• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Full court will set on Health Care Reform Appeal

Help Support Ranchers.net:

A

Anonymous

Guest
High court turns aside recusal request on health care challenge


By Bill Mears, CNN Supreme Court Producer
updated 11:09 AM EST, Mon January 23, 2012


Washington (CNN) -- The Supreme Court has turned aside a motion from a political advocacy group that sought to argue Justice Elena Kagan should not participate in the upcoming blockbuster appeals over the constitutionality of health care reform.

The justices without comment on Monday denied the request from Freedom Watch. Kagan herself did not get involved in this particular motion.

The court's brief order all but assures the newest justice will participate in the late March arguments, and eventually rule on the cases' merits. Similar calls for recusal from other groups have been directed at Justice Clarence Thomas.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Kagan should be recused. There is no way that she is going to rule against a law that she helped to write.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandhusker said:
Kagan should be recused. There is no way that she is going to rule against a law that she helped to write.

She should have the most knowledge on the issue then...Like I've said before- while Judges and Jurys are supposed to listen to and decide on the evidence presented- its impossible to throw out knowledge gleaned from everyday life...


380857_10151144275195203_569625202_22239522_1529195472_n.jpg
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
Kagan to Tribe on Day Obamacare Passed: ‘I Hear They Have the Votes, Larry!! Simply Amazing.’
By Terence P. Jeffrey
November 10, 2011
Subscribe to Terence P. Jeffrey's posts
Then-Solicitor General Elena Kagan appearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee in June 2010 during a confirmation hearing for her nomination to the Supreme Court. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)
(CNSNews.com) - On Sunday, March 21, 2010, the day the House of Representatives passed President Barack Obama’s Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, then-Solicitor General Elena Kagan and famed Supreme Court litigator and Harvard Law Prof. Laurence Tribe, who was then serving in the Justice Department, had an email exchange in which they discussed the pending health-care vote, according to documents the Department of Justice released late Wednesday to the Media Research Center, CNSNews.com's parent organization, and to Judicial Watch.

“I hear they have the votes, Larry!! Simply amazing,” Kagan said to Tribe in one of the emails.

The Justice Department released a new batch of emails on Wednesday evening as its latest response to Freedom of Information Act requests filed by CNSNews.com and Judicial Watch. Both organizations filed federal lawsuits against DOJ after the department did not initially respond to the requests. CNSNews.com originally filed its FOIA request on May 25, 2010--before Elena Kagan's June 2010 Supreme Court confirmation hearings.

The March 2010 email exchange between Kagan and Tribe raises new questions about whether Kagan must recuse herself from judging cases involving the health-care law that Obama signed--and which became the target of legal challenges--while Kagan was serving as Obama's solicitor general and was responsible for defending his administration’s positions in court disputes.

According to 28 USC 455, a Supreme Court justice must recuse from “any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” The law also says a justice must recuse anytime he has “expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy” while he “served in governmental employment.”

Kagan lied to the Senate when she was confirmed and now she is refusing to recuse herself. I think we all know she was not put on the Supreme Court because she is an ETHICAL Person but then who of Obama's appointees are ethical. :roll:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Tam said:
Kagan to Tribe on Day Obamacare Passed: ‘I Hear They Have the Votes, Larry!! Simply Amazing.’
By Terence P. Jeffrey
November 10, 2011
Subscribe to Terence P. Jeffrey's posts
Then-Solicitor General Elena Kagan appearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee in June 2010 during a confirmation hearing for her nomination to the Supreme Court. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)
(CNSNews.com) - On Sunday, March 21, 2010, the day the House of Representatives passed President Barack Obama’s Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, then-Solicitor General Elena Kagan and famed Supreme Court litigator and Harvard Law Prof. Laurence Tribe, who was then serving in the Justice Department, had an email exchange in which they discussed the pending health-care vote, according to documents the Department of Justice released late Wednesday to the Media Research Center, CNSNews.com's parent organization, and to Judicial Watch.

“I hear they have the votes, Larry!! Simply amazing,” Kagan said to Tribe in one of the emails.

The Justice Department released a new batch of emails on Wednesday evening as its latest response to Freedom of Information Act requests filed by CNSNews.com and Judicial Watch. Both organizations filed federal lawsuits against DOJ after the department did not initially respond to the requests. CNSNews.com originally filed its FOIA request on May 25, 2010--before Elena Kagan's June 2010 Supreme Court confirmation hearings.

The March 2010 email exchange between Kagan and Tribe raises new questions about whether Kagan must recuse herself from judging cases involving the health-care law that Obama signed--and which became the target of legal challenges--while Kagan was serving as Obama's solicitor general and was responsible for defending his administration’s positions in court disputes.

According to 28 USC 455, a Supreme Court justice must recuse from “any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” The law also says a justice must recuse anytime he has “expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy” while he “served in governmental employment.”

Kagan lied to the Senate when she was confirmed and now she is refusing to recuse herself. I think we all know she was not put on the Supreme Court because she is an ETHICAL Person but then who of Obama's appointees are ethical. :roll:

Kagan was not party to the recuse proceedings... Her fellow 8 Justices made the decision that she need not to recuse herself- apparently finding that they believed she could make an honest and fair decision...
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
OT, knowledge is not the issue. The issue is that, if she has any scruples, which is another question altogether, she would not help write legislation that she feels is unconstitutional. If she has any scruples, her mind is clearly already made up.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandhusker said:
OT, knowledge is not the issue. The issue is that, if she has any scruples, which is another question altogether, she would not help write legislation that she feels is unconstitutional. If she has any scruples, her mind is clearly already made up.

So that probably means its not unconstitutional...Because of her work on the issue- she should have a greater depth of knowledge than any of the other justices...

All the justices have a past- from being corporate attorneys to government attorneys-- and because of their past have gleaned a better knowledge of each of many issues that come before the court... Just because they have more knowledge should not disqualify them...
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
Oldtimer said:
Tam said:
Kagan to Tribe on Day Obamacare Passed: ‘I Hear They Have the Votes, Larry!! Simply Amazing.’
By Terence P. Jeffrey
November 10, 2011
Subscribe to Terence P. Jeffrey's posts
Then-Solicitor General Elena Kagan appearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee in June 2010 during a confirmation hearing for her nomination to the Supreme Court. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)
(CNSNews.com) - On Sunday, March 21, 2010, the day the House of Representatives passed President Barack Obama’s Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, then-Solicitor General Elena Kagan and famed Supreme Court litigator and Harvard Law Prof. Laurence Tribe, who was then serving in the Justice Department, had an email exchange in which they discussed the pending health-care vote, according to documents the Department of Justice released late Wednesday to the Media Research Center, CNSNews.com's parent organization, and to Judicial Watch.

“I hear they have the votes, Larry!! Simply amazing,” Kagan said to Tribe in one of the emails.

The Justice Department released a new batch of emails on Wednesday evening as its latest response to Freedom of Information Act requests filed by CNSNews.com and Judicial Watch. Both organizations filed federal lawsuits against DOJ after the department did not initially respond to the requests. CNSNews.com originally filed its FOIA request on May 25, 2010--before Elena Kagan's June 2010 Supreme Court confirmation hearings.

The March 2010 email exchange between Kagan and Tribe raises new questions about whether Kagan must recuse herself from judging cases involving the health-care law that Obama signed--and which became the target of legal challenges--while Kagan was serving as Obama's solicitor general and was responsible for defending his administration’s positions in court disputes.

According to 28 USC 455, a Supreme Court justice must recuse from “any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” The law also says a justice must recuse anytime he has “expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy” while he “served in governmental employment.”

Kagan lied to the Senate when she was confirmed and now she is refusing to recuse herself. I think we all know she was not put on the Supreme Court because she is an ETHICAL Person but then who of Obama's appointees are ethical. :roll:

Kagan was not party to the recuse proceedings... Her fellow 8 Justices made the decision that she need not to recuse herself- apparently finding that they believed she could make an honest and fair decision...

Oh for Gawd sake she should have told the rest of them she was out because she had already voiced her opinion of it in the emails.

And how can she make an HONEST and FAIR decision when she has a HISTORY of LIEING when it comes to what she really wants. She wanted to be a Supreme Court Judge and she lied to the Senate to get confirmed, She supports Obamacare wants it ruled constitutional so do you really think she will tell the true about whether or not she can be objective. If there is ANY DOUBT she should step aside by RECUSING HERSELF. But then she should have not lied to the Senate to get where she is. :roll: :x
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Oldtimer said:
Sandhusker said:
OT, knowledge is not the issue. The issue is that, if she has any scruples, which is another question altogether, she would not help write legislation that she feels is unconstitutional. If she has any scruples, her mind is clearly already made up.

So that probably means its not unconstitutional...Because of her work on the issue- she should have a greater depth of knowledge than any of the other justices...

All the justices have a past- from being corporate attorneys to government attorneys-- and because of their past have gleaned a better knowledge of each of many issues that come before the court... Just because they have more knowledge should not disqualify them...

Because she thinks it is not unconstitutional doesn't mean that it isn't. Actually, considering her record for rulings being overturned, it is a good bet that she IS wrong.

Also, everytime that I saw a liberal being asked to defend the constitutionality of the law, they immediately go to, "... but what about the children, poor, uninsured, etc.....", which is a shift in the conversation from the constitutional defense, which they can not do, to an argument that amounts to "The ends justifies the means". Since she is liberal, I would not be surprised that she is falling back to that unacceptable position as well.
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
22,206
Reaction score
441
Location
Big Muddy valley
As long as a judge only plans the crime and doesn't commit it they are still able to preside over the court determining the fate of those that did commit it?


Did i get that right? :???:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Chief Justice Roberts besides being a Solicitor General for GHW Bush was also a federal prosecutor...So should he recuse himself from every law that comes up that was passed during Bush 1's reign-- or from every criminal case that comes before the court because he has shown a propensity toward the prosecution of criminals rather than their defense :???:

While working as a lawyer for the Reagan administration, Roberts wrote legal memos defending administration policies on abortion... As a lawyer in the George H. W. Bush administration, Roberts signed a legal brief urging the court to overturn Roe v. Wade..... So should Roberts then recuse himself on any decisions involving Roe vs Wade or abortion.. :???:

Like I've said before- Judges and Justices are not robots that you can just erase their memory tapes clear of all past lifetime experience...And personally I would not want such - hoping that people use those lifetime of experience in better making their decisions...
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
OT, "So should Roberts then recuse himself on any decisions involving Roe vs Wade or abortion.. "

On an issue like this where he clearly already has an opinion....yes.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandhusker said:
OT, "So should Roberts then recuse himself on any decisions involving Roe vs Wade or abortion.. "

On an issue like this where he clearly already has an opinion....yes.

Therein lies the problem- Appellate Judges usually have many years of legal and judicial experience-- and if every Justice recuses themselve on any issue they have done work on while they were an attorney- wrote a paper on when they were in law school, or made a lower court ruling on-- you would end up with NO full court rulings....

To me conflict of interest comes up when it is for personal gain...A hypothetical situation would be the Boehner example----- if Justice Roberts had huge investments in the Alberta oil sands- and was then involved in a decision on a legal issued concerning the XL pipeline....To me that is conflict of interest..
 

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
28,480
Reaction score
0
Location
Montgomery, Al
Oldtimer wrote:

To me conflict of interest comes up when it is for personal gain...

Kagan worked as Solicitor General for personal gain. She got regular paychecks and took the stance the Administration wanted her to take.

All for personal gain....................... :roll:
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
Sandhusker said:
Because she thinks it is not unconstitutional doesn't mean that it isn't. Actually, considering her record for rulings being overturned, it is a good bet that she IS wrong.

Also, everytime that I saw a liberal being asked to defend the constitutionality of the law, they immediately go to, "... but what about the children, poor, uninsured, etc.....", which is a shift in the conversation from the constitutional defense, which they can not do, to an argument that amounts to "The ends justifies the means". Since she is liberal, I would not be surprised that she is falling back to that unacceptable position as well.

which may be the exact reason it will be overturned.. a court justice doesn't just vote or rule on an issue, they also write an opinion..

will hers be.." "but what about the children, poor, uninsured, etc.....", which is a shift in the conversation from the constitutional defense, which they can not do, to an argument that amounts to "The ends justifies the means"."

I am sure she will try to lean towards the the general welfare clause in the Constitution.. but the flaw is that that applies to taxation.. not mandatory purchase..

the other is the commerce clause.. or the authority to regulate...

it will be hard for her to show how this law doesn't "overstep" both.. but her arguments might actually show the other justices, how the administration.. tried to make the ends justify the means and clearly intended on overstepping their Constitutional authority..
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
0
Location
real world
Is the Constitution written so that the Feds. can make it against the law to not buy a product?



Oldtimer said:
Mike if getting kookier means following,enforcing, and defending the laws we've passed or signed on to and the US Constitution as written- then I guess I'm kooky...As I've spent most my entire adult life enforcing and defending those laws and that precious Constitution...
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
"....and if every Justice recuses themselve on any issue they have done work on while they were an attorney- ....." She didn't work on Obamacare as a legal case wearing the judicial ropes, she helped write it. Huge difference.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandhusker said:
"....and if every Justice recuses themselve on any issue they have done work on while they were an attorney- ....." She didn't work on Obamacare as a legal case wearing the judicial ropes, she helped write it. Huge difference.

How many laws do you think Roberts helped write or gave legal advice/opinions on when he worked in the Reagan administration? Or when Deputy Solicitor General for Bush 41?

Should the Chief Justice have to recuse himself on every issue he had contact with while working for the government.... :???:

Apparently the other Justices who are well aware of her involvement didn't think her work on the law would interfer with her issuing a true opinion...
 

Latest posts

Top