Now that the ObamaCare ruling will be decided by the Supreme Court, and everyone knows that it will be a 5-4 decision, the Republicans are arguing that Dick Morris look-a-like Elena Kagan, Obama's former Solicitor General, should recuse herself. Meanwhile, Democrats are arguing that Clarence Thomas should also recuse himself because his wife is known to be against ObamaCare.
http://dailycaller.com/2011/11/18/senate-gop-leaders-say-kagan-may-have-to-recuse-herself/
First of all, the Kagan issue is a no-brainer. As Obama's Solicitor General, Kagan took part in strategy to defend ObamaCare. She clearly should recuse herself.
Below in National Review, Michael Barone examines the Democrats' position that Thomas should recuse himself.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/275991/obamacare-and-jurisprudence-clarence-thomas-michael-barone
The Thomas question is not so cut and dried as that of Kagan. Virginia Thomas is a conservative activist who has spoken out publicly against ObamaCare. Are we now going to have to examine the political opinions of every Supreme Court justice's spouse? Keep in mind spouses can disagree on issues and even overall philosophy though in the Thomas' case, they are both conservatives. had Thomas taken an active role in opposing Obamacare up to this point then he should also step aside. On the question of his wife's feelings, that is not so clear.
The stakes are high. Should only one of the above recuse himself/herself while the other does not, then we can predict the outcome. Should both or neither do so, then we are likely back to a 4-3 decision having to wait and see which side of the bed Anthony Kennedy wakes up on when he casts his vote.
How about ALL the justices recuse themselves? A plausible argument for prejudice could be made on all of them, which is the problem with Supreme Court appointments in which the administration du jour tries, and is urged, to "tip" the court as far as possible toward this or that preference.
ReplyDeleteThe Republican argument is patently and transparently an attempt to rig the vote. So is the argument to recuse Thomas. This is all a matter of playing games to secure a favorable decision.
It is already evident that whatever decision emerges will have little credibility as a reasoned and neutral application of established law, and will command the respect of only about forty percent of the population, at best.
Ha! Your word verification is...
SOROS!!!
(That didn't take. The next one is equally funny:
I MINE