Skip to comments.Chief justice defends court's impartiality
Posted on 12/31/2011 6:02:54 PM PST by SmithL
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Chief Justice John Roberts said Saturday that he has "complete confidence" in his colleagues' ability to step away from cases where their personal interests are at stake, and noted that judges should not be swayed by "partisan demands."
The comment, included in Roberts' year-end report, comes after lawmakers demanded that two Justices recuse themselves from the high court's review of President Barack Obama's health care law aimed at extending coverage to more than 30 million people. Republicans want Justice Elena Kagan off the case because of her work in the Obama administration as solicitor general, whereas Democrats say Justice Clarence Thomas should back away because of his wife's work with groups that opposed changes to the law.
While not mentioning the upcoming health care ruling, or any case in particular, Roberts' year-end report dismissed suggestions that Supreme Court Justices are subject to more lax ethical standards than lower federal courts and said each Justice is "deeply committed" to preserving the Court's role as "an impartial tribunal" governed by law.
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
As far as anyone can tell ObamaKKKare is aimed at bankrupting the nation. It also hasn't added anyone to health care rolls ~ just gotten their employers to drop their insurance!
Be good if the writer wasn't a propagandist.
This from the same man who had to swear in Barry Soetoro two times — grinning throughout.
Anyone, including a judge, who asserts that they are completely unbiased is either ignorant or a liar. It is part of the human condition.
Impartial - who cares? How about upholding the Constitution? Then the rest is moot. The two appointments by Barry are horrid, but Repub presidents have made some pretty awful choices, too.
A Leftist wench from AP-Obama trying to undermine the Supremes. Yawn, try again...
At that moment, when perhaps only Obama, Reid, Pelosi and a few senior Marxist staffers knew what was in the bill, when Congress was expected to rubber-stamp HIS word, we slipped from republicanism and into authoritarian government.
It is obvious to see that Kagan needs to recuse herself for her advocacy during her time serving on Obama’s staff. It is also obvious that Thomas does not need to recuse himself on account of his wife’s work. Roberts is simply saying that each is responsible for making the right decision. Let’s hope that Kagan has the moral bearing to do so.
You’re shucking us ... right! Kagan and moral bearing in the same sentence?
I know he has to “play nice”, but we all know damn well that Kagan and Sotomayor are radical leftist who DO NOT rule based on the law, but what they FEEL society should become.
And going after Clarence Thomas’ wife — that’s just damn low and racist.
He really knows better and is speaking to the history books or he is one of the most dense people on the face of the earth.
And over here we have a squadron of delta wing swine breaking the sound barrier over Edwards Air Force Base.
Kagan won’t recuse herself. She is there for this one reason—to defend BOcare. She OWES BO and she knows it. She and her family have probably been threatened.
They make the ride easier if you're ever ridden out of town on a rail!
Kagan’s advocacy for and work on Obamacare are hardly equivalent to Thomas’ wife’s work. This is so typical of the damocrats and socialists to try to make apples equal oranges.
AP with another proaganda hit piece.
>Recall under the Reid/Pelosi Congress, there were no Obamacare committee hearings, and even rats had to be bribed/threatened to vote for that which they were not allowed to read.
>At that moment, when perhaps only Obama, Reid, Pelosi and a few senior Marxist staffers knew what was in the bill, when Congress was expected to rubber-stamp HIS word, we slipped from republicanism and into authoritarian government.
If I could go back in time and be one of the aides that compiled the thing, I’d add a couple clause in there:
1) dissolving DC,
2) stripping LEOs of all immunities for upholding contra-constitutional laws,
3) stripping the pensions of all public officials who violate their oath of office,
4) stripping the eligibility of public servants (ALL branches) to hold their office by recognizing that http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/usc_sec_18_00002385——000-.html in conjunction with http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/organiclaws.txt means that all persons swearing to uphold the law (of which the Declaration of Independence is a part) *must* be in violation of 18USC2385.
... damn that would be funny to watch AFTER they passed the thing w/o reading it.
Amen to that. Great links. Government is fast losing what little remains of its legitimacy.
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.