That federal statute that was quoted in the article, 28 USC 455, says that a justice should recuse themselves if he "...or his spouse, or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person...is known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding..." Mrs. Thomas is head of a group lobbying against Obamacare. That could be construed as benefiting from the court striking it down.
It'd probably be best if both Kagin and Thomas recused themselves. However I don't see either one doing so.
” It’d probably be best if both Kagin and Thomas recused themselves. However I don’t see either one doing so. “ <<<
THAT is exactly what was said on GRETA, to my chagrin. I believe no one on this thread heard the discussion that I assumed they had. However, Cain will go silent on this when he finally becomes informed and does learn that Thomas is thought to be also questionable. Kagan is much more obvious, but given we pick nits we can depend on the Democrats to do just that against Thomas. Neither will likely recuse. Who can make them? Greta said the SC bench can not do it. I dunno.
Wow. Obviously I wasn’t aware of the details of the statute. You’re right. It’s both or neither. Then we’re back to square one, with one man (Kennedy) deciding the outcome.
Then we must win the presidency and the senate. Our way of life should not be dependent on the whims of one man.
If Mrs. Thomas is head of a lobbying group that is lobbying against Obamacare -
And if Obamacare gets struck down -
Then wouldn't Mrs. Thomas be out of a job, since her mission would be accomplished?
So wouldn't it be in Mrs. Thomas’ best interest for Obamacare to continue — so that she still has something to lobby against?
I'm so confused. ;-)
If Obamacare is repealed, Mrs Thomas is essentially out of a job. So she has nothing to gain if Mr Thomas rules against Obamacare.