Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Kagan refuses to recuse on Obamacare
NetRightDaily ^ | 14 Nov 2011 | NetRight Daily

Posted on 11/24/2011 10:17:47 AM PST by plsjr

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the so-called “26-state lawsuit” against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare. This announcement ends speculation whether recent Obama appointee Justice Elena Kagan will recuse herself from the case.

It is clear that Justice Kagan has refused requests that she not participate in this ruling. The failure of the Court order to note that Kagan had recused herself indicates that she has not. Traditionally, when a justice decides not to participate in a decision to hear a case, the Court order notes that fact. No notification means that it can be assumed that each justice participated in the decision, including Kagan.

The calls for Justice Kagan to recuse herself are based upon her role as Obama’s Solicitor General when Obamacare was passed. In this position, she must have been involved in the strategy decisions on how to defend Obamacare. In fact, and by her own admission, she “was present at ‘at least one’ meeting in which the challenges to PPACA were discussed.”

This admission on its face should have disqualified Kagan from participating in the Court case, as she and those who reported to her, were heavily involved in framing the arguments supporting the law.

ALG’s, Bill Wilson argues that, “Kagan is no more of an independent jurist on this issue than Obama himself would be. For her to refuse to recuse herself from the Supreme Court’s consideration of the constitutionality of the law is an affront to the American system of jurisprudence.”

Read more at NetRightDaily.com: http://netrightdaily.com/2011/11/kagan-refuses-to-recuse-on-obamacare/#ixzz1eeCJfXjW

(Excerpt) Read more at netrightdaily.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: kagan; obamacare; recuse; scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-96 next last
To: ClearCase_guy
There are no laws in this country. There are simply powerful people trying to get away with things, and usually succeeding.

Absolutely correct. The US Constitution became void a loong time ago. I think the people on this board better prepare themselves. Obamacare will be upheld.

61 posted on 11/24/2011 12:27:39 PM PST by Dick Tater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
There are no laws in this country. There are simply powerful people trying to get away with things, and usually succeeding.

Absolutely correct. The US Constitution became void a loong time ago. I think the people on this board better prepare themselves. Obamacare will be upheld.

62 posted on 11/24/2011 12:27:56 PM PST by Dick Tater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man
Roberts should ask her to recuse herself and keep her dignity intact. If not, Roberts should tell her she’s been recused.

precisely, short & very sweet....

and its by Federal law:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2794942/posts


63 posted on 11/24/2011 12:32:23 PM PST by skinkinthegrass (I can take tomorrow, spend it all today. Who can take your income, tax it all away. Obama Man can. :)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Popman
The dems can want what they always want, total control, but the House brings articles of Impeachment and were the Chief Justice to request that they be brought rather than the House originating them on their own, more than a few Senators who want to stay in the rarefied air of the Senate rather than being tossed out the next time they run would go along with ignoring Thomas.
64 posted on 11/24/2011 12:35:53 PM PST by Rashputin (Obama stark, raving, mad, and even his security people know it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: plsjr

She can be impeached - IF we get 60 Senate seats.


65 posted on 11/24/2011 1:03:15 PM PST by dodger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: plsjr

Agreed. This one time that Tea Parties need to be at the door protesting her.


66 posted on 11/24/2011 1:26:55 PM PST by WVNan (!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Windflier

That remark about “he” was a lame joke. I’m sure the statutes have a section that does just as you describe.

But it IS believable that Democrats would try to use this loophole.


67 posted on 11/24/2011 1:28:45 PM PST by ProtectOurFreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Windflier

Sadly a SCOTUS justice cannot be forced to recuse. But they can be impeached.


68 posted on 11/24/2011 1:37:57 PM PST by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose of a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: plsjr

If we ever get the chance,
in addition to “term-limits” for politicians, we need
either “easier” recall or periodic review, for
Supreme Court Justices.


69 posted on 11/24/2011 1:38:47 PM PST by noah (noah)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: plsjr
We really need to clean house if we want America to survive.

Try, convict and hang.

70 posted on 11/24/2011 1:38:58 PM PST by Noumenon (The only 'NO' a liberal understands is the one that arrives at muzzle velocity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dodger

It takes 2/3 majority to impeach. Ask Andrew Johnson.


71 posted on 11/24/2011 1:41:32 PM PST by fantail 1952 (Common sense foreign policy: Help your friends. Whip your enemies. Sort out the rest.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Noumenon
How ‘bout “Hang, try and convict” in that order? A little patriot justice...
72 posted on 11/24/2011 1:48:56 PM PST by Czar (NRA Life Member)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Czar

Works for me.


73 posted on 11/24/2011 1:57:34 PM PST by Noumenon (The only 'NO' a liberal understands is the one that arrives at muzzle velocity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: plsjr

Why should we expect honesty and integrity from our Court system or those who occupy the positions of trust and responsibility?

There is no indication that any of the values that underpinned our country when it was founded remain.

A judge should be able to advocate for what is in their political interests, in the same way that the press no longer remains unbiased, or the Senators or Representatives serve the people, instead of their own self-interests.

We are all out for ourselves now, and the Republic has been corrupted form within.

As our forefathers stated, the Republic will only last as long as people of integrity and honesty serve the people.

It is now only a game, and we all allowed it to happen.

Shame on the rest of the court for not forcing her to leave, and shame on her for not leaving out a since of decency.

It is too bad no one feels shame for anything any more. This Thanksgiving, I don’t see much to be thankful for.

The conscience of the country has passed into history.

Obama will be re-elected because he represents the me generation, the taker generation, the gimme generation. The court will merely parrot this attitude and say that it is all part of the changing of our society.

Obamacare will be upheld, because so many want free things.

The rise and fall of America occurs because of decisions like this.


74 posted on 11/24/2011 3:06:03 PM PST by LachlanMinnesota (Which are you? A producer, a looter, or a moocher of wealth?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: null and void
Ask Qadaffi how well that works out in the long run.

I dunno. 34 years in power wasn't too bad.

75 posted on 11/24/2011 3:10:20 PM PST by Lazamataz (For the balance of the day, I will reply to a thread on another thread.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Georgia Girl 2
Sadly a SCOTUS justice cannot be forced to recuse. But they can be impeached.

You mean to tell me that Supreme Court Justices are above the law?

See Title 28 of the United States Code, Section 455:

28 U.S.C. § 455 : US Code - Section 455: Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge

(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;

(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;

76 posted on 11/24/2011 5:01:09 PM PST by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Gritty
It is increasingly obvious we are rapidly moving beyond that "awkward" stage...

During the confirmation hearings, she talked about how a "wise latina woman" would have a different POV on the issues. She may have a point, because I'm just not seeing the wisdom in trying to provoke a rebellion.

77 posted on 11/24/2011 6:02:18 PM PST by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: bigdirty

GOP RINO’S LET OBAMA NOMINATE THIS INCOMPETANT PARTISAN WITCH TO THE SUPREME COURT

CONGRESS HAS OVERSITE - NOT A RUBBER STAMP - ON WHO EVER THE PRESIDENT WANTS

CALL LINSEY GRAHAM AND THANK HIM FOR THIS


78 posted on 11/24/2011 6:06:41 PM PST by Mr. K (Physically unable to proofreed <--- oops, see?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Windflier

They are supposed recuse if there is a conflict of interest but nobody can force them. Sadly we are counting an activist progressive to do the honorable thing. Forget it.


79 posted on 11/24/2011 8:25:15 PM PST by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose of a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Georgia Girl 2
They are supposed recuse if there is a conflict of interest but nobody can force them.

So, you're saying that the LAW doesn't apply to Supreme Court Justices?

80 posted on 11/25/2011 7:28:50 AM PST by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-96 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson