As "The Decision" looms, questions arise about Kagan's role in Obamacare

[WinBySurrender]

Another story the liberal media has declined to address.

Read Our Letter to Justice Kagan | Judicial Watch

Judicial Watch has asked SCOTUS Justice Kagan to outline, as Justice Scalia did in the National Energy Policy Development Group lawsuit during the Bush administration, as to why she has not recused herself from the Obamacare deliberations. Understand, JW is not asking her to recuse herself, just provide a reasoned statement explaining why the recusatory protocols do not apply to her in this case. JW asked Scalia to do the same thing, and he was forthcoming with those details, and Judicial Watch did not pursue a recusatory motion.

That was big news among the liberal media back in 2003 when the policy was challenged before the Court. Scalia had once worked in the petroleum industry and was seen by some as unable to be impartial. His defense in not recusing himself silenced everyone except the most extreme anti-energy activists.

However, Kagan was working in DOJ when a proposed defense of Obamacare was developed. She has declined requests from JW and others to detail her involvement, specifically as to whether or not she worked to develop a potential defense strategy. Both the White House and DOJ have refused Freedom of Information Act requests by Judicial Watch to review records of her involvement.

Though it is likely she will not be able to prevent at least a partial defeat of Obamacare before SCOTUS, it is unprecedented that a judge who had a hand in legislation or practice for which he/she is now sitting in judgment of would not recuse themselves without a thorough explanation of why they chose not to.

And the media isn't asking.

 

[Lovely Lane]

The link says to me that Justice Kagan has an understanding of PPACA. Justice Scalia didn't recuse himself a I would expect.

I don't see any judge being absolute impartial on any case, but they can and do review all the facts, compare it to their understanding of Constitutional law, and render a ruling.

Maybe that's why we have nine of 'em sitting on the bench, each having a fundamental belief in Constitutional Law, which varies from Justice to Justice. And each issue before the Court may not necessarily predict a ruling from any Justice. Didn't Roberts surprise many when he ruled with Justice Kennedy and the liberal/moderates concerning the recent Arizona Immigration law?

Should we demand those Justices appointed from the Obama Administration (Sotomayor, Kagan) to recuse themselves from PPACA, Immigration, or any other case involving Obama Administration? No, I don't think so.

So, to me, JW is in search of red-herring, in stirring the pot. Can't wait for Thursday's ruling, and whichever way it goes, Americans win. (or the best we can expect from the Court)

 

[Albion]

Another story the liberal media has declined to address.

Read Our Letter to Justice Kagan | Judicial Watch

Judicial Watch has asked SCOTUS Justice Kagan to outline, as Justice Scalia did in the National Energy Policy Development Group lawsuit during the Bush administration, as to why she has not recused herself from the Obamacare deliberations. Understand, JW is not asking her to recuse herself, just provide a reasoned statement explaining why the recusatory protocols do not apply to her in this case. JW asked Scalia to do the same thing, and he was forthcoming with those details, and Judicial Watch did not pursue a recusatory motion.

That was big news among the liberal media back in 2003 when the policy was challenged before the Court. Scalia had once worked in the petroleum industry and was seen by some as unable to be impartial. His defense in not recusing himself silenced everyone except the most extreme anti-energy activists.

However, Kagan was working in DOJ when a proposed defense of Obamacare was developed. She has declined requests from JW and others to detail her involvement, specifically as to whether or not she worked to develop a potential defense strategy. Both the White House and DOJ have refused Freedom of Information Act requests by Judicial Watch to review records of her involvement.

Though it is likely she will not be able to prevent at least a partial defeat of Obamacare before SCOTUS, it is unprecedented that a judge who had a hand in legislation or practice for which he/she is now sitting in judgment of would not recuse themselves without a thorough explanation of why they chose not to.

And the media isn't asking.

All true, but there's nothing much that can be done. The system relies upon the integrity of the justice.