No where did I say that there is a legal requirement, just that there should be so that, in cases like this, conflicts of interest could be resolved easily. Seperation of powers does not mean that the Supreme Court has free reign and cannot be regulated by other branches of government. If an amendment to the constitution is passed, the Supreme Court would be subject to it so your argument is inaccurate. So if we pass a law that requires recusal of a Supreme Court justice in cases of extreme conflict of interest, somehow this is unconstitutional? Under what grounds and remember to look at my last sentence.
Actually separation of powers EXACTLY means that the internal workings of the Supreme Court, such as their decision to recuse themselves, cannot be regulated by other branches of government. Any law passed that tried to force members of the Supreme Court to recuse themselves would be unconstitutional on its face.
A constitutional amendment could be passed that would alter this, but that's not a law, that's a constitutional amendment. (by that logic, nothing is unconstitutional because you could always pass an amendment that legalized it)
What other justice has actually, in an official capacity, defended the law which they will most likely have to rule on? Kagan is the only Justice that by way of her position, has had previous involvement with the current law and a predetermined opinion on the matter. I agree however, her recusal is highly unlikely.
Kagan did not defend the law in an official capacity, this is factually incorrect. In fact she assiduously avoided getting involved in its defense, likely for this exact reason. Thomas has family and fiduciary ties to organizations dedicated to the health care law's defeat, that's worse than anything Kagan has done.
I don't need understanding when I can read the Amendment in the plain English in which it was written. No where, anywhere, in the Constitution is the federal government given the authority to require a citizen to purchase anything. Therefore, this right is reserved by the states as per the 10th amendment. You can't retroactively give the federal government powers not spelled out explicitly in the constitution or its amendments.
You may think you don't need understanding, but this post is pretty clear evidence that you do. The federal government is granted authority to regulate interstate commerce, and through this is granted all powers that are necessary and proper to carry out this function. If this is determined to be interstate commerce, Congress has almost limitless power to regulate it. It is not a retroactive power, just a new implementation of an existing power.
The thing is, if it is ruled that Congress does not have that power, what the states have ruled individually is still
completely and utterly irrelevant. Congress either has the power or it doesn't, what the states think on the issue doesn't matter. What you wrote on the 10th amendment earlier was once again, simply factually incorrect.
I'm not sure where you got your ideas on the Constitution, but they don't seem to have much bearing on the real Constitution. It reminds me of this:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/area-man-passionate-defender-of-what-he-imagines-c,2849/
