Kagan Recuses Herself From Immigration Case

[CuteOldGuy]

Thank you, Justice Kagan, for adhering to ethics over politics. Now let's discuss the Obamacare lawsuit . . .

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ration-law-ca/

[gnadfly]

If His signature piece of legislation is struck down, which is what He concentrated on during the first two years of His Presidency while He had Democratic Socialist Enablers.....

Ron Paul could beat him.

[Cpalmson]

If only Kagan would recuse herself from the Supreme Court, we'd all be safer. I just love the double standard employed by the elitists on both sides of the political aisle. GWB nominated Harriat Myers to the court. She was lynched (mainly by her own side) as not having enough gravitas for the Supreme Court. Along comes Obama and he nominates essentially a liberal version Myers, and she sails through without a peep. Un-fucking believable.

As an aside, I think Obama-Care gets over turned by the Supreme Court. Also, I think this will be a defining moment for Chief John Roberts. He along with the other 8 justices know the importance of this decision. He knows a split court ruling will not sit well with the losing side. He will work behind closed doors to ensure a near unanimous ruling with justices to write their own opinions but the decision will be a solid 9-0, 8-1 or 7-2 ruling. This is a case in which the soundness of the law (which there is very little)takes a back seat to a) public opinion which is solidly opposed to the law and b) the fact that the law had very little bi-partisan support with side-deals being made to get certain Senators to vote for the bill.

As for the Arizona case, the court will tie 4-4 thus uphold the lower courts decision against Arizona to stand. While I think local police should be allowed to detain someone to question their immigration status, I think it is patently un-American to require individuals to carry paperwork with them at all times to show their legal status in the country. Sounds too much like the old Soviet Union.

[Jackie S]

I did not care for her much before, now even less.

Hey Justice Kagan. You are a Supreme Court Justice. You were Nominated by the President, and confirmed by the Senate. You are now a member of the Third Branch of Government. What you did before is all in the past, you have absolutly no obligation to recuse yourself from anything.

You obviously are ignorant of who and what you are. You are doing a great disservice to the originol intent of the Framers of the Constitution. Grow up and get a pair.

Go have a good talk with Scalia. He will set you straight.

[Munchmasterman]

Originally Posted by Jackie S

I did not care for her much before, now even less.

Hey Justice Kagan. You are a Supreme Court Justice. You were Nominated by the President, and confirmed by the Senate. You are now a member of the Third Branch of Government. What you did before is all in the past, you have absolutly no obligation to recuse yourself from anything.
Wrong. If they have a conflict of interest that would keep them from being impartial, they should take that action.
A Supreme Court Justice knows that.

You obviously are ignorant of who and what you are. You are doing a great disservice to the originol intent of the Framers of the Constitution. Grow up and get a pair.

Go have a good talk with Scalia. He will set you straight.

Strange that someone, who I would assume grew up with some, would fail to recognize what real balls were. I must have assumed wrong.

This is the perfect example of the damned if they do and damned if they don't expectations of the pseudo conservative.

You ignore the "right thing to do" just like Justice Thomas. He feels being heavily involved in the active repeal of health care is no reason to recluse either. He just thinks he has big balls.

[CuteOldGuy]

I think on the rare occasion when a Supreme Court Justice does something right, it should be recognized and encouraged.

[Jackie S]

Does the Constitution say a Supreme Court Justice has to be impartial.

You people amaze me. You are ignorant of the very fact of what a Supreme Court Justice is. They only have to answer to one thing, and one thing only. That is the likelyhood that Congress could bring articles of impeachment against them, and upon conviction, remove them from office.

What Justice Kagan should say, is, "I passed the conformation proccess, that is when all questions are asked, and answered. It is none of your business now how I vote, or why I vote."

If Congress doesn't like it, impeach Her.

By recusing Herself, she is now part of the Political Proccess that historically the Supreme Court was, (supposed to be), above.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Cpalmson

As an aside, I think Obama-Care gets over turned by the Supreme Court. Also, I think this will be a defining moment for Chief John Roberts. He along with the other 8 justices know the importance of this decision. He knows a split court ruling will not sit well with the losing side. He will work behind closed doors to ensure a near unanimous ruling with justices to write their own opinions but the decision will be a solid 9-0, 8-1 or 7-2 ruling.
.

As an aside , I think you have losr your mind. Roberts has no such power. It will be a 5-4 vote and the law will stand. As an aside , it might go the other way but there is no way it will be 9-0. 8-1 or 7-2.