To Recuse or not to Recuse?

To Recuse or not to Recuse

At long last, the Supreme Court of the United States has officially announced that it will review the constitutionality of President Barack Hussein signature legislation, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare.

More specifically, SCOTUS will decide the merits of a lawsuit brought by 26 states and the National Federation of Independent Business that contends Congress exceeded its power by imposing an annual penalty of $95 or 1% of gross income, whichever is greater, on individuals who do not secure insurance by 2014. The penalty is scheduled to rise to $695, or 2.5%, by 2016 with a family limit of $2,085.

The limit was indeed benevolent of Democrats who rammed the PPACA through Congress with no assistance from Republicans and now it would be fair of them to insist that Obama’s Justice Elena Kagan recuse herself from the case.

Rare on the SCOTUS level, recusals refer to situations in which a judge or prosecutor is removed or voluntarily steps down from a legal case, most often when the judge or prosecutor has a conflict of interest.

Justice Kagan clearly has a major conflict of interest in determining the constitutionality of the PPACA and should recuse herself from deliberations and a decision on the matter, or be forcibly removed from the bench and be seated in the court along with other known proponents of Obamacare.

Those scenarios, however, are as likely as Democrats admitting that seizure by the federal government of Americans’ health care and one-sixth of the national economy was a screwball, socialistic idea in the first place.

Kagan’s job prior to being confirmed to the Supreme Court was service as Obama’s Solicitor General in which position she was charged with representing the Executive Branch in cases before the U.S. Supreme Court and acting as the chief courtroom lawyer for the government, preparing legal briefs and making oral arguments in that court.

At Kagan’s 2010 confirmation hearings, she dodged key questions and swore she played no part in crafting government responses to anticipated lawsuits contesting the legality of the newly-passed Obamacare legislation, swearing under oath that she merely ”attended a meeting where the cases were discussed, but that she wasn’t involved in the government’s filings.” (http://tiny.cc/p2njk)

If you believe that whopper, the Brooklyn Bridge is unavailable but I can make you a very good deal on the Queensboro.

In a just-released email exchange between the Solicitor General and Justice Department attorney Lawrence Tribe, they discussed the pending legislation and in one Elena exclaimed, “I hear they have the votes, Larry!! Simply amazing.”

What’s even more amazing is that Solicitor General Kagan was able to dissociate herself . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5968.)