Kagan Cheered ObamaCare Passage

On Sunday, March 21, 2010, the day the House of Representatives passed President Barack Obama’s Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, then-Solicitor General Elena Kagan and famed Supreme Court litigator and Harvard Law Prof. Laurence Tribe, who was then serving in the Justice Department, had an email exchange in which they discussed the pending health-care vote, according to documents the Department of Justice released late Wednesday to the Media Research Center, CNSNews.com’s parent organization, and to Judicial Watch.

“I hear they have the votes, Larry!! Simply amazing,” Kagan said to Tribe in one of the emails.

http://visiontoamerica.org/5568/kagan-c ... e-passage/

Are you saying she should recuse herself from hearing arguments on the upcoming case because, before she became a Supreme Justice, she supported the Health Care bill?

Kate wrote: Are you saying she should recuse herself from hearing arguments on the upcoming case because, before she became a Supreme Justice, she supported the Health Care bill?

Justice Kagan has already recused herself on many cases where she represented the White House before taking her new job.

If Clarence Thomas' wife had lobbied against the Health Care bill, should he excuse himself?

FredHayek wrote:

Kate wrote: Are you saying she should recuse herself from hearing arguments on the upcoming case because, before she became a Supreme Justice, she supported the Health Care bill?

Justice Kagan has already recused herself on many cases where she represented the White House before taking her new job.

Did she represent the White House on this legislation?

I don't know if she did represent the White House, but I am guessing no, since she was gone before the current cases started going to court.

Thomas? It will be interesting to see what is ruled here. Should a judge recuse himself for his wife's opinion or workplace?

If his wife recieve $$$ based on who she lobbies for then possibly, yes if his decision benefits them and she stands to make a profit.

Should judges recuse themselves if they accept gratuitous dinners and benefits from law firms and companies that their rulings will directly affect?...Particularly when they know in advance that such a case will be coming before them SOON?

LadyJazzer wrote:

Scalia and Thomas dine with healthcare law challengers as court takes case

The day the Supreme Court gathered behind closed doors to consider the politically divisive question of whether it would hear a challenge to President Obama’s healthcare law, two of its justices, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, were feted at a dinner sponsored by the law firm that will argue the case before the high court.

The occasion was last Thursday, when all nine justices met for a conference to pore over the petitions for review. One of the cases at issue was a suit brought by 26 states challenging the sweeping healthcare overhaul passed by Congress last year, a law that has been a rallying cry for conservative activists nationwide.

Clement’s law firm, Bancroft PLLC, was one of almost two dozen firms that helped sponsor the annual dinner of the Federalist Society, a longstanding group dedicated to advocating conservative legal principles. Another firm that sponsored the dinner, Jones Day, represents one of the trade associations that challenged the law, the National Federation of Independent Business.

Another sponsor was pharmaceutical giant Pfizer Inc, which has an enormous financial stake in the outcome of the litigation. The dinner was held at a Washington hotel hours after the court's conference over the case. In attendance was, among others, Mitch McConnell, the Senate’s top Republican and an avowed opponent of the healthcare law.

The featured guests at the dinner? Scalia and Thomas.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la ... 8224.story

Maybe Scalia & Thomas are just trying to learn everything they can in face to face meetings? In Vino Veritas?

It's possible that both Kagan and Thomas should recuse themselves.

The US Code regarding disqualification of a justice is here:

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/28/I/21/455

The part I see which could apply to Kagan is this:

(3) Where he has served in governmental employment and in such
capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness
concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the
merits of the particular case in controversy;

Kagan was certainly a counsel, but did she have anything to do with the health care bill? You could argue that her statement in the email being happy about the bill's passage was expressing an opinion I suppose.

The part which could apply to Thomas is this:

(4) He knows that he, individually or as a fiduciary, or his
spouse or minor child residing in his household, has a financial
interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to
the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially
affected by the outcome of the proceeding;

Thomas' wife did make hundreds of thousands while working for the Heritage Foundation, and they have opposed the bill. The question is did his wife lobby for them in opposition to the bill?

Also, there are other accusations against Thomas coming from the left which have more to do with impeachment than recusal. I'm sure those efforts will step up now that the court is going to hear arguements about the health care act although there might not be enough time for that.