Posted on 11/30/2011 5:18:12 PM PST by opentalk
full Title: Justice Kagan's Fingers and Toes Are Crossed, Baby!
would somebody impeach her already?
Does anybody know how this works? Can she be forcibly recused or does it have to be voluntary? Who would make it happen and how would it happen if she were forcibly recused?
Can the chief justice do this?
We stand at a fundamental crossroads for our country. Youre here because you know that in just 13 months, were going to make a choice that will impact our lives for decades to come
lets not forget what it meant when my husband appointed those two brilliant Supreme Court justices lets not forget the impact that their decisions will have on our lives for decades to come.
And what’s this stuff about “fingers and toes crossed” anyhow. It makes Kagan look like a kid in elementary school.
SCOTUS recusals are voluntary. She won’t recuse herself any more than Justice Thomas will recuse himself because of his wife’s work against Obamacare with AHF. While nowhere near as tied to opposition to O’care as Kagan is tied to it, Justice Thomas has received financial benefit as his wife has been nicely compensated for her efforts with AHF. IMO it won’t matter since I expect both Roberts and Scalia to follow Silberman’s affirmation of the mandate and uphold it.
She doesn’t sound biased at all... lol
NOT
and she looks a lot like a man... Barney Rubble??
Kevin James.
Kevin James.
“SCOTUS recusals are voluntary. She wont recuse herself any more than Justice Thomas will recuse himself because of his wifes work against Obamacare with AHF.”
I had to read that twice. What the hell would these two situations POSSIBLY ave in common?
Patton Oswalt
Justice Thomas’s wife has campaiged in her position at AHF against Obamacare. She alos receives a six figure salary for all her work with AHF. Now AHF has no measurable stake in the outcome so this is not a real conflict of interest, but many believe a SOTUS justice should not even approach a case with even a hint of conflict. Kagan’s case is different, but she also has no stake in the outcome. The question is not whether she favored O’care, but whether she in any way prepared the soicitor’s attorneys for arguing the case in court and whether she lied during her testimony when she denied having done so.Absent a smoking gun, and her email to Tribe is not it, she won’t recuse herself. If you go by the standard of appearance of conflict or hint of same, both should probably recuse themselves.
from the article
Justices are governed by federal law. Section 455(b)(3) of Title 28 addresses the specific case at hand: the recusal obligations of former government employees. It requires recusal where the judge has 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 in controversy. 28 U.S.C. §455(b)(3)...
Why would they do that?
LLS
“If you go by the standard of appearance of conflict or hint of same, both should probably recuse themselves.”
Yes, those are well repeated MSM talking points. I’ve heard them a million times.
1. Kagan had direct involvement.
2. CT had NO direct involvement.
So, how are they the same?
Or even comparable?
Or even worth consideration?
What is the precedent?
1. They aeren’t
2. None.
3. Ridiculous.
4. No case.
Next?
Question: What was there about the term hint/appearance of conflict of interest that I failed to communicate properly? I swear, I have been posting here since Clinton was POTUS and I have never seen the anger and unwillingness to engage in discussion of differing viewpoints that I’ve seen in these last six months.
from the article regarding the corrupt media.
Heres how you know your country is over:
-The White House is able to pitch the media the idea that demanding the recusal of a SCOTUS Justice who, prior to her elevation to the Court, advocated for legislation she will be asked to rule on, is a right-wing political ploy and the media doesnt instantly break out into hysterical laughter.
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.