« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Elena Kagan: The Justice Who Knows Too Much

By: Brad Jackson (Diary)  |  November 22nd, 2011 at 10:29 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Download Podcast | iTunes | Podcast Feed

On today’s edition of Coffee and Markets, Brad Jackson and Ben Domenech are joined by Carrie Severino, to discuss Elena Kagan’s involvement in Obamacare while serving as Solicitor General, what inside knowledge she may have, and why she should recuse herself from hearing this case as a sitting Supreme Court Justice.

We’re brought to you as always by BigGovernment and Stephen Clouse and Associates. If you’d like to email us, you can do so at coffee[at]newledger.com. We hope you enjoy the show.

Related Links:

Elena Kagan: The Justice Who Knew Too Much
Judicial Crisis Network
Kagan controversy good for the public, court watchers say
Carrie Severino at the Judicial Crisis Network
NRO: Bench Memos

Follow Brad on Twitter
Follow Ben on Twitter

Subscribe to The Transom

The hosts and guests of Coffee and Markets speak only for ourselves, not any clients or employers.

Tags: , , , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • http://www.RightFace.us dkolonia

    When it comes down to if Kagan recuses herself and if it is “fair” there is no fair in this game. We have to defeat Obamacare no matter what. The liberals always want to win ‘no matter what’ and until we start to play the same way we will always lose. We cannot afford to lose anymore, the country is at stake.

  • heraklios

    that means, even if we lost Kennedy, the decision would be 4-4 and the lower court rulings would stand (including the 11th Circuit’s holding the mandate unconstitutional). No way the other justices would want the law left in such chaos so there would be a strong incentive for Kennedy to vote with the conservatives.

  • heraklios

    that means, even if we lost Kennedy, the decision would be 4-4 and the lower court rulings would stand (including the 11th Circuit’s holding the mandate unconstitutional). No way the other justices would want the law left in such chaos so there would be a strong incentive for Kennedy to vote with the conservatives.

  • macbookben

    Help! I cannot find the link to create a diary (supposed to be under masthead). Sorry about the threadjack, need a lifeline here. Thanks.

    macbookben

    • heraklios

      I asked about that a while back

      • macbookben

        n/t

  • gawken

    Kagan is very partisan, but the Court doesn’t operate in a vacuum. Justices talk informally…they are brethren, and will be so for years, decades, to come. Also, the Court wants to avoid being see as overly political.

    Consensus is that the court divides 4-4-..with Kennedy the swing, deciding vote. Let’s assume that Kennedy is against Obamacare..let’s further speculate that Breyer is also ( there has been some recent commentary to suggest that)

    So, we’re looking at a 5-4, or possibly a 6-3 decision to toss Obamacare.

    Given that, why would Kagan, and the left,..expend the effort to defend her hearing the case?

    Nope, she recuses, makes her a “saint”..judicially PURE for the rest of her life on the Court..and she has cover for all the rest of her partisan votes yet to come.

  • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil truth

    …based on past performance and past successes by the left.

    The left wish list is Thomas alone, but their bottom line is to knock out both – hence the attempt to set up an media avalanche and/or try to establish equivalency between the two.

    The left will never accept Kagan recusing alone.

  • windwaker24

    It’s his court after all. I’m not a lawyer and I tried reading the rules of the Court (it’s hard…too much lawyer-speak), but can’t he do anything? Investigate? Something? If it were my court, I wouldn’t want ANY hint of shenanigans spoiling my Court’s reputation, and Kagan would be seeing my face everyday until this whole mess was straightened out!

    • macbookben

      four righties to four lefties (which would give them all political cover), and never mind black-balling, that only works on frat pledges.

      • windwaker24

        About her part in Obamacare. Couldn’t the Chief call for an investigation? Go to Congress? Add pressure? Something? Like I said above, if it were my Court, I don’t want any shenanigans ruining my Court’s reputation. Being the Chief Justice, I would think Roberts would have some power.

        • macbookben

          …or guideline that a justice must recuse him/herself when there is a conflict of interest. But whether that is enforceable by an external agent, or is voluntary, I’ve no clue. As surely as Kagan starts to feel pressure on this issue, the media will be sure to turn up the heat on Thomas’s “supposed” c.o.i. as the spouse of an officer in a conservative non-profit organization. If that is the case (which I seriously doubt in Thomas’s case), it kinda puts you back at square one.

  • independentmike

    I think Kagan lied when she answered specific questions posed to her in writing by the Judiciary Committee about any statements she had made on Obamacare. I think the e-mails that have come to light clearly show that her answers to those queries were not honest.

    And certainly she should recuse herself from the Obamacare case. I hope the Republicans will raise a stink about this. She clearly has no business ruling on this issue because her objectivity is non-existent.

  • gcards

    she may have, and why she should recuse herself from hearing this case as a sitting Supreme Court Justice.nike kobe

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    http://townhall.com/columnists/terryjeffrey/2011/12/14/creators_oped
    http://cnsnews.com/news/article/internal-doj-email-kagan-was-brought-loop-mark-levin-s-obamacare-complaint