Kaga recuses
 

Kagan recuses herself on the AR Immigration case. That is a good, and correct move on her part. She obviously has a history of opinions and arguments supporting the administration on this matter.

OTOH--I can't help but wonder------
Is this a shrewd political move to allow her NOT to recuse on the Health Care case which is also coming before the Supreme Court. Now she, and administration supporters can argue, " She already has shown that she will recuse from cases where she has a conflict of interest. She must not feel any conflict in the Health Care case, so she can certainly remain as Justice in this case."
Maybe such will never be argued, and she will recuse on that case too. Time will tell.

That was my first thought too MS. I think if she were to recuse herself on the Obamacare issue, it will be nothing short of a miracle.

I really hate being suspicious, but history leads me there. I really haven't seen much "statesmanship" for decades.

If the Arizona case breaks down along partisan lines, then Kagan's recusal probably won't make any difference. If the vote comes out 4-4, then the 9th Circuit's decision against the Arizona bill stands. (I think.)

What would be the basis for Kagan to recuse herself from the health care reform cases?

"Kaga" was a major Japanese aircraft carrier during WWII, I believe converted from a heavy cruiser to a flattop.

Kagan is a Supreme Court Justice.

The basis would be derived from her appointer.

What?

Should every justice recuse themselves from cases involving an issue the president who appoints them happens to support?

A blatant conflict of interest.

Of course not! That said, wait and see what happens with her. She had never been a sitting judge. Why would B.O. appoint her if it were not for a master plan?

"heavy cruiser' . . . hee hee . . . ;)

Since Clarence Thomas's wife is a stooge of the healthcare industry, he can recuse himself first. Since both should, it will make no difference if neither does.

:confused: Why would Kagan recuse herself from the health care case? I've seen nothing to suggest a basis for recusal.

Right wing talk show "hosts" aka GOP Party Politburo kingpins, are demanding her recusal because she sent Obama an email congratulating him on his passage of The Affordable Care Act, back when she was a lawyer.

Right on both counts. No edit on thread titles.

Where is it written that the views or job of a spouse of a justice are grounds to recuse?

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.

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?

Presuming that all customs and practices are universally applicable to every situation, by you of all people, is what's odd.

I suppose that mixed couples, whether mixed in the form of race, economic status, educational background, religion, employment status, military service, hair color . . . are likewise handicapped.

Sometimes something funny happens when they take a seat on the court. They don't always hold to the position folks thought they would have. Personally, I hope she proves to be a strict constructionist over the long haul. Others may wish differently. I suspect she will generally lean towards the left. I would be happy to be wrong. Not all of my opinions can be grouped and pigeon-holed left or right anyway.

I guess I agree with you.

Like everything else in the human condition, it depends. Some people are easily influenced and others are not. So there probably is no objective rule for predetermining presumed prejudice.

You guys are grasping at straws and trying hard to establish a moral equivalency where one does not exist--except in your own ( biased) minds.
But go ahead, if it makes you feel good.

Quite so, many jurist have stepped over their supposed line to the surprise of many a President and appeals attorney.

Well, yes. The logic works in cases where the person is required to be impartial. People don't hire Carville or Matalin to be impartial about anything. They are the opposite of the Kagan/Thomas situation.

That is the opposite of what they said.