Was Kagan right to recuse?

[alan1]

In its notice, the court said Justice Elena Kagan had recused herself from the decision to take the case.


Justice Kagan has come under fire for not recusing herself from the decision to hear challenges to the new health care law.

She was Mr. Obama’s solicitor general from March 2009 up through May 2010, though she stopped taking part in cases in March 2010 so she would preserve her ability to hear them as a justice.

The health care law was signed in March 2010. Arizona’s immigration law passed in April 2010.
Supreme Court will hear Arizona immigration case - Washington Times


So what is the difference between the immigration bill and Obamacare?
Someone care to explain why she recused from immigration but not Obamacare both of which she worked on!

It doesn't say she recused herself from hearing the case, only that she recused herself from the decision to take the case.
In other words, she was not involved in whether or not the case would be heard.

Is there more information here? Did she actually recuse herself from hearing the case?

 

[Sallow]

So what is the difference between the immigration bill and Obamacare?
Someone care to explain why she recused from immigration but not Obamacare both of which she worked on!

Rather than whining about it why don’t you research the issue and report back to us with facts and the law in support of your argument that she should recuse. Otherwise your motive is political only, not legal.

She may have recused herself from the AZ case so that her refusal to recuse from the far more important "Obamacare" case, would be viewed more favorably by the public. If so, it's a brilliant PR move.

We'll see what happens....Personally, I think she needs to recuse from both cases.

As a partisan rightist, of course you do. But as with the OP, do you have any facts or evidence to back that up?

It's just my opinion about her motives for recusing in the AZ case. As for the reasons for her to recuse- IMHO, if there is any appearance of conflict, a judge should recuse. Kagan was the Solicitor General when Obamacare was passed. It looks like a conflict to me.

And that's basically not the standard the court uses. Scalia and Thomas are to very good examples of that.

That's the standard.

 

[Inthemiddle]

It's just my opinion about her motives for recusing in the AZ case. As for the reasons for her to recuse- IMHO, if there is any appearance of conflict, a judge should recuse. Kagan was the Solicitor General when Obamacare was passed. It looks like a conflict to me.

Only appears that way to the ignorant.

 

[Conservative]

Why exactly?

And Scalia should have recused himself from several cases..including Gore v. Bush..for numerous reasons.

That was not done. And Supreme Court justices are under no obligation to recuse. It's more of an "Honor system."

Yes, Scalia should have, most likely. However, I was not discussing those issues. Feel free to start a thread on them and we can discuss them at length. This thread is about Kagan.

Kagan should recuse herself from Obamacare deliberations | Washington Examiner

As Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and three of his Senate Republican colleagues wrote in a Nov. 18 letter to Attorney General Eric Holder, a justice should withdraw from any case in which he or she "has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case or controversy." The law further stipulates that recusal is appropriate whenever a justice's "impartiality might reasonably be questioned."

As McConnell and his three colleagues - Sens. Jon Kyl of Arizona, Charles Grassley of Iowa and Mike Lee of Utah - point out to Holder, recently released emails suggest that Justice Elena Kagan's involvement as U.S. solicitor general in the Obama Administration "may satisfy both requirements for recusal."

She expressed opinions on Obamacare. Her impartiality is reasonably in question.

Well when you start a thread about when someone should do something or not..you have to look at the history of the "problem".

Using Scalia as a template..Kagan is not under any obligation, by conservative standards..to recuse.

Careful what you wish for.

I disagree, When you start a thread about a specific instance, you do NOT have to discuss previous instances involving other people. It is perfectly acceptable to discuss only the current instance.

 

[Sallow]

Yes, Scalia should have, most likely. However, I was not discussing those issues. Feel free to start a thread on them and we can discuss them at length. This thread is about Kagan.

Kagan should recuse herself from Obamacare deliberations | Washington Examiner


She expressed opinions on Obamacare. Her impartiality is reasonably in question.

Well when you start a thread about when someone should do something or not..you have to look at the history of the "problem".

Using Scalia as a template..Kagan is not under any obligation, by conservative standards..to recuse.

Careful what you wish for.

I disagree, When you start a thread about a specific instance, you do NOT have to discuss previous instances involving other people. It is perfectly acceptable to discuss only the current instance.

But you are talking about "justice" here. And that's how it works. You have a case that sets precedence and that is usually what is followed.

Scalia and Thomas have already set the bar in terms of behavior for this court.

And it's impossible to fairly discuss this issue without including that behavior.

 

[Charles_Main]

In its notice, the court said Justice Elena Kagan had recused herself from the decision to take the case.


Justice Kagan has come under fire for not recusing herself from the decision to hear challenges to the new health care law.

She was Mr. Obama’s solicitor general from March 2009 up through May 2010, though she stopped taking part in cases in March 2010 so she would preserve her ability to hear them as a justice.

The health care law was signed in March 2010. Arizona’s immigration law passed in April 2010.
High court to consider Arizona's appeal on migrant law - Washington Times


So what is the difference between the immigration bill and Obamacare?
Someone care to explain why she recused from immigration but not Obamacare both of which she worked on!

Your answer is in the Dates. Arizona's law passed 1 month before she stopped taking part in Cases, Health Care happened after she had.

Therefore she recused herself from the Immigration case because she must have done some work on it before she stopped taking part in cases, but did not on Obama Care as that was not even law until she had stopped taking part.

Simple. LOL

In Any case the woman is such a left wing activist, and PRO Obama Person I think she should have to recuse herself from any Decisions regarding anything to do with Law Obama had anything to do with Writing, but the isn't gonna happen. lol

 

[hortysir]

They're all going to do whatever the hell they want.

They are the SUPREME Court.
No appeals.

 

[ladyliberal]

Kagan, Thomas asked to sit out health care case - SFGate

Justice Dept. Will Fight Arizona on Immigration - NYTimes.com


Kagan has testified that her most substantive contribution to the case defending ACA (healthcare) was attending a meeting in which someone mentioned that litigation might (OK, almost certainly would) occur in the future. In contrast, the White House announced their intent to challenge Arizona while Kagan was still Solicitor General. Presumably, then, Kagan was in charge for a time of crafting the very legal case that the Supreme Court will hear regarding Arizona's immigration law.

There are borderline situations where a judge's decision to recuse herself could go either way (particularly for the Supreme Court, which isn't bound by normal rules). Neither of these is such a situation: Kagan had little choice but to recuse herself in one case but not the other.

Some have suggested that the mere fact that Kagan worked for the President who pushed for this policy and signed it into law means that she should recuse herself to avoid the appearance of impartiality. I'm not immune to such logic, but I don't think that standard can be met in the real world. Judges are engaged with the wider policy world, and it's unfair to ask them to cloister themselves either before or after they join the Court.

 

[dblack]

They're all going to do whatever the hell they want.

They are the SUPREME Court.
No appeals.

It's good to be supreme!

 

[hortysir]

They're all going to do whatever the hell they want.

They are the SUPREME Court.
No appeals.

It's good to be supreme!

That's how I like my tacos and nachos!