Left Wants SCOTUS Justice Thomas Recusal, Ignores Kagan’s Clear Conflicts

[Cowboy]

At least we have Holders word on it.

This past weekend the Washington Post published a hit piece on the grand opening of a museum in Georgia dedicated to the birthplace of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. The paper was desperate to make some grand conspiracy, some lawbreaking evil out of the project. But whatever is going on with the museum, this story was just one more shot orchestrated by the left aimed at forcing Justice Thomas to recuse himself from the upcoming hearings on whether or not Obamacare is Constitutional. Of course, this is all a smoke screen to hide the fact that it is really left-wing darling Justice Elana Kagan that should recuse herself from the case.

The Post story was a mishmash of innuendo, guesswork, and partisan claims, all amounting to much of nothing for proof of wrong doing. The Post even took the opportunity to use the word “whitewashed” when describing the color of the building housing the museum commemorating Justice Thomas’ birthplace. None too subtle, that.
There was plenty of other coverage of the opening of the museum that was positive, of course. Still it is apparent that the left hates Justice Thomas so much that they can’t even stand it that a small commemoration of his place of birth be created.
But real facts weren’t on the agenda for this article on Thomas. This article was meant as yet another slap at Thomas in order to mount pressure against him for the upcoming case against Obamacare. The left has been floating the demand that Justice Thomas recuse himself because his wife has worked as a “conservative activist and lobbyist, where she specifically agitated for the repeal of ‘Obamacare.’”
Contrary to the left’s new attack on Thomas, in America we do not hold the work of a spouse against someone. If we did that, half the members of Congress would have to be removed for the boards, or agencies, or organizations that their spouses work for. The pertinent fact is, though, that Justice Thomas himself was not the one working for any group that advocated for or against Obamacare.
This, however, is not true of another member of the Supreme Court. Justice Elana Kagan was actually involved in advising how to defend against challenges to Obamacare. If that isn’t directly relevant, what is?

Last week it was discovered that when Obamacare passed, Kagan sent euphoric emails to Harvard Professor Laurence Tribe who was then serving in the Department of Justice. This in itself should be enough to show that Kagan’s opinion on Obamacare has already been decided easily bringing into question her unbiased judgment on the case.
But that isn’t the only problem with Kagan’s serving as one of those that will have the final word on the constitutionality of Obamacare. She wasn’t simply elated that Obamacare passed. She was also part of the team that advised the Democrats on how to support Obamacare and keep it from being challenged.
You see, at the time, Kagan was Solicitor General at the time and was, “personally involved, even if only to a limited degree (though without a complete record, it’s difficult to know how limited), in advising how to defend against challenges to Obamacare.”
Yet, here we have the left attacking justice Thomas because his wife said she doesn’t like Obamacare and saying that is a basis to force him to recuse himself from the case while ignoring Kagan’s actual involvement in favor of Obamacare. Not too blatantly partisan, is it?
So, how is the Old Media reporting this story? A recent piece by Politico is a perfect example of how the left is minimizing the facts. The meme du jour is to report that there is, “No sign Elena Kagan, Clarence Thomas will recuse on health care law.”
Politico isn’t the only one. The Week did a similar piece juxtaposing calls for both Thomas and Kagan to step down as if the calls were equal in seriousness.
In other words, by linking the two calls for recusal as if they are coequal in import minimizes the call for either to recuse themselves. Readers will simply see the calls for recusal as a partisan maneuver and the more legitimate reason Kagan should step back from the Obamacare case will go unaddressed.
Further, the left also knows that the right is traditionally spineless in the face of criticism. They are banking on the fact that the right will cower — like it always does — and Thomas will remove himself from the case, even though there is no legitimate reason he should, while Kagan will never in a million years remove herself despite that there is good, legal reasons for her to do so. The left doesn’t care about propriety or legality when it comes to pushing its agenda, we all know.
The case for Kagan’s recusal, though, is quite serious, indeed. So serious that Eric Holder was called to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee where he said that Kagan was not involved in Obamacare. Holder’s testimony is questionable, though. Recently Republican leaders in the Senate sent a letter to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder expressing their belief that Holder’s testimony about Kagan’s involvement in past Obamacare policy making was “belied by the facts.” Holder’s office has been stonewalling calls by the Senate that he provide it with documents regarding Kagan’s involvement in the healthcare law.
It is interesting to note that the Old Media knocked itself out to send reporter after reporter to Alaska to uncover dirt on 2008 GOP VP nominee Sarah Palin. Back then they wanted to uncover every single piece of dirt they could find. Yet in this case the Old Media is uninterested in discovering to what extent a sitting Justice of the Supreme Court had in a case that she will be tasked with adjudicating. Remember, a vice president has little real power, but the Old Media was losing its mind over Palin. On the other hand, a Supreme Court Judge has incredible power and the media are disinterested in finding out about this judge.
If this all doesn’t show the left-wing bias of the media, well, “

you can’t handle the..." target="_blank">you can’t handle the...

.”
http://bigjournalism.com/wthuston/20...ear-conflicts/

[SShepherd]

typical double standards.

[joec]

Actually Kagan and Thomas should recuse themselves on this the health care hearing. Both in my opinion can have their point of view somewhat tanted to say the least.

[SShepherd]

Originally Posted by joec

Actually Kagan and Thomas should recuse themselves on this the health care hearing. Both in my opinion can have their point of view somewhat tanted to say the least.

EXACTLY

[grizzer]

Kagan obamacare emails say STOP call me...

I see no such comparison with Thomas.

[joec]

Originally Posted by grizzer

Kagan obamacare emails say STOP call me...

I see no such comparison with Thomas.

Let me help you then. Thomas' wife is a lobbyist to a group that want Obamacare gone. Now I assume he lives with her so perhaps he shares her point of view which means his mind is already made up. That is the key point here they are to go on the evidence and how it relates to the law not their personal view. Supreme Court justices especially need to be beyond reproach on their opinions be based on law and nothing else period.

[Melensdad]

Originally Posted by joec

Let me help you then. Thomas' wife is a lobbyist to a group that want Obamacare gone. Now I assume he lives with her so perhaps he shares her point of view which means his mind is already made up. That is the key point here they are to go on the evidence and how it relates to the law not their personal view. Supreme Court justices especially need to be beyond reproach on their opinions be based on law and nothing else period.

Here is the deal. Thomas is NOT directly involved. Its true he is INDIRECTLY involved via his wife, who started out as a self-proclaimed Tea Party activist but eventually opened her own conservative consulting firm that consults on MANY DIFFERENT issues. Using the standard outlined by Joe then EVERY justice who has a spouse with any opinions would then void the opinion of the Justice him/herself.

On the other hand Kagan is DIRECTLY involved in ObamaCare and therefore has a DIRECT conflict.

One can assume that each of the Justices have a spouse/significant other who also, like Mrs Thomas, has an opinion. Does that mean that the opinion of the spouse should also be taken into account when naming justices to the bench?

[SShepherd]

so, who decides in a situ like this?

[joec]

Originally Posted by Melensdad

Here is the deal. Thomas is NOT directly involved. Its true he is INDIRECTLY involved via his wife, who started out as a self-proclaimed Tea Party activist but eventually opened her own conservative consulting firm that consults on MANY DIFFERENT issues. Using the standard outlined by Joe then EVERY justice who has a spouse with any opinions would then void the opinion of the Justice him/herself.

On the other hand Kagan is DIRECTLY involved in ObamaCare and therefore has a DIRECT conflict.

One can assume that each of the Justices have a spouse/significant other who also, like Mrs Thomas, has an opinion. Does that mean that the opinion of the spouse should also be taken into account when naming justices to the bench?

Perhaps that would be true if ones wife wasn't in the business of lobbying and could do that with her husband as well. In the case of a lobbyist it is a bit more than an opinion I would think since there is also often financial gain as well.

[joec]

Originally Posted by SShepherd

so, who decides in a situ like this?

I have no idea and assumed it is the honor system at least that it has worked in the past.

[SShepherd]

Originally Posted by joec

I have no idea and assumed it is the honor system at least that it has worked in the past.

>koff<

if only

[Melensdad]

Originally Posted by joec

Perhaps that would be true if ones wife wasn't in the business of lobbying and could do that with her husband as well. In the case of a lobbyist it is a bit more than an opinion I would think since there is also often financial gain as well.

His wife just opened her shop. She was not a consultant when ObamaCare passed. Her shop is not dedicated to stopping ObamaCare but rather is a conservative think tank type consulting group.

By your standards then anything that is conservative in theory would qualify as a requirement for Justice Thomas to recuse himself. And similarly by your standards then if a Justice's spouse was involved in any business that had any sort of potential benefit from any legal ruling then the Justice must recuse him/herself. If the spouse raises dogs then the justice must recuse himself because an upcoming case involving dogs is coming before the court!

Kagan, on the other hand, was DIRECTLY INVOLVED in helping pass and helping justify ObamaCare.

[jimbo]

Originally Posted by joec

Let me help you then. Thomas' wife is a lobbyist to a group that want Obamacare gone. Now I assume he lives with her so perhaps he shares her point of view which means his mind is already made up. That is the key point here they are to go on the evidence and how it relates to the law not their personal view. Supreme Court justices especially need to be beyond reproach on their opinions be based on law and nothing else period.

One more time, Joe. Thomas' wife is not on the Supreme Court, Justice Thomas is. How far afield do you want to go with this logic? Does every justice who has ever read a newspaper need to recuse themselves?, or those who have gay kids recuse themselves from those issues? I submit not.

On the other hand Kagan did in fact have a hand in the Obamacare bill, and as such certainly has a bias against now having to rule on the merits of her former opinion. If that is not a conflict of interest, then there are no conflicts.

[grizzer]

Originally Posted by joec

Let me help you then. Thomas' wife is a lobbyist to a group that want Obamacare gone. Now I assume he lives with her so perhaps he shares her point of view which means his mind is already made up. That is the key point here they are to go on the evidence and how it relates to the law not their personal view. Supreme Court justices especially need to be beyond reproach on their opinions be based on law and nothing else period.

Fact the left has been ragging over a year on Thomas' white wife and her hefty income $100k ++.

Too bad SHE is not a SCOTUS Justice, then they would have a case.

[jimbo]

Originally Posted by SShepherd

so, who decides in a situ like this?

That one is easy. It is up to the justice themselves to decide whether or not they can render a nonbiased opinion.

[joec]

Originally Posted by Melensdad

His wife just opened her shop. She was not a consultant when ObamaCare passed. Her shop is not dedicated to stopping ObamaCare but rather is a conservative think tank type consulting group.

By your standards then anything that is conservative in theory would qualify as a requirement for Justice Thomas to recuse himself. And similarly by your standards then if a Justice's spouse was involved in any business that had any sort of potential benefit from any legal ruling then the Justice must recuse him/herself. If the spouse raises dogs then the justice must recuse himself because an upcoming case involving dogs is coming before the court!

Kagan, on the other hand, was DIRECTLY INVOLVED in helping pass and helping justify ObamaCare.

Really perhaps you might take the Wall Street Journals story in regards to this. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...109060620.html

I'm saying they both should recuse themselves as their is no court higher than the Supreme Court of the US and they are appointed for life and their is no appeal after them. No need to taint the SCOTUS as congress and the presidency has been.

As for Thomas' wife she like Gingrich just gives advise to the tune of serious money. The woman has been out there since it was brought up in Congress.

[Melensdad]

Joe, in all honesty, I do NOT see the connection to Justice Thomas that you claim to see. The man's wife has a business. It is hers, not his. They are not the same person. He has his own mind. Kagan was directly involved. Of that there seems to be little question and it seems to be reasonably shown in her emails.

[jimbo]

Originally Posted by joec

Really perhaps you might take the Wall Street Journals story in regards to this. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...109060620.html

I'm saying they both should recuse themselves as their is no court higher than the Supreme Court of the US and they are appointed for life and their is no appeal after them. No need to taint the SCOTUS as congress and the presidency has been.

As for Thomas' wife she like Gingrich just gives advise to the tune of serious money. The woman has been out there since it was brought up in Congress.

I agree with you Joe, Gingrich should recuse himself from voting on this case.

[joec]

Originally Posted by Melensdad

Joe, in all honesty, I do NOT see the connection to Justice Thomas that you claim to see. The man's wife has a business. It is hers, not his. They are not the same person. He has his own mind. Kagan was directly involved. Of that there seems to be little question and it seems to be reasonably shown in her emails.

OK let me say it this way. Say I'm a judge on the SCOTUS (god forbid) and my wife works in the a law office. Now I have to rule on a case that was brought about due to something from her office even if she wasn't directly involved with it. In that case I would be forced to recuse myself as I wouldn't even want the taint of an ethics violation.

Now if she was just a housewife or worked in a field that had nothing to do with a given case then it would make little difference then to me what her opinion was on a case coming before me. Married as long as I have I often hear my wife's opinions on many subjects, many of which I agree and others I don't. The difference is his wife is with a Tea Party group organizer that has been fighting for the repeal of Obamacare directly. She is not just another house wife as she is a special interest that can put his dicission in question even if she doesn't. Now I'm personally don't like Obama care but by the same token the SCOTUS should be above all reproach regardless in their decisions.

[Melensdad]

But Thomas's wife doesn't work in a law office.