January 23, 2012

“Supreme Court says no to debate over Elena Kagan health care role”

Elitism at its most pretentious and odious, frankly, because the unspoken acknowledgment here is that SCOTUS Justices are capable of self-determining if they should or should not offer recusal based on conflicts of interest. Their ethical senses being so finely honed and all, and their integrity beyond reproach, now that the Senate has confirmed them (and even if they lied to achieve confirmation).

It would be gauche to point out to Kagan the error of her ways, you see. Either she admits it to herself or she’ll just have to live with the shame of being a political hack who lacks the kind of sparkling integrity her colleagues exhibit.

That we’ll all have to live with her willingness to live with that shame? Well, sucks to be one of the masses, I guess.

(h/t JHo)

Posted by Jeff G. @ 2:58pm

Comments (17)

  1. All we can hope for is, voting down Obamacare is the wise Latina thing to do.

    You know, to avoid the shame

  2. Opponents of the law argue Kagan should not participate because she was solicitor general during the passage of the law.

    The law’s supporters want Thomas off the case because his wife is actively trying to repeal the law.

    Could Politico be any more of a hack outfit? No mention of Kagan’s work on the case? And Ginni Thomas is doing what?

  3. The other unspoken acknowledgement is that once a Justice recuses herself, there will be no stopping the howls for recusal in every subsequent case. Hell, just look at the equivalence they’re already pushing regarding Thomas’ wife’s advocacy work.

  4. It is not just a matter of elitism. http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/chief-justice-roberts-defends-kagan-thomas-recusal-decisions-on-health-care-lawsuit/ The only way we have of dealing with it is to impeach her. With Barack Obama the only way we have to get rid of him is impeachment or not re-elect him.

    Off topic but check out this on Larry Summers’ memo to Barack Obama: http://evilbloggerlady.blogspot.com/2012/01/11-stunning-revelations-from-larry.html

  5. I agree with the Supreme Court deciding that they have no interest in hearing special pleadings from interested parties on which members of the court should recuse themselves and why on any given case before the court. I can agree that Justice Kagan should recuse herself without having the court set a precedence which will make the politicization of the court complete.

    Perhaps this would lead us to a better nomination process in the future, but I doubt it.

  6. Sorry, meant precedent rather than precedence.

  7. Kagan is wrong for not recusing herself. Of course the argument about Thomas is complete bullshit and cover for her. But John Roberts can’t as Chief Justice call her wrong on a recusal decision. Only she gets to make that call. That is what Roberts is saying. It is up to us to take action (and the only constitutional option is to impeach her).

    Let’s hope her presence helps Tony Kennedy grow a back bone.

  8. Either she admits it to herself or she’ll just have to live with the shame of being a political hack who lacks the kind of sparkling integrity her colleagues exhibit.

    I hope that was a joke.

  9. So how do we start the impeachment process? Is there something in the SquidCo catalog that covers it?

  10. Philosopher Kings/Queens can police themselves.
    Yep, finished “Ameritopia” this weekend.

  11. A SCOTUS justice can be removed but it requires both the House and Senate. I think the House votes to impeach and then there is a trial in the Senate. I do not believe it has ever been successful for a Supreme Court Justice. The chances of getting Kagan tossed for not recusing herself on the Obamacare case are pretty slim to none. But it does show why elections matter because POTUS get to appoint these life time justices.

  12. Samuel Chase was impeached… in 1804. He was acquitted on all 8 charges on March of 1805.

  13. I’m liking the SquidCo approach better, actually.

  14. Art. III Sec. 1:
    The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior

    Now if you ask me, the former Solicitor General is behaving rather naughtily,

    but, alas, not so according to the low low standards of Congress.

  15. The bar for “good behavior” among judges has gone so low not even Hermes Conrad could limbo under it.

  16. I’m liking the SquidCo approach better, actually.

    From your lips to God’s ears, my friend.

    When the law has no respect for the people, you can rest assured that the feeling will be mutual. It’s not an ideal state of affairs.

  17. Pingback: But How Likely Is That to Occur? | Daily Pundit