Emails reveal evidence for Kagan recusal. And, perjury?
Emails obtained by freedom of information act request reveal clear personal bias on the part of Obama-appointed Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan in regard to the Obama health care takeover bill.
In the wake of a Supreme Court announcement that it will hear the case of 26 states against the new health care law, several lawmakers and leaders had already asked Kagan to recuse herself from the case for which she helped craft a legal defense while in the employment of the Obama administration.
The emails obtained by cnsnews reveal exultation by Kagan in response to Justice Department adviser Laurence Tribe: “I hear they have the votes, Larry!! Simply amazing.” The report explains why this should legally disqualify Kagan from said case:
According to 28 USC 455, a Supreme Court justice must recuse from “any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” The law also says a justice must recuse anytime he has “expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy” while he “served in governmental employment.”
The emails provide even more stimulating matter. On the same day, Kagan engaged her deputy solicitor general via email in regard to plans for a “Health care litigation meeting” which he encouraged Kagan to attend since it was “litigation of singular importance.” Kagan then requested his phone number, apparently to continue the discussion off the written record.
This “litigation meeting” in which it appears Kagan took interest on March 21, 2010, is key information considering Kagan’s testimony to Congress only eight months later. During her confirmation hearing, she was asked
Have you ever been asked about your opinion regarding the underlying legal or constitutional issues related to any proposed health care legislation, including but not limited to Pub. L. No. 111-148, or the underlying legal or constitutional issues related to potential litigation resulting from such legislation?
Kagan flatly responded, “No.”
But if she did indeed attend this litigation meeting, it seems impossible that her answer is fully truthful.
So it seems we have ample grounds for recusal here, but even more interestingly—should someone do a little detective work—we may have the revelation of something much further beyond “good behavior.”