Posted on 10/05/2011 7:04:20 PM PDT by blueyon
Supreme Court: Forget unconvincing liberal demands that Clarence Thomas recuse himself from the ObamaCare case because his wife is a Tea Partyer. Ex-Obama operative Elena Kagan has a true conflict.
To buttress the flimsy case of leftist groups like Common Cause that he step down from judging whether ObamaCare is unconstitutional, 20 House Democrats last week called for an investigation into Justice Thomas' not filling out financial disclosure forms to their satisfaction regarding his wife's political activities.
Ginni Thomas' pro-limited government activist group Liberty Central has indeed gone after ObamaCare. But as Mrs. Thomas pointed out last year, there are plenty of "judicial wives and husbands out there causing trouble; I'm just one of many."
The most glaring example is former Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, a very early Bill Clinton supporter. In 1997, Clinton appointed Rendell's wife to the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals — whose jurisdiction includes Pennsylvania — where she continues to sit. Then, in 1999, Clinton made Rendell himself chairman of the Democratic National Committee.
In the case of Justice Kagan, the issue is not political pillow talk but direct conflict of interest — plus statements that could lead to a full-blown Kagangate scandal.
As LifeNews.com reports, Eric Holder's Justice Department has rebuffed numerous Freedom of Information Act requests to get to the bottom of Kagan's role as solicitor general in the successful Obama political strategy to get health reform enacted. But internal communications that are already public themselves make for a smoking gun.
(Excerpt) Read more at investors.com ...
Actually, for the next 16 months or so, the dept of “justice” should be renamed Department of Rebuff. It would be far more accurate.
If she doesn’t recuse, who can force her to do it? Is it solely up to her? Does John Roberts have a say?
*
She would have had to as the solicitor general.
Generally, if a reasonable person might suspect that a sitting judge may be biased, he has a duty to recuse himself.
This is not if the judge thinks he may appear biased, but if it appears to others that he is.
Of course, when a biased judge refuses to step down, your recourse is to appeal, and in the case of a Supreme Court justice, there is no higher (civil) court to which one may do so.
Let both justices step down, still an odd number, and prevents the people from having yet another reason to hold them in contempt.
step down = recuse themselves
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.