Posted on 03/30/2012 9:44:43 PM PDT by John Semmens
Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan brushed off accusations that her participation in the Court’s hearing on Obamacare violates the law. Section 455(b)(3) of Title 28 of the U.S. Code requires judges to disqualify themselves from hearing cases when 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, Kagan served in such a role.
“The most important job for a judge is to mete out justice,” Kagan asserted. “Mere parchment—whether it be a Constitution or a statute—cannot be allowed to infringe upon this solemn duty. Ensuring that everyone has health care epitomizes the President’s quest for justice. I will do everything I can to aid this quest.”
“Besides, whether a person is brought up on charges for an alleged violation of the law is at the prosecutor’s discretion,” Kagan added. “Does anyone seriously believe that Attorney General Holder would press charges against me for seeking to defend the health care law from its right-wing assailants? The two of us worked long and hard to craft the Administration’s legal defense of the law. We’re on the same team.”
Kagan rounded out her case for self-confidence saying “if by some freak occurrence I were to be impeached and convicted, is there any doubt that I would be pardoned by President Obama? I assure you, I’m not worried.”
In related news, Kagan dismissed Obamacare opponents’ argument that the law is coercive. “Since when is forcing people to buy something that’s good for them ‘coercive?’” she asked Plaintiff attorney Paul Clement. “Didn’t your mother ever force you to eat your vegetables? Would you call that coercive? Or was she just looking out for your well-being? Isn’t that what the government is doing here?”
if you missed any of this week's other semi-news posts you can find them at...
http://constitutionclub.org/2012/03/30/semi-news-a-satire-of-recent-news-13/
She should be removed from the Supreme Court with an attitude like this!
She should be removed from the Supreme Court with an attitude like this!
“The most important job for a judge is to mete out justice,” Kagan asserted. “Mere parchment—whether it be a Constitution or a statute—cannot be allowed to infringe upon this solemn duty
Incorrect. A Supreme Court Justices duty is to uphold the piece of parchment (the Constitution).
It is not about justice or fairness. Not your job. Does a question/law etc comply with the US Constituion or not. Nothing more nothing less.......
Even more appalling is Ruth Ginsberg, who has voiced open disdain for the constitution she has sworn to uphold. Talk about someone who should be yanked from the court!
“The most important job for a judge is to mete out justice,” Kagan asserted. “Mere parchment—whether it be a Constitution or a statute—cannot be allowed to infringe upon this solemn duty.Forget recrusal, this woman needs to be impeached as soon as possible.
The brazen disregard for the Constitution in her positiona as a Supreme Court Justice is breath-taking and disgusting.
Sad when something so rediculous sounds so true to form.
John is very good at his craft.
“Un-freaking believable.”
If it is too unbelievable to be true, it probably isn’t.
Spoken like a true Nazi. She and her comments need to be broadcast and analyzed by every liberal that thinks conservatives are the party of Big Brother.
Whatever happened to 'not wanting to give the appearance of impropriety'? Looks like honor and doing what is right is GONE. Fewer and fewer men understand or possess honor or respect so I can only imagine the rarity of it in females nowadays.. VERY APPARENTLY.
Let’s just hope she gets impeached and convicted AFTER 0bama leaves office.
How I wish this were satire, John!
My head almost exploded before I realized it was satire...
Obama’s quotes from 2008 aren’t satire, and fit in with what Kagen thinks, which John has accurately portrayed. Midway through is “good”, where he talks about how the courts weren’t radical enough, and didn’t break free from the constraints placed by the Founding Fathers. (”as they are interpreted”!!!) And I pray to God that Obama is losing his chance now.
**************************
“If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement, and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples, so that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at a lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be okay.”
“But,” Obama said, “The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, as least as it’s been interpreted, and Warren Court interpreted in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties, says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. And that hasn’t shifted.”
Obama said “one of the, I think, the tragedies of the civil rights movement, was because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change, and in some ways we still suffer from that.”
I.m afraid this person doesn’t understand that she may be impeached by the NEXT President and their AG will definitely prosecute her and NO republican president will pardon her.
Thank about that lady justice.....in 10 months your breaking the law may get you canned.
you may have fooled yourself this time.....because you have posted the truth in disguise....it fooled me and made me mad, but you have done us all a service by printing the true feelings of an enemy of America
When those who presume to be our masters feel unencumbered by the documents that represent our “contract” (if you will) they leave us with little option but to demonstrate their vulnerability...
Are you a drive-by poster? Methinks so.
john is a great writer of satire, and yet so much of what he writes while is indeed satire...it is only a few angstroms away from the truth.
This is one such instance.
Kagan is another blithering idiot leftist who is purported to be so smart. Yet the empirical evidence to support such a statement is invisible. She was president of Harvard Law. Which in my mind immediately disqualifies her.
Harvard should have it’s charter revoked, the staff should be fired and the buildings raised. The current problems of the country can be laid at the doorstep of Harvard and the actions of its graduates. I would extend this to Columbia and Yale as well. Between these three “schools” they have harbored and produced the worst minds of the past 50 years.
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.