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 ...
Liberals never recuse. The rules are for us, not for them.
“So, you’re saying that the LAW doesn’t apply to Supreme Court Justices?”
I guess not.
You "guess not", or you know not?
You stated that no one can force Kagan to recuse herself from this case. Now, is that just your opinion, or are you basing that assertion on actual legal precedent?
What is your problem today? Its not my fault that nobody can force Elena Kagan to recuse herself from the Obamacare case. Jeez!!!
Listen, I'm not trying to have a fire fight with you. I'm simply trying to find out whether you're basing your statements on the law or legal precedent, or whether you're just stating your opinion.
If you'd just state which one it is, I'd have my answer. So would the other folks who are reading along without commenting.
The very legitimacy of our government is riding on this debacle. It's important that we keep our discussions about it within the parameters of the law, and not stray off into speculation and opinion.
I posted the relevant passages from the US Code to you, which clearly state that Kagan MUST recuse herself from the Obamacare case. If you have other data or legal findings that conflict with, or supersede that statute, I'm interested in knowing what it is. That's all I'm asking.
“I posted the relevant passages from the US Code to you, which clearly state that Kagan MUST recuse herself from the Obamacare case”
I understand all that. The US Code banks on the Justice’s having the integrity to admit they have a conflict of interest and recuse themselves. The US Code did not bank on an activist progressive who does not give a rats azz about integrity. Unless enough public pressure is put on Kagan she is not going to recuse herself and nobody is going to make her. I guess Chief Justice Roberts could have a private meeting and ask her to recuse but as far as I know even he cannot force her to do it. I’m not happy about it either. Sorry.
Here is an excerpt from the March 17,2011 letter from the Senate Judiciary Committee on changing the recusal rules for SCOTUS.
“Dear Chairmen and Ranking Minority Members,
Justices of the United States Supreme Court have not adopted and are not subject to a comprehensive code of judicial ethics. Nor are denials of motions to recuse by individual justices required to be in writing or subject to review. Recent media reports have focused public attention on this situation. The purpose of this letter is to issue a nonpartisan call for the implementation of mandatory and enforceable rules to protect the integrity of the Supreme Court.
Canon 1 of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges explains the importance of judicial ethics:
An independent and honorable judiciary is indispensable to justice in our society. A judge should maintain and enforce high standards of conduct and should personally observe those standards, so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary may be preserved.
This Code of Conduct is applicable to all federal judges except Supreme Court justices.”
I don't know....I think the case can be made that Kagan's impartiality can reasonably be called into question. The way I read the plain English of the following passage, it's not up to her to say whether she can rule impartially or not:
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.
Ok, I see that, but whoever wrote that appeal to the Supreme Court seems to have overlooked the fact that this situation is already covered under the US Code, which per my reading, is binding upon Supreme Court Justices.
Thanks for your input. This is an important discussion that all Americans should be having right now. The judgment of this one woman could potentially cause untold harm to us, and even lead to a complete breakdown of the civil society and our government.
Thanks.
Did you read the excerpt from the Senate Judiciary letter I posted? It specifically says the Supreme Court Justices are not bound by the code of conduct.
Inferior courts are "ordained and established" by Congress, and are subject to such terms as Congress legislates.
The Supreme Court is created by the Constitution and posesses entire the "Judicial Power of the United States".
I presume that, like both Houses of Congress, this power includes an unreviewable power to make their own rules. Certainly, a power of Congress to require recusal by simple legislation would be unconstitutional.
However, I bet that the Court could require Kagan's recusal by simple majority vote.
Yes, and I thanked you for that input, however, the statement you refer to wasn't backed up by any citation, so I don't know whether it's some Congress critter's opinion, or what.
That letter also does not state that Supreme Court Justices aren't bound by the US Code. The Code clearly states, "...a Justice..."
Is there such a post as Justice outside of the Supreme Court?
I presume that, like both Houses of Congress, this power includes an unreviewable power to make their own rules. Certainly, a power of Congress to require recusal by simple legislation would be unconstitutional.
Thanks, Jim. I think I'm done puzzling over the wording and reach of our clearly stated laws on this matter. It's apparent that the Framers were right. Our system of government is only workable for a moral, ethical people.
Laws, statutes, ordinances, regulations, constitutional provisions, etcetera, are only applicable to the lowly citizens, and do not apply to our betters in the ruling class. Ever has it been throughout human history, and apparently, America is no exception.
The Commies infesting our culture are not going to let us settle this peacefully, through our established processes. They're going to force the country to bend to their unworkable model, which will lead to a complete collapse. At that point, the real fight will start, and it will end in bloody war, like it always has.
“Yes, and I thanked you for that input, however, the statement you refer to wasn’t backed up by any citation, so I don’t know whether it’s some Congress critter’s opinion, or what.”
Its the Senate Judiciary Committee of the United States Senate. They are unhappy with the current code you are so intrigued with. The current code is only mandatory for Federal judges and State Supreme Court justices. The SCOTUS justices only use the code as a guidance. The US Senate Judiciary committee is thinking of changing the rules to make you happy.
I urge you not to rely any further on me but to simply google it as I did and in about 2 minutes you will find all the proof you require to believe that at this moment in time nothing short of death can force Elena Kagan to recuse herself from the Obamacare case.
Happy Thanksgiving.
Finally. That's exactly the answer I was looking for. Per your statement, Supreme Court Justices are exempt from the US Code.
Your first statement on the thread now makes perfect sense.
Happy Thanksgiving to you too.
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.