« Previous 1 2 Next »

Reply To Thread

Should Kagan recuse herself?Follow

#1 Nov 15 2011 at 9:36 AM Rating: Sub-Default

__DEL__1592790358379

2,971 posts

Quote:

The March 2010 email exchange between Kagan and Tribe raises new questions about whether Kagan must recuse herself from judging cases involving the health-care law that Obama signed--and which became the target of legal challenges--while Kagan was serving as Obama's solicitor general and was responsible for defending his administrationâ€™s positions in court disputes.

According to 28 USC 455, a Supreme Court justice must recuse from â€œany proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.â€ The law also says a justice must recuse anytime he has â€œexpressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversyâ€ while he â€œserved in governmental employment.â€

Quote:

Kagan punctuated the first sentence of this email to Tribe with two exclamation marks: â€œI hear they have the votes, Larry!! Simply amazing.â€

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/kagan-tribe-day-obamacare-passed-i-hear-they-have-votes-larry-simply-amazing

#2 Nov 15 2011 at 9:37 AM Rating: Excellent

View User Forum

+1

50,767 posts

Wow. Two whole exclamation marks? ******* should be put in Gitmo.

____________________________

George Carlin wrote:

I think itâ€™s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.

#3 Nov 15 2011 at 9:37 AM Rating: Excellent

View User Forum

Liberal Conspiracy

TILT

Sure, once Thomas recuses himself.

Now you'll argue how that's totally different and he should never have to recuse himself, etc. Which is why no one is going to take you seriously.

Apparently having that Circuit Court conservative judge rule in favor of the law has put the GOP into a blind panic if they're working so hard to tilt the court in their favor.

Edited, Nov 15th 2011 9:40am by Jophiel

____________________________

Belkira wrote:

Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.

#4 Nov 15 2011 at 10:10 AM Rating: Good

View User Forum

Skelly Poker Since 2008

16,781 posts

The one email remark is not sufficient to make claims of partiality.

____________________________

Alma wrote:

I lost my post

#5 Nov 15 2011 at 10:13 AM Rating: Excellent

View User Forum

Liberal Conspiracy

TILT

It is if you're Varus and CNS News!

Given the hurdles it had to overcome to become a law, I'm sure any legal mind would have found it amazing, regardless of whether they were thrilled or dismayed.

____________________________

Belkira wrote:

Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.

#6 REDACTED, Posted: Nov 15 2011 at 10:16 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Joph,

#7 REDACTED, Posted: Nov 15 2011 at 10:17 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Elinda,

#8 Nov 15 2011 at 10:20 AM Rating: Excellent

View User Forum

+1

50,767 posts

Gumbo Galahad wrote:

I see you're logic

Joph is an abstract?

____________________________

George Carlin wrote:

I think itâ€™s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.

#9 Nov 15 2011 at 10:40 AM Rating: Excellent

View User Forum

Liberal Conspiracy

TILT

varusword75 wrote:

I see you're logic

Heh.

Quote:

never extends further than ignoring the question and deflecting so as not to have to seriously consider obama appointed a judge who ignores the law.

No, I don't think she should recuse herself. Since the status quo would be for her to hear the case, it's up to you to present a convincing argument why she should recuse herself, not for me to defend her.

____________________________

Belkira wrote:

Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.

#10 REDACTED, Posted: Nov 15 2011 at 11:04 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Joph,

#11 Nov 15 2011 at 11:06 AM Rating: Excellent

View User Forum

Liberal Conspiracy

TILT

varusword75 wrote:

She's impartial. Is that convincing enough?

Agreed. I'm glad we've put this behind us Smiley: smile

____________________________

Belkira wrote:

Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.

#12 Nov 15 2011 at 11:42 AM Rating: Excellent

__DEL__1618186764728

Sage

5,684 posts

#13 Nov 15 2011 at 11:44 AM Rating: Good

View User Forum

Skelly Poker Since 2008

16,781 posts

Bardalicious wrote:

You punctuated that cough with *'s. Please recuse yourself from this thread.

____________________________

Alma wrote:

I lost my post

#14 Nov 15 2011 at 11:51 AM Rating: Excellent

View User Forum

+1

50,767 posts

Bardalicious wrote:

They don't count because they're both Republicans and Reagan/Bush appointed which actually makes them Saints and should be looked upon with the same reverence as the Pope.

____________________________

George Carlin wrote:

I think itâ€™s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.

#15 Nov 15 2011 at 11:57 AM Rating: Excellent

__DEL__1593375399654

Sage

2,155 posts

Jophiel wrote:

varusword75 wrote:

She's impartial. Is that convincing enough?

Agreed. I'm glad we've put this behind us Smiley: smile

Varus refuting his own argument in 4 posts? That has to be some kind of record.

Edited, Nov 15th 2011 12:58pm by ChanchanXI

#16 REDACTED, Posted: Nov 15 2011 at 12:20 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Joph,

#17 Nov 15 2011 at 12:33 PM Rating: Excellent

View User Forum

Liberal Conspiracy

TILT

The difference being that I'm not actually calling for anyone to recuse themselves. Personally, I think it'd be a mistake to even have Thomas and/or Scalia recuse themselves since the verdict wouldn't be seen as "legitimate" by a lot of people. I'd rather see the whole court rule on it and be done with it.

____________________________

Belkira wrote:

Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.

#18 REDACTED, Posted: Nov 15 2011 at 12:47 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Joph,

#19 Nov 15 2011 at 12:50 PM Rating: Excellent

View User Forum

Liberal Conspiracy

TILT

You asked if I'm comparing them. I'm not, really, because I'm not calling for anyone to recuse themselves.

I see you've failed at making an argument and are now begging me to make an argument instead. Understandable and predictable but it's not going to sway many people.

Edited, Nov 15th 2011 12:51pm by Jophiel

____________________________

Belkira wrote:

Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.

#20 Nov 15 2011 at 12:51 PM Rating: Excellent

View User Forum

Skelly Poker Since 2008

16,781 posts

varusword75 wrote:

Joph,

That's not what I asked. Try again.

Lol, just like Whack-A-Mole.

____________________________

Alma wrote:

I lost my post

#21 REDACTED, Posted: Nov 15 2011 at 12:53 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Jophed,

#22 Nov 15 2011 at 1:21 PM Rating: Excellent

View User Forum

Liberal Conspiracy

TILT

I'm not "you libs", I'm Jophiel and I never brought up any dinner.

Good heavens, you're desperate. You must have really been panicked by that court ruling, huh?

____________________________

Belkira wrote:

Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.

#23 Nov 15 2011 at 3:58 PM Rating: Good

Encyclopedia

35,568 posts

Jophiel wrote:

You asked if I'm comparing them. I'm not, really, because I'm not calling for anyone to recuse themselves.

Strange, because this seems a lot like you comparing them:

Jophiel wrote:

Sure, once Thomas recuses himself.

Oh... But you added the "really, because I'm not calling for anyone to recuse themselves", so it's all peachy! Wait, it's not. You're still comparing them. You're saying that one shouldn't recuse herself unless the other does, presumably because you believe that both have similar need to recuse themselves. Whether you believe that they should both recuse themselves or both not recuse themselves is irrelevant to the question of you comparing them and finding them equivalent in this regard.

I think it's legitimate to ask why you think Keagan and Thomas are similar with regard to their potential need to recuse themselves. I mean, actually working as an attorney defending the very law which is now coming before the court she's sitting on would seem to be about the most clear cut case I can think of. What's Thomas done (other than "being conservative") to rate such a comparison?

____________________________

King Nobby wrote:

More words please

#24 Nov 15 2011 at 4:19 PM Rating: Excellent

__DEL__1618186764728

Sage

5,684 posts

Joph's never posted to tell us that he thinks setting orphans on fire is bad.

WHY DO YOU HATE ORPHANS, JOPH?

#25 Nov 15 2011 at 4:46 PM Rating: Excellent

View User Forum

ZAM Administrator

10,601 posts

gbaji wrote:

Oh... But you added the "really, because I'm not calling for anyone to recuse themselves", so it's all peachy! Wait, it's not. You're still comparing them. You're saying that one shouldn't recuse herself unless the other does, presumably because you believe that both have similar need to recuse themselves. Whether you believe that they should both recuse themselves or both not recuse themselves is irrelevant to the question of you comparing them and finding them equivalent in this regard.

It's relevant because he's not saying that anyone should recuse himself, so asking him to explain why they should recuse themselves is idiotic, as he doesn't want them.

____________________________

01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ

#26 Nov 15 2011 at 5:27 PM Rating: Decent

Encyclopedia

35,568 posts

Sir Xsarus wrote:

It's relevant because he's not saying that anyone should recuse himself, so asking him to explain why they should recuse themselves is idiotic, as he doesn't want them.

I'm not asking him why they should recuse themselves. I'm asking him why he equated Thomas to Kagan. He didn't say "she should recuse herself only if the entire court does" or "she has no reason to even consider recusing herself". He singled out Thomas. I'm curious as to why. Whether he thinks Kagans actions require her to recuse herself or not, she does have direct involvement in the case. That's clearly a reason one *might* recuse themselves, right? So what's the similar reason for Thomas?

I think that's a fair question, don't you agree?

____________________________

King Nobby wrote:

More words please

« Previous 1 2 Next »

Reply To Thread

Recent Visitors: 287 All times are in CST

stupidmonkey, Anonymous Guests (286)

© 2024 Fanbyte LLC