image from zimbio.comYou may not know this, but seventy-four House Democrats have signed a letter to Clarence Thomas requesting him to recuse himself from any deliberations on the constitutionality of Barack Obama’s health care law. The Democrats’ argument is that his wife’s work as a lobbyist implies “The appearance of a conflict of interest”.
The health care law’s constitutionality will more than likely be decided by the Supreme Court and this is the latest tactic by liberals to detour the natural path of justice to their own ends. This is an excerpt from the letter:
“The appearance of a conflict of interest merits recusal under federal law. From what we have already seen, the line between your impartiality and you and your wife’s financial stake in the overturn of health-care reform is blurred. Your spouse is advertising herself as a lobbyist who has ‘experience and connections’ and appeals to clients who want a particular decision — they want to overturn health-care reform. Moreover, your failure to disclose Ginny Thomas’s receipt of $686,589 from the Heritage Foundation, a prominent opponent of health-care reform, between 2003 and 2007 has raised great concern.”
In an article from outsidethebeltway.com, by Doug Mataconis, he outlines the specific law House Democrats are referring to in the Code of Conduct for United States Judges:
A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances in which:
(d) the judge or the judge’s spouse, or a person related to either within the third degree of relationship, or the spouse of such a person is:
(i) a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of a party;
(ii) acting as a lawyer in the proceeding;
(iii) known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding; or
(iv) to the judge’s knowledge likely to be a material witness in the proceeding.
There is little legal validity in the request for Justice Thomas to recuse himself. His wife is affiliated with a Tea Party group that has taken a particular position on the Affordable Care Act, but her involvement is hardly sufficient to result in a biased approach on the part of Justice Thomas regarding the requirements from the code of conduct.
This letter from the liberals arrived on the heels of a letter from Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) last week, which suggested that Justice Elena Kagan should recuse herself from consideration of the health care law’s constitutionality because of her previous position as U.S. Solicitor General.
“I think that Kagan, who was the solicitor general at the time this was all done, probably should recuse herself, which means it might not be resolved by the Supreme Court,” Hatch told Fox News last week. “That means the lower court decision will be the acting law.”
Kagan’s circumstance differs from Thomas’ and holds much more validity:
A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances in which:
...the judge served as a lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom the judge previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter, or the judge or lawyer has been a material witness;
Justice Kagan served as Solicitor General for the duration that PPACA was being discussed by Congress. If at any time her office gave legal advice to the White House pertaining to the constitutionality of the law being considered, then a firm argument stands for her to recuse herself.
Both sides seem to be preparing for the worst and are resorting to any measure possible to ensure the outcome of their interests. I'm obviously quite partial to the shredding of all but maybe fifteen pages of ObamaCare's five inch thick text of socialized health care.
1,594.1 miles to go.
The health care law’s constitutionality will more than likely be decided by the Supreme Court and this is the latest tactic by liberals to detour the natural path of justice to their own ends. This is an excerpt from the letter:
“The appearance of a conflict of interest merits recusal under federal law. From what we have already seen, the line between your impartiality and you and your wife’s financial stake in the overturn of health-care reform is blurred. Your spouse is advertising herself as a lobbyist who has ‘experience and connections’ and appeals to clients who want a particular decision — they want to overturn health-care reform. Moreover, your failure to disclose Ginny Thomas’s receipt of $686,589 from the Heritage Foundation, a prominent opponent of health-care reform, between 2003 and 2007 has raised great concern.”
In an article from outsidethebeltway.com, by Doug Mataconis, he outlines the specific law House Democrats are referring to in the Code of Conduct for United States Judges:
A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances in which:
(d) the judge or the judge’s spouse, or a person related to either within the third degree of relationship, or the spouse of such a person is:
(i) a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of a party;
(ii) acting as a lawyer in the proceeding;
(iii) known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding; or
(iv) to the judge’s knowledge likely to be a material witness in the proceeding.
There is little legal validity in the request for Justice Thomas to recuse himself. His wife is affiliated with a Tea Party group that has taken a particular position on the Affordable Care Act, but her involvement is hardly sufficient to result in a biased approach on the part of Justice Thomas regarding the requirements from the code of conduct.
This letter from the liberals arrived on the heels of a letter from Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) last week, which suggested that Justice Elena Kagan should recuse herself from consideration of the health care law’s constitutionality because of her previous position as U.S. Solicitor General.
“I think that Kagan, who was the solicitor general at the time this was all done, probably should recuse herself, which means it might not be resolved by the Supreme Court,” Hatch told Fox News last week. “That means the lower court decision will be the acting law.”
Kagan’s circumstance differs from Thomas’ and holds much more validity:
A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances in which:
...the judge served as a lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom the judge previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter, or the judge or lawyer has been a material witness;
Justice Kagan served as Solicitor General for the duration that PPACA was being discussed by Congress. If at any time her office gave legal advice to the White House pertaining to the constitutionality of the law being considered, then a firm argument stands for her to recuse herself.
Both sides seem to be preparing for the worst and are resorting to any measure possible to ensure the outcome of their interests. I'm obviously quite partial to the shredding of all but maybe fifteen pages of ObamaCare's five inch thick text of socialized health care.
1,594.1 miles to go.
No comments:
Post a Comment