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:
Guess we'll see the integrity of Kagan on this one... lol. She claimed to have all that integrity at her confirmation hearings. Let's see if all that hot air means anything. NO SOUP FOR HER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Mav,,, Conservatives have been trying to claim that back to when she was 1st selected..
The real ones with lack of integrity is proved to be Thomas beyond a doubt, Roberts & Scalia
As far as that goes every federal judge who said that the corporations are now We the People should be disbarred
aren't judges suppose to fair and impartial, or is it that justice also can be bought for a price or a political favor, maybe instead of smoking pot in tents occupy protesters should have stormed the castle.
Yeah, they could have used the head of the teachers union for advice, she really would have showed them what smoking pot was all about -- right?
Now you know why the education system is a debacle of epic democrat proportions.
she's a bonger babe
..
Kagan has a clear conflict of interest, Thomas does not.
Note to Future Presidents: This is why you don't stack the court. You're supposed to appoint judges whose only concern is the law and the public good, not someone who will favor your side. Both parties guilty. Good freakin luck now that your chickens have come home to roost.This should be a suit in itself or at least a guaranteed appeal. So it's all meaningless. Just more election year B.S.
Uh, Kagen sit this one out as per your confimation hearings and by virtue of the fact you had a hand in writing the current law up for debate -- albeit as stupid as your opinion was.
Thomas, not a chance, he's the judge not his wife. Not even close to the same thing.
The democratic party are a bunch of maroons. Always trying to subvert laws/justice. What a joke, all you liberal women, bill has a cigar for ya...
Maroon is a dark purplish red. And I'm trying hard not to point out who the real "maroon" is. And your cigar comment is offensive and uncalled for.
Thomas asks no questions, votes for those who got him his job. Not a joke. Sad for USA.
Kagan should recuse herself because she has DIRECTLY worked in support with the Health Care law. Thomas's wife's activities is not reason enough for him to recuse himself. If we used that as a template than members of congress should be excluded from voting on legislation based on their spouses activites. Many have wives that are lobbyists for example.
I know it sound one sided on my part but these two do not have identical circumstances and the left is being hypocritical to ask Thomas to step aside knowing what they know about the spouses of congress.
If there were a ruling concerning say a company that cans peaches. Should Thomas recuse himself because his wife cans peaches or should Kagan step aside because she represented the company at one point in her career ? That's about the crux of it.
It is true that Kagan's personal involvement trumps that of a spouse, but the type of conflict of interest is also different. Kagan would not have as direct a personal gain as Thomas's wife. I'm not sure where the balance comse out. Personally, I think our judges are our judges and they should all be judging.
No, you don't sound one-sided at all. The left wing is attempting to portray an equivalency that does not exist. The fact that you aren't buying it only means that you are capable of independent analysis.
Well Thank You !
You forget, perhaps intentionally, that Justice Thomas's financial statement for the last umpteen years were found false, then he had to amend them after the truth was found by "liberal" investigations. It was Justice Thomas who signed the statement that his wife had no income from those groups that oppose the HealthCare Bill.
It was his action that made the red flag go up, in liberal views.
Ed McT, name any scandal on the USSC such as this by Democrat appointees! Both sides are NOT guilty!
Don't trust anyone wearing a black robe!!!
or white robe.lol
let them all be included as it is suppose to be and then we will see which ones are kissing his ass.
I predict that when/if the nation ever gets Obama care that it will be the poor that end up with less than what they have now.
if these people joined obama to sign this healthcare law, then these people should have known that it is illegal to make someone to buy something they don't want. this should have been thrown out 2 years ago, look at the money this government wasted to get this done. the people didn't want it, wasn't this enough. obama want's to be the man. what is happening, it's all going to bite him in the butt before his term is over. solyndra is going to go down as his fault also, and any other green energy someone walked away with millions.
There's more riding on this than healthcare. If they can force you to buy this, what else can they? You'll hear from a lot of lefties that it stops at this, don't believe it, if there's one thing we know about in case law it's precedent. They get this, you'll be buying tomatoes from their favorite corporate farmer next under the auspices of "good health."
sounds just like advertisers, hey if they buy this we can sell them that.
To suppose something will not make it real, you have to work at it.
The fundamental difference with requiring auto insurance is if you drive a car, you must have auto. Under Obamcare, healthcare insurance is required if you use it or not......that's why many critics claim it to be unconstitutional. Can't compare the two.
When would you never use health care or health insurance?
people wanted change, so let them have change. i pray he destroys this country so people here can see what it is to have nothing
Lets force everyone to eat their vege's and NO dessert!! Up yours Odumba!! Vote against this unconstitutional piece of legislative TRASH!!
Thomas ... this moron is special, eh?
Hard to respect "the highest court in the land" when they put terms like "Justice" in front of a clown like Clarence.
Otherwise, the Supreme Court isn't "supreme" at all ... they're merely and extension of a political ideology - in it's current make-up - a 5-4 conservative ideology.
Put your politics aside for a minute.
Why would any American want the government to be able to require you buy something?
If you think it is OK for the FEDERAL government to order you buy health insurance - you think they should also be able to require you - buy a car, a gun, health club membership?
Where do we draw the line? Error on the side if individual freedom.
I'm ordered to buy Social Security & Medicare every time I get paid. My state requires me to buy auto insurance and get my children vaccinated.
Sharky, your SS is in a "lockbox," don't worry.
Thanks Bill. I also heard today that Michelle's push for "healthy" lunches at school is in danger of being shot down. Go Congress. Get the Federal GovCo out of our menus.
Actually you are not buying SS or medicare - you are paying a tax that funds a welfare program.
The fact that some people think they are buying SS or medicare just proves how dumb people are.
Talk to the Hand
I assume you are being sarcastic -
Setting a standard for school lunch food - VS requiring a person to purchase something from a private company are not the same thing.
So you would be OK if the federal government passed a law that said - you must but fresh fruit every week from Walmart, Kroger or HEB?
All I am saying is we shouldn't want the government inserting itself into our personal lives to this extent.
No Bill, what I was saying is telling us what to eat, while not quite as bad as requiring healthcare as we still have a choice without penalty to eat what we want, is another example of Government intruding into our personal choices. They need to stay out.
Talk to the Hand
OK - sometimes hard to tell - so many liberal people on these threads - they think the government should control everything.
Any justice who upholds this law should be tarred, feathered, and exiled to Antarctica. They should be joined by all Congressmen who voted for it. There they can spend long years re-learning the meaning of humility and liberty.
If they can make you buy health insurance, they can make you buy disability, life, long term care, and home insurance as long as they feel it's important enough to some governmental goal. They could make you buy an American car. They could make it illegal to pick your nose, because that spreads germs and makes you sick, affecting workplace absenteism and thereby interstate commerce. There's no end to it.
Bob.... c'mon.... among legal and constitutional scholars. the HAC is completely constitutional. It's just that the Repubs have no compunctions about lying! They have no compunction about spending. They have no compunction about transferring more and more away from the rich!
BTW , Romneycare has the same mandate. Conservatives havent even challenged it. In fact, GOP leaders and the Heritage Foundation enthusiastically supported the mandates saying it was the ONLY way it would work!! Now, please dont go into the state vs federal governmetn BS. NO STATE can pass any law that violates the US Constitution! If Romneycare doest violate the US Constitution, how can the HAC law.
OH YEAH!!! GOP Leaders Backed a Healthcare Mandate -- http://www.newsmax.com/RonaldKessler/Healthcaremandate-HeritageFoundation-Gingrich-Nixon/2011/06/08/id/399250
ooopsssss!!
Thomas and Scalioto (Scalia and Alioto) are joined at the hip when it comes to trying to destroy the Consitution. Their rulings are an assault against the common person and a big win for their buddies, the Kochs, big business, the rich, etc... Thomas' wife in an in-bred teabagger whose welll known cause is to get rid of the Health care act and Thomas has joined her in that cause. It wouldn't be too surprising if he and Scalioto (Scalia and Alioto) have already written their 'unbiased' opinions against the act.
Feisty Redhead: Ever hear the saying if you had any brains you'd be dangerous, from what I read of your posts your not dangerous!!!!
Frankly, I don't believe any conservative groups are pressureing, suggesting, asking, pleading any of the Supreme Court judges not to hear the obamacare case!!! I could believe liberal groups doing this, using any means of persuation their lack of integrity allows. With liberals the truth means nothing, tell any lie, say an slander, blackmail. whatever, because with liberals the end of a matter justifies the means to achieve it. Don't believe me, look at the slanderous things in print about Condi Rice, Sarah Palin and family, George Bush, Ronald Reagan then and now, Herman Cain, Marco Rubio, Michelle Bachmann, and any conservative candidate especially female, black or hispanic.
It's not just about healthcare, if they can extend the commerce clause to this, they can basically tell you to buy whatever they want you to buy.
This is about part one of control, if it's not, why wasn't it simply a TAX to begin with? And all you lefties, don't hand in the campaign promise crap, they knew what they were doing.
And about Condi, that was the most despicable stuff I ever saw, and all by the left smear artists. Nice woman, black, well educated, and articulate -- the lefts worst nightmare.
But watch them flock to that pig head of the teachers union, compare the two, who is a better representative of the black women? According to the left, the pig (description accurate, I saw the speech)
So it seems that the Judges can no longer be trusted by anyone. It's time to put a national issue to a national vote, and put it on the ballot in the next election.
NOW I see why they were pushing so hard for the SC to hear this case, they were ready to pull this particular bullet out to weigh things on their side.
Thomas should rescues himself because of his wife's work with Tea Party groups in opposition to the law. So let me get this right HIS WIFE, NOT HIM. HMM that is BS.
If that is the case and I was a judge and due to my wife is a left leaning LIB and since she supports this BS Law then, I would have to excuses myself due to my wife involvement with the LEFT. Sorry that is BS.
Sorry unless he was apart of it then YES, if not **** no. Sorry a Wife don't ****ing count for being involved with a group.
You aren't the judge Letherneck,,, Any kind of activism on this issue they should recuse themselves, no matter what party.
On Thomas he is his wife,, He's already said that he believes in what she's doing! --- Personal political agendas & ideologies have to be kept out of this for it to be a fair constitutional argument.
Also keep in mind that our US Constitution made the Federalist Papers invalid
Wow jim Reading Comprehension killing you. If that is the case and I was a judge.=NOT SAYING I AM A JUDGE< I'm saying IF I WAS A JUDGE. Is that better can you now understand the comment.