In this case retribution may be defined and likened to justice being served to We the People as a requital for those who acted against the public trust and best interest. Enter one Elena Kagan, last justice appointed to the Court of Nine to be the final adjudicant on the validity of law made by Congress. It is a proven fact that while acting in the position of Solicitor General, an Executive Branch position, for Great Leader that Ms. Kagan did act in a manner that would be considered as lobbying for ObamaCare in her capacity in that position of great influence. This story was covered here:
(CNSNews.com) – The House Judiciary Committee is launching an inquiry to probe the involvement that Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan had in “health care legislation or litigation” when she was serving as President Barack Obama’s solicitor general and was responsible for defending the administration’s position in federal court cases.
The inquiry will look at whether Kagan is required by law to recuse herself from judging cases challenging President Obama’s health-care law and whether her answers to questions posed by the Senate Judiciary Committee during her confirmation process were accurate.
and continues> https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/judiciary-committee-launches-probe-kagan
Here fact ends and my opinion begins for it’s my position in belief that Great Leader’s appointment of her was with great intent as she could be the deciding vote in validating ObamaCare against any high court challenge that was certain to come and very likely prior to NOvember 2012. Seizing government control of the US health care delivery system is endemic to the progressive agenda and socialist influences. It was the first strategy in the socialism one-two punch offense. The second was Cap and Trade, which failed, but is still being pursued via piecemeal legislation and Executive Branch agency directive and regulation issuances.
In politics there is only strategy, not coincidence. It’s the dirtiest game around and played for all the marbles all the time. In that prior position Kagan is likely the most conversant person sitting on that court in the minutia of hidden and vague detail in that law. This puts her in a position of being able to handle herself very well in deliberation with other justices and to subliminally, if not directly, influence their thinking. We all know how much text is involved and even for the law clerks of the high court justices translating them to lucid familiarity and relationship to all prior precedents in law is a withering task. It’s likely another reason why this law was drafted in the lengthy and confusing, constant intra-referential construction manner that it was. Anticipation of a future challenge. In and of itself, that manner is suggestive of the commitment of outside influences aligned well prior to Obama’s election having anticipated his election. There is no way, if you’ve had the great displeasure of trying to read the original bill as I have, that such could have been assembled in the time between his election and it’s submission as legislation. Most people fail to think back and grasp that perception. To make that case I went to my files and dug out this titled article include at the source noted(1) and under the title:
The HC Monstrosity-All 1,018 Pages
If you read and verify this analysis of the original intent of this bill the end goal of malicious intent becomes very obvious.
I intend to follow-up on this inquiry and we all should keep a little file set aside with our representatives’ email contacts and advise them to keep the pressure on to pursue this to a conclusion and not allow the inquiry to die in committee neglect. Forcing her recusal would be a significant victory not to be underestimated as to end effect in adjudicating ObamaCare.
If you agree please consider passing the link to this topic to your mailing lists. It’s how we activate the influence of the ‘net!
This article is much to do about nothing. Kagan was appointed by a liberal president. What else would you expect? That she would oppose, or at the very least have no opinion, on obamacare?
It would be like the left whining that the Bush appointed justice’s Roberts and Alito held favorable opinions of the 2nd amendment, with high NRA ratings, before they were nominated. Gee… big surprise they would rule in favor of Heller v. DC.
More shortsightedness on your part Max as you strain to get back at me!
As per usual in your rush to judgement of articles posted you completely ignore what the point was. It was to show, in my opinion, that this appointment of Kagan was done with A REASON. Since you missed that point on your first reading why not try again. I get no pleasure by analytically embarassing you, but sadly Max you act like a checkers player trying to analyze the game of chess and then pound your chest about it. Things are not always as they seem at first glance, especially in the dirty game of politics.
An example should be enlightening to others, but not to you probably judging from recent comments.
You through in Heller v. DC as an equivalent example. It is not. What part of this did you skim over too fast?
“This puts her in a position of being able to handle herself very well in deliberation with other justices and to subliminally, if not directly, influence their thinking. We all know how much text is involved and even for the law clerks of the high court justices translating them to lucid familiarity and relationship to all prior precedents in law is a withering task. It’s likely another reason why this law was drafted in the lengthy and confusing, constant intra-referential construction manner that it was. Anticipation of a future challenge. In and of itself, that manner is suggestive of the commitment of outside influences aligned well prior to Obama’s election having anticipated his election. There is no way, if you’ve had the great displeasure of trying to read the original bill as I have, that such could have been assembled in the time between his election and it’s submission as legislation. Most people fail to think back and grasp that perception”
Check it out> “to subliminally, if not directly, influence their thinking”. I was suggesting, without stating so, that SHE may well have had a hand in crafting this original bill and that was why she was appointed as Solicitor General in the first place. To SET HER UPas being well-qualified for the very USSC appointment Obama made. That position of Solicitor General improved the “qualification” attributes of her resume for an otherwise pedestrian jurist. Try thinking a bit out of the box Max.
doc, you amuse me. Kagan “subliminally” influencing the conservative majority on the court. What a riot. At best, she will be writing the minority opinion should the court take this issue up.
Her position and actions taken as solicitor general could be cause to recuse her on any issue she worked on in that capacity. And maybe not. In any case, the reasons for recusal for appointed justices is one of greater latitude, as opposed to elected judges. As Kagan has already recused herself from several cases related to her actions as solicitor general (thus establishing her own precedent) you can relax.
Well finally a reasonable response, but still addressing only the “obvious”. You are indeed correct about the Roberts court. It has issued what may be termed conservative decisions 58 percent of the time. Of those during the last term their conservative decisions hit 65%. The most conservative decisions in almost 60 years.
That is the obvious which you addressed. For whatever reasons you have you fail then to pause and consider the not-so-obvious in your rush to self-indulge yourself in what you think is my erroneous point. I feel as I do for the reasons I stated and would suggest that although there is no hard evidence I can produce that Kagan may very well have been part of the team that crafted ObamaCare, there is evidence that indicates she helped coordinate the Obama administration’s legal defense of the Affordable Care Act (also known as Obamacare) while she served as Solicitor General. The mere fact that she helped to do that indicates to a thinking person she may have been picked because she had a great familiarity with how it was constructed and; therefore, could best coordinate any defense of it. If you supported Judicial Watch you’d know that. You’d also know that she failed to recuse herself this past April from a ruling not to “fast-track” Obamacare for Supreme Court review of Virginia’s lawsuit challenging Obamacare. Her other recusals you referenced were meaningless in this context under discussion. Keep thinking only inside the box Max with the blinkers on.