Let's be honest: Who here thinks that the USSC hasn't already made up their minds on how they are going to rule on this?

Thomas definitely.
Scalia, probably.
Kagen, probably.

Probably.

Which is why they won't.

It shouldn't even be a question for Thomas and Scalia. We shouldn't even have to ask for Thomas, it should be obvious to every single person within seconds that Thomas cannot be impartial.

The argument for Kagan is pretty weak, considering that a lot of the arguments to make her recuse rely on Republican speculation, Republicans who argue she should because of how she might be involved while simultaneously absolutely denying that Thomas is in any way compromised, particularly not from the money his family has received from the group actually leading the suit against the bill.

GAT_00: It shouldn't even be a question for Thomas and Scalia. We shouldn't even have to ask for Thomas, it should be obvious to every single person within seconds that Thomas cannot be impartial.

The argument for Kagan is pretty weak, considering that a lot of the arguments to make her recuse rely on Republican speculation, Republicans who argue she should because of how she might be involved while simultaneously absolutely denying that Thomas is in any way compromised, particularly not from the money his family has received from the group actually leading the suit against the bill.

Are you implying that mere MONEY can influence decision-making? That ridiculous assertion would undermine the entire way our political system interacts with business. Get back to your drum circle, you smelly OWS protestor.

Thomas should recuse himself from the court, period.

Is this the daily Sean Hannity circle jerk?

Scalia and Thomas = Hell yes. They both compromised their impartiality by attending a society dinner hosted by the law firm arguing the case against HCR, and the Thomas household stands to directly profit from HCR's demise.

Kagan = maybe. The GOP derp avalanche against her sounds great on paper, but I'd need to see some well laid arguments to really figure out if she's too invested in the case to sit in on it.

Thomas- Absolutly. Without a doubt, there is no way he can be considered impartial. His wife's job is to lobby against this bill.

Scalia- attended a dinner held in part the law firm representing this case. It doesn't look good, but I don't think its enough of a deal breaker to make him recuse himself.

Kagan- may have helped write some of the law. This really doesn't mean she can't impartially look at the whole thing and argue its constitutionality.

So..I'd say: Thomas yes. Scalia and Kagan no.

Here's the thing: We have no mechanism to force Thomas to do so. None whatsoever. The only thing we can do is point out how bad it will look to history, but I don't think he gives a fark.

No.

They should be able to make an honest, informed, sound decision regardless of their own personal interests or background.

This isn't the local PTA, its the Supreme Court.

That, says conservative lawyer Carrie Severino, proves that Kagan is "the justice who knew too much."

That's one thing that Clarence Thomas doesn't need to worry about being accused of...

vernonFL: They should be able to make an honest, informed, sound decision regardless of their own personal interests or background.

notsureifserious.jpg

vernonFL: They should be able to make an honest, informed, sound decision regardless of their own personal interests or background.


And in theory, communism should work.

In theory.

what_now: Kagan- may have helped write some of the law. This really doesn't mean she can't impartially look at the whole thing and argue its constitutionality.

If she worked on drafting or defending this law in any way at any stage, that is a clear conflict of interest.

vernonFL: They should be able to make an honest, informed, sound decision regardless of their own personal interests or background.

That hasn't happened on the USSC on a major decision since Roe.

Hobodeluxe: Eddie Adams from Torrance: That, says conservative lawyer Carrie Severino, proves that Kagan is "the justice who knew too much."

That's one thing that Clarence Thomas doesn't need to worry about being accused of...

since when is being informed on the issue a bad thing?

Since socialism.

goorange: No, No, and Yes

Why?

Be specific.

beta_plus: Yeah, because I'm sure if it wasn't for his wife, Thomas would vote for the healthcare bill. By that notion, Bill Clinton would have had to veto Hillarycare if it had passed because his wife wrote it.

So you're admitting he wouldn't consider the case on it's merits and has already made up his mind, the actual arguments be damned, and therefore he is perfectly fit to be an impartial justice on the Supreme Court?

Why would they do that?

Thune: Having political leanings does not necessitate a recusal.

That's not why Scalia and Thomas are being asked to recuse themselves.

Thomas, especially, has a personal interest in the outcome of the case. His wife has been prominent in efforts in claiming that PPACA is unconstitutional.

Are you really claiming that a judge whose financial security AND the state of his marriage are dependent on the outcome of the case can, in any practical way, be impartial?

Also, what's your evidence that Kagen took any part in the legislation? From all accounts, she was walled off from formulating the legislation itself and from formulating any strategies to defend it.

eraser8: Are you really claiming that a judge whose financial security AND the state of his marriage are dependent on the outcome of the case can, in any practical way, be impartial?

On the former, no. The latter? That's kind of iffy. I don't know how I feel about making judges recuse themselves because of the political beliefs of their family. Seems a little much, but I'm not sure.

Nabb1: If she worked on drafting or defending this law in any way at any stage, that is a clear conflict of interest.

But there's no actual evidence of that. There's just a lot of speculation from people trying to distract attention away from Thomas's wife.

Either way, I don't think Scalia should recuse himself.

Thune: Kagan was instrumental in PASSING the bill.

Ok. If you have evidence of that, I'd be interested in seeing it. And by evidence, I don't mean "Some guy's blog".

DamnYankees: I don't know how I feel about making judges recuse themselves because of the political beliefs of their family. Seems a little much, but I'm not sure.

A marriage is more than a mere relation. In marriage, both parties are "seized as one person."

If you were a judge, would you really rule in a way that would, more or less, destroy your wife's career and livelihood? Do you really see no conflict there?

Thune: Kagan was instrumental in PASSING the bill.

You keep saying this but you've provided NO evidence.

So, please, explain to us what you're basing your contention on.

eraser8: DamnYankees: I don't know how I feel about making judges recuse themselves because of the political beliefs of their family. Seems a little much, but I'm not sure.

A marriage is more than a mere relation. In marriage, both parties are "seized as one person."

If you were a judge, would you really rule in a way that would, more or less, destroy your wife's career and livelihood? Do you really see no conflict there?

Also, do you really want to hear the years of nagging after you rule against her?

dontpointthatthingatme: If you honestly think these people should be recused, then so should homosexual judges on gay marriage cases.

Why are homosexual judges in any more conflicted position than heterosexual judges when it comes to marriage equality?

Be specific.

Diogenes: Thomas should recuse himself from the court, period.

I think the three of them should step down. They've been farking things up consistently.