So, will Elana Kagan recuse herself from USSC Obamacare case?

[Little-Acorn]

Elana Kagan was Solicitor General for the Obama administration while Obamacare was being crafted, and likely had an active hand in making sure it was "legal", by whatever odd definition the Obamanites wanted to use. Mnay people say that, now that she is a Supreme Court justice, she should recuse herself from consideration and judging on a bill that she helped put together.

Suppose the four Constitutional justices (Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Scalia) vote against Obamacare, and the remaining big-govt justices (Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor) vote for it, and Kennedy weathervanes to the left and also votes for it. Then if Kagan were to recuse herelf, the outcome would be a 4-4 tie on the Supreme Court.

And this would make it very significant WHICH case was being examined... because a tie would cause the decision of the previous court (11th circuit in this 26-state case) to be upheld. And that previous court has struck down the Mandate, as unconstitutional.

So Obamacare would quickly die.

So, Kagan could be regarded as the "tiebreaking" vote, by her decision to recuse herself or not. (If she does not recuse, then she would surely vote for Obamacare; if she does recuse, then the 11th circuit's strikedown would become "law" if the other justices vote as described).

Will she or won't she?

[Dick Tator]

Will she or won't she?

I don't think she has the integrity to recuse herself. That being said, Kennedy might end up voting against it...

[hadit]

Elana Kagan was Solicitor General for the Obama administration while Obamacare was being crafted, and likely had an active hand in making sure it was "legal", by whatever odd definition the Obamanites wanted to use. Mnay people say that, now that she is a Supreme Court justice, she should recuse herself from consideration and judging on a bill that she helped put together.

Suppose the four Constitutional justices (Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Scalia) vote against Obamacare, and the remaining big-govt justices (Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor) vote for it, and Kennedy weathervanes to the left and also votes for it. Then if Kagan were to recuse herelf, the outcome would be a 4-4 tie on the Supreme Court.

And this would make it very significant WHICH case was being examined... because a tie would cause the decision of the previous court (11th circuit in this 26-state case) to be upheld. And that previous court has struck down the Mandate, as unconstitutional.

So Obamacare would quickly die.

So, Kagan could be regarded as the "tiebreaking" vote, by her decision to recuse herself or not. (If she does not recuse, then she would surely vote for Obamacare; if she does recuse, then the 11th circuit's strikedown would become "law" if the other justices vote as described).

Will she or won't she?

Of course she won't. That's why she was planted there in the first place.

[antiquity]

Doesn't Thomas have a problem also, I think his wife had something to do with the bill.

[Little-Acorn]

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/...simply-amazing

Kagan to Tribe on Day Obamacare Passed: ‘I Hear They Have the Votes, Larry!! Simply Amazing.’

By Terence P. Jeffrey
November 10, 2011

(CNSNews.com) - On Sunday, March 21, 2010, the day the House of Representatives passed President Barack Obama’s Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, then-Solicitor General Elena Kagan and famed Supreme Court litigator and Harvard Law Prof. Laurence Tribe, who was then serving in the Justice Department, had an email exchange in which they discussed the pending health-care vote, according to documents the Department of Justice released late Wednesday to the Media Research Center, CNSNews.com's parent organization, and to Judicial Watch.

“I hear they have the votes, Larry!! Simply amazing,” Kagan said to Tribe in one of the emails.

The Justice Department released a new batch of emails on Wednesday evening as its latest response to Freedom of Information Act requests filed by CNSNews.com and Judicial Watch. Both organizations filed federal lawsuits against DOJ after the department did not initially respond to the requests. CNSNews.com originally filed its FOIA request on May 25, 2010--before Elena Kagan's June 2010 Supreme Court confirmation hearings.

The March 2010 email exchange between Kagan and Tribe raises new questions about whether Kagan must recuse herself from judging cases involving the health-care law that Obama signed--and which became the target of legal challenges--while Kagan was serving as Obama's solicitor general and was responsible for defending his administration’s positions in court disputes.

According to 28 USC 455, a Supreme Court justice must recuse from “any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” The law also says a justice must recuse anytime he has “expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy” while he “served in governmental employment.”

[R Lance]

According to 28 USC 455, a Supreme Court justice must recuse from “any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” The law also says a justice must recuse anytime he has “expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy” while he “served in governmental employment.”

What do you want to bet she don't?

[DamnYankee]

So, will Elana Kagan recuse herself from USSC Obamacare case?

Will a BO appointee do the right thing and recuse herself. Sheeeeeeeit.

[hadit]

Doesn't Thomas have a problem also, I think his wife had something to do with the bill.

Not really. She made some appearances at a few TEA Party rallies, but that's her, not him. Kagan has a direct conflict of interest, like having a mother judging her daughter's beauty pageant.

[DamnYankee]

Not really. She made some appearances at a few TEA Party rallies, but that's her, not him. Kagan has a direct conflict of interest, like having a mother judging her daughter's beauty pageant.

The leftists in the gov't and media will try to make this a big deal.

[Little-Acorn]

Doesn't Thomas have a problem also, I think his wife had something to do with the bill.

Thomas' wife Virginia works for a conservative advocacy group, that works on elections, issues scorecards for Congressmen, etc. It's safe to say that group probably doesn't like Obamacare much, and would like to see it gone.

But that's OK. It's balanced by Virginia's husband's employment. He works for a group (the U.S. Government) that also works on elections, issues a LOT of opinions on congressmen (mostly unfavorable ones on conservatives), and wants very much for Obamacare to remain in effect and even expand.

So the two Thomases balance each other out. And unlike Kagan, Clarance Thomas had nothing to do with the writing or advocacy of the Obamacare law.

[soylentgreen]

According to 28 USC 455, a Supreme Court justice must recuse from “any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” The law also says a justice must recuse anytime he has “expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy” while he “served in governmental employment.”

What do you want to bet she don't?

I don't see how she can avoid recusing herself. It seems pretty clear. Then again, the cause is always more important to liberals than any ethical standards...

[antiquity]

Not really. She made some appearances at a few TEA Party rallies, but that's her, not him. Kagan has a direct conflict of interest, like having a mother judging her daughter's beauty pageant.

Actually it was a little more than that:

This is a good time to recall that seventy-four members of Congress have signed a letter asking Justice Clarence Thomas to recuse himself from any ruling on the Affordable Care Act because of his wife’s work as a conservative activist and lobbyist, where she specifically agitated for the repeal of “Obamacare.” The recusal effort was spearheaded by Representative Anthony Weiner, and his resignation in June slowed the momentum around this issue on Capitol Hill—but there’s still ample evidence for concern.

Many Republicans, as well as some nonpartisan observers, contend that Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan should recuse herself from any court decision involving the new healthcare law. That argument stems from the fact that Kagan was in charge of defending Obamacare as President Barack Obama’s solicitor general before he appointed her to the nation’s highest court. Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, is among those advancing the position that she should recuse herself, The Hill reports.

Sen. Orrin Hatch
"I think that Kagan, who was the solicitor general at the time this was all done, probably should recuse herself, which means it might not be resolved by the Supreme Court," Hatch, former chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, tells Fox News. "That means the lower court decision will be the acting law."

[Little-Acorn]

And the law is also very clear on the reasons why a judge or justice must recuse himself. I quote from my own previous post on the subject:

The law also says a justice must recuse anytime he OR HIS WIFE OR DOMESTIC PARTNER OR SIGNIFICANT OTHER has “expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy” while he “served in governmental employment.”

That's an exact quote of the law.

Isn't it?

It must be. Many liberals appear to have read such a law, because they are using Thomas's wife's activities with a conservative group, as a reason why he MUST recuse himself.

Imagine how silly they would look, if it turned out the law did NOT count a wife's activities as a reason for recusal of a justice.

[hadit]

And the law is also very clear on the reasons why a judge or justice must recuse himself. I quote from my own previous post on the subject:



That's an exact quote of the law.

Isn't it?

It must be. Many liberals appear to have read such a law, because they are using Thomas's wife's activities with a conservative group, as a reason why he MUST recuse himself.

Imagine how silly they would look, if it turned out the law did NOT count a wife's activities as a reason for recusal of a justice.

So what, exactly, does the law say?