(Jul. 18, 2011) — One of Obama’s faux U.S. Supreme Court Justice appointees appears to have intended, in her previous position as Solicitor General, to defend the health care law passed last year despite what she told the U.S. Senate during her confirmation hearings, with her staff members agreeing among themselves that she “would be brought in as needed” to do so.
The evidence was released as a result of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit which has been combined with asecond lawsuit. Both plaintiffs sought email communications which Elena Kagan might have sent or received as well as any meetings she might have attended in regard to “health-care legislation” (page 6) or litigation in regard to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) passed on March 23, 2010 signed by Obama.
Kagan served as White House Counsel from 1995-1999 under President Clinton, prior to which she had been a faculty member at the University of Chicago Law School. As Dean of Harvard Law School from 2003 to 2009, she opposed the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” military policy in place at the time and “supported a lawsuit intended to overturn the Solomon Amendment so military recruiters might be banned from the grounds of schools like Harvard.”
Her experience includes being a “paid member of an advisory panel for the embattled investment firm Goldman Sachs,” which received a $12.9 billion bailout in 2008 and was a beneficiary of the TARP legislation passed in the waning days of the second Bush term. Goldman Sachs was one of the “big banks” which received money from AIG and then sent much of it overseas.
Kagan has stated that she will not recuse herself from any case which comes before the high court regarding the PPACA, despite indications from emails released which seem to show that as Solicitor General, her office and staff were “heavily involved” in preparing a defense of the bill. Forty-nine members of the U.S. House of Representatives have called for an inquiry into the inconsistencies in Kagan’s responses to the Senate during her confirmation hearings and the emails recently revealed by Judicial Watch and the Media Research Center. At issue is the question of whether or not Kagan’s “ability to exercise objectivity” if and when a case against the bill is heard by the Supreme Court.
The Commonwealth of Virginia was the first state to file a lawsuit against the PPACA, and other states joined to form a multi-state lawsuit shortly thereafter. The constitutionality of the bill wasdiscussed in the mainstream media before its passage.
Earlier this year, a federal judge in Virginia ruled a key component of the bill unconstitutional, while other judges have upheld the bill’s constitutionality. Another lawsuit challenging the bill cites 15 constitutional violations and is awaiting the appointment of a judge following four defaults by the Department of Justice. On July 15, 2011, one of the principals in the case reported to The Post & Email that the plaintiffs have requested that two judges identified as possibilities but known to have been appointed by Obama to recuse themselves.
Judicial Watch, one of the plaintiffs bringing the lawsuit to obtain information about Kagan’s role as Solicitor General, reported that when Kagan served in that capacity, she “was constantly kept apprised of ongoing litigation strategy discussions. As recently as March 2010, Kagan’s top deputy urged her to attend a high level briefing on Obamacare litigation, without a hint that it might be inappropriate.”
A June 24, 2011 etter signed by the 49 House members seeking an investigation claim that the Department of Justice “has been uncooperative to date with repeated FOIA requests that seek the full body of relevant emails from the Office of the Solicitor General that would reveal the scope of Justice Kagan’s involvement in PPACA defense activities.” The letter asks the House Judiciary Committee to launch an investigation to uncover “the extent to which U.S. Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan was involved in preparing a legal defense” of the PPACA.
According to 28 U.S.C. 455, “(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”
Judges can be removed from the bench for various reasons, including lying under oath.
If Kagan lied to the Senate during her confirmation hearings, rather than being asked to recuse herself from litigation over the health care bill, should the members of the House be requesting that she be removed from the U.S. Supreme Court altogether? How could she have been confirmed by the U.S. Senate, having never been a judge?
What are the chances that Kagan misrepresented other aspects of her background?
If as Solicitor General, Kagan was a “representative at the Supreme Court” for the Obama regime, how can she now serve as a member of that body without prejudice when laws Obama has signed are being questioned for their constitutionality?
With the health care bill having been signed by a person with a British father, which gave the son British citizenship, how could it or any other bill he has signed be considered constitutional?
The Post & Email
by Sharon Rondeau