Email Released Shows Elana Kagan Celebrating Obamacare's Passage

[Inthemiddle]

Looks like a hearing needs to be called and supoena witnesses to see what opinion she had.

No. Doesn't work like that.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

should justice kagan recuse herself from health care reform case?

"included in the mailing" and therefore must have been involved? Lol! Do you even use email for work? I wish the only emails i was "included in the mailing" for were ones i was involved with!

Either way - it doesn't matter - as it is clear above that it requires she have expressed an opinion on a particular case. A potential unnamed and, at the time, future case that had not been brought yet is not a particular case.

i guess you are unaware that the justice department and kagan refuse to release all the documents and emails.


You should read the article i linked to, it has pro and cons. It makes an argument for her not recusing herself and reasons why she might have to.

if that’s true then that may be enough to deal with this issue and answer the questions. But yet, as turley notes, there is that email conversation, and there is the fact that justice is refusing to release any more documents. At the very least, it strikes me that those documents should be released. If it’s true that kagan wasn’t involved in litigation planning then the documents should reflect that. If they show that she was, however, then it strikes me that she may need to recuse herself

"the case" as you keep referring to it did not have to be a active case per se, but something that she was aware of such as the fact that she was aware of this possibly becoming a case. It is not that hard to figure out, really.

do you know what the word particular means?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Should Justice Kagan Recuse Herself From Health Care Reform Case?

"included in the mailing" and therefore must have been involved? LOL! Do you even use email for work? I WISH the only emails I was "included in the mailing" for were ones I was involved with!

Either way - it doesn't matter - as it is clear above that it requires she have expressed an opinion on a PARTICULAR case. A potential unnamed and, at the time, future case that had not been brought yet is not a PARTICULAR case.

Looks like a hearing needs to be called and supoena witnesses to see what opinion she had.

She couldn't have had an opinion on particular case that did not yet exist, we don't need a hearing to tell us common sense.

 

[Inthemiddle]

she expressed an opinion on the merits of the issue while in government service.... Grounds to require her to recuse.

The case didn't even exist before she joined the Court.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Thomas because his wife has ties? If this had been Robert's working for the Bush admin and also acting solicitor general when a case of this magnitude went down I can hear the left bitching now.

What does that have to do with anything? Where does the law state she must recuse herself if CafeAuLait is certain the Democrats would have bitched about Roberts in the exact same circumstance with parties reversed? I'm haven't trouble finding that in the U.S. Code.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Great. So all Kagan has to do is write a letter where she concludes her impartiality will not be affected. NEXT PLEASE

Really? Did Scalia express any opinions on Cheney?

Administration emails recently obtained by the conservative CNSNews.com through a Freedom of Information Act request show Kagan telling a former colleague "I hear they have the votes, Larry!! Simply amazing," regarding the reform bill. The emails have rekindled calls for Kagan to recuse herself from ruling on the healthcare reform law next year because of a provision of the U.S. code that calls on justices to disqualify themselves when they have "expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy" while in government service.

Sessions presses Holder on Justice Kagan's involvement with health law - The Hill's Healthwatch

she expressed an opinion on the merits of the issue while in government service.... Grounds to require her to recuse.

The law says she must have expressed an opinion ON THE MERITS OF A PARTICULAR CASE - not an "issue". I swear to fucking God, why don't you morons pick up a fucking dictionary and learn what words mean?

 

[bodecea]

The email is going viral tonight since it's release earlier today and it shows that Elana Kagan showed bias towards it's passage. As we all know, Obama's Health Care Law goes before the Supreme Court to see if it is constitutional and for a Judge currently sitting on the bench that has been revealed to be celebrating it's passage calls for her to recuse herself from the upcoming ruling. It is imperative that she do so. This law will have drastic consequences for all Americans and businesses if passed. Again, Kagan must recuse herself. It is required.


Kagan to Tribe on Day Obamacare Passed:

Read her email here:
http://www.cnsnews.com/sites/default/files/documents/TRIBE-KAGAN EMAIL EXCHANGE-03-21-10.pdf

Scalia has already set the precedent that Supreme Court Justices can ignore requirements for recusal.

Yup.

 

[del]

Really? Did Scalia express any opinions on Cheney?



Sessions presses Holder on Justice Kagan's involvement with health law - The Hill's Healthwatch

she expressed an opinion on the merits of the issue while in government service.... Grounds to require her to recuse.

The law says she must have expressed an opinion ON THE MERITS OF A PARTICULAR CASE - not an "issue". I swear to fucking God, why don't you morons pick up a fucking dictionary and learn what words mean?

psssst

only complete morons take usarmyretard seriously

 

[Dot Com]

If ANYONE needs to recuse themselves, it Clarence "coke can" Thomas His wife was directly involved in a group calling for the repeal of the Affordable Care Act.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/05/us/politics/05thomas.html

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

The email is going viral tonight since it's release earlier today and it shows that Elana Kagan showed bias towards it's passage. As we all know, Obama's Health Care Law goes before the Supreme Court to see if it is constitutional and for a Judge currently sitting on the bench that has been revealed to be celebrating it's passage calls for her to recuse herself from the upcoming ruling. It is imperative that she do so. This law will have drastic consequences for all Americans and businesses if passed. Again, Kagan must recuse herself. It is required.


Kagan to Tribe on Day Obamacare Passed:

Read her email here:
http://www.cnsnews.com/sites/default/files/documents/TRIBE-KAGAN EMAIL EXCHANGE-03-21-10.pdf

I agree she should recuse herself based on her previously admitted bias toward the legislation in light of physical proof of this bias in the form of her email.

Before having physical proof I was saying it was stupid to ask her to recuse herself but after reading the links I no longer feel that way.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

If ANYONE needs to recuse themselves, it Clarence "coke can" Thomas His wife was directly involved in a group callinjg for the repeal of the Affordable Care Act.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/05/us/politics/05thomas.html

Was the affordable care act similar to the Obamacare bill that created a mandatory individual mandate to purchase a product from a private company or face govt punishment?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Scalia won't recuse himself from Cheney case - CNN

From the article:

[Scalia concluded friendship alone did not meet that standard.

"Why would that result follow from my being in a sizable group of persons, in a hunting camp with the vice president, where I never hunted with him in the same blind or had other opportunity for private conversation?"

Scalia said that he did not remember being alone with Cheney and that they never discussed the case.]

There is nothing on record showing that Scalia discussing the case or anything pertaining to it. He was in the clear. Here we have conclusive proof in a email where Kagan discussed Obamacare and showing her joy that it passed. She must recuse herself.

Context is interesting.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

If ANYONE needs to recuse themselves, it Clarence "coke can" Thomas His wife was directly involved in a group calling for the repeal of the Affordable Care Act.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/05/us/politics/05thomas.html

I don't think spousal involvement with something is necessarily grounds for recusal. Lots of folks are in marriages and have different opinions - just look at James Carville and Mary Madeline.

Plus - if the grounp is advocating for the repeal of the act - that's not the same as advocating an opinion on a particular case.

We've often seen the response from potential justices undergoing senate review that goes something like this: "I can't tell you what I would rule in a case that has not happened yet, each case must be considered on its own merits". They aren't kidding around, its true. The political leanings of the Justices are well known, however, a good Justice looks at the facts of the case at hand, and judges based on that. A Justice might be anti-abortion, for instance, but that doesn't mean they will always rule against abortion. They will consider the facts of the particular case, and consider it in the context of relevant jurisprudence, without care for their own opinions. We trust each and everyone of these Justices to do this in every case - its fool to pretend that the Justices don't all have their own opinions about every national issue.

 

[BlindBoo]

The email is going viral tonight since it's release earlier today and it shows that Elana Kagan showed bias towards it's passage. As we all know, Obama's Health Care Law goes before the Supreme Court to see if it is constitutional and for a Judge currently sitting on the bench that has been revealed to be celebrating it's passage calls for her to recuse herself from the upcoming ruling. It is imperative that she do so. This law will have drastic consequences for all Americans and businesses if passed. Again, Kagan must recuse herself. It is required.


Kagan to Tribe on Day Obamacare Passed:

Read her email here:
http://www.cnsnews.com/sites/default/files/documents/TRIBE-KAGAN EMAIL EXCHANGE-03-21-10.pdf

Stupid Racist POS. If anyone should recuse themselves it's the silent one, Justice Thomas.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Kagan needs to recuse herself.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Kagan needs to recuse herself.

You need to take your pills.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Scalia won't recuse himself from Cheney case - CNN

Scalia ruled against Cheney.

Think Marx little minx, Kagan will rule against Dear Leader? What about her mindless little dog, Sotomayor? Think she'll rule anything other than "ditto whatever she said?" What a female SCOTUS group you fascists have - two Marxists and a moron...

 

[Uncensored2008]

Great. So all Kagan has to do is write a letter where she concludes her impartiality will not be affected. NEXT PLEASE

Was little mz. Marx discussing the case?

 

[007]

If Kagan doesn't recuse herself, then she should be impeached by the House.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Yup.

Did Scalia discuss the case? Or was the issue that he had dinner with Cheney?

No doubt Kagan has been to innumerable readings of Das Kapital, May day parades and parties for Lenin's birthday with Obama, which isn't relevant to the case.

BUT - she also discussed the case - which is a no-no in valid jurisprudence.

Not that you fascists care, you hold the "Obama's word is law" view. But for those who support the constitution, The Korrupt Kommie Kagan must be excluded.