Skip to comments.Kagan refuses to recuse on Obamacare
Posted on 11/24/2011 10:17:47 AM PST by plsjr
Today, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the so-called 26-state lawsuit against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare. This announcement ends speculation whether recent Obama appointee Justice Elena Kagan will recuse herself from the case.
It is clear that Justice Kagan has refused requests that she not participate in this ruling. The failure of the Court order to note that Kagan had recused herself indicates that she has not. Traditionally, when a justice decides not to participate in a decision to hear a case, the Court order notes that fact. No notification means that it can be assumed that each justice participated in the decision, including Kagan.
The calls for Justice Kagan to recuse herself are based upon her role as Obamas Solicitor General when Obamacare was passed. In this position, she must have been involved in the strategy decisions on how to defend Obamacare. In fact, and by her own admission, she was present at at least one meeting in which the challenges to PPACA were discussed.
This admission on its face should have disqualified Kagan from participating in the Court case, as she and those who reported to her, were heavily involved in framing the arguments supporting the law.
ALGs, Bill Wilson argues that, Kagan is no more of an independent jurist on this issue than Obama himself would be. For her to refuse to recuse herself from the Supreme Courts consideration of the constitutionality of the law is an affront to the American system of jurisprudence.
Read more at NetRightDaily.com: http://netrightdaily.com/2011/11/kagan-refuses-to-recuse-on-obamacare/#ixzz1eeCJfXjW
(Excerpt) Read more at netrightdaily.com ...
Kagan also refuses to recuse on Hillary’s _____y.
Don’t you think the other BO appointee would be at least cracking a smile?
The only way that sucker is going away..is when We the People go rip it out by the roots...
Congress needs to act to permanently remove her.
We could only hope.
I believe that is one of their goals!
Just think of the same thing taking place these days in many American law schools. :( I think one of BO's (and those who control him) goals is to create a generation of "lawyers in name only" who do not understand our Constitution.
Justices are to serve in good behaviour.
How is pretending to be an impartial judge over an issue that she is on record vociferously supporting considered good behaviour?
My memory is not that good on the subject, but I think I recall that the repubs in the senate had a plan to block her but at the last minute lost their nerve and did not.
Would someone who knows please confirm or correct.
If my memory is correct, the rinos have done us in. This is just the beginning.
And a lot of times the laws that are enforced are unconstitutional.
I can’t believe CJ Roberts doesn’t have the authority to stop her. He is Chief Justice!!!
“Someone recently posted the text of a law that says that a jurist MUST recuse themselves from any case where they may have a conflict of interest.
So, now a jurist in the highest court in the land can just break the LAW with impunity? Excuse me, but the irony in that is almost too stark to describe.
If Kagan doesnt recuse herself from the Obamacare case, it will effectively nullify the legitimacy of the Supreme Court.”
What we are witnessing is Khrushchev finally making good on his promise - to bury us!
The problems in DC will never be solved at the ballot box.
It's called hitting the reset button.
The military steps in and fires all three branches of government.
Six months later new elections, all amendments repealed except for the bill of rights.
The capital moves every other year, no more DC calling the shots.
Only taxpayers and veterans can vote.
Quotas on lawyers, who are not allowed to hold elective office.
One thing I do know is, that my hopefully-soon-to-be-retired Senior Senator threw his support to her. Right after Goober Graham threw her his panties.
"I have concluded that Solicitor General Elena Kagan is clearly qualified to serve on the Supreme Court and that she has demonstrated a comprehensive knowledge of court history and decisions, Mr. Lugar said in a statement posted to his Web site Wednesday. I believe that she has had a distinguished career in both education and public service and is well regarded by the legal community and her peers.
Only if Congress lets butch Kagan get away with it.
I will be calling the office of that douchebag Rubio to see what he's going to do about it.
If I'm not mistaken, the supreme court must abide by the same rules that apply to lower courts. Any matter which comes before the court that a judge has an interest in, must recuse themselves. If they do not, they are subject to impeachment, which is the only way an appointed judge can be removed.
It would seem to me that the House of Representatives should start warming up for passing articles of impeachment, timed so that the balance of the senate tips toward the R side.
If and likely WHEN that happens, there will be enough clout in both houses to not only impeach but to convict the B. I. itch, else the D's remaining in congress will have to beg for TP their segregated rest rooms, and they will be allotted one sheet per dump....
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. Oaths in this country are as yet universally considered as sacred obligations. That which you have taken, and so solemnly repeated on that venerable ground, is an ample pledge of your sincerity and devotion to your country and its government.-PJ
John Adams, 1798
She needs to be removed.
Fat a$$ed ugly, fished-face commie cow.
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.