I haven't seen that one. If that's true, then I'm sure we will see it plenty of times before the case is over. I am still not sure whether that is grounds for recusal. Even opponents of the bill should have congratulated Obama and especially Pelosi for getting that bill through Congress. That was a tremendous legislative achievement.

I wonder whether they are talking about this email exchange Kagan had with fellow Harvard Professor Lawrence Tribe:http://cnsnews.com/sites/default/files/documents/TRIBE-KAGAN%20EMAIL%20EXCHANGE-03-21-10.pdf

Were Tribe on the Supreme Court, he probably would need to recuse himself, but all Kagan did was note how remarkable it was that they got the votes to pass the bill. I don't think that's a basis for recusal. If it was, then, for example, Justice O'Connor should have recused herself from Bush v. Gore because she expressed chagrin when it appeared that Gore had won the 2000 election. I'm sure we could come up with numerous similar examples.

I don't think O'Connor should have recused herself from Bush v. Gore, nor should Kagan recuse herself from the health care litigation, although I stand to be corrected by someone more informed than myself.

I think the allegation is that his wife, and therefore his household, received multiple six-figures in income from companies or organizations opposed to the health care bill.

Her views? How about her paycheck?

I guess that means James Carville should never be allowed to work for the Democrats and Mary Matalin should never be allowed to work for the Republicans.

Neither of whom are judges or have such in their immediate families, so wholly inapplicable.

What does that have to do with judges deciding cases before them?

At times, they both have had spouses that got paychecks from the opposition and therefore cannot be trusted since they had a financial interest somewhere else.

I would rather wait and see what kind of jurist Ms Justice Kagan turns out to be over time. None of the recent Justices have pleased me completely. That is probably as it should be.

Bob, do you REALLY have any doubt about how Kagan will vote on ANYTHING? Her past makes her leanings crystal clear.

__________________
2001 SLK 320 six speed manual
2014 Porsche Cayenne six speed manual

Annoy a Liberal, Read the Constitution

In the crazed left-wing blogosphere.

Badda-bing, badda-boom!

Get back to us when they start deciding legal cases.

So the logic only works for some times and not others?

How odd.

Another guy whose apple is an orange.

WTF are you talking about? This is about judges deciding legal cases, not some bunch of blabbering talking heads. Jeez, take a course or something.

If I was a judge, and my decision resulted in financially benefiting my wife, how is that not a conflict of interest?