Would the same people that are talking about Chief Justice Roberts’ investments being grounds for impeachment also consider these 2 gals’ failure to recuse themselves in a case with such a blatant, direct financial and personal conflict of interest impeachable offenses?
If Kagan actually carried out the government’s defense in the beginning stages of this very case, it would be a situation where somebody decides their own case. That’s how blatant it would be. If that’s not an impeachable offense, what would be?
Since the case hasn't gotten before the Supreme Court yet then the Solicitor General wouldn't have been involved.
That’s how blatant it would be. If that’s not an impeachable offense, what would be?
All your wishful thinking won't change the fact that 4 justices still have to agree to hear the case. Kagan or no Kagan.