Before the Supreme Court set the date to hear the Affordable Care Act, the question of Associate Justice Kagans 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. Kagans 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 its 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 Cares supporters won hands down? Thats why Democrats want cameras in there in the first place. In the event the Court overturns the bill theyll 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 Husseins 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
On Sunday, March 21, 2010, the day the House of Representatives passed President Barack Obamas 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. Kagans 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 its 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-SPANs 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 Cares supporters won hands down? Thats why Democrats want cameras in there in the first place. In the event the Court overturns the bill theyll 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 Husseins 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