Supreme Court Recusals- Should Kagan & Thomas Oblige?

As we wait for the United States Supreme Court to hear arguments over Obamacare, the debate on whether Kagan and Thomas, should recuse themselves from hearing the case is heating up.

Let’s look at the history of both Kagan and Thomas regarding Obamacare, so we are fully clear on whether either one, or both, should step aside from hearing the case.

The bill was passed by Congress and signed into law in March 2010, while Kagan was still in the solicitor general's office, and was immediately under threat of constitutional attack in the courts. At the same time, Kagan became aware that Obama was considering her to replace Justice John Paul Stevens on the high court and has said that she began to scale back her involvement in ongoing matters in her office.

During her confirmation hearing, she testified that she played a minimal role in the Justice Department’s efforts to develop a litigation strategy to defend the law

But seizing upon documents obtained in a Freedom of Information Act request, Republicans contend she may have been more deeply involved than she let on.

Specifically, they point to several email chains that detail the administration's prep work for countering the parade of lawsuits then being filed across the country, emails that as late as March 21, 2010, carried Kagan’s name. Kagan also cheered the bill’s passage in an email to another Obama legal adviser, Laurence Tribe, the Harvard University law professor. “I hear they have the votes, Larry!!,” Kagan wrote. “Simply amazing.” She also has admitted to attending at least one meeting in which the litigation was discussed.

The DOJ documents that have been made public show that Kagan was personally involved in advising how to defend against challenges to the healthcare law.

Federal law requires recusal when a judge previously served as a government lawyer on the matter.

On the other shoe, House Democrats have been calling for Thomas to step aside from the healthcare suit because his wife, Virginia ‘Ginni’ Thomas, has worked for a conservative group that have a stake in the outcome of the litigation.

Earlier this year, 74 Democrats sent a letter to Thomas asking him to recuse himself because of Ginni Thomas’ has worked for a conservative group that have spent considerable resource in actions taken to repeal the litigation.

The Law:
Title 28 of the United States Code (the Judicial Code) provides standards for judicial disqualification or recusal. Section 455, captioned 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 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.

So, with this knowledge presented, it appears the Kagan has more leaning against her to recuse herself.

As for Thomas, at this point, his wifes, “financial interest” is pretty clear. Ginni started a nonprofit lobbying group, Liberty Central, to organize conservative activists. Her only connection to the case is someone who contributes to the group, might be involved in the case heading to the Supreme Court.

Obama and the Supreme Court

Something to ponder as you go about your Independence Day weekend.
There is a battle being waged between the United States Supreme Court and the Obama Administration over several Obama questionable decisions that are borderline constitutional.

This report from the Red White & Blue Website.

According to sources who watch the inner workings of the federal government, a smackdown of Barack Obama by the U.S. Supreme Court may be inevitable. Ever since Obama assumed the office of President, critics have hammered him on a number of Constitutional issues.

Critics have complained that much, if not all of Obama’s major initiatives run headlong into Constitutional roadblocks on the power of the federal government.

Obama certainly did not help himself in the eyes of the Court when he used the venue of the State of the Union address early in the year to publicly flog the Court over its ruling that the First Amendment grants the right to various organizations to run political ads during the time of an election.

The tongue-lashing clearly did not sit well with the Court, as demonstrated by Justice Sam Alito, who publicly shook his head and stated under his breath, ‘That’s not true,’ when Obama told a flat-out lie concerning the Court’s ruling.

As it has turned out, this was a watershed moment in the relationship between the executive and the judicial branches of the federal government. Obama publicly declared war on the court, even as he blatantly continued to propose legislation that flies in the face of every known Constitutional principle upon which this nation has stood for over 200 years.

Obama has even identified Chief Justice John Roberts as his number one enemy, that is, apart from Fox News and Rush Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, and so on.

And it is no accident that the one swing-vote on the court, Justice Anthony Kennedy, stated recently that he has no intention of retiring until ‘Obama is gone.’

Apparently, the Court has had enough.

The Roberts Court has signaled, in a very subtle manner, of course, that it intends to address the issues about which Obama critics have been screaming to high heaven.

A ruling against Obama on any one of these important issues could potentially cripple the Administration.

Such a thing would be long overdue.

First, there is ObamaCare, which violates the Constitutional principle barring the federal government from forcing citizens to purchase something.

And no, this is not the same thing as states requiring drivers to purchase car insurance, as some of the intellectually-impaired claim.

The Constitution limits FEDERAL government, not state governments, from such things, and further, not everyone has to drive, and thus, a citizen could opt not to purchase car insurance by simply deciding not to drive a vehicle.

In the ObamaCare world, however, no citizen can ‘opt out.’

Second, sources state that the Roberts court has quietly accepted information concerning discrepancies in Obama’s history that raise serious questions about his eligibility for the office of President.

The charge goes far beyond the birth certificate issue.  This information involves possible fraudulent use of a Social Security number in Connecticut, while Obama was a high school student in Hawaii.

And that is only the tip of the iceberg.

Third, several cases involving possible criminal activity, conflicts of interest, and pay-for-play cronyism could potentially land many Administration officials, if not Obama himself, in hot water with the Court.

Frankly, in the years this writer has observed politics, nothing comes close to comparing with the rampant corruption of this Administration, not even during the Nixon years.

More can be read here of the brewing battle. 
(H/T to Chicago Ray)