Judicial Watch, is that Elena Kagan served in the Obama administration when the law advanced through Congress and now is on the Supreme Court bench sitting in judgment of it.
“Justice Kagan should provide the American people a full explanation about her refusal to recuse herself in light of the new information about her potential involvement with Obamacare when she served as solicitor general,”
Judicial Watch confirmed it still is waiting for an answer from Kagan and the DOJ to questions about her involvement in and support for the law during its construction phase. “It is a real scandal that she and DOJ refuse to provide more information,”
Ordinary judicial ethics would mandate that if she participated in such discussions, she should not later sit in judgment of the law, Judicial Watch has argued.
That records that have been released “included an email showing what appeared to be then-Solicitor General Kagan’s excitement and support for the passage of PPACA,” the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. When a controversy arose during the course of the NEPDG litigation over whether Justice Scalia should recuse himself from that matter, Justice Scalia issued an opinion stating: ‘The decision whether a judge’s impartiality can ‘reasonably be questioned’ is to be made in light of the facts as they existed, and not as they were surmised or reported.’
The recusal practices of current and past justices’ as well as consult with your colleagues if questions about recusal in particular cases arose.
The White House, despite repeated inquiries, has declined to affirm that Kagan was excluded from Obamacare defense discussions during that time period. Judicial Watch has been trying for a considerable time to obtain records that would explain Kagan’s participation in the discussions. Those efforts include a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the Department of Justice for not releasing the information. The group also sought access to calendars, schedules and phone logs for Kagan and others.
Larry Klayman, also has been trying to raise the issue of Kagan’s possible bias. Klayman requested twice that the Supreme Court address the issue of Kagan’s expressed support for Obamacare but was rejected.
Klayman wrote at the time: “Without a neutral, unbiased Supreme Court, there simply is no rule of law and any decision concerning the act will be seen as illegitimate.”
Fitton told WND that if Judicial Watch doesn’t “get full disclosure from either Justice Kagan or the DOJ, Americans will have fair reason to question whether the Supreme Court impartially handled the Obamacare constitutional charges.”