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

[Fern]

Employee = Thomas household got paid by Heritage.

I understand that. In fact that's what I wrote.

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

Excuse me, but you're not making any sense here.

Assuming for a moment that a contributor could buy unlimited ads for a candidate (I firmly believe this is incorrect, we still have campaign limits etc), how in the hell would the Heritage Foundation (which she hasn't worked for since 2009) benefit from this?

The Heritage Foundation is not a "candidate". I fail to see how they could possibly benefit as you claim.

Fern

 

[Jhhnn]

Birthers need some new outrage to fill the void in their lives. Not being able to find anything as monumentally stupid as that, they'll just make do with other smaller stupidities...

Any questions?

 

[theeedude]

I understand that. In fact that's what I wrote.



Excuse me, but you're not making any sense here.

Assuming for a moment that a contributor could buy unlimited ads for a candidate (I firmly believe this is incorrect, we still have campaign limits etc), how in the hell would the Heritage Foundation (which she hasn't worked for since 2009) benefit from this?

The Heritage Foundation is not a "candidate". I fail to see how they could possibly benefit as you claim.

Fern

Simple, same people who fund Heritage also like funding unlimited campaign ads for candidates who serve their business interests, or against candidates who stand up to those interests. Wifey gets paid by Heritage, Thomas rules their way.

 

[umbrella39]

--- gamble more and post less ---

 

[woolfe9999]

The evidence linked is rather inconclusive as to Kagan's involvement. However, the theory of recusal here is at least colorable under the law. The attorneys challenging the law should make their motion and then we'll see Kagan's response. Recusals can and do go either way. Rehnquist and Scalia both have refused to recuse themselves in situations where the theory of bias was as good or better than this, including the case where Scalia refused to recuse himself where Dick Cheney was a party and it was established that Scalia was a hunting buddy of Cheney. I'm not actually sure that Scalia wasn't correct in refusing to recuse himself there, but the left certainly cried foul on that one, and the right defended it. Oh well, everyone is a hypocrit anyway.

 

[Double Trouble]

Employee = Thomas household got paid by Heritage.

So if someone in the Thomas household at one point was an employee at the Heritage Foundation. How exactly does that mean Thomas has a financial stake in the outcome of a current case or future case? I'm not following.

 

[Double Trouble]

Simple, same people who fund Heritage also like funding unlimited campaign ads for candidates who serve their business interests, or against candidates who stand up to those interests. Wifey gets paid by Heritage, Thomas rules their way.

Are you saying if Thomas doesn't rule one way or another, Wifey gets fired? Or, if he rules one way or another, wifey gets more money? If that's the case I would expect serious consequences, but I haven't seen anyone even allege anything like that.

Seems like a very far fetched connection or conflict of interest.

 

[Double Trouble]

The evidence linked is rather inconclusive as to Kagan's involvement. However, the theory of recusal here is at least colorable under the law. The attorneys challenging the law should make their motion and then we'll see Kagan's response. Recusals can and do go either way. Rehnquist and Scalia both have refused to recuse themselves in situations where the theory of bias was as good or better than this, including the case where Scalia refused to recuse himself where Dick Cheney was a party and it was established that Scalia was a hunting buddy of Cheney. I'm not actually sure that Scalia wasn't correct in refusing to recuse himself there, but the left certainly cried foul on that one, and the right defended it. Oh well, everyone is a hypocrit anyway.

Good post. It's just not always as black and white as some want to make it seem, and I don't see any concrete evidence in this case that would make it obvious that Kagan would have to recuse herself. Now if 'real' evidence of her participation/crafting of the legislation comes out, then it's a different ballgame.