Awwww it’s all on the (dis)honor system.
Unless Congress had the moxie to impeach and convict her.
Hard liberals such as Kagan have no shame. They operate with the motto “end justifies the means”.
“A federal law, 28 USC 455, says...”
Might as well stop reading. Laws don’t apply to democrats.
Does mendacious mean lesbian?
Kagan should have recused herself.
,,,,, CORRUPTION in the high court ,,,, what’s new here ???
She can posture all she wants...she will support Obamacare forever.
You can bet Kagan is an embedded SPY FOR THE REGIME. Watch your backs, Justices! They probably should sweep for listening devices and other spy equipment which Kagan may be using on them. I wouldn’t so much as SHOW HER my notes let alone hand them to her.
the statute:
(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States **shall** disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
(b) He **shall** also disqualify himself in the following
circumstances:
(1) Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a
party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts
concerning the proceeding;
(2) Where in private practice he served as lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom he previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter, or the judge or such lawyer has been a material witness concerning it;
(3) Where he has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy;
The purpose of the statute mandating recusal is to assure the rest of us of the impartiality of the justices.
I suppose this justice believes the question turns on the meaning of the word “shall.”
A scofflaw US Supreme Court Justice, mmm mmmm mmm.
Kagan is not a wise Latina.
From David Horowitz's
FrontPageMag.com/DiscoverTheNetworks.org
PROFILE: ELENA KAGAN
As an undergraduate at Princeton, Kagan wrote a senior thesis titled
"To the Final Conflict: Socialism in New York City, 1900-1933."
In the "Acknowledgments" section of her work, she specifically thanked her brother Marc, whose involvement in radical causes led me to explore the history of American radicalism in the hope of clarifying my own political ideas. In the body of the thesis, Kagan wrote:
"In our own times, a coherent socialist movement is nowhere to be found in the United States. Americans are more likely to speak of a golden past than of a golden future, of capitalisms glories than of socialisms greatness. Conformity overrides dissent; the desire to conserve has overwhelmed the urge to alter. Such a state of affairs cries out for explanation. Why, in a society by no means perfect, has a radical party never attained the status of a major political force? Why, in particular, did the socialist movement never become an alternative to the nations established parties?...
"Through its own internal feuding, then, the SP [Socialist Party] exhausted itself forever and further reduced labor radicalism in New York to the position of marginality and insignificance from which it has never recovered. The story is a sad but also a chastening one for those who, more than half a century after socialisms decline, still wish to change America. Radicals have often succumbed to the devastating bane of sectarianism; it is easier, after all, to fight ones fellows than it is to battle an entrenched and powerful foe. Yet if the history of Local New York shows anything, it is that American radicals cannot afford to become their own worst enemies. In unity lies their only hope."Lots more on Kagan here:
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2398
_____________________________________________Link to Kagan's complete thesis here (pdf file):
http://www.redstate.com/erick/files/2010/05/kaganthesis.pdf
Maybe all the Justices should recuse themselves?
“House Democrats say Justice Thomas should recuse himself in health-care case”
“Seventy-four House Democrats have signed a letter to Clarence Thomas asking the Supreme Court justice to recuse himself from any deliberations on the constitutionality of the national health care overhaul, arguing that his wife’s work as a lobbyist creates “the appearance of a conflict of interest.”
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2011/02/house-democrats-say-justice-th.html
“Clements law firm, Bancroft PLLC, was one of almost two dozen firms that helped sponsor the annual dinner of the Federalist Society, a longstanding group dedicated to advocating conservative legal principles. Another firm that sponsored the dinner, Jones Day, represents one of the trade associations that challenged the law, the National Federation of Independent Business.”
“Another sponsor was pharmaceutical giant Pfizer Inc, which has an enormous financial stake in the outcome of the litigation. The dinner was held at a Washington hotel hours after the courts conference over the case. In attendance was, among others, Mitch McConnell, the Senates top Republican and an avowed opponent of the healthcare law.”
“The featured guests at the dinner? Scalia and Thomas.”
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-scalia-thomas-20111114,0,7978224.story
IMPEACHMENT was made for JUST this reason...
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
This woman is a walking “boatload” of fecal matter. I heard her questions yesterday what a sad excuse for a jurist.
Since Congress is not in the âimpeaching moodâ after their inept handling of Klintoon, I wonder if the historians will at least record Kaganâs breaking of the law?
During her confirmation process in the Senate Judiciary Committee, Kagan assured the committee in written responses to (its questionnaire) that she would follow the letter and spirit of 28 U.S.C. 455.
Has she no manners? She needs to step down for this one.
This was exactly why the White House, through their flying monkeys in the lefty media, ginned up the “Clarence Thomas must recuse” campaign.
The basis of this was of course that Ginny Thomas had advocated against Obamacare, even though Clarence fully complied with the federal law and made no public comments on the issue.
The basis of the campaign was the remarkably insulting implication that a wife could not possibly hold differing views from a husband. For “the party of women” to make this argument is beyond hypocritical.
And they got the result they really wanted: A rough equality in the general idiot public mind, the belief that it would only be “fair” that Kagan could stay if Thomas could.