What's Your Phone Number?
That was then-Solicitor General Elena Kagan's response to an email suggesting that she attend a March 22, 2010 meeting to discuss litigation strategies to defend Obamacare. Why not just send a quick email back with RSVP or regrets? Because Kagan knew she was being considered for SCOTUS, and was busy trying to avoid a paper trail.
Under federal law, Kagan is bound to recuse herself “in any proceeding in which [her] impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” She also must recuse herself if, in her former capacity as Solicitor General, she “participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy.”
Documents uncovered by CNS News show that Kagan's Solicitor General office was involved in an administration effort to develop strategies to defend the healthcare law as early as January 2010 (yes - before the legislation was even enacted). She assigned Neal Katyal, her chief deputy, to run point on the issue -- and Katyal wrote "Let's crush them." The fact that Katyal suggested that Kagan personally attend the March 22 meeting mentioned above shows that she remained directly involved in the pro-Obamacare counseling. (ht: Carrie Severino, here and here).
No doubt Kagan will fight recusal tooth-and-nail. But I'm tempted to say: Justice Kagan, we've got your number.
- Comment (6)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments :
Mar '11
Re: What's Your Phone Number?
Say it all you like, but she wasn't put on the court just to recuse herself.
Re: What's Your Phone Number?
Fat Dave
Say it all you like, but she wasn't put on the court just to recuse herself. · Apr 11 at 12:17pm
Of course, she was nominated to be a reliable pro-Obamacare vote. The administration obviously thought that she had covered her tracks sufficiently to avoid disqualification. But that doesn't mean they got it right.
Jun '10
Re: What's Your Phone Number?
I knew there was some OTHER reason for the recent stories about Justice Thomas' "conflicts of interest" involving his wife, and how it's "normal" for US Supreme Court justices to just ignore conflicts of interest, because they can. Maybe, somebody was just preparing the ground for Kagan ignoring her very direct conflict.
Jul '10
Re: What's Your Phone Number?
Elena Kagan: "Hello?"
Caller: "Elena, it's Janet..."
Elena Kagan: "Janet?'
Caller: "Janet. Janet Napolitano..."
Elena Kagan: "Janet! Hi!"..."
Caller: "Elena?...."
Elena Kagan: "Yes?"
Caller: "What are you wearing?"
Jun '10
Re: What's Your Phone Number?
Adam Freedman
Fat Dave
Say it all you like, but she wasn't put on the court just to recuse herself. · Apr 11 at 12:17pm
Of course, she was nominated to be a reliable pro-Obamacare vote. The administration obviously thought that she had covered her tracks sufficiently to avoid disqualification. But that doesn't mean they got it right. · Apr 11 at 12:36pm
The issue is one of judicial ethics (that inconvenient "impartiality" thing), an issue that does not appear to be troubling to the Obama administration. But Adam's analysis is exactly right. I've appeared before a lot of federal and state judges. Under similar circumstances, I can't imagine any reputable judge not recusing himself or herself--in most cases on their own motion. They wouldn't even need to be asked. Will Kagan recuse hereself? No.
Dec '10
Re: What's Your Phone Number?
I can't help myself - your title reminded me of this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plJ3iw2cqkU