A liberal democrat lament on Kagan

WaveCameCrashin

http://touch.slate.com/slate/#!/entry/a ... 1babca0640


:shock:

brianlux

What do you think- will she recuse or no?

WaveCameCrashin

If she respects the the court she will.. But I'm not banking on it..

Pearl Jim

Again, there is no legal reason for her to recuse...
This is a purely political/partisan attack based on her
previous employment, while there are certainly
questions about Scalia's & Thomas' conduct regarding
this case While Sitting On The Bench.... see the difference -
Besides, the victorious candidate gets to stack the court
in his favor anyway; that's why it is so important to
WIN!!!!

Oh yeah - forgot... Kagan recused herself nearly 25%
last term, & Scalia has a history of recusing himself
when appropriate, so hard to imagine politics will influence
these people (just ask Reagan w/Souter!!!)
But, then again, some troll somewhere has to write Something
to contribute to the 24-hour news cycle... :?

WaveCameCrashin

Pearl Jim wrote:

Again, there is no legal reason for her to recuse...
This is a purely political/partisan attack based on her
previous employment, while there are certainly
questions about Scalia's & Thomas' conduct regarding
this case While Sitting On The Bench.... see the difference -
Besides, the victorious candidate gets to stack the court
in his favor anyway; that's why it is so important to
WIN!!!!

Oh yeah - forgot... Kagan recused herself nearly 25%
last term, & Scalia has a history of recusing himself
when appropriate, so hard to imagine politics will influence
these people (just ask Reagan w/Souter!!!)
But, then again, some troll somewhere has to write Something
to contribute to the 24-hour news cycle... :?

Do people even read anymore ? Or maybe I'm just imagining shit.
The writer clearly states that-

[First the law: A federal statute requires that any “justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Federal law also requires that a judge recuse herself if the judge previously served in governmental employment “and in that capacity participated as a ... counsel, adviser, or material witness concerning the proceeding or has expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy.”/quote]

I am not arguing that Supreme Court justices should recuse themselves any time they are called upon to hear a case involving a law supported by the president for whom they once worked. But this situation is far more complicated than that. This isn’t just about parsing the words of the recusal statute for plausible defenses; it’s about the appearance that a Supreme Court Justice with a conflict of interest is sitting on a major case. This is the perfect storm of events that should require Kagan’s recusal. Take away any one of these facts and perhaps the recusal issue would change.
1)  She served as the solicitor general of the United States during the time that the ACA was furiously debated in Congress, discussed in town halls across the country, and enacted;
2) The ACA is the most important, controversial, and partisan piece of legislation put forward by the Obama administration while Kagan worked as the president’s top lawyer to the Supreme Court. If he didn’t consult with her about it, he should have;
3) She was nominated to the Supreme Court by President Obama shortly after the ACA was passed, and the president is closely and personally identified with the law;
4) She has to review the law just a few months before President Obama runs for re-election;
5) His re-election might well be affected by how the Supreme Court rules; and
6) We know she celebrated the passage of the law.
Can Justice Kagan review the ACA without regard for the personal and professional past and the future of President Obama as well as her prior work in the administration? Can she look at the ambiguous and open-ended Commerce Clause precedents of the court and reach a legal answer with no awareness of the political implications for the president who so recently employed and appointed her? If the answer is yes, she is more robot than judge. If the answer is no, she should recuse herself. And the answer, ultimately, is what Americans will think, and a reasonable American would believe she has a stake in this litigation.

Further more the article was written by a constitutional law professor who has been a liberal Democrat for the last 20 years. Hardly a troll