Cain needs to get a clue. He surely is informed enough to know that when she recuses, so does Justice Thomas. Mrs. Thomas is gainfully employed by an organization that actively opposes Obamacare, where the Thomas’ by virtue of her employment display a vested interest in the outcome, so the conflict of interest is too obvious in both cases, leaving it a draw. This is a landmark case that needs to be crystal clean at the bench does it not?
Apples to oranges.
I don’t agree. If Kagan’s husband had advocated for Obamacare, I wouldn’t expect her to recuse herself if she wasn’t otherwise involved.
If Thomas’s son was openly against obamacare, should he also have to recuse himself?
I don’t think spousal or family views should affect recusal and I don’t thing they’re covered under the statute.
Kagan can be shown to be in an offical capacity openly advocating a law and will then sit on that law’s legality. That’s a conflict of interest. What Thomas talks about with his wife over dinner is not a conflict of interest.
But I know, GOPdrones around here never let the facts get in the way of a hysteric anti Cain rant.
Yawn
There is a big difference.It is the MSM that have thrown in that Thomas should recuse.There is a solid case of recusal for Kagan.
What part of "expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy" did you miss?
Or does your definition of "crystal clean" only include the parts that are convenient to you? And while we're at it, why would you be wanting to throw roadblocks into the path of overturning Obamacare? In general, conservatives see it as an illegal, unconsitutional law for any number of reasons, but especially because it compels purchase of a government product. Do you think that should stand?
Apples and Oranges.
Kagan has direct involvement. She has personally expressed sentiments in favor of ObamaCare.
Justice Thomas has no direct involvement and has not expressed or indicated a preference for either side.
Mrs. Thomas is not on SCOTUS.
And last time I checked Justice Thomas is an independent thinker.
I'm confused. Where does that rule invoke a "spouses clause" even when said spouse is not or has not "served in governmental employment."
You rest on the "rule of emotion" rather than the "rule of law".
Kagan was the the solicitor general and was directly involved in the legal defense on behalf of the White House. Apples and oranges. Thomas’s wife has nothing to do with this case. She’s a private person.
Cain is absolutely correct here.
You are wrong. There is no need legally or ethically for Thomas to remove himself just because his wife is involved. Nice bashing of Cain, though.
Mrs. Clarence Thomas is not Clarence Thomas.
A wife does not have to have the same opinion as his wife. He has never said his opinion on this issue. He does not have to recuse.
She is knee-deep in it though- she has to.
There is going to be WAY MORE call from the left for Thomas to recuse than they will be before Kagan
You’re the one who needs a clue!
The situation with the Thomas’s is the norm in the Capitol. If everyone in government recused themselves because of what their spouses do for living, no one in Washington could ever vote.
I have no doubt that Justice Thomas, if he is in any way connected with the case, will recuse himself. Kagan would would not necessarily do so. Good for Mr. Cain. He is our great dragon fighter! God be with him.
Is there any evidence that Justice Thomas is swayed by his wifes political activity?
Justice Breyer disagrees with you:
At a recent Aspen Institute conference, Justice Breyer was asked whether Justice Thomas should recuse himself if and when the health care litigation reaches the Supreme Court. The Daily Beast reported on his response:
“This is a false issue,” Breyer said in response to an audience member who posed a hypothetical case loosely fitting Thomas’ situation. “As far as what your wife does or your husband does, I myself try to stick to a certain principle, and feel very strongly about it, that a wife or a husband is an independent person and they make up their own minds what their career is going to be.” . . .
On Wednesday, Breyer suggested that this could be a very bad idea. Noting that federal judges in lower courts are bound by explicit guidelines that Supreme Court justices are not obliged to follow, Breyer said, “The Supreme Court is different in one respect. In every other court, if I decided in a close matter to recuse myself, that’s the easy decision. That’s one fewer case I have to decide, and besides, they’ll bring in somebody else to decide it. If I recuse myself on the Supreme Court, there is no one else and that could switch the result.”
Breyer went on, “My wife happens to be a clinical psychologist at Dana Farber [Medical Center in Boston], and when I get cases involving psychology, I sit in those cases, OK?”
Avaliable at http://volokh.com/2011/07/10/justice-breyer-on-recusal/
I’m sorry, what did I miss? As far as I know Justice Thomas has no conflct of interest here. His wife’s positions and involvement are her own.
But to play along, please explain why Thomas must recuse himself—according to custom and the law. Please be specific. If you can.
Not bad, 5 posts to attack Cain. Pretty sharp!