28 u. S. C. 455

[Flanders]

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

To Quantum Windbag: I based my position on this from 28 U. S. C. § 455

(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.

I could not find anything that says Supreme Court judges are exempt.

 

[Big Fitz]

Make you wonder if there should not be an external method that forces justices to be recused.

 

[Flopper]

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

To Quantum Windbag: I based my position on this from 28 U. S. C. § 455

(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.

I could not find anything that says Supreme Court judges are exempt.

Supreme Court judges are not exempt, however there is no mechanism for enforcement by a higher court, nor is there a mechanism for appointing a temporary replacement. There is little known about Kagan’s actual involvement in the Affordable Healthcare law and she has denied expressing an opinion on the constitutionality of the law. Because partisan groups believe she may shelter an opinion is no reason for her to recuse herself. In every major case, one partisan group or another accuses justices of impartiality.

 

[Flanders]

There is little known about Kagan’s actual involvement in the Affordable Healthcare law

To Flopper: You have to be joking unless you mean she did not write it!

 

[Flopper]

There is little known about Kagan’s actual involvement in the Affordable Healthcare law

To Flopper: You have to be joking unless you mean she did not write it!

And where has she stated an opinion on the constitutionality of the healthcare law? Where is any hard evidence that see worked toward the passage of the law or has any vested interest in the outcome of the case?