Posts Tagged ‘Elana Kagan’

Elana Kagan Must Recuse on Obamacare or Face Impeachment

Saturday, December 10th, 2011

Would I Lie To You?

There are few things more disgusting than the manner in which Obamacare was pushed through Congress, with the whole “Deamed passed” business put forward by Pelosi.  The controversy in this case arises out of the fact that associate Supreme Court Justice Elana Kagan had been US Solicitor General at the time of the case, as I’ve previously reported.  I have been skeptical about the claims by the Department of Justice that Kagan had been mostly “walled-off” from the Obamacare debate, because it was already known that she would be nominated by the President to the Supreme Court.  The truth is that Kagan, far from being “walled-off,” was in the loop all along, and that emails now reveal she was aware and copied information relating to Mark Levin’s Landmark Legal Foundation’s action on the case.  I remember that day well, because when Levin was announcing Landmark’s intended actions, I was contributing to that endeavor(via paypal.)  What really becomes the point of controversy in this case is that Kagan may even have perjured herself in testimony before the Senate, and whether she recuses herself from this case or not, if this is the case, she must be impeached.

(Click Play for some mood music:)

As CNSNews has reported in documents obtained from Judiciary Committee sources, Kagan may have indeed lied in responding to that letter. The most damning answers are those to question numbers eight(8) and nine(9):

8. Have you ever been asked about your opinion regarding the underlying legal or constitutional issues related to any proposed health care legislation, including but not limited to Pub. L. No. 111-148, or the underlying legal or constitutional issues related to potential litigation resulting from such legislation?
Response:
No.
9. Have you ever offered any views or comments regarding the underlying legal or constitutional issues related to any proposed health care legislation, including but not limited to Pub. L. No. 111-148, or the underlying legal or constitutional issues related to potential litigation resulting from such legislation?
Response:
No.

These answers to be contradicted by the emails now released, and this is a stunning development, and it makes perfect sense that these emails were dumped on Friday evening.  The truth is likely to be that Kagan knowingly lied to the committee, and thus makes herself eligible to impeachment.  In any event, she must now recuse herself, but I am have doubts as to whether she will do so.   She is a doctrinaire leftist, and for such folks, the law is merely an exercise in formality:  They are going to do as they damned-well please, and laws only matter so long as they aid the left, but never when it obstructs them.

This is the inconvenient truth of the current standing of Elana Kagan: It appears that she lied to members of the committee in her response, and it’s time to understand that she must recuse herself, and for lying to the committee, she ought to face impeachment.  I would urge you to read and understand the details of the CNSNews.com article, and then contact your elected officials accordingly.

Advertisements

Elana Kagan Celebrated Obamacare Passage

Tuesday, November 15th, 2011

Ethics? Who Me?

Former Solicitor General, and US Supreme Court associate Justice Elana Kagan celebrated the passage of Obamacare, emails obtained by CNSNews reveal.  This strengthens the case for those who argue that Kagan must recuse herself from the Obamacare case scheduled for hearing by the high court.  Indeed, it would seem a travesty to have this justice sitting in judgment of a law she helped advocate, and in which she seems necessarily biased.  Elana Kagan ought to recuse herself from this case.  Kagan’s appointment to the court was a politically motivated appointment intended to secure leftist dominance of the court for decades. In this case, however, her prior involvement and advocacy is ample reason to suggest that Kagan ought to recuse herself from the case as a matter of judicial integrity. It is therefore doubtful she will step aside on this case.  While she shouldn’t have been permitted onto the court, now that she is there, she must conform to a high standard of ethics.  That standard requires her to recuse herself.

The whole notion of justices recusing themselves from cases before the court has been around a long time. Most frequently, it comes into play when the court is considering some case involving a company that has a matter in litigation, that winds up before the high court,  but it turns out that one of the justices has a current or former investment position with the company in question.  The idea is that the justice could harbor some ongoing bias in favor of the company that would skew their decision, and therefore, in the name of maintaining the impartiality of the court, should step aside from the case in question.

The problem in this case is that Kagan will claim that she has no vested interests, if she mentions it at all, but the emails CNSNews was able to obtain after repeated FOIA requests and an eventual lawsuit against Holder’s Department of Justice provide fairly convincing evidence to the contrary.  In an email exchange with Laurence Tribe, Kagan seems to have made plain her excitement at the impending passage of the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act”(Obama-care:)

“I hear they have the votes, Larry!! Simply amazing,”

Amazing indeed.  I considered it sickening, for the record.  As CNSNews further points out, this presents something of a problem for Kagan:

According to 28 USC 455, a Supreme Court justice must recuse from “any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” The law also says a justice must recuse anytime he has “expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy” while he “served in governmental employment.”

This is why Supreme Court justices are vetted.  It’s also the reason that in their confirmation hearings, Senators try so hard to get them to state opinions, but in virtually all cases, the justices refuse to openly state their position on issues.  It should be plain to all that by the statement in email to Laurence Tribe, Kagan was expressing her affirmative excitement at the prospects of the passage of Obamacare.  This is also the reason that upon its first FOIA request, the DoJ simply didn’t respond.  They apparently hoped that the Freedom of Information Act requests would go away.  We’ve seen a good deal of this from the Department of Justice under Eric Holder.

In my view, this is a damning email, because Kagan seems to be clearly biased in favor of the law that will now come before the court upon which she now sits.  I think that the ethical standard established for the court demands that she recuse herself from this case, but I also know she is a doctrinaire leftist ideologue, so she will likely refuse to recuse. Leftists don’t believe the laws apply to them, and they are virtually always ready with a tortured rationalization as to why they should be exempt from these standards.  There can be no doubt Kagan should never sit in judgment in this case.

That said, she’s a liberal, which means she’s very much an “ends justify means” sort of person.  As obvious as the matter seems to be, don’t expect a recusal.  Leftist agenda trumps ethical concerns every time.