Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: AU72
Has Kagan recused yet?

Or, will this just be a rubber-stamp and ignore the Conflict of Interests of her particiapating in this Case, and giving the 1-finger salute to The Law regarding Recusal?

3 posted on 12/19/2011 11:51:55 AM PST by traditional1 (Free speech for me.....not for thee)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]


To: traditional1

I was at the gym this morning. An elderly man, bent over with scoliosis, was pushing his walker by me. Affixed to the frame was a large sign that said, in bright red, “I DON’T LIKE OBAMACARE.”


4 posted on 12/19/2011 11:54:44 AM PST by Ax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: traditional1

As is the case with this bunch, any rule of law, constitutional requirements, ethics, moral standards, are all thrown out the window. State-run, lame-stream, liberal-left, communist-progressive media WILL NOT make an issue of the Kagen participation in the hearings and decision. They are all in this together to f - - k America.


8 posted on 12/19/2011 1:22:41 PM PST by Mr. Wright (N\)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: traditional1
I believe the people behind this regime fully intend to ignore the rule of law and use unions and the federal bureaucracy to take control and destroy the rule of law and throw out the constitution in the name of some sort of concocted "emergency."

There is an effort by some of the behind the scenes operators to unionize the armed forces, thereby putting the military under the operational control of their union bosses. They'll start with the enlisted ranks and, if they can gain control of them, the next step will be to have a work stoppage or some sort of work action that will tie the hands of the commanding officers (via a court order issued by one of their allied federal judges).

19 posted on 12/19/2011 5:02:20 PM PST by oneolcop (Lead, Follow or Get the Hell Out of the Way!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: traditional1

Thanks for the post, but I am not familiar with Kagan’s Conflict of Interest regarding this case, and so likewise don’t understand why The Law regarding Recusal would require her to not participate in this decision. Would you please explain so I can point this out to others who, like me, are not so well informed?


27 posted on 12/20/2011 1:04:24 PM PST by juno67 (a)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: traditional1
Those who assailed Newt Gingrich for his proposals to curb the excesses of the federal judiciary ought to reconsider their charges in the context of Kagan's refusal to recuse herself.

There is nothing short of impeachment which can require her to recuse herself unless one begins to look at the sort of remedies proposed by Gingrich. The arrogance of Kagan in declining recuse herself, indeed, the arrogance of Obama is appointing her further supports the view that the federal judiciary has grown so arrogant as to require a rebalancing of the powers of the four branches of government. In case you were wondering, I include the states as the fourth branch which is a rather quaint view considering the court's rulings for 75 years or so.


30 posted on 12/20/2011 7:31:00 PM PST by nathanbedford ("Attack, repeat, attack!" Bull Halsey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson