[Lurking Libertarian]

Kagan served as solicitor general of the United States from March 2009 until May of this year. In that role, she legally represented the U.S. government in numerous cases coming before the Supreme Court. A simple search of the high court’s own website reveals Kagan’s name coming up at least nine times on dockets involving Obama eligibility issues.

Very misleading the way that is worded. The Solicitor General's office never filed anything with the Supreme Court in any Obama eligibility case. Kagan's name "comes up" on the website only in the sense that the petitioners served their papers on the Soliciitor General's office, as they were required to do, but neither Kagan nor anyone in her her office ever responded.

[butterdezillion]

Wow. This particular case is against the US government. I wasn’t aware of the job description of the Solicitor General, but Wikipedia says this:

“The Solicitor General determines the legal position that the United States will take in the Supreme Court. In addition to supervising and conducting cases in which the government is a party, the Solicitor General’s office also files amicus curiae briefs in cases in which the federal government has a significant interest in the legal issue. The Solicitor General’s office argues on behalf of the government in virtually every case in which the United States is a party, and also argues in most of the cases in which the government has filed an amicus brief. In the federal courts of appeals, the Office of the Solicitor General reviews cases decided against the United States and determines whether the government will seek review in the Supreme Court. The Solicitor General’s office also reviews cases decided against the United States in the federal district courts and approves every case in which the government files an appeal.”

Seems to me that Kagan has a conflict of interest because she would have had (or did have?) the job of representing the US government AND because she only has her position on SCOTUS because Obama was allowed to illegally take office.

That’s 2 major conflicts of interest/ potential ethics violations if she doesn’t recuse herself, that would be just cause for potential discipline or disbarment of a regular judge. If I’m understanding correctly. Seems like the federal code of judicial ethics had something about that... Can’t remember whether it excluded SCOTUS justices from that Code of Ethics...