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.

I'm sure all the justices will insist they have no personal biases. Of course, you can always appeal that to a higher court.

I bet that is how it plays out.

I don't know enough about the facts concerning either Kagan or Thomas, but it would probably be best if both recuse themselves. Otherwise, the losing side will say the outcome is tainted, which only erodes public confidence in the Supreme Court.

I fearlessly predict that the vote will be 6-3 in favor of the bill, so neither Kagan nor Thomas will be called upon to cast the deciding vote. Scalia is on record as supporting a broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause, so I say that he will break with his buddies on the right in this case. Roberts, Alito, and Thomas will vote against the bill. The other six will vote for it. That's my story and I sticking to it. So confident am I that I will wager a total of zero dollars on the outcome.

A SCOTUS vote for upholding the commerce bill will all having us all driving electric cars made by government motors. If the Commerce clause goes down the government then can force you to buy what they tell you to buy. Do you want to bring a child into this world and have them start paying for health insurance the day that they are born. Why gut health insurance and delivery to the elderly while covering the illegal aliens who pay nothing. Wow, this is a fair deal!

What :confused::confused:

I have nothing to gain or lose by anything in this bill... I'm not an American, but I would bet that if you looked at the trust stock protfolios that they're beneficiary to, the 2 judges talked about have something to gain in their ruling... Any investment in the insurance industry should be suspect...

Can the Federal government make you buy health insurance? Well, they have been doing it since about 1798 or so. Read up on a law titled 'An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seaman' and see what you think.

The current HCA has been said to be, by some anyway, against what the Founding Fathers would have allowed. Since the 'Act' from 1798 was passed when most of those voting to enact it into law were the Founding Fathers if you are wondering what their views on government run health care were then all you have to do is read up on the Act.

The State of Florida took this Act to court and lost, and this law has been on the books ever since.

I guess you could buy health insurance on a child from the day they were born if you wanted to, but I cannot understand why anyone would.

Under the HCA they are covered on their parents' or guardians' insurance until they are 25 years of age.

No government can tell you which brand of car to buy, but they can tell you what type of safety features it will have on it and what type of fuel it can burn. It is all a part of that 'promote the general welfare' stuff.

The government can indeed require you to buy insurance. It already does, it's called "Social Security INSURANCE" which is actually originally titled "Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance". Everyone has to buy it, whether they like or not.

I'm not sure I understand the statement, since quite a few parents immediately have coverage for newborns through their existing health insurance coverage. Coverage for infants and children is nearly a necessity since their use of medical services is fairly high during their early life.

Was your wife teaching in the same district you were a board member for? If so, that's interesting. Illegal in AZ. One of our few good laws. :D

Actually ... there are ways to avoid social security payments.

Yes.

It's not the product of a private company.

Is that true?
Are people that do not work forced to contribute to it?

I took a closer look at the email exchange that Fox is citing in support of their effort to get Kagan to recuse herself. If that's all there is, then I say baloney, there is no basis for her to recuse herself. She received an email from Professor Tribe in which he expressed his optimism that the health care bill would pass. She expressed no preference one way or the other, but simply said, "I hear they have the votes Larry!! Simply amazing..." http://cnsnews.com/sites/default/files/documents/TRIBE-KAGAN%20EMAIL%20EXCHANGE-03-21-10.pdf

Is that it? That's the basis for recusal? If so, then I say baloney to the calls for recusal. Here's the relevant statute:If that email is enough to disqualify Kagen, then all nine of the justices should have been disqualified in Bush v. Gore. I can't believe that's what the law requires.

All Kagan did was express amazement that Obama/Pelosi/Reid were able to get the votes. I don't see how anyone could really disagree with that statement. It was amazing, especially in the House. Pelosi further cemented herself in history with that one.

There are ways to avoid car insurance as well. If you don't qualify, the law says you gotta buy a car insurance policy. If you can show you have enough cash to cover typical insurance limits, you can get an exemption. In the case of SSI, if you can prove you have an alternative that works, same thing. The argument that the government cannot force you to buy insurance is simply a canard. The only thing the government has to show is that it serves the general welfare.

What the hell does that have to do with anything. The purpose of the law is to protect property owners like me from being taxed to death to pay the bills for dead beats down at the county hospital and crooked typically Republican employers who don't want to buy health insurance policies for their illegal aliens they have hired. The source doesn't matter, what matters is the public good it achieves. Why should I be paying the health insurance costs for Pilgrim's Prides army of over 100,000 wetbacks?

You can own a car without buying insurance.



Next.

In Texas, you can't get plates without insurance, so I suggest you try driving that car you own that is not insured with no license plates, and let me know how it works out. I know a good bail bondsman who can help you.

I think what Kagan really should do is push herself away from the buffet table at the Supreme Court lunch room.

Annual plate tags in AZ are contingent upon proof of insurance. Technically, you CAN own a car without insurance. Nobody will take your car if you don't insure it, but they'll make your life miserable if you persist in driving it without insurance. That's as it should be, too. It's funny that nobody thinks being coerced into having car insurance is a constitutional issue.

You have the facts but fail the analogy.

Think about it.

You have your life and and live it without government permission. You may own a car without gov permission. If you choose to drive on gov roads you must buy insurance (or equivalent bond in some states). If your life is equal to car ownership then it is reasonable that the government require you to buy insurance to gad about.

If you accept that you are equivalent to a car then you accept the concept of human ownership -- you own a car, why not own a human being? Thus, human slavery is justified and the owner is the State.

Who loves you?