• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should Kagan recuse herself from the BOCare case?

Should Kagan recuse herself

  • yes

    Votes: 17 70.8%

  • no

    Votes: 7 29.2%
  • Total voters
    24
  • Poll closed .
C

conservativeguy

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 26, 2011
Messages
1,172
Reaction score
405
Location
ATL
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Given her involvement in the administration that signed the law under review and her delight with its passage as Solicitor General, should she step aside and not be involved in this SCOTUS review of the BOCare challenges?
 
Yes of course she should...
 
Kagan should never have been put into the court, anyway - her involvement with many other cases in the past should have been an immediate tip-off to future problems.
 
conservativeguy said:
Given her involvement in the administration that signed the law under review and her delight with its passage as Solicitor General, should she step aside and not be involved in this SCOTUS review of the BOCare challenges?
Click to expand...

No. No direct conflict of interest.

"I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."
Click to expand...
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Kagan should never have been put into the court, anyway - her involvement with many other cases in the past should have been an immediate tip-off to future problems.
Click to expand...

Thomas should not have been put in because of his treatment of women.
 
MaggieD said:
No. No direct conflict of interest.
Click to expand...

Would your answer change if you knew about the code of conduct the judges are supposed to follow?


According to 28 USC 455, a Supreme Court justice must recuse from “any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” The law also says a justice must recuse anytime he has “expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy” while he “served in governmental employment.”
Click to expand...


and this ...

On Sunday, March 21, 2010, the day the House of Representatives passed President Barack Obama’s Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, then-Solicitor General Elena Kagan and famed Supreme Court litigator and Harvard Law Prof. Laurence Tribe, who was then serving in the Justice Department, had an email exchange in which they discussed the pending health-care vote, according to documents the Department of Justice released late Wednesday to the Media Research Center, CNSNews.com's parent organization, and to Judicial Watch.

“I hear they have the votes, Larry!! Simply amazing,” Kagan said to Tribe in one of the emails.
Click to expand...
 
99percenter said:
Thomas should not have been put in because of his treatment of women.
Click to expand...

I'm sure we could find reasons why every judge shouldn't be in if we cared to - TREATMENT of others isn't the same as CAREER related issues. It's not her lean or views - it's her past job experience that's in question.
 
99percenter said:
Thomas should not have been put in because of his treatment of women.
Click to expand...

And Obama should not have been president because he was born in Kenya. :roll:
 
1Perry said:
And Obama should not have been president because he was born in Kenya. :roll:
Click to expand...

He wasn't born in kenya but even if he was he would still be allowed to be president. He was NATURAL born citizen because of his mom. Just like george romney and john mccain were allowed to run even though they were not born in america.
 
If Kagan does, then Thomas should. Or if Thomas does, then Kagan should. Both have interests in the case, but as it stands now, their votes cancel themselves out.
 
soccerboy22 said:
If Kagan does, then Thomas should. Or if Thomas does, then Kagan should. Both have interests in the case, but as it stands now, their votes cancel themselves out.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. One of them might actually be able to remain impartial while the other is not capable of doing so. If that is the case. Because of that, and the fact the impartiality of both of them in this case can quite reasonably be questioned, they should recuse themselves.

The key here is that for both of them, the questioning of their impartiality in this case is not unreasonable in any way, shape, or form.
 
because with her the vote may be 5-4 in favor of it?
 
Clarence Thomas worked under the Obama Administration and had a hand in crafting support for Obama Care?
 
I am kind of torn, especially on the Clarence Thomas issue. What does it matter what his wife thinks? And quite frankly, believe it or not, they are all human so they all have their biases about these cases. Being a good judge is about putting those biases aside and coming to the right conclusion. So, in my opinion, both of them should be able to preside over this ruling.
 
Last edited:
whysoserious said:
I am kind of torn, especially on the Clarence Thomas issue. What does it matter what his wife thinks. And quite frankly, believe it or not, they are all human so they all have their biases about these cases. Being a good judge is about putting those biases aside and coming to the right conclusion. So, in my opinion, both of them should be able to preside over this ruling.
Click to expand...

Ah - it's his WIFE that's in question . . .see - I didn't even get that because I guess I don't think what someone's SPOUSE does should matter too much. Being married doesn't mean you've thrown your own brain out.
 
Tucker Case said:
Not necessarily. One of them might actually be able to remain impartial while the other is not capable of doing so. If that is the case. Because of that, and the fact the impartiality of both of them in this case can quite reasonably be questioned, they should recuse themselves.

The key here is that for both of them, the questioning of their impartiality in this case is not unreasonable in any way, shape, or form.
Click to expand...

True, however, what I said is under the assumption that we know that Kagan would vote for and Thomas against, which is why I said they would cancel themselves out. This is such a big case, and given that we can reasonable question both, I agree with you that they both should. But I am also being realistic, and don't think either will, which is why I said if one does, the other should as well.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Ah - it's his WIFE that's in question . . .see - I didn't even get that because I guess I don't think what someone's SPOUSE does should matter too much. Being married doesn't mean you've thrown your own brain out.
Click to expand...

Due to their marriage, if she benefits economically, so does he. Someone's spouse certainly does matter.
 
soccerboy22 said:
True, however, what I said is under the assumption that we know that Kagan would vote for and Thomas against, which is why I said they would cancel themselves out. This is such a big case, and given that we can reasonable question both, I agree with you that they both should. But I am also being realistic, and don't think either will, which is why I said if one does, the other should as well.
Click to expand...

What they actually will do has no bearing on the ethical question, though.

And the fact that we already know how these judges will vote shows that their supposed impartiality is just a mythical thing that people like to pretend is real... like canada.
 
Theoretically, the role of the Supreme Court should transcend politics. Someone selected for the role of a member of the SCOTUS should be trusted with any case. Theoretically.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom