« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Can Justice Kagan be Impartial on Obamacare?

Over the next couple of weeks, two things could happen that will affect the future of Obamacare. It has been widely reported that the Justices of the Supreme Court will meet privately on November 10th to decide if they will hear the case against President Obama’s health care reform. Twenty-six states have challenged the constitutionality of Obamacare’s individual mandate, and even the Obama Administration has asked the High Court to rule. But, a critical deadline precedes the November 10th meeting.

The House Judiciary Committee has given the Justice Department until this Friday, November 4th, to produce documents and witnesses that are necessary to shed light on whether Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan is qualified to render an impartial judgment on Obamacare. Justice Kagan was the Obama Administration’s Solicitor General and she may have had a role in preparing a legal defense for Obamacare before taking her seat on the Supreme Court. In June, I led a group of 49 House members in requesting a Judiciary Committee investigation. A limited number of Department of Justice emails, which were released through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit, have already raised serious questions about whether Justice Kagan has an inherent conflict of interest related to the President’s health care reform, should it could come before the Supreme Court.

As a result of our letter, Judiciary Committee Chairman, Representative Lamar Smith, wrote to Attorney General Eric Holder on July 6th. He asked the Justice Department to turn over any documents related to the health care legislation that also mentioned or involved then-Solicitor General Kagan. It took almost four months for the Attorney General’s office to reply, which they finally did on October 27th. In that letter an Assistant Attorney General characterized the request for information as “unseemly.” Without offering any legal basis, the Justice Department refused to cooperate. Chairman Smith rejected this stonewalling and wrote back, giving the Justice Department until Friday, November 4th to produce the documents and make two former colleagues of Solicitor Kagan available to be interviewed.

Before the Supreme Court Justices meet to discuss whether to hear the case against Obamacare, it is imperative that the American people know whether one of those Justices had any role in helping to prepare the Administration’s legal defense for Obamacare. If Justice Kagan was offering guidance to the Administration on how to withstand legal challenges to Obamacare, then she cannot be impartial and should recuse herself from any of the Supreme Court’s official decision-making about this critical issue.

__

Congressman John Fleming, M.D., represents Louisiana’s 4th District. He is Co-Chair of the Congressional Values Action Team, Chairman of the Natural Resources Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular Affairs, and is a member of the House Armed Services Committee. He is a physician and small business owner.

 

Get Alerts

COMMENTS

  • George Neitz

    Ms Kagan is a liberal and therefore is immune to any and all prosecution and of course it is impossible for her or any lib to have preconceived notions or opinions no matter how wrong

  • kestrel

    The letter from the Department of Justice, which they finally deigned to write, borders on insolence. Who, I wondered, would have the gall to sign such a letter?

    It’s Ronald Weich, assistant attorney general since April of 2009. He spent the previous four years working for Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), and has also worked for Sens. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Arlen Specter (R-Pa.).

    Well, Mr. Weich, if you are “unaware of any precedent for Congress to conduct a post-confirmation investigation regarding the pre-confirmation activities of a sitting justice” maybe it’s because, in the words of NPR’s Nina Totenberg “we haven’t had top Justice Department officials migrating to the court” since Thurgood Marshall did it in 1967. Nor have we had a justice recuse herself from such a large (unprecedented?) number of cases because of said migration. Nor have we had evidence surfacing after-the-fact that indicates untruthfulness in a justice’s statements during his/her confirmation hearing, as appears to be the case with Ms. Kagan.

    From Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith’s scathing follow-up letter to Eric Holder, dated Oct. 28, 2011:

    After waiting nearly four months for a response, the Department, in a one-page response, denied both my request for documents and authorization to interview the two individuals. In so doing, the Department did not assert any legal privilege to support the decision, but instead concluded it would be “unseemly” to comply with my request.

    This is not an acceptable basis for denying my request. Accordingly, I ask that the Department produce the documents and make the two individuals available by Friday, November 4, 2011.

    If the Department does intend to assert a legal privilege as a basis for denying the Committee access to the requested information, then I ask that I be so advised by Nov. 4.

    I look forward to your response.

    I also look forward to Mr. Holder’s response. Thank you, Dr. Fleming, for bringing this to our attention. Thank you Chairman Smith, and thank you to the 49 congressmen who signed the original letter.