Should Kagan recuse herself
 

from the Supreme Court deliberations on the Health Care Act?
A Joint FOI request by CBS and Fox turned up an email exchange where it appears ( subject to interpretation) that she cheered the passing of the Act.

I expect this to break out along familiar lines. I'd hope to see some reasoning that is more than "It furthers my view if she __________"

Also, is Justice Thomas' wife activity in opposition to the Act sufficient grounds to demand that he recuse?

Enjoy.

Of course she should! Now the obvious question is "will she?" The obvious answer is "of course not." She's BO's hand picked liberal, what would you expect?

Should all the Catholic justices recuse themselves from cases involving abortion rights?

psst, all Supreme Court justices were "hand picked" by a President who belonged to a particular political party. Just thought you'd be entertained by that.

That aside, Kagan's prior involvement in the administration's advocacy of the Affordable Health Care Act should prompt her to consider recusal.

Yes, see above

Well, Scalia and Thomas seem to have ethical shortcomings of their own:

Scalia and Thomas dine with healthcare law challengers as court takes case - latimes.com

I find this whole issue just more invented right wing talk show outrage. Kagan is entitled to her opinions. The general rule for recusal is whether or not she would benefit financially from her rulings. I have yet to see anyone produce evidence of that. If anyone can show that Kagan, Thomas or Scalia stand to personally benefit from a particular ruling, then please do so. Otherwise, they are as entitled to their political opinions as I am. Or perhaps get robots to do the job.

No.

This is what makes it such a dicey situation....I agree Kagan should recuse herself, but so should Thomas (having a personal financial stake in it- at least as quoted by Weiner)

Groups Target Thomas' Wife's Work To Force Him To Sit Out High Court Rulings On Health Care | Fox News

I fail to see what his wife's financial stake is, since all that is being described is that she is a paid advocate and a volunteer in this cause. Unless she has huge stock holdings that would be effected, she is simply another person in this democracy doing her political thing. I have no problem with any one of them doing so. If one was to find out Clarence Thomas held a million shares of Humana and was selling short before his ruling, that would be one thing, but just taking a political position, I don't see where justices have to give up there First Amendment rights once they are appointed. This is all a load of crap.

That's just one of the "general rules." That's just one example where a judge or justice has a "conflict of interest." There's also the issue where the judge or justice has to avoid all impropriety and the appearance of impropriety, particularly where impartiallity is involved.

Seems pretty straightforward: "Section 455 of the United States Code (the Judicial Code) 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."

Since when was the Supreme Court "impartial"?

Having had to file conflict of interest statements as a school board member I doubt that either is required to recuse based on what has been provided here.

I was able to participate in teacher salary negotiations etc. and my wife was a teacher. Had she personally and individually benefitted it would have been different.

Why limit it to the Supreme Court? All of our judges are humans.