Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I guess you wouldn't see any real issue with the sentence from the link of the OP that would indicate a bit of conflict of interest. Did Kagan reprimand the man for making that statement?
In one series of email exchanges between Kagan and staffers, her top deputy says about legal challengers to Obamacare: “Let’s crush them.”
Who knows? Why don't you ask her? She is not the one who made the statement. You should know that when you pick apart someone's record, anyone's, you'll find some stuff to criticize.
Why is this a conflict of interest and Clarence Thomas's and that other con Justice cozying up to large corporations and then passing Citizens United not?
The House Judiciary Committee is launching a probe into Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan’s prior involvement with healthcare reform legislation that could determine she must recuse herself from future high court deliberations on Obamacare.
When President Barack Obama signed the healthcare bill into law, Kagan was still serving as his solicitor general and was responsible for defending the administration’s position in federal court cases.
In one series of email exchanges between Kagan and staffers, her top deputy says about legal challengers to Obamacare: “Let’s crush them.”
This is pure politics. With Kagen gone any decision on the Affordable Care Act before the Court will almost certainly go against the ACA. Any Republicans who tries to tell you that this is to preserve the integrity of the court is full of ****
Of course the direct link of Justice Thomas and anti Obamacare efforts are ignored. I am surprised they would open this hypocritical can of worms, well, actually that is par for the course with GOP.
Since Thomas was already on the court well before 0bamacare became an issue and did not lie about his opinion, hardly the same thing. Except to the excuse makers.
What newspapers? The only source I can find is Newsmax and I consider them in the
same category as World Nutz Daily....in other words BS.
Fortunately, what you consider is as worthless as your opinions.
In answer to a request, I responded. Because you dislike the source you call it BS. While others consider your sources BS. Talk about a conflict of interests.
Fortunately, what you consider is as worthless as your opinions.
In answer to a request, I responded. Because you dislike the source you call it BS. While others consider your sources BS. Talk about a conflict of interests.
Link to another source other than Newsmax, didn't you say there were newspapers reporting on this?
The GOP would have an easier time investigating Justice Thomas for conflit of interest relating to Liberty Central. Kagan would be a more difficult investigation.
What is dishonest about this issue? Do you think people come to the Supreme Court having done no prior work?
But that is not what reclusing yourself is about. When you have taken a position in prior matters involved in the question ;you recluse yourself from the issue so as not to taint the decision. Its not done because there is positve proof you would be swayed by it;its all about the appearance that can be drawn.It infures nothing of the persons honesty but protects it really.A former CEO of a company will resluce hislef i matter that involve the company for example so as not to taint the decision made.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.