Posted on 10/12/2020 5:52:12 PM PDT by bitt
Should Amy Coney Barrett recuse herself from California v. Texas, the case challenging Obamacare? Chuck Schumer has called for it:
video
Schumer argues that Barrett has “clearly said she’d strike down the Affordable Care Act” and has “serious conflicts of interest” regarding the ACA. On the former point, as I have detailed at length, while Barrett in her academic writing has indicated her disagreement with the 2012 NFIB decision upholding the individual mandate as an exercise of the taxing power, she did not give a view on whether she agreed with Justice Antonin Scalia that the whole law should be struck down in 2012, much less express an opinion on what to do in the current, very distinct ACA lawsuit — other than participating in an academic moot court exercise in which she apparently did not favor striking anything besides the mandate itself, if even that.
In any event, Supreme Court justices do not recuse simply because they are not completely ignorant blank slates on issues before the Court. Schumer comes perilously close here to arguing that only justices who promise in advance to rule his way should be allowed to hear cases. Schumer argues that Trump has said that he wants judges who will rule in his favor. But we all know Trump says things, and the Supreme Court tends to ignore them. The justices have done so repeatedly, even Trump appointees and even in cases involving Trump’s own financial interests.
Barrett could, in theory, justify recusing from the ACA case on the grounds that she participated in a moot court on the subject and issued a ruling. Doing so would have been politically savvy, given how badly Democrats want to make this about a weak challenge to the ACA. It would have left them with little to say
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
p
She doesn’t need one ‘Rat vote. No need to handcuff herself like that elf Sessions did.
F Em! Ginsburg faced multiple situations where it was very well argued that she had a conflict and she should recuse herself. She never did. Use her as the role model. If Ginsburg felt that a justice could be conflicted yet still do their job, then there is no reason Barrett cannot do the same.
Whenever I hear this line of reasoning, that Amy Coney Barrett should recuse herself from Obamacare cases, Justice Kagan comes to mind. From Obama’s Solicitor General to Supreme Court justice ruling to uphold Obamacare. No recusal there.
Would Kagan or Sotomayor recuse themselves on a question about
LGBTQ-mouse issue? I think not. Yet, they were confirmed to the court and were on the record as supporting those issues.
Kagan helped write ACA or Obamacare. If anyone needs to recuse themselves, it’s her!
Hey, did Heels Up RECUSE herself from this hearing? After all, she IS running for POTUS, isn’t she?
“Whenever I hear this line of reasoning, that Amy Coney Barrett should recuse herself from Obamacare cases, Justice Kagan comes to mind. From Obama’s Solicitor General to Supreme Court justice ruling to uphold Obamacare. No recusal there.”
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That.
It is even more ridiculous than you think. Kagan helped write Obongo care. You cannot get much more conflicted than that. No one called for her recusal Schmukee is just using this to boost the narrative that having Barrett means losing your health care. It’s right out the anti Trump attack ads.
-PJ
Doing so would have been politically savvy“
Nice try never Trumper a-hole
The supremes are beyond recusals, they are nominated to be fair and constitutional.
She wont get one commie vote either.
When Upchuck Schumer was a congressman, he voted “no” on Clinton impeachment. Months later during the impending trial, he was a senator, obviously with his mind already made up, I don’t recall him recusing himself.
Totally insider CRONY-CAMPAIGN.
CRONY LeachCare Steal
CRONY FedDepts Steal
All against the Trump Mandate ban on
I always figured that judges would recuse when the litigants were friends, relatives or business partners. Beyond that, having experience or knowledge of a case should be immaterial to their ability to decide it without prejudice.
She should not do that. A Democrat would not do that. She damn should not. It is long past time we took off the gloves. Our survival is at stake. We have no Dunkirk or Pusan Perimeter to fall back to. When we go it is all over. There is no cavalry ride to the rescue.
The only purpose of the ACA (Obamacare) was to force private insurance companies to pay for abortions,
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.