E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Political groups are applying pressure to two of the U.S. Supreme Court's nine justices before they hear a series of cases challenging the constitutionality of President Obama's signature health reform law.
Conservative groups want to prevent Justice Elena Kagan from being among the members of the court to decide the case, which the justices announced on Monday they would hear this term. And liberal groups, similarly, want Justice Clarence Thomas to recuse himself from the case.
Their demands reflect the gamesmanship surrounding the case, which would either offer legal vindication for Obama's law, or hand Republicans a victory in dismantling it -- at the height of the election season, no less, since a decision is due in June.
Republicans have already demanded that Kagan sit out the case because of her work as solicitor general in the Obama administration during the fight over the health care law. Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch (R), a longtime staple of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has demanded that she recuse herself, and House Republicans have sought to probe the extent of her involvement in crafting the legal defense for the law.
Kagan said in written responses to questions during her confirmation process to the court that she would recuse herself "from any case in which I've been counsel of record" or in any case in which she had "played any kind of substantial role in the process." She said in her confirmation testimony that she had attended at least one meeting where pending litigation against the health law might have been discussed, but "none where any substantive discussion of the litigation occurred."
The Judicial Confirmation Network and Judicial Watch, both conservative legal groups, have called for Kagan to recuse herself. Even if she doesn't sit out the case, it would provide the right-leaning groups with a way to spin an unfavorable opinion, especially if the decision comes along slim margins.
But Kagan isn't the only target. If conservatives have urged her recusal for fear of her reliably liberal vote, then it's concern about Thomas's usually-conservative voting record that prompted liberals to urge his recusal.
Seventy-three House Democrats, led by then-Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY), wrote earlier this year that Thomas should recuse himself because of his wife's work with Tea Party groups in opposition to the law. The Democrats charged that Ginni Thomas had previously been compensated in part for her work against health care reform; the liberal Magazine Mother jones reported that she had received $150,000 in compensation from Liberty Central, a group opposed to the reform law, according to her husband's financial disclosure forms.
Health Care for America Now is also among the liberal groups to have joined the demand for Thomas's recusal.
All indications, though, point toward recusals for neither, meaning all nine justices would participate.
If there were to be recusals, we'd know by now. The fact that the court granted the health care cases yesterday without noting that any justice "took no part in the consideration" tell us that. But this has been clear for quite a while, because the court has handled other health care cases in past months -- such as the refusal to grant fast-track status to the case brought by the State of Virginia -- without noting any recusals.
Moreover, there's some thought that the dividing lines between "conservative" and "liberal" justices might not even apply in any usual way. For instance, Judge Laurence Silberman, the appeals court judge in D.C. who authored an opinion upholding the constitutionality of health reform, was appointed to the court by President Reagan, and has been active in the Federalist Society, a conservative legal society.
NBC's Pete Williams contributed reporting.
Leave a Comment:
Abide by ethics???? This latest round of nominations to the supreme court are about anything but ethics. IT's been about appointing activist jurors that use their position to either nulify or enforce and support actions and legislations that are in favor of the Democratic agenda, or the many sub agencies that are strangling American economic abilites.
Obama didn't put Kagen in there to be balanced, he put her in there because she abides his agenda..Ethics.. give me a break. If Mr. Thomas recuses due to his wifes involvement in causes, then Ms. Kagen needs to recuse due to her direct involvement, no matter how insignificant she attempts to sound it, in the legislation itself.
Isn't the US Supreme Court another part of government Perry wants to eliminate?
Progressives never, NEVER want the playing field level, it is always about tilting to their side, let them both sit on this one, who cares! they are afraid that even with Kegan they lose! The reason we have NO justice is becuase the progressive agenda has polluted the entire system.
When you use absolutes it makes your post seem....rant like.
Nice bald assertions, but you don't state any facts, don't give any examples. Want credibility? No? Thought so.
Just watch the one-side justice decisions granted by judges appointed by progressive's, that is the proof, the record of one-side progressive decisions. like saying the media is not biased? OMG, progressives would deny that the devil is a demonrat.
Loyal Taliban Commander,so this is the site you're working today.
One of them. I am on another site too. Look for my handle, "eatme"
That one pays a lot better.
It's so tiresome having to jiggle two and three screens.
You paying taxes on your posting job here or just telling the IRS to "eat me".
Roberts likes to eat Oreo cookies before he goes to bed at night.
He should not only recuse himself, he should quit too. Along with that nincompoop Hatch
Itcommander,,,, Looks like we are up against all the ones who claimed Obama was born in Africa again, doesn't it?
It's still not comforting to know they are all political appointees of one variety or the other. One can always go rogue and do something unexpected. This will be a complete roll of the dice. Bring it. Let all of them vote.
This business of requested recusal from some think thank Super Pac scum suckers O. Hatch is not gonna fly.
I dont care what party you are members of...the health bill as written by Harry Reid behind closed doors has so much wrong with it that a vote for it should be considered treasonous.
You don't even know what's in that health reform bill, do you! Why are you weighing in?
He thinks Reid wrote the healthcare bill...too funny
nah,Reid isn't smart enough being a lefty.They hired some college kids to write it.
Well....comments from liberals are arrogant as hell and of little substance, as usual. Reid was the main contributor to the creation of the health bill. Pelosi's speech where she said "well...let's pass this bill so we can all read what's in it" says it all. It was crammed down our throats by the democrats before the republicans could get into office and stop it. This bill says it will cost us 900 billion...but it has already been measured at over 1 trillion. Also, this bill will cover only 10% of the people...so, we have sacrficed our country's debt and put ourselves in a financial mess for 10% of the people? And, yes, I have read it...unlike you arrogant libs who spout hot air and little else. it is one scary, communistic agenda. Can any of you name one department run by the government that has done well?? And you actually believe that the government can run our health care system? You are all sadly mistaken. Now, if any of you had thought to read the bill on line before commenting, you wouldnt have been so "flip" with your answers. Just go to : http://docs.house.gov/rules/health/111_ahcaa.pdf and read it for yourself. Oh, allow enough time...it is 1,990 pages long.
Where does it say that a Supreme Court Judge can not have the rights and freedoms of a citizen. In today's world you can not believe they live in a bubble free from the news around the world. Any thinking person will form ideas and opinions as a result of living. We place the individuals in the court as a check and balance to the Executive and Legislative Branch just to do what they are about to do. They are about to present a legal opinion based on their understanding of Constitutional Law. I sure hope they have the ability to wrestle with the hard questions. We need someone to wrestle with a law that was passed "so we can find out what is in it" according to Pelosi.
What a reveling statement about the way this law as enacted. No transparency, no promised discussion on C-SPAN, no review of the law by the people, as promised by President Obama. Just a total back room deal with perks for the holdouts. That alone should alarm all of you who are talking about ethics in the Supreme Court. What about the ethics of publicly lying to the people of the United States about the process? Ethics cuts both ways not just for your party or my party beliefs.
Attorneys are subject to codes of ethics which vary from state to state, but one of the ubiquitous rules, for the sake of maintaining the honor and integrity of the profession, is that an attorney shall avoid the appearance of impropriety. That doesn't mean a real conflict of interest or a real impropriety, just the appearance. Since the members of the court are exempt from the rules, technically, it comes down to a moral imperative. If they give two @!$%#s about the profession and our system of jurisprudence, they would self-police. It's a moral imperative. Just because your not subject to a written rule doesn't mean you should feel free to violate it. If they don't self-police, and proceed even in the face of an appearance of impropriety, they break no rule, but they do bring shame to themselves, to the court, and to the legal profession.
Perhaps a bad example would be an ambassador who has diplomatic immunity going around killing people that disagree with her. She has an exemption from the rules, and could not be prosecuted for murder, but nobody would deny that it would be morally bankrupt.
Unfortunately, I do not think that the reactionary wing of the court puts any of these concerns above their own sick right wing ideology. Hence you won't see any recusals in this case.
ATTORNIES and ETHICS in the same sentence. I thought I'd seen it all, guess I was wrong.
I think the indivdual mandate went as far back as Nixon if I'm not mistaken -- It was a republican idea just as Obama's/Romney's Affordable Health Care Act largely was
LOL.what a dork
Of the justices, only Kagan as a direct link to the health care law. At the very least, she should recuse herself from the case.
As for Alito and Scalia, they were guest speakers at a couple conservative events. This is nothing unusual for either conservative or liberal judges.
As for Thomas, his wife worked with a Tea Party group. If this is enough to cause recusal, then perhaps we should ask every judge that had any relative at all (cousin, nephew, in-laws, third cousin on the side of your father's first wife's new husband's side, etc). This leads to the question, at what point can a judge be declared to be far enough removed from the case to hear it?
Even if you leave relatives out of it, each judge already has an opinion on the law, so what should we do about that?
Wake up. Thomas, himself, is in bed with several Big, Well Off, Republican contributors (BRIBERS)!
Other than socialist wish, there is no reason for Thomas to recuse himself. Kagan for her history should by all means recuse herself. That is obvious.
First off, it's illegal as hell for any person or group of persons to have any contact, personal, written, or otherwise with any judge concerning any case they might be hearing. It's OK for you if it suits your agenda but imagine if it was you or a family member who's case was being heard and someone wanted it to go their way and it wasn't in your favor. Thats why lady justice wears a blindfold. You folks want to subvert the justice system so that you can have your way but one day it might just be your turn, what then? If it's not fair for everyone, it's not fair for anyone, and that's just the way it works. It's called Democracy, Google it.
Can you just feel the Civil War coming? The majority of the legal population of the US is not going to let the SCOTUS tell them that this law is constitutional. Get ready.
This is one of the contributors and lead consultants of the Far-Right faction of the Republican Party.
For his generous contributions to the George Herbert Walker Bush Presidential Library, Crow was named a trustee. Other trustees include such Republican luminaries such as Florida governor Jeb Bush and former Secretary of State James A. Baker III .
Harlan Crow is also trustee of the American Enterprise Institute and a major patron of Associate Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. In 2002, Justice Thomas reported receiving a gift of a "Frederick Douglass Bible," valued at $19,000, from Harlan and Kathy Crow, whom he described as "personal friends."
Crow has an unusual hobby of collecting statues of both past and present tyrants, including Vladimir Lenin, Hitler, and Fidel Castro. His home in Dallas purportedly contains one of the world's largest statuaries on its grounds, with 20 statues ranging up to 20 feet tall.
Crow is also associated with the infamous Koch Bros. Bet you that a fix in play.
cherokee,best post of the day in the category of outright lies.Your award will be mailed to you.
Justice Thomas was appointed to the court, not his wife. But isn't it funny that liberals have no problem with Kagan sitting in on the decision, even after she worked directly on crafting the legislation.
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/07/07/obamacare-and-kagans-conflict
Kagan has a clear conflict of interest. Thomas does not. He was appointed to the court, not his wife, and his wife will not be making the decision.
But it's easy to understand why liberals would make a stink about it. They will do anything they can to try and taint Thomas' decision.
If it were a liberal black judge being asked to step down because of what his wife does, the liberals would be screaming "racist" at the top of their lungs. But of course, a minor little thing like blatant hypocricy never stops liberals.
Thomas stays, Kagan goes. Deal with it.
I don't buy it.... Thomas has fully supported & openly supports everything his wife has done & is doing today --- To say otherwise simply isn't honest
Jim, so using your logic, a SC nominee's wife should also be confirmed or denied? If that's the case, then no justice in the country is qualified to make any decisions without first making sure their spouse is also qualified if they are married.
Sorry, being married is not an obstacle to sitting on the bench, regardless of what the opinions of the spouse might be.
However, directly working on the legislation that you will be ruling on is indeed a direct conflict of interest. Thomas stays, Kagan goes.
How true, how true. Any black who is not a liberal is a simpleton, poorly educated turncoat. Liberals just cannot stand it when blacks think for themselves. It threatens their world of self superiority.
Health Care system needed overhaul. But not this overhaul. A one payer system, with 'all', yes you too congress and government workers, on the same health care plan. No more Insurance Companies driving up cost. Everyone, and I mean everyone, Mr. President, is on the same Health Insurance plan. Then we could talk further about term limits and putting Congress on Social Security like the rest of us.
Why all the hatred for legislation that we all need? Is it because we have a black President or is it because Big Business isn't getting their way without federal regulation? The people that express hate to cancel Health Care are most likely well covered by health insurance. Its either the government or big business that tells us what we can do or not. The issue isn't about American freedom or dictates. Its about the welfare of the American people. In the end we all pay!
I guess the reason is that this law was forced on many of us with out a review of the possible pros or cons. When Pelosi stood up and said "we have to pass this law to know what is in it" you should be alarmed. If the legislators do not know who does? The other public problem was with the President saying this would be an open process, on C-SPAN, with public input, with the public review in both the process and potential outcome. That did not happen in any way shape or form. That makes many people nervous especially when the Congressional Budget Office says it will increase costs not decrease them. After watching Greece and Italy this last week do we want to default as well? Social welfare systems do not work. I know I have a stack of request for help by low or no income individuals on my desk that the system ignores or washes its hands of. It is compassionate individuals who will provide some relief for their needs not the failed government system. That is how it really happens in the world. If you would like to find out how good the government system is go talk to a homeless individual. In many cases you will discover they just slip through the cracks and no one cares.
The health care law will be a major boon to the insurance industry that is why they are behind it. Do you think that sounds like more coverage at lower costs? In fact this law will only add some not all of the insured to the roles. Many will still be without coverage and in worse shape than now because they will not qualify for any plan.
In a perfect world, Clinton, Bush and Obama would never have been elected POTUS and the will of the people would have prevailed and Obamacare would have been nothing but a distant memory. In a perfect world the Supreme Court Justices would decide on the constitutionality of Obamacare piece by piece and if they find one part of it unconstitutional it would all be declared unconstitutional! I believe (and admit that it is just my opinion based on my knowledge of the Constitution) that the "forced purchase or face a penalty" part of Obamacare is unconstitutional and violates the commerce act as it was written and intended. It would seem that our Washington Politicians to include POTUS Obama, can't seem to make up their mind if it is a tax or not! First it is not a tax then when challenged and it looks like it may be unconstitutional to force people to purchase health care, it is convenient for them to call it a tax. It all boils down to the fact that this is the basic thing that the U.S. Supreme Court must decide. If it is a tax as much as I don't like it, it would appear to be constitutional. If it is not a tax then Congress and the POTUS have both overstepped their Constitutional Authority and violated the very Constitution of the United States that they have sworn to uphold and abide by!
So much for a perfect world! Politics will undoubtedly play a very large part in this issue. I have little doubt that the Obama camp is betting heavy on this issue being decided in his favor to give him a boost at the polls and is depending on his appointees to serve him well. In a perfect world Obama's appointees would recuse themselves, especially Justice Kagan, because of her close work with creating and defending that monstrosity. However I am sure Obama is counting on Kagan not doing that and voting in favor to help further his political career and his Socialist agenda for this country. QED!
Exercising my right to free speach while I still have it!
When I voted for Obama in 2008 I had no idea he would sign the worse bill to even be put into law in the United States. I truly believe too many people haven't read the bill to understand how fundamentally wrong it is to make someone buy a product because the government says so regardless of the reason. Republicans shouldn't be trying to force women to have babies they don't want, and Democrats shouldn't be forcing people to buy Healthcare insurance, no matter what the reasoning is; BOTTOMLINE.
dont look back, only forward.
right the wrong.
TEA
Antonin Scalia, should also recuse himself, for he and Clarence Thomas have gone to an expensive elaborate dinner paid for by one of the law firms, fight the Obama Health Care law. The appearance of conflict is as bad as the conflicting interest itself. If they are to remain on the case, then it is all the more confirmation, that our justice system can be bought and bribed by way of dinners and other bribery tactics. This is why I think the Supreme Court justices should be voted on by the people. They have become partisan activist puppets on behalf of both parties. Not making decisions based on law but based on ideology.
Forgot to mention, they should also be limited to 2 terms. One a 6 year, the second term a 5 year period, that way there is a guarantee that corruption an partisanship, is kept out.
Same applies to all members of congress. We vote for them and look what we get.
Voting people into office guarantees nothing.
I think any Justice who was appointed by either a Democrat or Republican should recuse him or herself...;)
people ,people, please use that thing between your ears for just a min plz!!!
the doj is making a case that the healthcare law is constatutional, using the commerce clause,and their argument is based on the fact that health care is regulated.
useing that argument,if the healthcare law is allowed to stand,this country will officialy be communist.
for name one thing in this country that is NOT regulated in some way,by the gov,they will be able to require you to do just about anything that they want you to!!
think about this for a moment... drug co. are regulated by the fda, and going by this standard,if they deemed it nessasary to force us to take a particular drug for population control,for the general welfare of the people. what would all of you say then???
aomize: Do you never tire of making a complete intellectual ass of yourself? Your understanding of a communist nation is pathetic! If nothing else, go to the business channels on television, stay there for no more than 30 minutes, and even with you pitiful understanding of communism, it might suddenly strike you that this is a capitalist country. My investments in stocks and bonds are paying me a fine return and will likely continue to do so for years to come. From you post, I don't know if you even understand what stocks and bonds are.
tjefferson, could you point out to me where in my comments did i ever refer to stocks and bonds in any way??
Sometimes, perhaps most of the time, when justices are appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court something happens to them. They actually make a real effort to fulfill the position as the Constitution requires and that sometimes requires rendering decisions that oppose the views of the President who appointed them. Case-in-point was Chief Justice Earl Warren appointed to the court by President Eisenhower. The Warren Court handed down Topeka vs the Topeka Board of Education decision which forever changed the direction of the nation. Eisenhower was outraged, and said that Warren was the worst appointment he ever made in his life! There are many other cases like that as well. On a much lesser example the justices are a bit like a scrub baseball player who puts on a Yankees uniform. The guy couldn't do squat before, but suddenly, when he dons the pen stripes, something happens. Let's give the Court a chance. Sure, some people are going to be angry when the decision is announced as were the racists and conservatives when the Topeka case was handed down, but my bet for fairness is on the members of the Court. We'll see what they're made of when they tackle this case.
Why is there so much concern here about the "Illegal Legal System". It's all part of the New Democracy.
If the Supreme Court cannot "judge" by the law/constitution and from the bench...instead of playing partisan politics/favoritism...we HAVE no justice system. Might as well live under a Monarchy/Dictatorship/a Junta/ or some other type of supreme ruler.
This is bad s##t folks if our Supreme Court can be swayed/bought/influenced by anyone or anything other than pure legal guidelines.
You've nailed it Beev... Keep in mind this whole Federalist Society thing is partisan & highly ideological
None of them can seem to accept our Constitution is not the Federalist Papers, it made the Federalist Papers null & void the moment it was ratified
This is electioneering drama to fuel the masses... Individual mandates & the Affordable Health Care Act are originally republican ideas in federal government
I think they should all recuse themselves being that they, along with the President and Congress, are exempt from Presidents Obama's Healthcare law. This is an issue for the American voters!
I agree. This is what people should be upset about. If the government thinks everyone should have health insurance than cover those that say they can't afford it and leave the rest alone.