Kagan refused to recuse from ruling on validity of the ACA despite being in charge of defending the ACA while SG for Obama?

[Nostra]

So Kagan was in charge of defending Obamacare from court challenges while serving as Obama's Solicitor General, then refused to recuse herself when a court challenge to Obamacare came before the Supreme Court.

Did any liberal on this board object to that? So far, none have been able to show they did.

I'm quite sure all we will get is bleating over the source with no attempt whatsoever to discuss the merits contained therein.

Justice Kagan’s Non-Recusal in Obamacare Case​

1. Let’s start by laying forth the straightforward case that Kagan had a legal duty to recuse herself. (I briefly outline that case here and invite readers to follow these links for a more detailed discussion and documentation.)

a. Under 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(3), a justice has a legal duty to recuse herself from a proceeding in which the justice “has served in government employment and in such capacity participated as counsel [or] adviser … concerning the proceeding.” Any such “participat[ion]” would appear to be disqualifying. As with financial interests that trigger disqualification, the statute does not set forth a minimal threshold.

b. In her capacity as solicitor general, Elena Kagan was personally involved, even if only to a limited degree, in advising how to defend against challenges to Obamacare. Among other things:

– In January 2010, Kagan personally assigned her deputy Neal Katyal to be part of “a group to get thinking about how to defend against inevitable challenges to the health care proposals that are pending.” Katyal then informed the Associate Attorney General’s office that “Elena would definitely like OSG [the Office of the Solicitor General] to be involved in this set of issues,” that he will handle the matter, and that “we will bring Elena in as needed.”


– In March 2010, Katyal copied Kagan on his advice to Associate Attorney General Thomas Perrelli that DOJ “start assembling a response” to a draft complaint “so that we have it ready to go.”

– Katyal and Kagan then consulted on whether he or she should attend a White House meeting “to help us prepare for litigation” (Perrelli’s phrase) on what Katyal referred to as “litigation of singular importance.”

Therefore, Kagan had a duty to recuse under section 455(b)(3).

Justice Kagan’s Non-Recusal in Obamacare Case | National Review

I’ve run across a badly confused exchange over Justice Kagan’s non-recusal from the first Obamacare case (NFIB v. Sebelius). Let me try to sort out the confusion. 1. Let’s start by laying forth the…

www.nationalreview.com

 

[Oddball]

Were it not for double standards.....

 

[debbiedowner]

So Kagan was in charge of defending Obamacare from court challenges while serving as Obama's Solicitor General, then refused to recuse herself when a court challenge to Obamacare came before the Supreme Court.

Did any liberal on this board object to that? So far, none have been able to show they did.

I'm quite sure all we will get is bleating over the source with no attempt whatsoever to discuss the merits contained therein.

Justice Kagan’s Non-Recusal in Obamacare Case​

1. Let’s start by laying forth the straightforward case that Kagan had a legal duty to recuse herself. (I briefly outline that case here and invite readers to follow these links for a more detailed discussion and documentation.)

a. Under 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(3), a justice has a legal duty to recuse herself from a proceeding in which the justice “has served in government employment and in such capacity participated as counsel [or] adviser … concerning the proceeding.” Any such “participat[ion]” would appear to be disqualifying. As with financial interests that trigger disqualification, the statute does not set forth a minimal threshold.

b. In her capacity as solicitor general, Elena Kagan was personally involved, even if only to a limited degree, in advising how to defend against challenges to Obamacare. Among other things:

– In January 2010, Kagan personally assigned her deputy Neal Katyal to be part of “a group to get thinking about how to defend against inevitable challenges to the health care proposals that are pending.” Katyal then informed the Associate Attorney General’s office that “Elena would definitely like OSG [the Office of the Solicitor General] to be involved in this set of issues,” that he will handle the matter, and that “we will bring Elena in as needed.”


– In March 2010, Katyal copied Kagan on his advice to Associate Attorney General Thomas Perrelli that DOJ “start assembling a response” to a draft complaint “so that we have it ready to go.”

– Katyal and Kagan then consulted on whether he or she should attend a White House meeting “to help us prepare for litigation” (Perrelli’s phrase) on what Katyal referred to as “litigation of singular importance.”

Therefore, Kagan had a duty to recuse under section 455(b)(3).

Justice Kagan’s Non-Recusal in Obamacare Case | National Review

I’ve run across a badly confused exchange over Justice Kagan’s non-recusal from the first Obamacare case (NFIB v. Sebelius). Let me try to sort out the confusion. 1. Let’s start by laying forth the…

www.nationalreview.com

unlike Thomas who recused himself, right.

 

[Nostra]

Looks like all the board Dimwingers approve of this obvious conflict of interest.

I wonder why........

 

[Paleman]

So Kagan was in charge of defending Obamacare from court challenges while serving as Obama's Solicitor General, then refused to recuse herself when a court challenge to Obamacare came before the Supreme Court.

Did any liberal on this board object to that? So far, none have been able to show they did.

I'm quite sure all we will get is bleating over the source with no attempt whatsoever to discuss the merits contained therein.

Justice Kagan’s Non-Recusal in Obamacare Case​

1. Let’s start by laying forth the straightforward case that Kagan had a legal duty to recuse herself. (I briefly outline that case here and invite readers to follow these links for a more detailed discussion and documentation.)

a. Under 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(3), a justice has a legal duty to recuse herself from a proceeding in which the justice “has served in government employment and in such capacity participated as counsel [or] adviser … concerning the proceeding.” Any such “participat[ion]” would appear to be disqualifying. As with financial interests that trigger disqualification, the statute does not set forth a minimal threshold.

b. In her capacity as solicitor general, Elena Kagan was personally involved, even if only to a limited degree, in advising how to defend against challenges to Obamacare. Among other things:

– In January 2010, Kagan personally assigned her deputy Neal Katyal to be part of “a group to get thinking about how to defend against inevitable challenges to the health care proposals that are pending.” Katyal then informed the Associate Attorney General’s office that “Elena would definitely like OSG [the Office of the Solicitor General] to be involved in this set of issues,” that he will handle the matter, and that “we will bring Elena in as needed.”


– In March 2010, Katyal copied Kagan on his advice to Associate Attorney General Thomas Perrelli that DOJ “start assembling a response” to a draft complaint “so that we have it ready to go.”

– Katyal and Kagan then consulted on whether he or she should attend a White House meeting “to help us prepare for litigation” (Perrelli’s phrase) on what Katyal referred to as “litigation of singular importance.”

Therefore, Kagan had a duty to recuse under section 455(b)(3).

Justice Kagan’s Non-Recusal in Obamacare Case | National Review

I’ve run across a badly confused exchange over Justice Kagan’s non-recusal from the first Obamacare case (NFIB v. Sebelius). Let me try to sort out the confusion. 1. Let’s start by laying forth the…

www.nationalreview.com

I can hear the left's response, which will be But! But! But! And besides, that evil Trump made me do it.

 

[pknopp]

Were it not for double standards.....

Indeed.

This is why we need Roberts to institute strong enforceable ethic rules. Sadly he says he will not.

“A body of men (and women) holding themselves accountable to nobody ought not to be trusted by anybody.”​

Thomas Paine.

 

[Nostra]

Indeed.

This is why we need Roberts to institute strong enforceable ethic rules. Sadly he says he will not.

“A body of men (and women) holding themselves accountable to nobody ought not to be trusted by anybody.”​

Thomas Paine.

The House and Senate writes their own ethics rules. Who do you think should write them?

 

[pknopp]

The House and Senate writes their own ethics rules. Who do you think should write them?

I've said 20 times. Roberts. He refuses to do so.

 

[Nostra]

I've said 20 times. Roberts. He refuses to do so.

So you think Roberts should write the ethics rules for Congress?

 

[OldFlame]

unlike Thomas who recused himself, right.

That obviously went right over your pointy little head.