With just weeks until the U.S. Supreme Court considers the constitutionality of President Obama’s health care law, there are new calls for Justice Elena Kagan to recuse herself from the case.
Her critics point to a 2010 case regarding a San Francisco health measure, in which then-Solicitor General Kagan’s office filed an amicus brief touting the newly passed health care law.
In May 2010, after Kagan had been nominated to the nation’s highest court, Principal Deputy Solicitor General Neal Katyal sent her a memo outlining the cases in which she had “substantially participated.” Kaytal specifically referenced the Golden Gate case, noting that it had been “discussed with Elena several times.”
That’s enough to convince Heritage Foundation Senior Legal Fellow Hans von Spakovsky that Kagan shouldn’t take part in the current health care case before the high court.
“I don’t see how any ethical lawyer adhering to professional codes of conduct could not consider that they need to recuse themselves from this case,” he said.
Earlier this week, the Supreme Court denied a motion by the group Freedom Watch, which has called for Kagan’s recusal. Freedom Watch’s motion asked for permission to take part in the oral arguments scheduled for March 26 to 28. That motion was denied, and Kagan took no part in its consideration.
Other legal scholars say Kagan is in the clear, noting that the issues in the Golden Gate case are distinct from those in the case now pending at the Supreme Court.
This article was written by Shannon Bream for Fox News; full article at Fox News …
You must log in to post a comment.
THIS LOT WILL DO EVERYTHING IN ITS POWER TO KEEP KAGAN THE OBAMA LOVE BIRD IN THE SUPREME COURT.
NO MATTER WHO OBJECTS!
January 28, 2012 at 12:27 pm
According to Wikipedia: “Two sections of Title 28 of the United States Code (the Judicial Code) provide standards for judicial disqualification or recusal. Section 455, captioned “Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge,” provides that a federal judge “shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” The same section also provides that a judge is disqualified “where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding”; when the judge has previously served as a lawyer or witness concerning the same case or has expressed an opinion concerning its outcome; or when the judge or a member of his or her immediate family has a financial interest in the outcome of the proceeding.”
If Justice Kagan refuses to recuse herself, then after the November election, I suspect these will be a strong effort to impeach her based on her obvious infraction. The other justices should be put on notice that if they expect to avoid the public spectacle that would forever tarnish and damage the court, then they should pressure Kagan to recuse herself. It is high time the court’s authority was reeled in somewhat by the ultimate source of power, WE THE PEOPLE, and unless the Supreme Court wants to avoid a public spanking, then they should undertake to excise the problem before it festers. Kaga’s obvious political motivation in this case is going to rapidly fester into a nasty boil on the A$$ of the Supreme Court.The other justices can circle the wagons wall they want, but they better understand that this could very well be the last straw. Impeaching a sitting justice will be a nasty matter indeed, but one that is long overdue.
January 28, 2012 at 6:12 am