I pose this question to each and every one of you. Should Kagan recuse herself for the health care ruling?

I ask this of everyone before answering. I understand more than likely every response here will go along party lines. I am sure the majority of Democrats will say "no" and most Republicans here will say "yes." Before you parrot your party's stance, stop and think it through without partisan glasses. Look at the facts and statements made by Kagan instead of simply carrying the torch for your respective party.

Debate heats up over whether Kagan should participate in Supreme Court's health care law ruling

Debate Heats Up Over Whether Kagan Should Participate In Supreme Court's Health Care Law Ruling | Fox News

__________________

I agree with Roberts

__________________

DISCLAIMER: Extreme amounts of sarcasm can possibly result in inflammatory situations. Not responsible for keyboard violence, spittle on the monitor, irrational responses mistaken for momentary brilliance, one-sided rages against hypocrisy or individual members or unintended consequences such as poor personal hygiene and bad spelling. Please fasten your seatbelts and put your trays in an upright position.

Roberts "complete confidence" in Kagan's impartiality on the individual mandate reflects the political nature of the SCOTUS. Barring health issues Kagan will likely serve on the SCOTUS bench for another 2 decades. Publicly questioning her impartiality would foreclose the possibility of getting her vote on future opinions.

Clearly the grossly unqualified Kagan was put on the SCOTUS bench because of her malleability to Obama's party line, team work. She owes too much to Obama to recuse herself from a key decision on Obama's signature legislation.

Of course not. If a justice must recuse themselves for some reason, then they shouldn't be a judge to begin with. Especially not a supreme court one. Either they're impartial, or they're not. They can't just be "impartial some of the time". Either they're looking at constitutionality, or they're judging based on emotion. If the latter, then they need to step down, not just recuse themselves.

__________________


To tax the larger incomes at a higher percentage than the smaller, is to lay a tax on industry and economy; to impose a penalty on people for having worked harder and saved more than their neighbors. ~ John Stuart Mill

Gypsy Soul Memories
Scuba Diver Life
Success Freaks

I would ask why Clarence Thomas wasn't added to the topic. He has just as much conflict of interest and has been asked to recuse himself yet no one seems concerned with that issue....

I don't think any Supreme Court Justice should recuse themselves of a case unless they are personally involved in said case. They were put on that bench to remain and deliberate impartially.. if they can't do their job then they should be removed from the bench.

Justices, historically, have shown much greater impartiality after their appointment than in their prior careers. I see no reason why she cannot set her previous casework aside and be impartial now that she's on the Supreme Court bench.

__________________
The voice in your head that says "you can't do this" is a LIAR!!!

That's generically correct, but the problem is a case coming to court that you PREVIOUSLY worked on while NOT on the court...

If you're on the SC for a dozen or more years, stuff like that isn't likely to show up, but it can for someone that's been in there for less than three years...Add that to the fact that the last person that joined worked in the executive branch of the current administration and wasn't in the judicial branch to begin with...A judge moving up to the Supreme Court doesn't run into nearly as many conflicts of interest as a lawyer moving up to the Supreme Court does...

This is NOT a recommendation for or against her recusal...Just pointing out that there are legitimate reasons for why a judge may feel the need to recuse themselves...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

The spouses of justices is FAR different from the justices themselves..."just as much conflict of interest" is false...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

The section in bold is simply untrue. The odds are that a federal appeals court judge would have more conflicts.

__________________
The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so.

-- Hitler, April 11 1942

I don't think so...

An appeals court judge doesn't work for a company, subsidiary, or branch of government that may eventually argue a case before the Supreme Court...A lawyer (obviously) does...

The only major conflict I can think of is if a judge holds stock in a company that eventually comes before them...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd