[Talisker]

Cain needs to get a clue. He surely is informed enough to know that when she recuses, so does Justice Thomas. Mrs. Thomas is gainfully employed by an organization that actively opposes Obamacare, where the Thomas’ by virtue of her employment display a vested interest in the outcome, so the conflict of interest is too obvious in both cases, leaving it a draw. This is a landmark case that needs to be crystal clean at the bench does it not?

What part of "expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy" did you miss?

Or does your definition of "crystal clean" only include the parts that are convenient to you? And while we're at it, why would you be wanting to throw roadblocks into the path of overturning Obamacare? In general, conservatives see it as an illegal, unconsitutional law for any number of reasons, but especially because it compels purchase of a government product. Do you think that should stand?

[RitaOK]

Look, I am all for Kagan going and Thomas staying. Greta and her guest, however, do not agree. They see a clear conflict of interest. They are lawyers. I am not.