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.
Dur4ing the confirmation hearings she was asked directly if she had ever worked on the health care bill or ever made any public comment on it. To both of these questions she answered "no". All the while she was 0bamas soliciter general and in charge of the efforts to pass the bill.
Read the reports in the newspapers and from Newsmax. If there is a smear going on it is as usual started by the liberals.
Are you crazy? The Solicitor General is not in charge of efforts to pass the bill. The Solicitor General works with the Justice Department, trying to determine the Constitutional basis for laws, and how to defend those laws in the courts system. She was asked if she's issued an opinion about the health care bill. A judicial opinion. Not a public comment. She hadn't. And now, smears are equal-opportunity campaign techniques, performed both by liberals and conservatives, unfortunately.
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.
Is the Supreme Court hearing an Obamacare case right now?
Is the Supreme Court hearing an Obamacare case right now?
Recusal is most often about the judge benefiting from a decision. All the judges have biases, all people have biases, that's why the Supreme Court and other appeals courts are made up of panels of judges, in the hopes that the biases will be addressed.
Kagan would not benefit anymore or any less than any other justice on this panel when weighing the merits of the case. She does not stand to benefit financially, and she is already at the apex of her career.
As other posters have pointed out, Justice Thomas has not recused himself in cases that could give him financial benefit, indirectly via his wife, and has not been impeached for his non-recusal.
The law requires judges to recuse themselves when their interests will not allow them to be fair and just, but in the case of the Supreme Court, it is up to the Justices themselves to determine if their interests are a conflict or not. There is no way to compel a Justice to recuse himself or herself, legally.
So what the GOP is doing is embarking on a political crusade that is intended to compel a Justice to recuse herself as a result of political pressure. It's dirty politicking, plain and simple.
WASHINGTON — When the conservative financier Charles Koch sent out invitations for a political retreat in Palm Springs later this month, he highlighted past appearances at the gathering of “notable leaders” like Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas of the Supreme Court.
...
The group, Common Cause, filed a petition with the Justice Department on Wednesday asking it to investigate whether Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas should have recused themselves in the case, involving Citizens United, because of their attendance at past retreats organized by the conservative financier Charles Koch, whose company operates a foundation that is a major contributor to political advocacy groups.
What you failed to mention was Ms. Kagan recuses herself quite often in matters that she handles as SG.
Link to another source other than Newsmax, didn't you say there were newspapers reporting on this?
Is it now my job to provide you with additional sources so you can attempt to dismiss them? If you aren't willing to do the work, it explains a great deal about you and your one sided views.
Is it now my job to provide you with additional sources so you can attempt to dismiss them? If you aren't willing to do the work, it explains a great deal about you and your one sided views.
I previously stated that I did a search for newspaper reports and couldn't find any.
Fair enough, you can't support your comment, carry on...
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by meson
I previously stated that I did a search for newspaper reports and couldn't find any.
Fair enough, you can't support your comment, carry on...
No, you said the only source you found was Newsmax. You gave no indication that you searched at all. Once again putting your opinion out there as the only fact allowable. Typical of you. Did you even look? Where? The time frame of your response would seem to indicate that you are putting forth another falsehood.
Since you can't support your statement (or you would have), carry on with your fantasy, continue in your blind following of the liberal agenda.
Health Care: Questions for Kagan | Richmond Times-Dispatch (http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/oped/2011/may/30/tdopin01-questions-for-kagan-ar-1072746/ - broken link)
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.
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 said, "The only source I can find is Newsmax"....does that statement not indicate 
