Seeing as Justice Kagan was Obama's solicitor general should she recuse herself from the case that's in front of the SCOTUS?



"As solicitor general of the United States, Kagan headed up an office that formulated the Obama administration’s legal defense of the legislation."
She is obliged under Section 455(b)(3) of Title 28 of the U.S. Code to recuse herself from cases where a justice has “served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser, or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case or controversy.”

Is there a law that says she should?

Didn't the Chief Justice say she didn't need to?

28 U.S.C. § 455 : US Code - Section 455: Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge
Search 28 U.S.C. § 455 : US Code - Section 455: Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge

Search by Keyword or Citation

(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States
shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his
impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
(b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following
circumstances:
(1) Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a
party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts
concerning the proceeding;
(2) Where in private practice he served as lawyer in the matter
in controversy, or a lawyer with whom he previously practiced law
served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter,
or the judge or such lawyer has been a material witness
concerning it;
(3) Where he has served in governmental employment and in such
capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness
concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the
merits of the particular case in controversy;

I don't she how she can give an unbiased opinion on the case when she worked on the defense of it under the Obama administration.

Supreme Court Denies Freedom Watch Request to Speak at Oral Argument

(January 23, 2012). Today, Larry Klayman, the founder of Freedom Watch and before that Judicial Watch, and a former candidate for the U.S. Senate in 2004 in Florida, issued the following statement with regard to the Supreme Court's ruling that he could not participate in oral argument in the Obamacare case:

"The Supreme Court's ruling today did not 'rule' on the requested recusal or disqualification of Justice Elena Kagan. Freedom Watch's amicus curiae brief remains squarely in front of the court. Instead the Supreme Court denied my request to participate in oral argument. Apparently, the Supreme Court thinks it will be embarrassed if it, in effect, allows the American people to speak and wants to quietly sweep the issue of its own ethics and respect for the law under the table.

"In Freedom Watch's amicus brief, I stressed that the Supreme Court must adhere to the rules of ethics that apply to other federal judges, contrary to the position taken by Chief Justice Roberts, who stated in his annual report, speaking for all of the justices, that they are not so bound and will not sit in judgment of themselves. In effect, Roberts declared that all of the justices are above the law.

"This attitude is a formula for revolution, I wrote, because if the judicial system acts as if it is nobility and is not accountable to 'We the People,' then we are living in a time more akin to 1776 than today's world. This is why the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street movements have sprung up. The people are simply fed up that their grievances are not being heard.

"Thus, while Freedom Watch's request, in writing, to have Justice Kagan recuse herself or be disqualified by the other justices remains pending, the Supreme Court's decision today to exclude me from oral argument is predictable, but very troubling. Apparently, the justices are circling the wagons and walling themselves off not just from the rule of law, but the rest of the country. They are like the three monkeys, 'See No Evil, Hear No Evil, and Do No Evil,' multiplied by three. They are in denial and neither want to publicly face the law or reality.

"The justices work for us, and the Supreme Court is the people's court, not the justices' court. Accordingly, I hope that they will sober up and do the right thing and disqualify Justice Kagan from sitting on the Obamacare case, as she has a textbook conflict of interest given her involvement in the drafting of, and supporting, the legislation, while she was an official of the Obama administration at the Department of Justice."

Freedom Watch's amicus brief can be found at www.freedomwatchusa.org.

got that right!
Be the right thing to do!


She was involved with writing that Travesty!
Now she get's to vote on it!

Doesn't Thomas' wife lobby for health care? Doesn't that mean he has a financial stake in this? Does that mean he should recuse himself?

yes, he should be fired...

heh. I still wonder how he ever ended up as a Supreme Court Justice.

they needed a minority...

Wouldn't it be interesting if Kagan was the only dissenting vote?

What's wrong with Justice Thomas?

Not according to you.
Start a thread about him.
Justice Kagan personally worked on the defense of this bill when she worked in the Obama administration.

I understand that she actually helped write the bill.

I already know my own thoughts on the subject, so I wasn't asking you to tell me what I thought.

What's good about him?

Play nice I never said any thing about telling you what you think.

The OP had nothing to do with Justice Thomas.
And With your response "Is there a law that says she should?

Didn't the Chief Justice say she didn't need to?"

one would conclude you think she shouldn't.

If that's not how you think then feel free to let us know.

I didn't say you were telling me how to think. I was asking you, not myself.

No law but codes.
And it isn't Justice Roberts place to tell her if she needs to recuse herself. She worked on the defense for the bill so would that not be a conflict of interest?

Well...lots.

He has a lot of libertarian ideals and favors small government. He came from nothing and made it to the Supreme Court. Before that, he was one of the most respected lawyers in the country. He has a strong work history, a strong work ethic. So what is wrong with him?