Politico: The liberal campaign against SCOTUS conservatives

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 16, 2011 6:53 AM GMT
    Some liberal extremists are attempting to personally attack the integrity of Supreme Court Justices because they disagree with their decisions. It's more than a little vile considering the double standard they take. It would seem that these attacks have been pre-emptive in an attempt to deflect criticisms of Elena Kagan and far more serious charges of conflicts of interest.

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/50757.html

    Yet, even liberal legal experts have brushed off the complaints as hollow.

    In an appearance with Weiner on CNN last month, the network’s liberal legal commentator Jeffrey Toobin flatly rejected the Democratic congressman’s call for Thomas to recuse himself from the health care case.

    “I don’t think there is even a specter of a conflict of interest,” Toobin said.

    And Michael Waldman, executive director of the left-leaning Brennan Center for Justice at New York University’s School of Law, called the allegations that Thomas and Scalia are biased by their affiliation with the Koch retreat “meritless. We see no basis for the accusations that the justices’ decisions are based on anything but the merits.” He warned that “people should think very hard before asking prosecutors to investigate judges just because they dislike the decisions they make.”

    In dismissing as “farfetched” Common Cause’s request that the Justice Department investigate whether the justices’ Koch conference appearances warranted recusal, The Washington Post’s editorial board noted that liberal justices also have affiliated with groups that had interests before the court.

    Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, for instance, appeared at a 2004 lecture series co-sponsored by the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund two weeks after taking the liberal group’s side in a medical screening case before the court.

    And, though the justice’s late husband, Martin Ginsburg, was for years a partner in a high-powered corporate law firm, Feldman asserted in his Times op-ed, “Surely no one believes that his career made his wife … more positively inclined toward corporate interests.”

    Likewise, Feldman was amused by a December Times editorial urging Scalia to reject the Tea Party Caucus’s invitation lest he “give the impression that he was joining the throng — confirming his new moniker as the ‘Justice from the tea party’.”


    Meanwhile:
    http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/kagan-tribe-day-obamacare-passed-i-hear-they-have-votes-larry-simply-amazing

    On Sunday, March 21, 2010, the day the House of Representatives passed President Barack Obama’s Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, then-Solicitor General Elena Kagan and famed Supreme Court litigator and Harvard Law Prof. Laurence Tribe, who was then serving in the Justice Department, had an email exchange in which they discussed the pending health-care vote, according to documents the Department of Justice released late Wednesday to the Media Research Center, CNSNews.com's parent organization, and to Judicial Watch.

    “I hear they have the votes, Larry!! Simply amazing,” Kagan said to Tribe in one of the emails.

    The Justice Department released a new batch of emails on Wednesday evening as its latest response to Freedom of Information Act requests filed by CNSNews.com and Judicial Watch. Both organizations filed federal lawsuits against DOJ after the department did not initially respond to the requests. CNSNews.com originally filed its FOIA request on May 25, 2010--before Elena Kagan's June 2010 Supreme Court confirmation hearings.

    The March 2010 email exchange between Kagan and Tribe raises new questions about whether Kagan must recuse herself from judging cases involving the health-care law that Obama signed--and which became the target of legal challenges--while Kagan was serving as Obama's solicitor general and was responsible for defending his administration’s positions in court disputes.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 16, 2011 10:51 AM GMT
    No. And citing two right-wing "news" sources doesn't really bolster your argument. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Nov 16, 2011 10:53 AM GMT
    Oh Lordy Lordy Lordy .....LOL

    Kagan must recuse herself ?

    When certain members of SCOTUS have profited through their spouses by fundraising to STOP the Healthcare law?
    When there are pictures SHOWING him there?
    ctvt-e1286729931858.jpg

    If you can't see the conflict there it's Time to take your head out of your own republican ass
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 16, 2011 3:21 PM GMT
    Politico had at least 3 journalists who participated on the Journolist. That makes them a rightwing news source? When you're as extreme as you Christian, I guess everyone's a right wing newsource except for a few extremist columnists you cite.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 16, 2011 3:23 PM GMT
    As predicted, these attacks on certain SCOTUS members are probably just an attempt to blunt attacks on Elena Kagan - considering she was part of the Administration that helped create the bill.

    http://news.investors.com/Article/591798/201111151910/Justice-Kagan-Recuse-Thyself.htm

    Should a justice who participated in ObamaCare's creation recuse herself from the court's review of that law? Of course. But then a nominee who lies in confirmation hearings shouldn't be on the court anyway.

    If Justice Elena Kagan were a person of character, she would sit out the Supreme Court's hearing of the challenge to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

    But during her confirmation hearings in June of last year, she indicated she would not. And since this Monday, when the court announced it would take the case, she has done nothing to suggest she will recuse herself after all. Nor has the court made any statement about her recusal, a convention it usually follows when a justice takes himself or herself off a case.

    Here are the facts on Kagan: She was the administration's solicitor general when ObamaCare became law last year. She has acknowledged that she was at a meeting in which state litigation against ObamaCare was discussed, though she said she was not involved in any legal responses concerning the states' litigation.

    We also know that Kagan enthusiastically supported ObamaCare. This is made clear in emails released last week by the Justice Department.

    "I hear they have the votes, Larry!! Simply amazing," Kagan wrote on the day ObamaCare passed the House in an email to Laurence Tribe, the Harvard law professor who was working at that time in the Obama Justice Department.

    On the same day that note was sent, an associate attorney general emailed Justice Department lawyers to organize a health care litigation meeting. A Kagan deputy later emailed her suggesting that she attend.

    While nothing in the chain of emails indicates Kagan was at the meeting, neither is there any evidence that she said she was not going to attend.

    Nearly lost in this is the possibility that Kagan lied during her confirmation. She told the Senate Judiciary Committee that she had not been asked about the legal issues of ObamaCare nor had she offered any views on them. The emails, however, seem to tell a different story. Two exclamation points plainly show that in her legal opinion, ObamaCare was constitutional.

    A Kagan recusal would not secure a finding against ObamaCare. Even if she were recused, it's plausible the case could end in a 4-4 vote, which isn't enough to overturn it. But her recusal would be necessary if Justice Clarence Thomas were to recuse himself. If he's out and she's not, ObamaCare is upheld at 4-4 if not 5-3.

    The case against Thomas, however, is weak. He didn't work for a White House that pressed for the law. Nor is there a record of his disclosing an opinion on it. His only link is his wife, who's been involved with groups opposed to ObamaCare.

    Thomas should stay. There's no conflict of interest. Kagan, though, has to recuse herself if for no other reason than to protect the integrity of the court.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 16, 2011 3:51 PM GMT
    riddler78 saidPolitico had at least 3 journalists who participated on the Journolist. That makes them a rightwing news source? When you're as extreme as you Christian, I guess everyone's a right wing newsource except for a few extremist columnists you cite.


    What's your obsession with Journolist? It was a list serve for reporters. I'm on a list-serve for people who work in education reform. It's not a grand conspiracy; nor does it mean that Politico's general bent isn't rightward.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 16, 2011 7:03 PM GMT
    Remember when Pat Robertson and the christian right in the US were praying for the deaths of supreme court justices so that they could have Roe v. Wade overturned. How Vile is that in your opinion Riddler? Was that part of a neocon conspiracy/ plot to control SCOTUS?


    I'm still shocked when people get into a tizzy over things like this. Have you never followed politics before? Are you new to this game? Or are you simply so ideological and intellectually vapid that this is what qualifies as analysis in your world?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 16, 2011 8:06 PM GMT
    Fountains saidRemember when Pat Robertson and the christian right in the US were praying for the deaths of supreme court justices so that they could have Roe v. Wade overturned. How Vile is that in your opinion Riddler? Was that part of a neocon conspiracy/ plot to control SCOTUS?


    I'm still shocked when people get into a tizzy over things like this. Have you never followed politics before? Are you new to this game? Or are you simply so ideological and intellectually vapid that this is what qualifies as analysis in your world?


    I suspect it's the latter...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 16, 2011 9:00 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 saidApparently this is an emotionless / opinionless expression by the dis-Honorable Kagan:

    "I hear they have the votes, Larry!! Simply amazing," Kagan wrote on the day ObamaCare passed the House in an email to Laurence Tribe, the Harvard law professor who was working at that time in the Obama Justice Department.


    What you fail to understand is the major difference between a private communication lauding a progressive win and quasi-public or secretive meetings with political operatives who will have business before your Court. Perhaps Kagan should recuse herself. If I thought the justices on the right would be honorable enough to do so themselves, I'd agree with it. The other issue is that Kagan wrote that in her capacity as an administration official, not while serving as a Justice. If she were being whined and dined and going to public events on the dime of pro-HCR activists, I would find that too to be distasteful and suggestive that she needs to recuse herself.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 16, 2011 9:07 PM GMT
    Fountains saidRemember when Pat Robertson and the christian right in the US were praying for the deaths of supreme court justices so that they could have Roe v. Wade overturned. How Vile is that in your opinion Riddler? Was that part of a neocon conspiracy/ plot to control SCOTUS?


    I'm still shocked when people get into a tizzy over things like this. Have you never followed politics before? Are you new to this game? Or are you simply so ideological and intellectually vapid that this is what qualifies as analysis in your world?
    It's the latter.....
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 16, 2011 9:50 PM GMT
    Fountains saidRemember when Pat Robertson and the christian right in the US were praying for the deaths of supreme court justices so that they could have Roe v. Wade overturned. How Vile is that in your opinion Riddler? Was that part of a neocon conspiracy/ plot to control SCOTUS?


    I'm still shocked when people get into a tizzy over things like this. Have you never followed politics before? Are you new to this game? Or are you simply so ideological and intellectually vapid that this is what qualifies as analysis in your world?


    One might ask you the same considering my first comment that I consider it particularly vile considering the double standard. As for praying for the deaths of Supreme Court justices - yes that is absolutely vile - but again, far be it for the likes of you to be consistent in your own views icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 16, 2011 9:51 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 saidPolitico had at least 3 journalists who participated on the Journolist. That makes them a rightwing news source? When you're as extreme as you Christian, I guess everyone's a right wing newsource except for a few extremist columnists you cite.


    What's your obsession with Journolist? It was a list serve for reporters. I'm on a list-serve for people who work in education reform. It's not a grand conspiracy; nor does it mean that Politico's general bent isn't rightward.


    Lol - yeah - you stay with that meme. Again, to say that you're less than credible on the issue would be an understatement icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 16, 2011 10:40 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Fountains saidRemember when Pat Robertson and the christian right in the US were praying for the deaths of supreme court justices so that they could have Roe v. Wade overturned. How Vile is that in your opinion Riddler? Was that part of a neocon conspiracy/ plot to control SCOTUS?


    I'm still shocked when people get into a tizzy over things like this. Have you never followed politics before? Are you new to this game? Or are you simply so ideological and intellectually vapid that this is what qualifies as analysis in your world?


    One might ask you the same considering my first comment that I consider it particularly vile considering the double standard. As for praying for the deaths of Supreme Court justices - yes that is absolutely vile - but again, far be it for the likes of you to be consistent in your own views icon_rolleyes.gif


    I love how I'm somehow an asshole or "inconsistent" for not being an ideologue and calling it as I see it. But I guess how the post-political works in this day and age.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 16, 2011 10:43 PM GMT
    Oh, and please explain how my views are inconsistent.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 16, 2011 10:48 PM GMT
    Fountains saidOh, and please explain how my views are inconsistent.


    He really means your views are inconsistent with his.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 16, 2011 11:43 PM GMT
    Fountains saidOh, and please explain how my views are inconsistent.


    My entire point that you seemed to miss was the blatant double standard - now go back to your original comment: "I'm still shocked when people get into a tizzy over things like this. Have you never followed politics before? Are you new to this game? Or are you simply so ideological and intellectually vapid that this is what qualifies as analysis in your world?" Or do double standards only exist in your world when those who don't share your liberal view of the world have them?

    As for you not being an ideologue? Yeah - you just self identify with practically every left wing issue but other than that you're pretty balanced? icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 17, 2011 12:28 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Fountains saidOh, and please explain how my views are inconsistent.


    My entire point that you seemed to miss was the blatant double standard - now go back to your original comment: "I'm still shocked when people get into a tizzy over things like this. Have you never followed politics before? Are you new to this game? Or are you simply so ideological and intellectually vapid that this is what qualifies as analysis in your world?" Or do double standards only exist in your world when those who don't share your liberal view of the world have them?

    As for you not being an ideologue? Yeah - you just self identify with practically every left wing issue but other than that you're pretty balanced? icon_wink.gif


    Ugh, I initially posted a longer reply, but why even bother on these forums. I'm out.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 17, 2011 2:58 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Fountains saidOh, and please explain how my views are inconsistent.


    My entire point that you seemed to miss was the blatant double standard - now go back to your original comment: "I'm still shocked when people get into a tizzy over things like this. Have you never followed politics before? Are you new to this game? Or are you simply so ideological and intellectually vapid that this is what qualifies as analysis in your world?" Or do double standards only exist in your world when those who don't share your liberal view of the world have them?

    As for you not being an ideologue? Yeah - you just self identify with practically every left wing issue but other than that you're pretty balanced? icon_wink.gif
    And YOU are? LMAO.

    btw, way to go.. too bad the rest of your posse cant stand it,, they have to 'ignore' instead of actually continue to take it like men. Cowards like they are.

    It wasnt fountain's cup of tea dealing with some of the "ideological' radicals either on the left OR mainly to the right.
    I however am going nowhere. Says more about your conservaposse members doesnt it? How many 'lefties' do you have on "ignore"? Ask SB how many are on his.. and then keep going down the list.