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:
The only legitimate legal grounds for one of the Justices to sit this one out is the fact that Kagan herself left her fingerprints all over the healthcare bill. They have yet to pin anything on Thomas that is in any way a conflict of interest for him. Liberals would not have even brought this up if it wasn't such a slam dunk that Kagan can't weigh in.
kstarr, the analysis in your post is spot-on correct. If it wasn't such a slam-dunk re. Kagan, the liberals wouldn't be so desperate in trying to get Thomas to sit out the Obamacare decision.
Then why did he lie about his wife's earnings from groups who oppose the healthcare law? If your married and your wife happens to work, her income is a part of your income and vice versa. So if he wants his wife to keep getting those super fat paychecks, he had better vote the party line.
That's one left judge with only some input,,,,, vice several conservative judges who's own lawyers & advisers work for the Federalist Society, for profit corporations & the Kock Brothers & Tea Party
lol, you don't think "the liberals" would have asked thomas to recuse himself even if kagan wasn't an issue? you don't understand partisan politics. :)
vermontguy,,, You can't be serious! Everyone knows the record of Justice Thomas
Why is ileagle to mandate health care insurance, and yet they mandate car insurance, the use of seat belts, and air bags (that we pay for through higher car prices) IT JUST SEEMS THEY PICK WHAT TO PROTEST.
Who told you they are Constitutional?
Let's have the Congress and the Senate members recuse themselves from voting whenever these is a conflict of interest. Nope, that won't work, there wouldn't be anybody left to actually vote. Justice is supposed to be blind and decisions based purely on the constitution and the law. If this were true, there wouldn't be any need for a President to stack the deck one way or the other. In fact, every supreme court decision is biased based on the personal belief system of the justices and justice is anything but blind. Feisty would have a justice that doesn't believe as she does, recuse themselves because of personal associations. Where does this end? How do you know which associations would affect the decision? Spouse, close family, relatives, close friends. Like it or not, you have to accept that the justices will have contacts with people on one side of the issue or another and those contacts may have some influence. Personal beliefs are by far the biggest factor in the decision made by justices. If they aren't being asked to recuse themselves for personal beliefs, they shouldn't be asked to recuse themselves for personal associations.
The way I look at it, if they weren't able to separate themselves from personal political issues they shouldn't be there to begin with. The supreme court has to be above petty political bickering, if they aren't they should all be replaced. Either Obama Care is constitutional or it isn't. The fact is it does nothing to address the real problem with health care and that in itself is the problem I have with it. it places requirements on the citizen but does nothing to address the real problem. It blindly addresses a symptom, the fact that most Americans can't afford Health care Insurance. The real problem that needs addressed is the out of control Health Care Industry. I have long been against regulation in most industries but in this case, regulation is exactly what is required, by someone with common sense.
Very well said James. You have "hit the nail on the head". Many people do not see the root of the problem and think this insurance fiasco will fix everything.
It's pretty clear given the email traffic that exists (regarding Kagan's support for Obamacare).
Thomas's bias is not clear -- it was his WIFE that worked to advocate for the Tea Party - not him.
Kagan should abide by the law (and do the honorable) thing and recuse herself -- but then again, when has a liberal done anything honorable these days?
His wife's income benefits him as well. He tried to lie about it and cover it up and say she had no income. So he has skin in the game.
Dear Jesus,
Please protect our right to "Human Care" or Health Care and raise the taxes on the upper crust bastard 1%!
Praise God!!!!
Obama/Biden 2012 "We Got It Straight In 2008!"
I'd also like to add that I can't figure out you republicans. You whine and whine about the 47% of americans who "Don't pay taxes" (except for payroll tax, sales tax, property tax etc.) but the you whine again when people who have been exploting the system by going to ER for care without paying for insurance will now have to pay up if they make any money.
If repubs would have thought about it it would have been a great idea. This isn't an constitutionality dispute...It's a another battle in the partisan war.
Kagan and Sotamire should not be justices. Thomas' record speaks for itself. I'm sure if you checked them all out, excect for the OLD LADY at the right end, (Is she alive?) you would find something BAD about all of them. Just how it is nowadays. Kagan and Sota should not even be there. Has nothing to do with gender. Just bad choices.
AMAZEING is right, they ALL should sit it out. Put it on the ballot in 2012 and let the PEOPLE decide. Make sure no idiot judge decides to overturn it. They will you know. Just how the Demos. are. I'm not Repub. either. Demos are just plain stupid. Repubs. follow a close second.
Concerned AMERICAN, Larry Velasco
What they really should do is let the people themselves vote...So sick of other people making life changing decisions for me when I have absolutely no say. Land of the free???
whoops
Your forgetting Scalia! He needs to be off the bench as well. I'm sick of the corporate court. If Kagan goes than so should the other 2. Thomas has more of a conflict than any of them.
Nowhere in the constitution is the federal government given the power to do this. As nice as healthcareforall would be, the fact that the supreme court justices even have to hear this case is absurd. Go read the constitution some time and there will be no doubt in your mind that obamacare is illegal. Of course so are a whole lot of other things that greatly benefit millions of people. Just because something is right doesn't make it constitutional. That is why there is an amendment process!
This upcoming case is very reminiscent of the fits the Supremes gave FDR in the 1930s when he was devising all those big programs to save the country from the edge of the abyss duuring the Great Depression. Many of his New Deal programs that were later declared unconstitutional were some very useful and successful ones that did indeed save us from ourselves. One must wonder what the Supremes were thinking back then, by being willing to let the country perish over whether or not a vital depression-fighting social program was "constitutional" or not. Basically it was a politically-motivated series of votes against Socialism, which was seeing a renaissance in Europe at the time because of the Depression. Needless to say most Americans sided with FDR at the time and NOT the Supremes. Thats what happens when you install people into lifetime jobs with no oversight and/or power to remove for dereliction of duty to country. One needs to see no further than Bush v Gore to tell that the Supremes derelicted their duty to country and to the Constitution.
Same thing today, the decision will be based upon the Supreme's view of what is "Constitutional" while the country goes down the drain. I see no difference in what they are doing today from what their predecessors did 75 years ago.
This country is supposedly a nation "of the People, for the People, by the People" but is in reality a nation run by, and for, those who are rich and powerful enough to run for and win elected office. That is something the common man has no chance whatsoever at achieving.
Federal Judges should choose among their own who should be chosen for the Supreme Court when an opening appears. At least then there may be some distancing from political agendas. But as it is, for the President to choose an appointment for the Supreme Court will always have the title of Political Party on his initiation. How can a Politicaly chosen Judge ever be non political in his decisions, this goes against all reason.
Who can trust those who are easily purchased!
The MOST INTELLIGENT message sent today in this chat room. Thank you.
You are so correct. WE cannot trust them. Easily purchased, corrupted and swayed. Tough to keep the honest, honest. In their positions they are very easy targets to become all of the above. Too bad that INTEGRITY is just about gone from this country. WE need more good people to do the jobs that are this hard to do. Concerned AMERICAN, Larry Velasco IMPEACH BARRY NOW
Clarance Thomas is a joke. He hates being black so much and having his upper class black ass associated with those low life handout seekers in the ghetto ( his view of them) that he thinks being a conservative makes him one of the Good Ole Conservative White Boys. And he's a PERVERT too boot! EXACT same weird ego syndrome Cain has
David:
Love when you guys resort to name-calling. It clearly signals you're out of facts to support your case.
I know it's difficult to believe that there can be conservative black folks in the country -- but yes, not every black is simply looking for the next government handout (as taught by those liberal freedom-killing democrats) .
Daniel J. YOU ARE WRONG. Barry Soetoro Hussein, The little Muslim PUNK is a FRAUD, Un-American LIAR. A piece of JUNK. Like your JUNK mail, he should be DELETED NOW. Obama, Barry, Little Muslim, Punk, whatever you want to call the LOOSER, is not a good person. He is EVIL without a doubt. PUNK is the perfect description of Barry.
Concerned AMERICAN, Larry Velasco
put this aside for a minute,
why doesn't Obama want to put that pipeline in until 2013 after the election? i hope he isn't doing this to have a birbe option to win. look at all these men and women without work, the pipeline would bring more work than just the pipeline. materials are needed from crushing plants, concrete plants, bars, grocery stores, clothing stores, resturants. what is really wrong with this man? can someone tell me. i believe he is working against the American people. if we do not start this pipeline, canada will sell this oil to china. is this want he want's to lose 700,000 barrels of oil aday. he is an idiot and the people that believed in him at this terrible beginning should be ashamed of yourselves. sorry but this guy really has to go.
Please, USSC, You have screwed around so long waiting on this issue. DON"T render any decision until AFTER the election. WHY! Obama so much NEEDS YOU TO THROW THIS TURKEY of a BILL OUT that its not funny. If the USSC revokes the LAW, Obama gets re-elected, and blames those hartless Conseratives for its removal. Lets LET THE BALLOTS Speak on this LAW. Which, If OHIO and the other thirty states get to drive the Health care message to the ballots. OBAMA IS GONE, As he should be.
You all should read a little history. It is very apparent that once a Supreme Court Justice sits they have surprised those who say that they are biased. There have been many instances where what everyone thinks a conservative or liberal judge would opinion, he/she has opinion-ed the opposite. I think history has proved that they become Supreme Court justices and not patent political pundits. It does however raise a question if a justice will have to rule on a law that they themselves help draft. I think that that would surely require recusement.
Recuse yourself, Kagan. This is a conflict of interest for you and you know it. Are you going to continually lie about it and hear the case or are you going to recuse yourself?
So much for check and balances. We should be ashamed that we are teaching our children that the US gov't has three branches. It's only two, Democrat and Republican.
IF Sandusky holds politically conservative views, THEN obviously its a bunch of crack babies and their gold digging moms who are accusing him
BUSH V GORE....Need I say more about why no one respects any decision the Supremes will ever make in the future?
Only far left libturds still claim that there was anything wrong with their decision. Sore losers.
Ciggy2k:
A very sensible and logical decision by the Supreme Court. I think most sane thinking citizens support that decision.
Care to cite why their decision went against the constitution?
Lol...Im an Independent that votes for both Repubs and Dems depending on who best represents my views....and I STILL think the Supremes decision to even get involved in Florida's election process was not Constitutional, thats all.
...and to add even more to why that decision to get involved when the individual states are all tasked with determining on their own how their electoral votes are to be assigned:
1) Al Gore might possibly have won the election under Florida's election laws.
2) The Bush Tax Cuts that helped bankrupt our nation would never have been passed.
3) TWO unnecessary wars that have helped bankrupt our nation may never have been fought. 9-11 MIGHT have been handled by Gore as a Criminal Act, not as an act of war by stateless people. As a criminal act, worldwide police agencies, including Interpol would have been activated to pursue the criminals.
So, I now fear for the future of my children under this crushing debt we have now and this shambles of an economy that is likely to persist for a decade, similar to Japan's "Lost Decade" of the 1990's. One must wonder if the existing debt was at 2000 levels what the government might have been able to do with additional economic stimulus funds?
1. The SCOTUS got involved because the voters of Florida were disenfranchised by the Florida Supreme Court decision handing the state to Algore based on recounting in ONE COUNTY of Florida alone (none of which showed Gore to be the winner, BTW). The Florida Court's decision was PURELY partisan. It's called Equal Protection, and it's in the 14th Amendment. Check into it.
2. The Bush tax cuts didn't "bankrupt our nation." That's been debunked so many times it's getting beyond absurd that anyone brings it up. Go get an education before you try to talk economics or law. You clearly have no clue.
3. Two unnecessary wars is a fun thing for far leftturds to say, but it doesn't ring true. Un Constitutional spending by Democrats is what bankrupted the nation. Defense spending is Constitutional. Thank God Algore wasn't there to handle 9/11 as a criminal act. It wasn't a criminal act, it was an act of war. Remember, we tried to handle it as a criminal act? The Taliban wouldn't give up bin Laden. Did you conveniently forget this fact, like all the other facts you conveniently forgot? Are you a moron, or just a disingenuous?
Yeah, you're an independent, and the Pope is a showgirl.
There is no compelling reason for Thomas to sit out. However, there is not only compelling reason for Kagan to sit out, she has claimed she would. She needs to follow through, or be impeached.