Kagan Recuses.....From Immigration Decision

That's fine...........however it's the wrong case.

Surely she has more conflict with Obamacare than immigration?

 

If she is recusing herself on this cause, than she must also with the healthcare law.

 

I expect her to rejoin the fight (& Walk back her recusal as just for taking the case & not the case itself)

 

People can complain or point to other issues, but I applaud Kagan.

It's very rare for any justice to recuse themselves these days. It takes a good amount of principle and integrity to take the action that the topic relates to.

 

I don't think it rare, and one can find multiple incidents of SCOTUS recusals if you just look it up.

What get's the Press are usually politically affiliated organizations, usually liberal, trying to make political hay of some 2nd degree connection between a conservative judge and some issue. They tried to do it to Scalia in '04, as they are trying to do with Thomas over Obamacare.

That's just liberal double-standard BS. Meanwhile, Kagan worked on Obamacare. Plain and simple. There is also a 2 month gap in her emails.

 

You "don't think it rare"? LOL

<<<MOD EDIT INSULT>>> Cases of a Supreme Court justice recusing themselves IS rare. Few and far between......

 

We should have a pool of rotating Justices, so that recusement becomes less of an issue. If we had something like 15 or 18 Justices, while still only having 9 per case, it would probably be a fairer and less corrupt system.

 

why would she?

according to Newt's defenders on Freddie Mac, she was just "working" for Obama and shouldn't have to recuse herself.....

 

I would join you in your applause if it were the right case.

I haven't seen her reasons as to her decision in this and can only think that her decision is racially motivated......... If so, would she recuse herself on any case involving Latinos or immigration? Strange.

As I mentioned, all things being equal, there is a lot out there for her to recuse herself from the health care case as well.

 

Often justices or judges will recuse themselves sua sponte (on their own motion), recognizing that facts leading to their disqualification are present. However, where such facts exist, a party to the case may suggest recusal.

Point being, one can do a thorough research on the last 60 years and only find a half-dozen examples where a SCOTUS judge had reasonable pressure to recuse, yet chose not to.

 

How about you document something, anything, before you tell someone who is so clearly superior to you intellectually that they are "full of it".

LIke I said, you can only find about a half-dozen noted cases in the last 60 years of where a SCOTUS had even a modicum of reasoned pressure ot recuse, but did not.

Meanwhile, there have been dozens of recusals that you never hear about.

 

That's kind of what I was saying. Cases where there is pressure to recuse doesn't happen all that much.....and cases where a justice actually does recuse themselves happens even less and is, in fact, rare.

The fact that Kagan is actually recusing herself is an unusual event.

For a minute, I thought you were disagreeing with that. I guess I misunderstood.

 

Hmm........I wasn't aware Newt was up for consideration as a justice of the SCOTUS with a pending Freddy Mac case.......

 

Are you reading impaired today ? I have documented that I believe it "not so rare". I have noted that there are many instances of recusal that you never hear about, while less than a half dozen in the last 60+ years where recusals were strongly suggested, but not made.

What is "rare" are judges not recusing themselves when they should. What is far more common are actual recusals.

 

Ah, I'll just dismiss your argument then, because it's basically "because I said so".

Usually when people are making the case that "It happens all the time", they can provide examples to support their argument. I said it is rare for a justice to recuse themselves. In fact, I can't even remember the last time a Supreme Court Justice recused themselves.....

I can only stand corrected if I am corrected.



....it looks like Scalia recused hiimself in 2004.....and I can see Clarence Thomas recused himself in 1996.....I've been searching...(look, I'm really trying to make a counter-argument against myself here)...but nothing tells me that justices recusing themselves is not pretty rare.

 

LOL .... I gave links and text to actual recusals. That you cannot "remember any" is not the standard, btw.

I also found two recusals by Chief Justice Rehnquist, in cases where the arguing attorney was someone who had testified against Rehnquist's nomination. All you have to do is look.

Maybe you should chek out the kiddie pool

 

Strategic effort to bolster her "integrity and credibility" prior to her non-recusal and predictable Obamacare ruling.

Sincerely,

The Cynic.

 

You linked to wikipedia and the only example there is Rehnquist in 1986.

Add that to the 2 examples just I cited (from the last 2 decades) and it's still a rare phenomenon that a SCOTUS justice recuses themselves.

If you're satisfied that your argument against rare is comprised of 2 examples from 25 years ago.....I can't help you.



p.s. Maybe you should chek your spelling...

 

/Facepalm

This is after you edited the post!

 

LOL Spot on................. A bit of preemptive credibility bolstering.

Why she will appear positively reasonable and fair minded by the the time Obamacare rolls around......

 

My misspelling was intentional......that WAS the joke. I guess you didn't get it.



Here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satiric_misspelling

 

same reasoning to defend him by you guys. it's called being a hypocrite.

 

Pray tell, who would be selecting these additional Justices? This administration? I think not.

 

She needs to recuse from the Health Care Bill debate as well.

 

conflicts? what conflicts, Newt.