Elena Kagan recuses herself from 21 cases

[realFedUp]

UUUUUggggggggghhhhhhh! What a tragic waste, when there are only 9 justices. I really hate this today.

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/09/10/kagan-now-recused-from-21-pending-supreme-court-cases/

But we never dreamed that Kagan would recuse herself from half the cases for the upcoming term. But it seems that’s where we are, at least for now. Kagan this week, in the words of National Law Journal reporter Tony Mauro, “quietly” recused herself from 10 more cases to be argued in the upcoming term. That brings the number of cases from which she’s recused herself to 21. As Mauro points out, that’s more than half of the 40 cases the court has so far agreed to hear.

snip

So what does this mean for the court? Unless and until a recusal contingency plan (like this one) is put into place, the court will be stuck with just eight justices in each of the cases.

In a result of a 4-4- tie, the ruling being appealed simply stands. The court, and the nation, certainly can live through this; we’re not staring down a constitutional crisis or anything. But it seems to us that it could lead to an unfortunate amount of wasted time and money.

[madinmaryland]

1. But Fat Tony won't recuse himself from cases where there is a definite

conflict of interest.

[DCKit]

21. No, Fat Tony sits down to lunch with the lobbyists... from personal experience. n/t

[DJ13]

2. Now its obvious why the pugs didnt put up much of a fight

[Mimosa]

3. And there is why we needed a Justice with a track record.

*Grrr*

[Dawson Leery]

4. Which is why I made it clear that there were

far better choices than she.

[JuniperLea]

5. If the rest of them were as honest...

You'd see a lot of this... ask Tony.

[Curmudgeoness]

6. Waste of time and money is an understatement. Might as well

just shut the court down for a year or so. I would hate to be a lawyer fighting my ass off to get a case ready for this court.

4-4, 4-4, 4-4, 4-4...

[Bluenorthwest]

7. So she took a job she is not actually able to do.

Will she be taking half pay? I mean, more than half? How long until she can clock in full time? What's the deal here?

[Ruby the Liberal]

8. It is Federal Court and she was Solicitor General.

One of the reasons I was concerned about her nomination. Not her person, but her previous position.

[izzybeans]

12. .

You will have one of the few sensible posts in this thread.

Just a prediction.

...or, I agree 100%. Although, this is a short term problem as cases she has working knowledge of the government's argument work through the system.

I'd see what happens in a year or so before being completely disappointed.

[Ruby the Liberal]

14. Overall, I think she was a good choice

her former position would be poison for ANY case working it's way through the system.

[chimpymustgo]

30. Then the WH shouldn't have nominated her. Too many other qualified, ABLE jurists. WTF.

[notesdev]

9. *cough* I told you so

Everyone jumped down my throat for saying she was a lousy pick. I guarantee you this is just the beginning of the bad news to come down the pike on this one. Just wait until she actually starts weighing in on decisions, you'll find that she's not quite what you were led to believe she was.

Maybe after everyone gets beat on the head enough with these mistakes you all will learn to judge for yourselves and not automatically side with the party line out of misplaced and undeserved loyalty.

[w4rma]

10. Another perfect example of why the Democratic base is unhappy with Obama. (nt)

[sharp_stick]

11. Nice to have an honest justice on the court

now if only fat Tony would eat some more fatty food.

[katandmoon]

13. Another brilliant Obama choice.

[scheming daemons]

19. Yes.... it was.

For one year, she'll have to recuse herself because of her work as Solicitor General.


She's going to be on the court for DECADES.



She is exhibiting integrity... the highest praise for a Supreme Court justice.

[katandmoon]

22. No, Kagan sitting on her hands for ENTIRE YEAR when Obama could have nominated

a justice prepared to jump right in, indicates how little urgency Obama felt to replace John Paul Stevens with a like justice. A year of Kagan twiddling her thumbs is a year of much potential justice denied. That is of course if you really believe Kagan isn't in the bag for the same powerful interests the Roberts et al are, which is a big question mark. In either case, Obama shortchanged the Supreme Court.

[scheming daemons]

24. You're worried about half the cases in one year.... Obama was selecting based on the 29 years after

... it's called taking the long view.


This selection was based on the impact for decades.... missing 21 cases in her first year is a drop in the bucket compared to what her impact will be long after the current political winds have passed.

[katandmoon]

25. You don't think that a Supreme Court case decided in the next year that she sits out has any

potential to last for decades?

[LostinVA]

29. Exactly -- good post

[chimpymustgo]

31. Obama shortchanged JUSTICE and the American people.

I completely agree with your disdain - and skepticism.

[Curmudgeoness]

15. Has any other justice does this? I can't recall hearing about it.

It must not have been on quite the same level.

[kratos12]

16. It's EXACTLY what a judge should do

Maybe, just maybe, it will shame some of the wingnut judges into applying the same standard.

One thing is for certain, Kagan leaves no doubt that she is far and away the most honest, ethical judge on the court.

[Swamp Rat]

17. I agree, but repuke judges like Scalia and Alito have no shame

Even some sociopaths display a little shame now and then.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tammywammy]

20. +1

Plus her time on the court over the next years will be more valuable, even though she had to recuse herself from some cases at the beginning.

[spanone]

23. nice to have an honest judge

[katandmoon]

27. It's not about her honesty. It's about her usefulness. Obama had his pick of nominees who could have

dug right in and voted the way we presumably voted for him to nominate justices to vote. Instead, he nominated somebody whom he had to know will be out of action on many cases for a whole year. It really shows that he was more interested in getting her on the court than having her rule one way or the other once she got there.

[SidDithers]

28. Maybe he thought she was the best candidate...

and didn't want to nominate a less qualified judge just because they might be more active in their first year.

Sid

[SidDithers]

26. Unrec...

for posting an unbelievably shortsighted criticism of a justice who will spend decades on the court.

Sid

[Posteritatis]

32. ITT: People angry that a judge isn't biased enough. (nt)