Demand Kagan Recuse Herself From Obamacare Litigation

For Advertising Info, Write.
rwnews@blogads.com

Premium Left blogad

Left Blog Ad

Permalinks

Demand Kagan Recuse Herself From Obamacare Litigation

Written By : Dick Morris

Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan must recuse herself from deciding on the constitutionality of the Obamacare law, now slated to reach the Supreme Court early next year.

She won’t do it without pressure. Please sign our petition demanding her recusal. We’ll send it to your representatives in Congress and to each of the Justices of the Supreme Court, including Kagan.

Federal law is quite clear on the matter. If a judge “has served in governmental employment and, in such capacity, participated as counsel, advisor, or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case or controversy,” she must recuse herself when the case reaches her court (28 U.S.C. 455 (b)(3)).

The facts are equally clear. As solicitor-general, Kagan was the point person for defending the constitutionality of federal law before the Supreme Court. She was, in effect, the lawyer supporting the health care law. How can she now sit in judgment of it?

Consider these facts:

– Justice Kagan acknowledged to the Senate Judiciary Committee that she played a “role” in the Obama administration’s defense of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care (Obamacare) Act and attended “at least one meeting” where the litigation was discussed.

– Two months before Justice Kagan became aware that she was under consideration for the Supreme Court, she was party to a discussion that included the head of the group charged with defending the law in the courts.

In a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell noted that administration emails indicate that Neal Katyal, Solicitor-General Kagan’s chief deputy, said that he would “speak with Elena” about setting up a working group to plan the defense of the act. Subsequent emails indicate that he did, in fact, speak with Kagan and that she “definitely” wanted her office to participate in the working group. Katyal promised to “bring Elena in as needed” to help his working group. Katyal added that Kagan’s office would be “heavily involved” in planning the defense strategy, “even in the District Court.”

– Katyal and Associate Attorney General Thomas Perrelli, the head of the defense working group, “added Ms. Kagan to an email discussion so they could advise her of a draft litigation complaint” challenging the law. According to the emails, “(Perrelli) discussed his analysis of the plaintiff’s litigation strategy” with Kagan. McConnell notes that Katyal “specifically noted that he was now including then-Solicitor General (in the discussion) to appraise her of his recommendation” on the administration’s legal strategy.

– Kagan was an obvious fan of the Obamacare bill. She wrote law professor Larry Tribe of having her “fingers and toes crossed,” hoping for Congressional approval. “I hear they have the votes, Larry!! Simply amazing,” she wrote to Tribe.

What is indeed simply amazing is that Kagan might actually vote on this case, despite her obvious conflict of interest.

To distract attention from Kagan’s situation, Democrats are raising a fuss over Mrs. Clarence Thomas’ efforts to stop the health care law. But Justice Thomas has expressed no opinion on the statute, nor was he involved in any efforts for or against the bill. Kagan, on the other hand, was the senior administration official plotting strategy to sustain its constitutionality.

Please sign the petition. We need to raise the profile of this issue so that, to protect the integrity of the court, Kagan’s fellow justices will raise with her their concern about her conflicts of interest.

Anonymous

Fat chance. The defense of Obamacare was the only reason the otherwise unknown and totally unqualified Kagan was put up for the SCOTUS.

She’s as in the pocket as it gets, having followed the very familiar Chicago/Harvard path, landing as Solicitor General in 2009 with absolutely zero qualification for that role either. She’s never been a judge, nor ever argued a case at any judicial level as an attorney.

She’s nothing but a reliable, bought-and-paid-for, liberal placeholder that will clog the Court for the next 30 years.

http://www.vega.com Vega – NY Liberal Honey Badger

Sounds like Thomas, who has barely uttered a word from his rubber-stamping bench for years and years.

Anonymous

So you admit with Baoxian’s right about Kagan. Congrats, maybe there’s hope for you yet.

http://www.vega.com Vega – NY Liberal Honey Badger

Kagan is a fine justice. And perfectly qualified.

http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

Thanks for your biased opinion.
Anonymous

Heh.
Vega also thinks that the “Wise Latina” (aka gargoyle woman) is also a “fine justice”, not at all racist, and was not appointed for political reaons/pandering.

Sometimes his …err…judgement…can be a bit faulty.
http://www.vega.com Vega – NY Liberal Honey Badger

The Wise Latina is also very qualified and a fine justice.

Anonymous

Kagan runs her mouth like a typical self-important liberal while Thomas writes the most highly-regarded opinions coming out of the Court.

So much for you having any knowledge of the situation aside from parroting liberal blogs.

http://www.vega.com Vega – NY Liberal Honey Badger

Funny how justices asking relevant questions is “running” their mouths.

Funny how Thomas doesn’t need questions. Because he just plays the pre-decided hand.

http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

Funny you make accusations without proof. I mean it’s not like he’s REQUIRED to do more than his job.

http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

Other than his opinions written into law with many SCOTUS rulings, you mean? Legal scholars are starting to realize what a great legal mind Thomas is, you need to keep up.

Anonymous

Ah but he’s not a liberal and doesn’t seem to give a damn about what european law has to say ,so of course he’s terrible.

http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

Yeah, Kagan is a pretty awful judge and she’s plainly, baldly in conflict of interest here, but she won’t ever step down.

http://www.vega.com Vega – NY Liberal Honey Badger

Anyone who supports this petition should also do the same for Justice Clarence Thomas.

There is even more reason for Thomas to recuse himself.

Whether or not Kagan helped in writing the law is irrelevant, as there is one issue that is to be discussed – the individual mandate. Kagan didn’t write that law or come up with that idea. Republicans did.

Thomas, and his wife, have already publicly attacked this law. There is no way he could be impartial and objective.

Anonymous

Why, because his wife worked at Heritage and quit three years prior to the Obamacare legislation even existing?

It’s also hilarious that Anthony Weiner led the initial Democrat effort to politicize the Obamacare case in regards to Thomas. I guess cheating on your pregnant wife and tweeting wang shots makes you a moral paragon if you’re a Democrat.

Anonymous

Evidently cheating on your wife is a pre-requisit for running for the GOP Presidential nomination as well.
http://www.vega.com Vega – NY Liberal Honey Badger

Wiener has got nothing to do with this.

Not only did Thomas’ wife work for the Heritage Foundation, but she also works for an org that is specifically trying to get the Affordable Care Act overturned. Thomas has been wined and dined by the same types of orgs.

If this were a liberal judge, you guys would be going apeshit.

I know Thomas is pretty much a Scalia lapdog on the court, but he is still a vote. And a corrupt one at that when it comes to this case.

Anonymous

I know Thomas is pretty much a Scalia lapdog on the court,

Racist.

http://www.vega.com Vega – NY Liberal Honey Badger

Idiot.
Anonymous

You don’t have to remind me that you are an idiot. Your posts are proof enough. Racist.
http://www.vega.com Vega – NY Liberal Honey Badger

Why don’t you stick to proving there is a federal law that says Kagan must recuse herself, dipdung.
Anonymous

Why don’t you stick to proving there is a federal law that says Kagan must recuse herself,

Why didn’t you? You were the one who brought Clarence Thomas into this to deflect from Kagan.

All those sad little charges and you can’t find a single legal reason that Thomas should step aside so you stomp your feet and say he should.

But since you are so eager to go back to the actual topic. Kagan should not be judging on a law she helped write and sat in counsel on.

Oh, and comparing a black man to a dog is something you would be throwing a hissy fit about if a conservative did it. Racist.

Now run away. Its the only thing you are good at.

http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

Actually, since Thomas isn’t directly associated with the decision or the legal argument and Kagan is, its odd you’d say he’s even more involved. Kagan is on record cheering the passage of the bill.

http://www.vega.com Vega – NY Liberal Honey Badger

Kagan isn’t directly associated with the individual mandate. She didn’t come up with the idea, nor did she write the law for it.

Whereas Thomas has wined and dined with the law firm, who’s partner was his former clerk, who will be arguing the case. Plus, his wife gets her salary from the org in opposition to the AHA.

Anonymous

Kagan isn’t directly associated with the individual mandate. She didn’t
come up with the idea, nor did she write the law for it.

The federal law doesn’t say that the judge only steps aside if they wrote the specific line of the law. It says they step aside if they offered counsel on any part of it.

Whereas Thomas has wined and dined with the law firm, who’s partner was
his former clerk, who will be arguing the case. Plus, his wife gets
her salary from the org in opposition to the AHA.

And which federal law calls for Thomas to step aside for these things? Mr. Morris was able to find a specific federal law. I’m sure you can do the same.

http://www.vega.com Vega – NY Liberal Honey Badger

There is no law that says Kagan should step aside.
Anonymous

And which law says that Clarence Thomas should step aside?

Haven’t you found it yet?
http://www.vega.com Vega – NY Liberal Honey Badger

And which law says that Clarence Thomas should step aside? Haven’t you found it yet?

No, I said:

Anyone who supports this petition should also do the same for Justice Clarence Thomas

I didn’t say anything about a law, you did.

The federal law doesn’t say that the judge only steps aside if they wrote the specific line of the law. It says they step aside if they offered counsel on any part of it.

So what law are you referring to?

Because the same law Morris cites above (and most likely he is wrong) says:

He knows that he, individually or as a fiduciary, or his spouse or minor child residing in his household, has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding

That’s the same law.

Therefore, if you demand Kagan recuse, then Thomas must recuse.

Got it? Good.
Anonymous

“That’s the same law.”

And it still doesn’t apply to Clarence Thomas.

The fact that Thomas’ wife previously worked for a conservative advocacy group does not give her a “financial interest” in seeing this law overturned. For one thing she no longer works for the Heritage Foundation. So any financial interest she might have had is long gone.
http://www.vega.com Vega – NY Liberal Honey Badger

Bullshit, samurai.

She is PAID for her position. A firm that SPECIFICALLY opposes this law.

That’s not financial interest?

I’m not talking about the Heritage Foundation. I am talking about Liberty Consulting.
Anonymous

Bullshit, samurai.

She is PAID for her position. A firm that SPECIFICALLY opposes this law.

And? Considering the number of firms that specifically oppose this law you would have to recuse the entire Supreme Court.

That’s not financial interest?

Considering the fact that Liberty Consulting doesn’t exist for a single issue, no. If Obamacare is declared unconstitutional the firm moves on another issue. If they lose, they keep talking about the same one. Either way her pay is unaffected.

Unless you have evidence that Liberty Consulting is going to pay the judge off for voting the right way…

Or evidence that Liberty Consulting has actually done any consulting on this issue. Wait a second, maybe you should have led with that bit before you started saying Thomas had been bought off.
Anonymous

“She is PAID for her position. A firm that SPECIFICALLY opposes this law.”

So what? So far as I know, the firm she works for is not even the one bringing the lawsuit. And even if it was, the outcome of the case would not affect her financial situation either way. She isn’t going to be fired if the SCOTUS takes leave of its senses and finds in favor of Obamacare.

Do you even know what a “financial interest” is? You seem to think it means “person who gets paid who is tangentially related to a certain case”. That’s not what it means. A financial interest is when someone stands to gain or lose money based on the outcome of a certain case. So if Thomas’ wife was employed by an insurance company that was being forced to downsize or go out of business because of Obamacare, THEN she would have a financial interest. Thomas’ wife will be paid regardless of the outcome of this case, ergo she has no financial interest in the case.

Just because her paychecks are signed by someone who opposes Obamacare doesn’t equal a financial interest in the case.

Anonymous

The law is clear, D-Vega. A judge must recuse his or herself from a case if he/she “has served in governmental employment and, in such capacity, participated as counsel, advisor, or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case or controversy”.

Clarence thomas did none of these things, whereas Kagan did nearly all of these things.

Now pry your lips off the Obama administration’s ass and get with reality.

http://www.vega.com Vega – NY Liberal Honey Badger

Supreme Court Justices are exempt from the COC rules, samurai.

Anonymous

Oh really?

“Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”

The law seems pretty clear to me.

http://www.vega.com Vega – NY Liberal Honey Badger

Hmmm… then it seems to me that the impartiality of both Thomas and Scalia can be reasonably questioned.

After all, both them attended a luncheon with the very firm that will be arguing the healthcare case.

You see the problem? That’s why the SCOTUS hasn’t recognized the CoC, because it’s really their call as to whether they will recuse themselves. And throughout history, recusal has been traditionally been taken when there is a FINANCIAL interest, not a political interest.

Wasn’t Pres. Taft also on the SCOTUS?
Anonymous

“You see the problem?”

Yeah, the problem is you don’t know the meaning of the word “reasonable”. Meeting someone once upon a time does not constitute “reasonable” grounds for impartiality.

The law I just quoted explains quite clearly what conditions must exist for a judge’s impartiality to be reasonably questioned. The portion quoted in the original post was number 3 on the list. Didn’t you read the law at all?

Who Is Brett Kimberlin?

Premium Right Ads

Blogads Right

Previous Features

The Best Quotes From “Ten Prayers God Always Says Yes To”

Hey Lady Gaga, Kids Have a Time-Tested Answer for Bullies: Punch Them in the Mouth

Seven Differences Between Winners And Losers

The Problem With The Occupy Wall Street Generation

The 20 Most Influential Black Republicans

Talking With Chuck D. From Public Enemy About Farrakhan, Air America’s Failure, And Open Borders

User Info

Features

Archives Best of RWN Humor John Hawkins Interviews Quotes Special to RWN