28 u. S. C. 455

Discussion in 'Law and Justice System' started by Flanders, Mar 22, 2012.

  1. Flanders
    Offline

    Flanders ARCHCONSERVATIVE

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    6,562
    Thanks Received:
    634
    Trophy Points:
    175
    Ratings:
    +1,581
    Before the Supreme Court set the date to hear the Affordable Care Act, the question of Associate Justice Kagan’s recusal made for nice message board chit-chat:

    No one can make Kagan recuse herself, and it is not likely she will at this late date. She owes Hussein too much to let him down in so important a case.

    Recusal is not just a question of ethics. Kagan’s involvement in the Affordable Care Act is covered by law:


    Kagan to Tribe on Day Obamacare Passed: ‘I Hear They Have the Votes, Larry!! Simply Amazing.’
    By Terence P. Jeffrey
    November 10, 2011

    Kagan to Tribe on Day Obamacare Passed:

    Democrats called for Clarence Thomas to recuse because of Mrs. Thomas’ activities in opposition to the healthcare bill. There is one problem though. So far, no one presented any proof that Justice Thomas violated 28 U.S.C. 455. In fact, as near as this non-lawyer can tell he appears to be protected by the same law that requires Kagan to recuse herself:

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

    Note that far from divesting herself Kagan continues to profit from the healthcare bill. In my opinion a seat on the Supreme Court is more than simple profit —— it’s a lifetime annuity.

    Anyway, the case is scheduled to be heard next week.

    The Administration pushed for the High Court to hear the case. Administration officials say they are pleased it is on the docket. If they are so certain they are holding a winning hand on merits alone why is Kagan needed? The only answer I have is that the Administration thinks the other justices are as unethical as is Kagan.

    In a related matter from last November:


    C-SPAN asks Supreme Court to allow cameras for healthcare case
    By Sam Baker - 11/15/11 04:53 PM ET

    C-SPAN asks Supreme Court to allow cameras for healthcare case - The Hill's Healthwatch

    And this:

    Pelosi backs call for Supreme Court to televise healthcare case arguments
    By Sam Baker - 11/16/11 12:21 PM ET

    Pelosi backs call for Supreme Court to televise healthcare case arguments - The Hill's Healthwatch

    When Pelosi calls for cameras in the Supreme Court you know she is up to no good.

    But what the hell was Republican Senator Grassley thinking? Did he not realize that C-SPAN and the other liberal networks will edit and run selected portions of the proceedings to make it look like Affordable Care’s supporters won hands down? That’s why Democrats want cameras in there in the first place. In the event the Court overturns the bill they’ll slant edited clips to make it look like the justices who voted against the bill had a political agenda.

    Bottom line: Never forget this: The camera always lies, and the TV camera is the biggest liar of all.

    Television is no friend of the American people. Anyone who is interested in the proceedings can read the transcript. I cannot see where giving television a cloak of respectability will do any good for anybody except the people in television. Remember that those are the same people who whitewash all of the secrecy Hussein’s administration engages in.

    Happily, the:


    Supreme Court won't televise health arguments
    By JENNIFER HABERKORN | 3/16/12 1:44 PM EDT

    Supreme Court won't televise health arguments - POLITICO.com
     
  2. kiwiman127
    Offline

    kiwiman127 Comfortably Moderate Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2010
    Messages:
    8,423
    Thanks Received:
    2,581
    Trophy Points:
    315
    Location:
    4th Cleanest City in the World-Minneapolis
    Ratings:
    +3,848
  3. Flanders
    Offline

    Flanders ARCHCONSERVATIVE

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    6,562
    Thanks Received:
    634
    Trophy Points:
    175
    Ratings:
    +1,581
    To kiwiman127: I don’t see a violation of the law in your position:

    Even the article you linked said this:

     
  4. kiwiman127
    Offline

    kiwiman127 Comfortably Moderate Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2010
    Messages:
    8,423
    Thanks Received:
    2,581
    Trophy Points:
    315
    Location:
    4th Cleanest City in the World-Minneapolis
    Ratings:
    +3,848
    Did I say about anything that is illegal? After all, the Justices of the Supreme So, Kagan too, would be doing nothing illegal by participating in the vote according to the interpretation by Judge Scalia.
    What I am saying is that Kagan, Scalia and Thomas should recuse themselves because of conflict of interest, but in fact none are prohibited because their interpretation of the law.

    RECUSAL AND BUSH V GORE
    http://sites.duke.edu/wsa/papers/files/2011/05/wsa-recusalandbushvgore2002.pdf
     
    Last edited: Mar 22, 2012
  5. Flanders
    Offline

    Flanders ARCHCONSERVATIVE

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    6,562
    Thanks Received:
    634
    Trophy Points:
    175
    Ratings:
    +1,581
    To kiwiman127: It’s either a question of ethics or the law. Since you are not basing your position on ethics or 28 U. S. C. 455 where is the conflict of interest? Their personal beliefs!

    On the other hand:


    Hussein rewarded her with a seat on the Supreme Court fully expecting the case to come before the Court. That’s why I said:


     
  6. Wry Catcher
    Offline

    Wry Catcher Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    31,766
    Thanks Received:
    4,242
    Trophy Points:
    1,160
    Location:
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Ratings:
    +8,162
    "Hussein"? I suppose it would be inappropriate of me to ask you to recuse yourself from this thread, given that you're clearly a bigot.
     
  7. kiwiman127
    Offline

    kiwiman127 Comfortably Moderate Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2010
    Messages:
    8,423
    Thanks Received:
    2,581
    Trophy Points:
    315
    Location:
    4th Cleanest City in the World-Minneapolis
    Ratings:
    +3,848
    Read the link I provided, this circumstance regarding Kagan, Scalia and Thomas puts them under just one umbrella and is confirmed by comments by Scalia per his comments regarding and percieved conflict of interest. It's either all three justices recuse themselves or none recuse themselves and in the statement by Scalia, it would be none.
     
  8. Liability
    Offline

    Liability Locked Account. Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2009
    Messages:
    35,447
    Thanks Received:
    5,049
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Mansion in Ravi's Head
    Ratings:
    +5,063
    The claim that Justices Scalia and/or Thomas ought to recuse themselves is just a tit for tat.

    There is no sound basis for either of them to recuse themselves.

    That Justice Kagan ought to recuse herself is beyond such petty quibbles. She clearly ought to recuse herself. She won't, of course.
     
  9. kiwiman127
    Offline

    kiwiman127 Comfortably Moderate Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2010
    Messages:
    8,423
    Thanks Received:
    2,581
    Trophy Points:
    315
    Location:
    4th Cleanest City in the World-Minneapolis
    Ratings:
    +3,848
    And as I stated earlier in the post, Kagan should recuse herself for reasons the OP stated. But the Thomas household has received monies in the six figures for his wife's work fir anti-healthcare reform interests. And the difference is,,,what?
    And the fact that both Scalia and Thomas have received freebies from the anti-Obamacare factions is not a conflict of interest? Come on!

    I would like to point out that on many occasions I have clearly stated my opposition to Obamacare, specifically the mandates. I would hope it gets overturned.

    But that position doesn't drive me to approve of inconsistencies regarding who should and who shouldn't recuse themselves.
     
  10. Liability
    Offline

    Liability Locked Account. Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2009
    Messages:
    35,447
    Thanks Received:
    5,049
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Mansion in Ravi's Head
    Ratings:
    +5,063
    Kagan worked FOR the passage of the law. She should recuse herself. Period.

    A justice's spouse is a free agent. She can earn her living in any way she chooses and the fact that she does implies no duty for the spouse on the bench to recuse himself from anything. Independent agent.

    And there is no "fact" along the lines of what you call a "fact."

    Try again.
     

Share This Page