28 u. S. C. 455

[Flanders]

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:

On Sunday, March 21, 2010, the day the House of Representatives passed President Barack Obama’s Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, then-Solicitor General Elena Kagan and famed Supreme Court litigator and Harvard Law Prof. Laurence Tribe, who was then serving in the Justice Department, had an email exchange in which they discussed the pending health-care vote, according to documents the Department of Justice released late Wednesday to the Media Research Center, CNSNews.com's parent organization, and to Judicial Watch.

“I hear they have the votes, Larry!! Simply amazing,” Kagan said to Tribe in one of the emails.

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:

According to 28 USC 455, a Supreme Court justice must recuse from “any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” The law also says a justice must recuse anytime he has “expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy” while he “served in governmental employment.”

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:

(f) Notwithstanding the preceding provisions of this section, if any justice, judge, magistrate judge, or bankruptcy judge to whom a matter has been assigned would be disqualified, after substantial judicial time has been devoted to the matter, because of the appearance or discovery, after the matter was assigned to him or her, that he or she individually or as a fiduciary, or his or her spouse or minor child residing in his or her household, has a financial interest in a party (other than an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome), disqualification is not required if the justice, judge, magistrate judge, bankruptcy judge, spouse or minor child, as the case may be, divests himself or herself of the interest that provides the grounds for the disqualification.

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

Sen. Chuck Grassley R - Iowa) also backed C-SPAN’s request for a televised hearing.

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

 

[kiwiman127]

I agree that Kagan should recuse herself for the Obamacare ruling. But Justices Scalia and Thomas should also recuse themselves for the same reason,,conflict of interest.

Scalia And Thomas Party With Obamacare Challengers On Day Court Takes Up Case
Scalia And Thomas Party With Obamacare Challengers On Day Court Takes Up Case - Forbes

 

[Flanders]

I agree that Kagan should recuse herself for the Obamacare ruling. But Justices Scalia and Thomas should also recuse themselves for the same reason,,conflict of interest.

Scalia And Thomas Party With Obamacare Challengers On Day Court Takes Up Case
Scalia And Thomas Party With Obamacare Challengers On Day Court Takes Up Case - Forbes

To kiwiman127: I don’t see a violation of the law in your position:

(f) Notwithstanding the preceding provisions of this section, if any justice, judge, magistrate judge, or bankruptcy judge to whom a matter has been assigned would be disqualified, after substantial judicial time has been devoted to the matter, because of the appearance or discovery, after the matter was assigned to him or her, that he or she individually or as a fiduciary, or his or her spouse or minor child residing in his or her household, has a financial interest in a party (other than an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome), disqualification is not required if the justice, judge, magistrate judge, bankruptcy judge, spouse or minor child, as the case may be, divests himself or herself of the interest that provides the grounds for the disqualification.

Even the article you linked said this:

Illegal? A violation of ethical rules?

Not at all. The members of the Court are pretty much on their own when it comes to who they choose to hang out with and what political dinners they wish to attend.

 

[kiwiman127]

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

 

[Flanders]

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

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:

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

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

. . . 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.

 

[Wry Catcher]

"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.

 

[kiwiman127]

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

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:

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

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

. . . 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.

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.

 

[Liability]

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.

 

[kiwiman127]

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.

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.

 

[Liability]

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.

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.

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.

 

[kiwiman127]

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.

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.

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.

Let me put it this way,,,,you are being sued for everything you have, you see the judge who's sitting in on your case having dinner with the plaintiff and you see the plaintiff pay for the judges dinner. You also see the plaintiff and the judge playing golf together. You also know that the judges wife is on the payroll for the plaintiff. Would you feel like justice is going to be served? I doubt it.

Now as I said, I want Obamacare's mandate thrown out the window, but I also believe that justices should never have even a remote conflict of interest,,,ever. In other words, I'm all about having a justice system that is truly consistent with a level playing field,,isn't that what true justice is all about?

I rest my care, your honor.

 

[Liability]

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.

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.

Let me put it this way,,,,you are being sued for everything you have, you see the judge who's sitting in on your case having dinner with the plaintiff and you see the plaintiff pay for the judges dinner. You also see the plaintiff and the judge playing golf together. You also know that the judges wife is on the payroll for the plaintiff. Would you feel like justice is going to be served? I doubt it.

Now as I said, I want Obamacare's mandate thrown out the window, but I also believe that justices should never have even a remote conflict of interest,,,ever. In other words, I'm all about having a justice system that is truly consistent with a level playing field,,isn't that what true justice is all about?

I rest my care, your honor.

You REST?

Good. In that case, I now pronounce judgment:

You lose.

Ready for the sentence?

Ok.

Here ya go:

Off with your head.

A truly miserable, pathetic effort. Before you get executed, though, you should be disbarred.

What a hideous performance.

Here's a helpful hint. Good analogy's require a credible analog.

 

[Flanders]

"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.

To Wry Catcher: Hussein is his name. Liberals are more ashamed of it than anyone else.

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

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:

. . . 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.

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.

To wikiman127: Can you post the quote where Scalia & Thomas say they have a conflict of interest in the healthcare case? I can’t find it.

Liberals calling for Thomas to recuse have not a leg to stand on.

Associate Justice Thomas did not report his wife’s income from 1997 to 2007. The real possibility that socialized medicine would become law was not on anyone’s radar screen in those years. After all, Hillarycare had been a disaster for the Clinton co-presidency and the Democrat party. There was every reason to think history would repeat itself if the Democrats brought it up again. (History repeating itself is shaping up this November.)

Hussein moved into the White House in January of 2009. He signed the healthcare bill on March 24, 2010. Based on dates alone there is no way Justice Thomas should recuse himself even if it could be proved he and his wife talked about socialized medicine in a philosophical way between 1997 to 2007. There was no legislation pending in those years. There was no sign that legislation was in the works until 2009.

On the other hand, Hussein appointed Elena Kagan solicitor general on Jan. 26, 2009, only days after he took office; so she was there when the Democrats first realized they had a shot at ramming socialized medicine down the country’s throat.

On May 10, 2010, forty-seven days after signing Hillarycare II, Hussein nominated Kagan to the Supreme Court. Even if you accept Kagan’s time frame as a coincidence, there is e-mail evidence supporting her recusal. There is nothing to suggest that Justice Thomas is legally, or ethically, obligated to recuse himself.

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.

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.

Let me put it this way,,,,you are being sued for everything you have, you see the judge who's sitting in on your case having dinner with the plaintiff and you see the plaintiff pay for the judges dinner. You also see the plaintiff and the judge playing golf together. You also know that the judges wife is on the payroll for the plaintiff. Would you feel like justice is going to be served? I doubt it.

Now as I said, I want Obamacare's mandate thrown out the window, but I also believe that justices should never have even a remote conflict of interest,,,ever. In other words, I'm all about having a justice system that is truly consistent with a level playing field,,isn't that what true justice is all about?

I rest my care, your honor.

To wikiman127: Since you’re offering a corrupt judge analogy to make your case, had you read the article I linked in the OP you would have found this:

On July 13, 2010, during her confirmation process, the Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee sent Kagan a letter asking her a series of questions probing her possible involvement in health care legislation or litigation during her time as solicitor general. The senators asked: “Have you ever been asked about your opinion regarding the underlying legal or constitutional issues related to any proposed health care legislation, including but not limited to Pub. L. No. 111-148, or the underlying legal or constitutional issues related to potential litigation resulting from such legislation?”

The senators also asked Kagan: “Have you ever offered any views or comments regarding the underlying legal or constitutional issues related to any proposed health care legislation, including but not limited to Pub. L. No. 111-148, or the underlying legal or constitutional issues related to potential litigation resulting from such legislation?”

Kagan’s written response to both questions was: “No.”

Kagan to Tribe on Day Obamacare Passed:

All things considered Kagan alone should recuse herself.

 

[Liability]

the judge who's sitting in on your case having dinner with the plaintiff and you see the plaintiff pay for the judges dinner. You also see the plaintiff and the judge playing golf together. You also know that the judges wife is on the payroll for the plaintiff. Would you feel like justice is going to be served? I doubt it.

Nobody expects SCOTUS judges not to go out to eat. And they can meet all manner of people when they do.

Nobody is paying for the judge's meals, though. So until and unless you back that up, your analogy is not only a fail in its premises, it's dishonest.

Judges can have spouses and spouses are entitled to have their own lives. That doesn't mean that the SCOTUS judge will "side" with his spouse's employer.

And there's no logical reason to assume that a SCOTUS judge would.

Further, judges do come to the bench with their own respective political and philosophical views. Their decisions are almost certainly influenced by those life-views. Also not a ground fro recusal.

Thank me very much.

 

[kiwiman127]

the judge who's sitting in on your case having dinner with the plaintiff and you see the plaintiff pay for the judges dinner. You also see the plaintiff and the judge playing golf together. You also know that the judges wife is on the payroll for the plaintiff. Would you feel like justice is going to be served? I doubt it.

Nobody expects SCOTUS judges not to go out to eat. And they can meet all manner of people when they do.

Nobody is paying for the judge's meals, though. So until and unless you back that up, your analogy is not only a fail in its premises, it's dishonest.

Judges can have spouses and spouses are entitled to have their own lives. That doesn't mean that the SCOTUS judge will "side" with his spouse's employer.

And there's no logical reason to assume that a SCOTUS judge would.

Further, judges do come to the bench with their own respective political and philosophical views. Their decisions are almost certainly influenced by those life-views. Also not a ground fro recusal.

Thank me very much.

No, no, no,,,,Thank you!

It's not like Thomas and Scalia went to Hermes Cafe & Lounge, it was a very political fundraiser.

If Canon Code of Ethics applied to the Supremes, none of these Justices would be involved participating with this crucial case. The fact that the Supremes don't have to follow any code of ethics, rates right up there with the legality of members of Congress being able to be involved with insider trading. Kinda Banana Republic to me (and no not the stores)!

But in the end, it appears all three judges will be involved as none have decided to recuse themselves despite pressure from the right and left.

So we'll see where the chips fall.

 

[kiwiman127]

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.

Let me put it this way,,,,you are being sued for everything you have, you see the judge who's sitting in on your case having dinner with the plaintiff and you see the plaintiff pay for the judges dinner. You also see the plaintiff and the judge playing golf together. You also know that the judges wife is on the payroll for the plaintiff. Would you feel like justice is going to be served? I doubt it.

Now as I said, I want Obamacare's mandate thrown out the window, but I also believe that justices should never have even a remote conflict of interest,,,ever. In other words, I'm all about having a justice system that is truly consistent with a level playing field,,isn't that what true justice is all about?

I rest my care, your honor.

You REST?

Good. In that case, I now pronounce judgment:

You lose.

Ready for the sentence?

Ok.

Here ya go:

Off with your head.

A truly miserable, pathetic effort. Before you get executed, though, you should be disbarred.

What a hideous performance.

Here's a helpful hint. Good analogy's require a credible analog.

That's what I like about you Liability, you are one funny guy! Keep it coming!

 

[Flanders]

If Canon Code of Ethics applied to the Supremes, none of these Justices would be involved participating with this crucial case.

To kiwiman127: And if we had ham we could have ham & eggs —— if we had the eggs.

 

[Liability]

If Canon Code of Ethics applied to the Supremes, none of these Justices would be involved participating with this crucial case.

To kiwiman127: And if we had ham we could have ham & eggs —— if we had the eggs.

And if the eggs were green?

 

[Flopper]

Without mentioning them by name, Chief Justice Roberts effectively defended the decision by both Justice Thomas and Justice Kagan that they did not need to recuse themselves from the Supreme Court’s upcoming deliberations over the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act:
“A justice accordingly cannot withdraw from a case as a matter of convenience or simply to avoid controversy,” he added. “Rather, each justice has an obligation to the Court to be sure of the need to recuse before deciding to withdraw from a case.”

The issues surrounding a Supreme Court Justice’s recusal are far more complicated than those that take place District Court or Court of Appeals level, not the least because there is no mechanism to replace a Justice who has recused themselves and the absence of even one member of the Court could impact the outcome of the case significantly.

Chief Justice Roberts Defends Kagan, Thomas Recusal Decisions On Health Care Lawsuit

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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:

On Sunday, March 21, 2010, the day the House of Representatives passed President Barack Obama’s Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, then-Solicitor General Elena Kagan and famed Supreme Court litigator and Harvard Law Prof. Laurence Tribe, who was then serving in the Justice Department, had an email exchange in which they discussed the pending health-care vote, according to documents the Department of Justice released late Wednesday to the Media Research Center, CNSNews.com's parent organization, and to Judicial Watch.

“I hear they have the votes, Larry!! Simply amazing,” Kagan said to Tribe in one of the emails.

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:

According to 28 USC 455, a Supreme Court justice must recuse from “any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” The law also says a justice must recuse anytime he has “expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy” while he “served in governmental employment.”

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:

(f) Notwithstanding the preceding provisions of this section, if any justice, judge, magistrate judge, or bankruptcy judge to whom a matter has been assigned would be disqualified, after substantial judicial time has been devoted to the matter, because of the appearance or discovery, after the matter was assigned to him or her, that he or she individually or as a fiduciary, or his or her spouse or minor child residing in his or her household, has a financial interest in a party (other than an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome), disqualification is not required if the justice, judge, magistrate judge, bankruptcy judge, spouse or minor child, as the case may be, divests himself or herself of the interest that provides the grounds for the disqualification.

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

Sen. Chuck Grassley R - Iowa) also backed C-SPAN’s request for a televised hearing.

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

The law you are talking about does not apply to the Supreme Court.