Holder’s Refusal Means Kagan’s Recusal

Feb 03   -  Melissa Medina

Downloadable Resources

QUICK FACTS:

- In  2003,  Justice  Antonin  Scalia  recused  himself  in   Newdow  v.  United  States  03-­7  (2003)  based  on   public  comments  given  at  a  January  2003  event   where  Scalia  spoke  his  opinion  of  the  upcoming   Ninth  Circuit  court  case.
 
- In  2010,  then  Solicitor  General  Kagan  spoke  in  favor   of  Obamacare  in  correspondence  with  members  of   the  Justice  Department

- Since  the  initial  revelations,  Attorney  General  Eric   Holder  has  refused  to  answer  questions  from Congress regarding Kagan’s involvement in the  legal   defense  of  Obamacare.  

- Kagan  has  already  recused  herself  from  over  two   dozen  cases  being  presented  to  the  Supreme  Court,   as  is  consistent  with  former  solicitors  general  who   are  appointed  to  the  federal  bench.  

- Kagan  refusal  to  recuse  can  only  be  perceived  as  a   political  act,  in  direct  violation  of  28  USC  §  455

OVERVIEW IN BRIEF:

President Barack Obama has selected in Justice Elena Kagan a likeminded soul—someone nearly identical in opinion with his radical views on the U.S. Constitution as a living, breathing document.

Kagan’s activism in places such as Harvard University against military recruiters is illustrative enough.i Yet as recent e-mails uncovered by Judicial Watch have revealed, Kagan’s cheerleading for Obamacare raises numerous questions about the intimate details Obamacare while she served as solicitor general for the Justice Department.

After repeated requests for information by the House Judiciary Committee, Attorney General Eric Holder has point blank refused to provide information as requested by Congress. This refusal for basic information leads to one conclusion: Justice Elena Kagan must recuse herself from the pending Supreme Court case on Obamacare.

In  any  instance  where  an  sitting  federal  or  Supreme   Court  justice  is  either  ethically  or  professionally  conflicted,   the  Code  of Federal  Regulations  (CFR)  requires  that  justice   to  remove  themselves  from  the  case  through  recusal.  

Given  the  evidence  already  obtained  by  Judicial  Watch,ii   Kagan  has  a  responsibility  under  28  USC  §  455  to  recuse   herself  from hearing  the  Obamacare  case  when  it  arrives   before  the  Supreme  Court.  

In  any  given  situation  where  the  question  of  recusal  of  a   judge  arises,  there  are  two  items  to  be  discerned.    The   language  of 28 USC  §  455  is  unambiguous  and  clear:  ␣Any   justice,  judge,  or  magistrate  judge  of  the  United  States  shall   disqualify  himself  in any  proceeding  in  which  his  impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”

This  standard  of  ethics  as  applied  by  federal  code  is   relevant  in  the  recusal  of  a  specific  justice  in  two  ways:    

1. The  appearance  of  partiality  -­-­  and  not  the  actual   existence  of  partial  conduct  -­-­  is  the  primary   consideration  for  this  statute,  and,  
2. That  such  a  bar  is  placed  where  a  reasonable   individual  could  rightly  question  the  impartiality  of   the  justice.

Next,  there  are  two  additional  distinctions  to  be  made;;   one  with  the  condition  of  the  justice,  the  other  regarding   whether  or  not the  question  of  such  impartiality  is  deemed   within  reason.

There  is  a  great  deal  of  substantiated  evidence  that   would  call  into  question Kagan’s impartiality  with  regards  to   Obamacare.
     
In  the  instance  of  the  former,  there  is  abundant   evidence  that  the  actions  of  Justice  Elena  Kagan,  during  her   tenure  as  Solicitor General,  cast  serious  doubts  as  to   whether  Kagan  will  be  able  to  disassociate  herself  from  the   merits  or  demerits  of  legislation she  not  only  defended,  but   cheered.    Can  it  be  seriously  argued  that  Kagan  would  be   willing  or  even  able  to  reconsider  her previously  strongly   held  position  as  incorrect  on  the  basis  of  law?    
 
Scalia Recuses in 2003

In  2003,  Justice  Antonin  Scalia  spoke  at  an  event   commemorating  the  Virginia  Statute  of  Religious  Freedom  in   Fredericksburg, Virginia.iii    At  this  event,  Scalia  specifically   commented  on  the  ruling  of  the  Ninth  Circuit  Court  of   Appeals  regarding  a  case where  the  Pledge  of  Allegiance   was  being  challenged  by  Dr.  Michael  Newdow.    
 
At  this  event,  sponsored  by  the  Knights  of  Columbus, Scalia criticized the Ninth Circuit and gave  specific arguments against the Ninth Circuit’s ruling, implying  that  -­-­  though  he  was  willing  to  reconsider  his   opinion  -­-­  he  (Scalia)  had  already  arrived  at  a  conclusion   even  before  the  case  was  heard  by  the  Supreme  Court.iv
 
Though  Scalia  was  not  coerced  (other  than  by  active   public  comment  and  legal  pressure  from  Newdow  himself),   Scalia  voluntarily chose  to  recuse  himself  from  the  case.v  

This distinction in Scalia’s 2003 decision to recuse himself  is  important  as  applied  to  the  upcoming  discussion   on  whether  Justice Elena  Kagan  and,  by  a  politically   contrived  extension,  Justice  Clarence  Thomas,  should   recuse  themselves  from  the  upcoming case  on  Obamacare   in  2012.  

In  the  instance  of  Justice  Thomas,  there  is  no  indication   at  all That Thomas’ impartiality has been impaired or  even   could  be called into  question  in  the  direct  fashion  where Justice Scalia’s instance lays precedence.   

On  the  other  hand,  there  is  no  question  where  Justice Kagan’s professional opinion remains on this topic.  28  USC   §  455  is  very clear on  matters  where one’s bias  can  be   reasonably  questioned.    Recusal  is  specifically  designed  as   an  outlet  to  preserve  the  integrity of  the  American  court   system.  

Kagan’s involvement with Obamacare as legislation was deep  and  involved.    According  to  e-­mails,  Kagan   aggressively  moved  to involve the  Office  of  the  Solicitor   General  (OSG)  in  the  legal  challenges  to  Obamacare.vi     Further,  evidence  exists  that  Kagan participated in structuring  the  legal  defense  for  Obamacare  as  noted  by redacted  material  not  covered  by  the  Freedom  of  Information Act.  These  concerns  have  not  been  clarified  either  by  the   Justice  Department  or  the  Obama  administration  writ  large.  

Compounding  the  problem  is  Attorney  General  Eric Holder’s outright refusal to respond in writing to the House Judiciary Committee’s request for information regarding Kagan’s e-mail history on Obamacare.vii  
   
Such  a  situation  where  since  March  2011  the  Justice   Department  has  refused  to  answer  the  questions  of   Congress  -­-­ and deflecting them as “unseemly” requests -­-­   only  serves  to  further  the  appearance  of  impartiality  among   reasonable  members  of  the public.  If  there  is  nothing  to   hide,  then  why  not  allow  sunlight  to  be  the  best  disinfectant?  

The refusal of Holder to allow Congress access to this critical information reveals that members of the Obama administration know Kagan must recuse herself.

In simple: Holder’s refusal means Kagan’s recusal.  

The  sensitivity  of  the  public  towards  any  instance  of   partiality  -­-­  especially  based  upon  legal  guidelines  in  28  USC   §  455  as  well  as  ethical  precedent  for  recusal  in  Justice instance in 2003 -­-­  should  be  the  primary  focus  of   attention  in  any  discussion  on  whether  Justice  Kagan  should   indeed  recuse  herself.

Used by permission granted by:
Traditional Values Coalition Education & Legal Institute
100 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite 250 Anaheim, California 92805
http://www.traditionalvalues.org
email: .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
202-547-8570

Works Cited:

i Warren Richley, “How Elena Kagan worked to limit military recruiting at Harvard.”  Christian  Science  Monitor,  February  25,  2010,   http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2010/0625/How-­Elena-­Kagan-­worked-­to-­ limit-­military-­recruiting-­at-­Harvard.  

ii  http://www.judicialwatch.org/files/documents/2011/mrc-­kagan-­docs.pdf  

iii  Pamela Gould, “Religious Freedom Praised.” Free  Lance-­Star,  January  13,  2003   http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/911/2003/012003/01132003/846367 .

iv  Newdow v. United  States,  03-­7  (2003).   http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/briefs/02-­1624/03-­7.recuse.pdf .

v  Jessica Allen, “Scalia benched by remarks.” Free  Lance-­Star,  October  16,  2003   http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2003/102003/10162003/1135651/index_html   .

vi  These  items  can  be  found  cited  in  detail  in  the  Judicial  Crisis  Network  white  paper entitled: “Elena  Kagan:  The  Justice  Who  Knew  Too  Much” dated November9, 2011.

vii  House Judiciary Committee, “Smith Presses Administration for Kagan Documents.”  November 22,  2011  http://judiciary.house.gov/news/11222011.html.