It's not just a Steven Seagal movie.
Posted on 03/29/2012 7:11:42 PM PDT by Bigun
According to Section 455(b)(3) of Title 28 of the U.S. Code, justices must disqualify themselves in cases where they have “served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser, or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case or controversy.”
As solicitor general of the United States, Justice Elena Kagan served as the head of an office responsible for formulating the Obama administration’s legal defense of its domestic agenda priority — Obamacare.
“Yes we can” is why.
Kagan is a liberal. They get to play by different rules because the republicans in congress say so with their silence.
It’s been obvious from day one, she won’t recuse herself, and who can force her to do what’s right?? Just one more evil.
You actually think the Republican leadership has enough testosterone to do something about violations of the law...? It wouldn’t look bi-partisan....
No one can force her but she can sure as heck be impeached!
Short of impeachment there is ‘no controlling authority’.
Personally I don’t give a damn what it looks like!
I’m going to be on the phone to MY congressman’s office tomorrow morning about it and I’m not hanging up until I get an answer!
It's not just a Steven Seagal movie.
“So why is no one raising sand about THIS particular violation of the law?”
I AGREE!!! Justice Elana Kagan should have ‘recused’ herself from this case!!
Since she was Solicitor General for the Obama Administration during the drafting of ObamaCare this is...... Definitely a Conflict of Interest!!
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
“I hear they have the votes, Larry!! Simply amazing,” Kagan said to Tribe in one of the emails.
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.”
How Convenient!!!
Indonesian Go Home!
if she has to be an active member of a state bar somewhere have a resident of that state file a grievance with her state bar
Are you sure??? I hope you are. Who would impeach her??
Last Saturday at the Road to Repeal rally Kagan’s refusal to recuse was mentioned often. And it was the topic of the sign I held that day.
But of course as a liberal she is allowed to be a hypocrite.
WE should be raising unshirted HELL with our congressional representatives over this and not stop doing so until they do something about it!
Exactly!
So we will expect the Republican members of the House of Representatives to issue Articles of Impeachment sometime before the Supreme's verdict is rendered in June.
Or has some widespread gelding of Congress occurred while we weren't looking?
It won't happen unless WE demand it!
Liberals/demoRats could care less about the law when it advances their goals. It was brought up before, but Kagan must recuse herself. Kagan is a liberal, thus Kagan will not recuse herself, since it advances the liberal goals.
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.