• 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 .
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.

I actually had a comeback about like "the Chicago Bears having an oline myth?", but they have actually been playing well, so I can't. Then I was going to take a self jab at the Pats D, but they showed up so I can't. So, round goes to you Mr. Case and your Canada joke.
 
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.
That depends. I know a few guys that not only tossed out their brains, they also discarded any behavior that suggested they were once males. :mrgreen:
 
Due to their marriage, if she benefits economically, so does he. Someone's spouse certainly does matter.

Now it's a question of their marital finances?

I'm stay at home mom - that doesn't mean that I have to support or DO (even) support all pro-military measures that send him off to war for the sake of a bigger paycheck.

I can think and function independently of my spouse - if Clarence Thomas holds a view it might be just that he holds that view regardless of what SHE does in her life. You shouldn't chastise or punish people for who they're married to.
 
I actually had a comeback about like "the Chicago Bears having an oline myth?", but they have actually been playing well, so I can't. Then I was going to take a self jab at the Pats D, but they showed up so I can't. So, round goes to you Mr. Case and your Canada joke.
Hey im a bears fans.
 
Do you realize the moron heading up that bogus demand was the infamous Representative Anthony Weiner? Try to pick a better spokesperson when discussing things like morality and ethics. :lamo

What does that have anything to do with the issue at hand? Doesn't matter who headed because it had merit. The issue was about kagan or thomas having to recuse themselves.
 
Now it's a question of their marital finances?

It's always been about personal gain and impartiality.



I'm stay at home mom - that doesn't mean that I have to support or DO (even) support all pro-military measures that send him off to war for the sake of a bigger paycheck.

Whether or not you are a stay at home mom is 100% irrelevant to the issue. How much a person concurs politically with their spouse is also 100% irrelevant to the issue.

What is relevant to the issue is whether or not is is reasonable to question the impartiality of someone who stands to receive or has already received personal financial gain, whether directly or vicariously through a spouse, based on an issue.

I can think and function independently of my spouse - if Clarence Thomas holds a view it might be just that he holds that view regardless of what SHE does in her life. You shouldn't chastise or punish people for who they're married to.

Expecting him to act ethically in this situation is not a chastisement or punishment by any stretch of the imagination.
 
Thomas should not have been put in because of his treatment of women.

What does that have anything to do with the issue at hand? Doesn't matter who headed because it had merit. The issue was about kagan or thomas having to recuse themselves.

:lamo You can't make this stuff up. :lamo
 
Due to their marriage, if she benefits economically, so does he. Someone's spouse certainly does matter.
Here's the catch. Thomas is a constructionist who has demonstrated an ability to render decisions based on historical constitutional interpretations, Kagen is a largely untested judge who has written in support of the case she is hearing, thus she is more suspect than Thomas. I think she should recuse and I don't think Thomas would be swayed.
 
Here's the catch. Thomas is a constructionist who has demonstrated an ability to render decisions based on historical constitutional interpretations, Kagen is a largely untested judge who has written in support of the case she is hearing, thus she is more suspect than Thomas. I think she should recuse and I don't think Thomas would be swayed.

We don't ask judges to recuse themselves because of personal opinions about their interpretive habits, at least not at the Supreme Court. We ask them based on their association with incriminating circumstances.
 
Last edited:
We don't ask judges to recuse themselves because of personal opinions about their interpretive habits, at least not at the Supreme Court. We ask them based on their association with incriminating circumstances.
Only when there is a question. I don't think there is a question of sway from Thomas but there is a HUGE red flag around Kagen.
 
Here's the catch. Thomas is a constructionist who has demonstrated an ability to render decisions based on historical constitutional interpretations, Kagen is a largely untested judge who has written in support of the case she is hearing, thus she is more suspect than Thomas. I think she should recuse and I don't think Thomas would be swayed.

What an individual thinks is of no import to the issue, though.

It is a fact that the questions about Thomas' impartiality in this case are reasonable based on the fact that he has personally profited (vicariously through his spouse) from direct opposition to the law in this particular case. Frankly, they are even more reasonable than the questions about Kagen's impartiality.

At the same time, Kagen's previous role in the administration also makes the questions about her impartiality in this case reasonable.

But look at the reasoning you have given for questioning Kagen's impartiality: "Kagen is a largely untested judge who has written in support of the case she is hearing, thus she is more suspect than Thomas."

From what I can tell, the only thing she wrote in "support" of the law was "I hear they have the votes, Larry!! Simply amazing". This is not exactly writing in support of the case. It is actually a description of fact followed by her opinion that this fact was amazing.

That's borderline, but I think it qualifies as reasonable questioning of her impartiality in this case.

The fact that you talk about how she is untested, however, is an utterly unreasonable questioning of her impartiality.

The fact that you are comparing their style of making constitutional interpretations in determining how impartiality they will be is also unreasonable.

Personal agreement or disagreement with their decisions and decision-making process has no bearing on whether or not they will make those decisions or engage in that process impartially.


I'm looking at this particular debate impartially myself. Personally, I lean towards Thomas' style of constitutional interpretation more than what I am assuming Kagen's style would be (Even though I think he is often inconsistent in his interpretations, often along partisan lines, he is still the judge most in favor of dual federalism.) But the fact remains the questions abou this impartiality in this case are reasonable. As are the questions about Kagen's impartiality.

If, as was posted earlier, "a Supreme Court justice must recuse from “any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” " then both should recuse themselves from the case.
 
Only when there is a question. I don't think there is a question of sway from Thomas but there is a HUGE red flag around Kagen.

I don't think you are looking at this impartially, to be honest. There's a huge red flag around Thomas in this case. There's a smaller red flag around Kagen.
 
It's always been about personal gain and impartiality.





Whether or not you are a stay at home mom is 100% irrelevant to the issue. How much a person concurs politically with their spouse is also 100% irrelevant to the issue.

What is relevant to the issue is whether or not is is reasonable to question the impartiality of someone who stands to receive or has already received personal financial gain, whether directly or vicariously through a spouse, based on an issue.



Expecting him to act ethically in this situation is not a chastisement or punishment by any stretch of the imagination.
why don't you show me how Thomas stands to gain financially from his ruling on BOCare. Be specific since saying something lame like "his wife has a job that pays her money" isn't going to cut it. So how will she and he gain based on a no vote or a yes vote? Let me give you a tip........she will have more opportunities to make some serious lobbying money if Clarence votes to uphold the POS law.
 
What does that have anything to do with the issue at hand? Doesn't matter who headed because it had merit. The issue was about kagan or thomas having to recuse themselves.
My comment is very relevant. The dimwit questioning Thomas' ethics is the same guy that spent his days in congress sending pictures of his wiener to women that aren't his wife. That is like Jeffrey Dahmer lecturing people on their eating habits.
 
why don't you show me how Thomas stands to gain financially from his ruling on BOCare. Be specific since saying something lame like "his wife has a job that pays her money" isn't going to cut it. So how will she and he gain based on a no vote or a yes vote? Let me give you a tip........she will have more opportunities to make some serious lobbying money if Clarence votes to uphold the POS law.

Did you miss the "Or has already received"?
 
Did you miss the "Or has already received"?
I saw it and started laughing. So now you think Thomas should recuse himself based on the work his wife once did for a firm that opposed the legislation. I think that strawman is so silly it doesn't deserve a reply.
 
What an individual thinks is of no import to the issue, though.

It is a fact that the questions about Thomas' impartiality in this case are reasonable based on the fact that he has personally profited (vicariously through his spouse) from direct opposition to the law in this particular case. Frankly, they are even more reasonable than the questions about Kagen's impartiality.

At the same time, Kagen's previous role in the administration also makes the questions about her impartiality in this case reasonable.

But look at the reasoning you have given for questioning Kagen's impartiality: "Kagen is a largely untested judge who has written in support of the case she is hearing, thus she is more suspect than Thomas."

From what I can tell, the only thing she wrote in "support" of the law was "I hear they have the votes, Larry!! Simply amazing". This is not exactly writing in support of the case. It is actually a description of fact followed by her opinion that this fact was amazing.
To the first point. Anyone who has a pension has a vested interest in the health market, including insurance, bio-chems, pharma, and manufacture. This being said this could sway any of them either way in this case, they can't all recuse themselves and hear the case. To the second point, Kagen's words can be interpreted as being for the bill, and any questions that would raise tend to lead to asking whether she will hear the arguments or have her opinion already formed. I understand you are following the money, in my opinion Thomas will follow the law first, I don't know that Kagen is of the same judicial temperment.

That's borderline, but I think it qualifies as reasonable questioning of her impartiality in this case.

The fact that you talk about how she is untested, however, is an utterly unreasonable questioning of her impartiality.

The fact that you are comparing their style of making constitutional interpretations in determining how impartiality they will be is also unreasonable.
Normally I would agree with you, in this particular case however she has rendered a statement that could show a bias and conflict. Justice Thomas to my knowledge has not rendered any statements yet. If you have some I'll take a look.
Personal agreement or disagreement with their decisions and decision-making process has no bearing on whether or not they will make those decisions or engage in that process impartially.
I do agree here, which is why I don't think Ginsberg, Sotomayor, Kennedy, etc. should recuse. Unless of course they have said something suspect as well.

I'm looking at this particular debate impartially myself. Personally, I lean towards Thomas' style of constitutional interpretation more than what I am assuming Kagen's style would be (Even though I think he is often inconsistent in his interpretations, often along partisan lines, he is still the judge most in favor of dual federalism.) But the fact remains the questions abou this impartiality in this case are reasonable. As are the questions about Kagen's impartiality.
Because of the realities that anyone invested in the market in some way has ties to the health sector I disagree. However with Kagen's seemingly solid statement I feel the case for her recusal is stronger.
If, as was posted earlier, "a Supreme Court justice must recuse from “any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” " then both should recuse themselves from the case.
Well, it may actually be a moot point since Kagen doesn't look like she'll recuse, and I'm sure Thomas won't leave the court lopsided on this one with her sitting on the decision.
 
I don't think you are looking at this impartially, to be honest. There's a huge red flag around Thomas in this case. There's a smaller red flag around Kagen.
Don't get me wrong, if any justice had made a biased statement in any way on this issue I'd be on the recusal side. I think Kagen is tainted more than Thomas and I am being open on this.
 
LA, I don't know if you know this, but a friend sent this to me on Facebook Scalia and Thomas dine with healthcare law challengers as court takes case - latimes.com . I am not saying that Scalia should recuse himself, but this plus his wife, doesn't help Thomas in that maybe he should also recuse himself.
I heard about the Scalia thing, didn't know Thomas was also there. I dunno, I'd be willing to concede that Thomas should only recuse himself at this point if Kagen does as well. What the whole thing boils down to is all sides are trying to make the court lopsided. I don't really think anyone should recuse from this as the issue is so important I think it requires a full court.

EDIT- I also think lobbyist need to leave the court alone, we have enough bad decisions by the SCOTUS historically without outside influence.
 
Last edited:
Both have some ties to this. Both sets of ties are debatable. My personal hope is both or neither (preferably both). However, these are SCOTUS judges. I'm willing to let them make the call.
 
I heard about the Scalia thing, didn't know Thomas was also there. I dunno, I'd be willing to concede that Thomas should only recuse himself at this point if Kagen does as well. What the whole thing boils down to is all sides are trying to make the court lopsided. I don't really think anyone should recuse from this as the issue is so important I think it requires a full court.

See this is my thinking as well. I believe both Kagan and Thomas have reason to recuse themselves, but will not for the obvious reason in lopsiding the court. I also think that if one were to go, the other should as well; however it doesn't matter because it looks like either will.
 
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?

If she does, so should Thomas.
 
Back
Top Bottom