Should Justice Kagan recuse herself from Obamacare ruling?
Her office when she was Solicitor General was involved in preparing the government’s defense of the Health Care Reform Act before she was selected to become a Justice.
Whether she had direct input or not, there is precedence for her to recuse. Justice Jackson recused himself in 1943 because he inherited a case in 1940 when he was appointed Attorney General.
He had no direct input into the case, but his office made him officially responsible for the case.
I believe the same is true for Kagan in this case.
Do you agree?
Observing members:
0
Composing members:
0
9 Answers
I suspect she will not, as Thomas will not. I think she feels as if she should stay in to balance him.
I don’t see it as any different from extremely biased judges in the past using bullshit excuses to treat others unfairly. There were conflicts of interests then, and conflicts of interests now.
We’re assuming that judges are objective and unbiased, which they’re not. Why did Senator Franken decide to support SOPA and PIPA after receiving money from the entertainment industry? That seems like a huge conflict of interest.
It would make sense to at least have someone who knows that they’re talking about voting, but there were people who barely knew what the internet was that were voting against SOPA.
These are just some random thoughts, feel free to enlighten me as I’m not well informed of the matter, lol.
She should. Bet she won’t. But we’ll see, won’t we.
I believe she will, and I believe that within 10 years, a Supreme Court Justice is impeached.
If she cares about the intergrity of the Supreme Court, yes, she should.
What is it, Schalia (spelling?) who’s wife is a private insurance company lobbyist or CEO or something like that? Maybe he should recuse himself too.
But in my opinion, no she should not recuse herself. Preparing a defense to something because you are the governments highest lawyer and you’re asked to defend it, is different than going out as an ardent supporter of it or someone who has something to gain/lose by it’s passing or failing. She’s a lawyer and now a judge, supposedly of the highest order… As a lawyer its her job to defend something, even if she possibly disagrees with it… As a judge it’s her job to put her personal feelings about it aside, and vote as to whether or not she thinks it’s constitutional…. as so many judges often do.
@tedd, there is a federal statute that the US Supreme Court uses as a precedent, a sort of mirror, for itself, that states that a judge recuse him/herself if the judge previously served in government employment, “and in that capacity participated as a… counsel, adviser, or material witness concerning the proceeding or has expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy.”
This coupled with Kagen’s email exchange to Neal Katyal, her top deputy, and Associate Attorney General ATom Perrelli – plus her “fingers and toes crossed today! I hear they have the votes, Larry! Simply amazing,” email to Laurence Tribe, of Harvard, are enough for her recusal.
@bkcunningham If we can’t trust a Supreme Court Justice to put aside their personal beliefs and vote with how they interpret the law rather than how they want something to turn out… then we shouldn’t have made them a Supreme Court Justice in the first place.
And I stand by my comment about I think Justice Thomas as well then. He should definitely recuse himself if anyone… his wife is a lobbyist for private healthcare companies.
Answer this question 
Composing members:
0
