Posted on 12/12/2011 6:34:12 PM PST by hellbender
Internal Justice Department email communications made just days before the House of Representatives passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act show that then-Solicitor General Elena Kagan was brought into the loop as DOJ began preparing to respond to an anticipated legal complaint that Mark Levin and the Landmark Legal Foundation were planning to file against the act if the House used a procedural rule to “deem” the bill passed even if members never directly voted on it.
In another internal DOJ email communication that same week, Kagan alerted the chief of DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel to the constitutional argument that a former U.S. Appeals Court judge was making against the use of this rule.
Then, during Kagan’s Supreme Court confirmation process four months later, Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee asked her in writing if she had “ever been asked about your opinion” or “offered any view or comments” on the “the underlying legal or constitutional issues related to any proposed health care legislation, including but not limited to Pub. L. No. 111-148 [PPACA], or the underlying legal or constitutional issues related to potential litigation resulting from such legislation?"
Kagan answered both questions: “No.”
The DOJ emails from the week before the health-care bill passed--which were released as the result of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the Media Research Center (CNSNews.com’s parent organization) and Judicial Watch--raise additional questions about whether Kagan should recuse herself from judging the case against PPACA when the court considers it early next year.
A federal law—28 U.S.C 455—says that a Supreme Court justice must recuse from “any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned” or if he “expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy” while he “served in governmental employment.”
In the days leading up to the March 21, 2010 House vote on the health-care bill, one underlying constitutional issue that became part of the national debate was whether the House could approve the Senate version of the bill without ever directly voting on it by using a procedural rule crafted by then-House Rules Chairman Louise Slaughter (D.-N.Y.)
Oooh, oooh, ooooh! Does this mean she will pretty much have to recuse herself?
Why is this woman on Supreme Court?
Yes.
But she won't. We do not live in normal times. We have gone Through the Looking Glass.
I wish you were wrong, but you’re probably not.
If Congress does not impeach and remove Kagan when Ms Kagan fails to recuse herself, it will be as Constitution-shattering as Obama's taking over GM and the BO-endorsed OWS misappropriating foreclosed properties unto themselves.
How will you respond when that time comes?
When the decision comes down 5-4 FOR Obamacare, what will you do?
If that's not turned back, there's probably no point asking what any of us will do, other than live in servitude to the nomenklatura.
HF
With such blatant corrpution on the SCOTUS, where do we turn as a country? How did we get to this place? Where hard core Leftists will do anything to advance their agenda to destroy the (former) most successful country in the world. Lord, please save our once wonderful country!
How can Kagan NOT recuse herself on the Obamacare case? I don’t see any way the Dems can argue this.
Very simple. She is there to advance the communist conquest of the U.S. She is a revolutionary operative, like Eric Holder and 0bama himself. But the Pubbie dopes in the Senate see everything only in terms of traditional politics. They rolled over and let her be confirmed, after only token opposition. In fact, token opposition (just enough to con conservatives into supporting them) is the modus operandi of the Republican establishment.
It is my belief that that law applies to all federal judges with the exception of those sitting on the Supreme Court. I hope I’m wrong!!
How about we speak the truth here. Kagan lied. Kagan perjured herself to get the USSC Justice position.
Absolutely, impeachment and a short jail sentence for lying to Congress.
Yup.
§ 1621. Perjury generally
Whoever—
(1) having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true; or
(2) in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true;
is guilty of perjury and shall, except as otherwise expressly provided by law, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. This section is applicable whether the statement or subscription is made within or without the United States.
True dat.
bookmark
I just read the entire article and WOW!!
A MUST READ FOR ALL!!
This is a coordinated, conspiratorial effort to have her involved in the process AND TO COVER IT UP!!!
BFL
SHe MUST recuse herself — but she won’t. I think the other Justices on the Court can FORCE her to be removed from the case, though. If not, this will get pretty interesting, because I don’t see Chief Justice Roberts, Nor Justices Alito, Thomas, Scalia or even Kennedy standing for her to sit on a case that she worked on BEFORE she was named to the bench.
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.