So, will Elana Kagan recuse herself from USSC Obamacare case?

[Pandora]

Thomas' wife Virginia works for a conservative advocacy group, that works on elections, issues scorecards for Congressmen, etc. It's safe to say that group probably doesn't like Obamacare much, and would like to see it gone.

But that's OK. It's balanced by Virginia's husband's employment. He works for a group (the U.S. Government) that also works on elections, issues a LOT of opinions on congressmen (mostly unfavorable ones on conservatives), and wants very much for Obamacare to remain in effect and even expand.

So the two Thomases balance each other out. And unlike Kagan, Clarance Thomas had nothing to do with the writing or advocacy of the Obamacare law.

Pocket said she is Paid by a group working to stop it. I did not check into it, I just trusted him at his word. If that is true than I think he does have a direct interest in the case and should recuse himself.

Your post makes it sound like she is not hired to work to stop obamacare.

I don't have time to check into it really, if she is not being paid by a group to stop obama care then I think that Thomas is fine to hear the case, if she is being paid by a group to stop obama care then he should recuse himself.

Kagan clearly has a conflict of interest but that wont stop her or the dems.

 

[BigRob]

1. I meant it as a rhetorical question to the nature of the thread...how it ignores the clear question of Thomas's and only looks at the Liberal side.

2. Yes I think its very possible she should have to stand aside..Though if Thomas is not going to, I see no reason for her, given that he has a far bigger issue. And from your post, its clear you don't know the issue...Being that she is a tea bagger and they want it stopped is not the point..the key is she is Paid by a group working to stop it...His Family Income is Effected directly by this case. If a liberal Judges wife Worked for the ACLU..and the ACLU was pushing for one side of a case...would you think it was a good idea for that judge to rule on that case? If you are Honest I am pretty sure you would say no...

This "conflict of interest" debate goes back and forth and goes all the way back to Thomas's confirmation hearings.

The simple fact is that there is a pretty even split on the legal question of whether Thomas should recuse himself...and he most likely won't, and that will be the end of it.

 

[Little-Acorn]

if she is being paid by a group to stop obama care then he should recuse himself.

So if Obamacare gets stopped, either by the USSC finding it unconstitutional or by a Republican president and Congress repealing it on Jan. 20, 2013, then the need for her services will go away, and she can look forward to a reduction in pay. Correct?

But, if the Supremes find it constitutional, Republicans nominate Ron Paul and he loses by a landslide, and Obama vetos the repeal bills on Jan. 23, 2012, then Virginia Thomas' services will be needed more than ever, and she can look forward to spending a LOT of time working to stop Obamacare for many years to come... with pay rates accordingly.

In summary, it sounds like Clarence Thomas' family has a financial incentive for him to vote to KEEP Obamacare, and will lose income if it's stopped.

Maybe he SHOULD recuse himself.....??

 

[Pandora]

So if Obamacare gets stopped, either by the USSC finding it unconstitutional or by a Republican president and Congress repealing it on Jan. 20, 2013, then the need for her services will go away, and she can look forward to a reduction in pay. Correct?

But, if the Supremes find it constitutional, Republicans nominate Ron Paul and he loses by a landslide, and Obama vetos the repeal bills on Jan. 23, 2012, then Virginia Thomas' services will be needed more than ever, and she can look forward to spending a LOT of time working to stop Obamacare for many years to come... with pay rates accordingly.

In summary, it sounds like Clarence Thomas' family has a financial incentive for him to vote to KEEP Obamacare, and will lose income if it's stopped.

Maybe he SHOULD recuse himself.....??

If he does it better only be when Kagan does. It would really bite if he did and she didn't But I do not expect her to do the right thing unless forced.

 

[Alias]

I don't see why Thomas has to excuse himself. He hasn't said a word on the bill.

 

[BigRob]

I don't see why Thomas has to excuse himself. He hasn't said a word on the bill.

He shouldn't and he won't. Frankly, neither should Kagan. Unless it can be shown she was involved in preparing the defense of this legislation while at her government post she shouldn't have to recuse herself either.

 

[Pandora]

He shouldn't and he won't. Frankly, neither should Kagan. Unless it can be shown she was involved in preparing the defense of this legislation while at her government post she shouldn't have to recuse herself either.

I thought because she had a hand it making the law she should have to, its only if she had a hand in preparing a defense for it?

I dont know much about all this, I trust what you say. I feel much better now about the topic

Thanks

 

[BigRob]

I thought because she had a hand it making the law she should have to, its only if she had a hand in preparing a defense for it?

But that is the issue, and there hasn't really been evidence presented that she had a hand in the laws creation or defense.

All we really have seen is an email from a Democrat expressing pleasure that the legislation had the votes to pass. That doesn't really meet the standard of "having a hand in the laws creation, or defense."

Unless there is more we have not seen, she should not recuse herself.

I dont know much about all this, I trust what you say. I feel much better now
about the topic

Thanks

It will be quite a case that is for sure. Should be quite interesting to watch.

 

[dogtowner]

Sadly information that would settle the question was refused. act surprised.

(CNSNews.com) - The U.S. Department of Justice is refusing to comply with a request from the House Judiciary Committee to provide the committee with documents and witness interviews that the committee believes, as Chairman Lamar Smith (R.-Texas) put it in a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder, would allow the panel “to properly understand any involvement by Justice Kagan in matters relating to health care legislation or litigation while she was Solicitor General.”


The committee initially made the request in a July 6 letter that Smith sent directly to Attorney General Eric Holder.
The Justice Department rejected the request in a return letter that Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich sent to Smith on Oct. 27.


Smith then sent his own return letter to Attorney General Holder on Oct. 28 asking that Holder’s Justice Department either comply with the committee’s original request for Kagan-related documents and interviews by Nov. 4 or else assert the legal privilege it was claiming in refusing to comply.


According to the House Judiciary Committee, the Nov. 4 deadline came and went and DOJ did not respond to Smith’s Oct. 28 letter to Holder.
On Tuesday, when Holder testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) questioned Holder on the matter.


“I'm not familiar with that request. I'd have to look at it,” said Holder. “I'm just not familiar with the request that has been made or what materials have been sought in that regard.”

Holder sure seems to have no idea what his department is up to. Or maybe he is just continuing to run interference for the boss ?

Most transparent administration in history my eye....

 

[Pandora]

Sadly information that would settle the question was refused. act surprised.



Holder sure seems to have no idea what his department is up to. Or maybe he is just continuing to run interference for the boss ?

Most transparent administration in history my eye....

at some point they have to give up the information I would think. Not giving up the information when first asked makes them look like they have something to hide.

 

[Alias]

He shouldn't and he won't. Frankly, neither should Kagan. Unless it can be shown she was involved in preparing the defense of this legislation while at her government post she shouldn't have to recuse herself either.

Looks like some of her e-mails while working as Solicitor General are pro health care bill. That makes her prejudiced

 

[BigRob]

Looks like some of her e-mails while working as Solicitor General are pro health care bill. That makes her prejudiced

The bar is set much higher than that. Otherwise, no Republican appointee could rule on anything a Republican Congress passes because their views lean one way. Should judges be disqualfied from cases because of their political beliefs? We may want that at times, but no.

The emails as they are are just not enough.

 

[dogtowner]

The bar is set much higher than that. Otherwise, no Republican appointee could rule on anything a Republican Congress passes because their views lean one way. Should judges be disqualfied from cases because of their political beliefs? We may want that at times, but no.

The emails as they are are just not enough.

the emails in hand are not enough. too bad we won't be shown the rest so that we would know.

 

[Alias]

The bar is set much higher than that. Otherwise, no Republican appointee could rule on anything a Republican Congress passes because their views lean one way. Should judges be disqualfied from cases because of their political beliefs? We may want that at times, but no.

The emails as they are are just not enough.

Most judges have not worked in the current administration. One judge has and that one judge displayed her approval on the passage of the health care bill.

 

[dogtowner]

Most judges have not worked in the current administration. One judge has and that one judge displayed her approval on the passage of the health care bill.

there is no question she is biased but the issue is not one of personal bias but rather active work. absent proof of that (which DOJ refuses to allow proof of this one way or the other) it fails to pass the customary test.