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

[theeedude]

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?

Show me where the law says she has to recuse herself just because YOU think there is an APPEARANCE of being impartial.
Recusals are for conflicts of interest. There is no conflict of interest here.

 

[PokerGuy]

Show me where the law says she has to recuse herself just because YOU think there is an APPEARANCE of being impartial.
Recusals are for conflicts of interest. There is no conflict of interest here.

Sigh. Reading is your friend, you should try it sometime. I'll help you by bolding:

Two sections of Title 28 of the United States Code (the Judicial Code) provide standards for judicial disqualification or recusal. Section 455, captioned "Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge," provides that a federal judge "shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned."

This is not rocket surgery. Any normal person would 'reasonably question the impartiality' of the judge if that judge is asked to rule over legislation she helped craft. Duh.

 

[theeedude]

Sigh. Reading is your friend, you should try it sometime. I'll help you by bolding:



This is not rocket surgery. Any normal person would 'reasonably question the impartiality' of the judge if that judge is asked to rule over legislation she helped craft. Duh.

That is your OPINION. Duh.

 

[Lemon law]

Sigh. Reading is your friend, you should try it sometime. I'll help you by bolding:



This is not rocket surgery. Any normal person would 'reasonably question the impartiality' of the judge if that judge is asked to rule over legislation she helped craft. Duh.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where pray tell, PokerGuy, do you find any evidence that Kagan had any input in drafting the actual language of the legislation.

Kagan may or may not had been asked a few questions regarding if a some given general concepts in the legislation raises constitutional questions or not, but other than that, that is not drafting the legislation.

And if the legislation ever comes up for SCOTUS review, her legal opinions rendered before or later, could alter depending on the specific wordings of the provisions of the law.

And while I am at it, why does not this thread mention the serial non recusel by Scalia who has clear conflicts of interest. As this is just another GOP bitch thread as if they don't complain about everything. One more or one less thing to bitch about, is just like comparing a drop of water to an Ocean in the entire GOP BOO BOO BOO HOO GOP crying fest.

 

[First]

lmao @ PokerGuy posts.

 

[mchammer187]

Sigh. Reading is your friend, you should try it sometime. I'll help you by bolding:



This is not rocket surgery. Any normal person would 'reasonably question the impartiality' of the judge if that judge is asked to rule over legislation she helped craft. Duh.

If she did not draft the legislation itself there is no problem. I don't see why she or any SCOTUS could not put their input on the legality of a bill. If she were ruling on it she would be doing the exact same thing from the bench.

EXAMPLE

Judge A is asked if lawsuit X would be a valid one. Judge A says given what you have shown me about lawsuit X I would throw it out if it would ever go before me in court.

Lawsuit X ends up in court before Judge A and Judge A throws it out in court.


No conflict of interest or wrongdoing here.

 

[soccerballtux]

now that the Obamacare scandle is out in the open, this should shut up most of the proponents of the system.

Pretty much a guarantee that Obama won't be getting reelected with the economy, his fiscal spending lies, and now this scandle.

 

[PokerGuy]

If she did not draft the legislation itself there is no problem.

If she was involved with crafting it, she can not possibly be impartial or unbiased in judging if it's constitutional or not. From the documents provided, it seems likely that she was involved in crafting it.

 

[PokerGuy]

That is your OPINION. Duh.

I even quoted the LAW you dolt. That's not my opinion, that's the law. The only open question is whether she was involved in crafting it or not, and based on the documents provided, it's highly likely she was.

 

[theeedude]

I even quoted the LAW you dolt. That's not my opinion, that's the law. The only open question is whether she was involved in crafting it or not, and based on the documents provided, it's highly likely she was.

It's still your OPINION that her impartiality might REASONABLY be questioned. Even if she was involved in crafting it, it only indicates she was doing the jobs she was paid to do as the Solicitor General. The job she is paid to do now is to be impartial judge, and past performance as Solicitor General is a good indicator that she will do what she is paid to do as a USSC Justice.

 

[Ldir]

This is not rocket surgery. Any normal person would 'reasonably question the impartiality' of the judge if that judge is asked to rule over legislation she helped craft. Duh.

Clarence Thomas gains financially. Any normal person would question his impartiality. Link to where you called for Thomas to recuse himself?

 

[Thump553]

Interesting that the righties are trying to build up the moral outrage now based on vague rumors when the case hasn't even reached the Supreme Court yet-and thus hasn't presented itself to ANY of the Justices whether to recuse themselves or not.

I guess they want to get the moral outrage drumbeat going early.

It doesn't explain how these upright moralists can continue to ignore Thomas' proven breach though. Do as I say not as I do much?

 

[Fern]

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.

Wow, lot of wrong answers here. See #4 below

Laws or court rules provide for recusal of judges. Although the details vary, the following are nearly universal grounds for recusal.

1) The judge is related to a party, attorney, or spouse of either party (usually) within three degrees of kinship.

2) The judge is a party.

3) The judge is a material witness unless pleading purporting to make the
Judge a party is false (determined by presiding judge, but see Substitution (law)).

4) The judge has previously acted in the case in question as an attorney for a party, or participated in some other capacity.

5) The judge prepared any legal instrument (such as a contract or will) whose validity or construction is at issue.

6) Appellate judge previously handled case as a trial judge.

7) The judge has personal or financial interest in the outcome. This particular ground varies by jurisdiction. Some require recusal if there is any interest at all in the outcome, while others only require recusal if there is interest beyond a certain value.

8) The judge determines he or she cannot act impartially.

However, from looking around a bit it appears this will be entirely up to Kagan. Wouldn't hold my breath waiting for her to recuse hereself.

Fern

 

[theeedude]

Wow, lot of wrong answers here. See #4 below



However, from looking around a bit it appears this will be entirely up to Kagan. Wouldn't hold my breath waiting for here to recuse hereself.

Fern

No way she's going to recuse herself. Not after Clarence Thomas' shenanigans.

 

[PokerGuy]

No way she's going to recuse herself. Not after Clarence Thomas' shenanigans.

Ok, now we're getting somewhere. You're seeing that the correct answer would be for her to recuse herself, but that she won't. That's the position I've stated since the start of the thread. You're merely providing an excuse as to why she won't (the old two wrongs make a right excuse).

 

[PokerGuy]

Clarence Thomas gains financially. Any normal person would question his impartiality. Link to where you called for Thomas to recuse himself?

Link to where I was even aware of any issues regarding Clarence Thomas and potential conflicts of interest and whether they are valid or not?

 

[mchammer187]

Ok, now we're getting somewhere. You're seeing that the correct answer would be for her to recuse herself, but that she won't. That's the position I've stated since the start of the thread. You're merely providing an excuse as to why she won't (the old two wrongs make a right excuse).

from Breitbart thread

Gotta fight fire with fire. Breibart is just the right wing equivalent of the main stream media.

 

[theeedude]

Ok, now we're getting somewhere. You're seeing that the correct answer would be for her to recuse herself, but that she won't. That's the position I've stated since the start of the thread. You're merely providing an excuse as to why she won't (the old two wrongs make a right excuse).

Correct answer would be for her to follow precedent, which she will. Clarence Thomas established how high the bar for recusal is, and she's nowhere near it.
You are getting nowhere, but if it makes you feel better, go ahead and convince yourself that you are.

 

[First]

Wow, honestly it's sad to see someone, PokerGuy, bent over this badly in broad daylight. What a train wreck.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
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.

His Wife's work directly benefited his family financially.
-snip-

What are you talking about?

Where did Clarence Thomas's wife, who works for a nonprofit btw, get some financial benefit from a case he sat in on?

Fern

 

[PokerGuy]

What are you talking about?

Where did Clarence Thomas's wife, who works for a nonprofit btw, get some financial benefit from a case he sat in on?

Fern

Apparently only in senseamp's little brain.

 

[PokerGuy]

What a train wreck.

The only sad part is watching you silly lefties try and once again defend the indefensible and rationalize the illogical.

 

[theeedude]

What are you talking about?

Where did Clarence Thomas's wife, who works for a nonprofit btw, get some financial benefit from a case he sat in on?

Fern

His wife's organizations receive anonymous political contributions, and Thomas did not recuse himself from case involving such unlimited anonymous political contributions, which directly benefit his wife, and may also come from clients who have cases before the USSC.

 

[Fern]

His wife's organizations receive anonymous political contributions, and Thomas did not recuse himself from case involving such unlimited anonymous political contributions, which directly benefit his wife, and may also come from clients who have cases before the USSC.

Are you serious?

His wife works for a think tank in DC. It's doesn't even receive political contributions. OK, in checking before hitting "reply" I see she used to work for the Heritage Foundation but apparently no more. After that looks like she worked for the Liberty Central, another nonprofit, but received no money from it. What job/money are you talking about?

Additionally, if you're referring to the Heritage Foundation it's not "his wife's organization". She's merely an employee there. She doesn't own it. By law no one can "own" a nonprofit.

And what court case are you talking about? You know that unlimited political contributions are still not allowed?

Fern

 

[theeedude]

Are you serious?

His wife works for a think tank in DC. It's doesn't even receive political contributions. OK, in checking before hitting "reply" I see she used to work for the Heritage Foundation but apparently no more. After that looks like she worked for the Liberty Central, another nonprofit, but received no money from it. What job/money are you talking about?

Additionally, if you're referring to the Heritage Foundation it's not "his wife's organization". She's merely an employee there. She doesn't own it. By law no one can "own" a nonprofit.

Employee = Thomas household got paid by Heritage.

And what court case are you talking about? You know that unlimited political contributions are still not allowed?

Fern

Right, you can only buy unlimited ads for the candidate instead of giving him money to buy those ads. Huge difference.