U.S. Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan has decided to step down from participating in nearly half of the 51 cases the court has agreed to review this term because of potential conflicts of interest.
The news that Kagan will bow out of an unexpectedly large number of cases sent attorneys and legal scholars scrambling as the first day of the court's new term began Monday. Observers are trying to determine how major case law could be affected by not having a ninth justice on the bench for as many of the 25 cases that the court has agreed to hear so far this year.
The court is expected to agree to hear another 25 to 35 cases this term, and it is possible that Kagan will recuse herself from some of those cases as well.
Jay Sekulow, the chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice who has argued several cases before the Supreme Court, tells Newsmax, "The ramifications of this recusal could be significant for a generation."
He added: "I think this is fraught with disaster, as far as getting definitive opinions out of the Supreme Court of the United States. I think it's going to make it very difficult."
During her confirmation, Kagan presented senators with a list of 11 cases that she planned to recuse herself from because of her work as U.S. solicitor general. Since that time, she had decided to also recuse herself from more than a dozen more cases.
"She was not accurate, nor was the Senate," Sekulow tells Newsmax. "So you've got half the docket that she's recused from."
If Kagan recuses herself and the eight remaining justices are deadlocked 4-4 on an issue, the ruling by the last appellate court to hear the case before it went to the U.S. Supreme Court automatically stands.
More here
DelMarVa's Premier Source for News, Opinion, Analysis, and Human Interest Contact Publisher Joe Albero at alberobutzo@wmconnect.com or 410-430-5349
14 comments:
Another Obama fiasco!
Will she be recusing herself from half of her paycheck? And do the people who thought she was so great now wonder how the court will be able to function properly and what the future effect on law will be for the entire country? The citizens should be OUTRAGED (and many probably ARE),but again, out PUBLIC MASTERS laugh with total derision at "the citizens". She should resign.
9:41 and 9:51, two dummies out to latch onto ANY story with an antiObama tirade. I am guessing "objectivity" is a foreign word to you.
No, 10:03, this was totally forseeable, and she evaded all the questions that would have brought it to light during the 'confirmation hearing' (what a joke).
Obama knew she was conflicted, but didn't care, because he also knew she was a marxist just like him.
It's simple, get rid of her. She is not performing the duties her job requires. If there were one or two it may be excusable but boardering on 50% that's unacceptable. If I didn't show up to work 50% of the time I guarantee I would be fired so why are there special treatments just because of her position? Ditch the chick and replace her with a more deserving harder working person with less conflict pertaining to cases being heard.
10:03 "objectivity" What in the world are you talking about? One of the most important decisions a sitting president can make, is the appointment of a Supreme Court Justice. Obama has once again proven to be a failure. Do you honestly believe a justice who has to recuse themselves from numerous cases was the best choice?
Obama has one of the lowest approval ratings of any president and it's no wonder. He's done it to himself.
She is a compromised individual with so many hidden faults (crimes?) behind the scenes. She worked for Goldmann, and several other elitist organizations.
She had to recuse herself from these cases because of her former position (solicitor general). Not because she was some kind of big bank ceo or outside interest. Take a chill pill, she'll be back 100% when these first cases are done. I would think that the solicitor general position would be apart of the experience you would applaud, but not in today's "hate everything from the opposite side of the aisle" climate. Loonies
I would think you people who see any Obama pick as being "the end of America" would applaude the fact that she won't be judging these cases
10:03.... what??? I am a lot of things, but no dummy. I never mentioned Obama... and is it a fact (an objective term, you notice...) that she will not be involved in HALF of the cases or not? MY point was about job performance and pay as a public servant (an unusual idea, I know). Further, as the article states (another fact), the possibility of a deadlock and a "no decision" is very real, negating the intended effect of the Supreme Court. Regardless of her political leanings, her absence will have a profound effect. THAT was my post..and I was actually referring to the Senators who confirmed her....so what's up with the "Obama" crap? Feeling a little sensitive about things????
12:38, check the first commenter then remember what blog your tirades appear on (there goes that sensitive theory). I count 7 justices that have previously worked in the solicitor general's office (either as SG or as a deputy or assistant). Please show where this caused such catastrophic problems in the judiciary.
Are really that dumb? She recused herself because as a solicitor general she supervised briefs (and authored some) to be filed before the Supreme Court.
Run, I think Beck is on.
No wonder some of you voted for O'Donnell
3:22 did those Justices recuse themselves from 50% of the cases in a given year? If so, then I have the same comment about THEM. I would call for THEM to resign also. What is it about government workers that they think they can get away with not doing the job we pay them for, i.e. senators leaving business matters to campaign for President or another Senate term? I don't care what the political views of the Justices are --- once confirmed, I expect them to serve the public and do the job we pay them so highly for..and the "chips fall where they may"...I don't care about their previous jobs...if the Senate confirms them, its all academic...I also don't wish to "tirade' about anything...sorry for any offense; I was merely commenting on the (on what seemed to me to be) unusual number of cases that she WOULDN'T be hearing...
4:06 It is a high number of cases because she just left the job. This is not uncommon and will decrease as her previous case are no longer before the court.
At least she recused herself which is more than you can say for Scalia who would go hunting with Cheney then rule on a case that involved him.
Which do you think smells more of influence?
Post a Comment