• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Documents reveal that Kagan may have helped craft legal defense of ObamaCare

S

spidey07

No Lifer
Wow. If true this could be used to recuse or impeach her. Proof once again of just how corrupt this administration is. What I want to know is how on earth can she legally rule on the obamacare challenge?

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/05/...ed-craft-legal-defense-of-obamacare/#comments

Just so we’re straight on the timeline here: On March 21, the day ObamaCare was passed, Katyal is inviting Kagan to strategy sessions about the new law. On April 9, John Paul Stevens resigns and speculation erupts about Kagan succeeding him. On May 17, Katyal is suddenly telling people that Kagan’s never been involved in anything — even though she is, in fact, the solicitor general of the United States and even though he explicitly invited her to a meeting about the law less than two months earlier — and Kagan is warning people via e-mail to make sure everyone has their story straight on what she knew by “coordinating.” Is that about right? I want to make sure we’re all square on this nonsense for when the mandate challenge finally reaches the Court and we’re told by her office that everything is magically copacetic.
Click to expand...
 
Hey guys look, spidey doesn't know how the Supreme Court works. You can't use any information to 'recuse' someone, it is a voluntary procedure. Good luck with impeaching her too by the way. I love how our good friend spidey has no problems whatsoever with Clarence Thomas's family having a direct financial interest in the overturn of health care reform, but Kagan being asked to a meeting? IMPEACHMENT TIME!

Now to the merits of the article, the HUGE THING is some guy asking her to go to a meeting and her talking about how to handle her confirmation hearing. Ie: bullshit. Oh Spidey, you're a special flower.
 
Why the hardon for impeaching Kagan.

You may wish to actually lookup the reasons for impeachment prior to posting stupid thread like this one.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'll be waiting for the rush of those demanding impeachment or recusal of Thomas for his WIFE'S work to jump on the bandwagon demanding the same of Kagan for HER own work.
 
werepossum said:
I'll be waiting for the rush of those demanding impeachment or recusal of Thomas for his WIFE'S work to jump on the bandwagon demanding the same of Kagan for HER own work.
Click to expand...

What work of hers would you be referring to? Do you think the link our good friend spidey provided is any sort of evidence for her having taken part in the crafting of the health care bill's defense? If so, what parts and why?
 
It would be a different, better, more free and prosperous country if Thomas Jefferson had fully supported Randolph's Amendment. That asshole John Marshall never could've set bad precedent if Jefferson hadn't been so bipartisan (i.e., appointing moderate Republicans to the Supreme Court).
 
Her being involved in crafting the legal defense is not grounds for impeachment, but her subsequent lying about her involvement is. Either way, it's not going to happen, not as long as the current admin is in office.
 
PokerGuy said:
Her being involved in crafting the legal defense is not grounds for impeachment, but her subsequent lying about her involvement is. Either way, it's not going to happen, not as long as the current admin is in office.
Click to expand...

Where is your evidence for her involvement in the legal defense?
 
spidey07 said:
Wow. If true this could be used to recuse or impeach her. Proof once again of just how corrupt this administration is. What I want to know is how on earth can she legally rule on the obamacare challenge?

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/05/...ed-craft-legal-defense-of-obamacare/#comments
Click to expand...

Of course she can rule on it. No she doesn't need to recuse herself.
There is no conflict of interest here at all. Her old job was an advocate, she did that, her new job is a judge, she is doing that.
Clarence Thomas didn't need to recuse himself from a case that directly benefited his family through his lobbyist wife, an actual conflict of interest.
 
eskimospy said:
Where is your evidence for her involvement in the legal defense?
Click to expand...

The emails and documents would lead any sane person to realize she was at least involved, but since they don't add up to a smoking gun, nothing will come of it, as I stated in my previous post.
 
werepossum said:
I'll be waiting for the rush of those demanding impeachment or recusal of Thomas for his WIFE'S work to jump on the bandwagon demanding the same of Kagan for HER own work.
Click to expand...

His Wife's work directly benefited his family financially. There is no such conflict of interest with Kagan. There is no benefit to her from upholding Obamacare. She's already a USSC justice for life, there is nothing in it for her. Thomas stood to benefit financially from his ruling through his wife's lobbyist work pay.
Lawyers represent and advise their clients. When she was solicitor general she did her job. Now she is a judge and is doing hers.
 
PokerGuy said:
The emails and documents would lead any sane person to realize she was at least involved, but since they don't add up to a smoking gun, nothing will come of it, as I stated in my previous post.
Click to expand...

Ahhh, so a few isolated and out of context statements from emails linked in an article on a right wing blog are all any 'sane' person needs to realize that she was involved. That's an open and shut case if I've ever heard one!

This explains a lot about you. 🙂
 
PokerGuy said:
Her being involved in crafting the legal defense is not grounds for impeachment, but her subsequent lying about her involvement is. Either way, it's not going to happen, not as long as the current admin is in office.
Click to expand...
Assuming that she was substantially involved in crafting the defense of the health care legislation, at what point did she lie under oath or sign an official document asserting she was not involved?
If you're going to start impeaching public officials for simple lies, the Congress won't have time for anything else... or any members left to run impeachment proceedings, for that matter.
 
PokerGuy said:
The emails and documents would lead any sane person to realize she was at least involved, but since they don't add up to a smoking gun, nothing will come of it, as I stated in my previous post.
Click to expand...

I sure hope she was involved in representing the administration's position, being the solicitor general. That's the job description of a solicitor general.
 
CallMeJoe said:
Assuming that she was substantially involved in crafting the defense of the health care legislation, at what point did she lie under oath or sign an official document asserting she was not involved?
If you're going to start impeaching public officials for simple lies, the Congress won't have time for anything else... or any members left to run impeachment proceedings, for that matter.
Click to expand...

Hmmm...there's a thought... :hmm:
 
CallMeJoe said:
Assuming that she was substantially involved in crafting the defense of the health care legislation, at what point did she lie under oath or sign an official document asserting she was not involved?
Click to expand...

I don't know if she was substantively involved or not (it's highly likely of course), but if I remember right she testified in front of congress that she was not during her confirmation hearing. I haven't gone back to the transcripts or anything, just going off memory. Don't know for sure either way, but the threshold for impeachment is (and should be) pretty high. The threshold for recusing oneself is not that high, and if she was in any way ethical she would recuse herself. She won't, of course.
 
senseamp said:
I sure hope she was involved in representing the administration's position, being the solicitor general. That's the job description of a solicitor general.
Click to expand...

.... and if she was, she should recuse herself. How can you be unbiased in judging something you helped craft?
 
PokerGuy said:
I don't know if she was substantively involved or not...

...if she was in any way ethical she would recuse herself.
Click to expand...

facepalm.jpg
 
PokerGuy said:
.... and if she was, she should recuse herself. How can you be unbiased in judging something you helped craft?
Click to expand...

I don't see why you can't be, unless you are an emo. Recusals are for conflicts of interest, and there isn't one.
 
Last edited:
senseamp said:
I don't see why you can't be.
Click to expand...

Think about that for a second. Not only does she have to be impartial, if there's even a reasonable appearance that she's not impartial she should recuse herself. You think there's any way that there's not even the appearance of bias when someone is asked to judge the legality of something they helped craft? Really?
 
PokerGuy said:
Think about that for a second. Not only does she have to be impartial, if there's even a reasonable appearance that she's not impartial she should recuse herself. You think there's any way that there's not even the appearance of bias when someone is asked to judge the legality of something they helped craft? Really?
Click to expand...

Link to where you called for Thomas to recuse himself too?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top