stonewalling their request for more information on Supreme CourtJustice Elena Kagan, and said her previous work as solicitor general “may satisfy both requirements for recusal” from the upcoming health-care case.

The senators, led by Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, are demanding Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. comply with requests for more documents about Justice Kagan’s role in planning the administration’s defense, and said unless he provides the information it could undermine confidence in the court’s eventual ruling on the case.

“President Obama chose to nominate a member of his administration to the Supreme Court knowing it was likely that, if confirmed, she would be in a position to rule on his signature domestic policy achievement,” said the four senators, who also included Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl of Arizona; Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee; and Sen. Mike Lee of Utah.

The Supreme Court announced early this week that it would hear a challenge to the health-care law, which Mr. Obama signed last year. Questions have floated for months over whether Justice Kagan could rule impartially in the case. She was solicitor general at the time the law passed, and acknowledged during her confirmation hearing that she attended at least one meeting where litigation was discussed.

[sjmjax]

She won't.

Her loyalty and unwavering support of Obamacare is the reasson she was appointed in the first place.

[Revolting cat!]

This is the reason why we need a Monarchy. Because who can check such abuses of power? (to anticipate: the Monarch’s decision can be overriden by the legislature.)

[Ken H]

You lost me there. Without judicial review, Obamacare would be the law of the land until rescinded by Congress.

With SCOTUS ruling on it, there is at least the possibility it will be declared unconstitutional.

How would we be better of without a court review of the law?

[Awgie]

Grow ‘em BIG and fast ‘pubs. Play hard and tight. How do you think it would go if the situation was reversed?

Dems would be relentless and merciless. Their media hounds would fan the flames and as usual...they would get their way. I am tired of these punks winning.

START PLAYING HARD BALL! And don't quit until the B******S squeal.

[ballplayer]

If She doesnt recuse herself the Courts Credibility will be undermined? OH NO NOT THAT! Oh the Humanity,I dont know if The Country can handle that,we are about to go over a Cliff ,total Collapse and Kagan wont recuse herself .The Democrats are shaking in their Boots

[shhrubbery!]

I can’t think of a thing or shed any light on how there could be any financial gain, it’s a typical leftist attack on the both of them.

Well thank you for at least trying to think of a logical answer!

Even Greta van Susteren, who is normally reasonable, was parroting this line on her show a few nights ago.

Even more perplexing was the consensus of Greta's panelists -- that it would be a good thing for Justices Thomas and Kagan to both recuse themselves, partly because that would make the numbers "fair" (i.e. their absences would "cancel each other out").

Greta and her panelists are all law school grads. How can they be so absurdly stupid?

[Revolting cat!]

The question before us is who reviews the judiciary? What can be done when Kagan won’t recuse herself?

[SaraJohnson]

Greta is a democrat. That is how it makes sense to her for Thomas to be excluded along with Kagan. She does not want the conservatives on the court having an advantage after her side rightly loses Kagan.

There is no logical comparison to Kagan’s conflict of interest in her role as a legal advisor to the Obama administration on the health care bill and Thomas whose wife demonstrated an opinion about Obamacare. Justices are permitted personal opinions about life in America!

[Ken H]

The only check on SC justices is the impeachment process. The only check on SCOTUS decisions is a constitutional amendment.

What changes do you propose to the Constitution to better review the judiciary?

[Revolting cat!]

My proposal, like all proposals here, is a pipe dream, so why even bother.

But we do have a dead end here, don’t we, even with the Constitutional remedies you list, as Kagan and everyone else knows that she’ll never be impeached. Imperial court, that’s what it is.