Members of the U.S. Supreme Court have affirmed they are not willing to listen to arguments over Justice Elena Kagan’s impartiality on the issue of Obamacare, a case that’s to be before the court in a few weeks.
Kagan was solicitor general in the Obama White House when Obamacare was developed, and emails released from that time reveal she was rooting for its passage.
There are concerns she participated in strategy sessions to defend the law before Obama gave her a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court bench, where she now has great influence in a decision about the fate of the plan to nationalize health-care decision-making.
News of the court’s response comes from Larry Klayman, founder of Freedom Watch USA.
Klayman had submitted a motion to reconsider after being turned down the first time. He wanted to appear at oral arguments, scheduled at the end of March, to emphasize the need for the court to respect the rules of judicial ethics and law and disqualify Kagan if she does not abstain from the case voluntarily.
Generally judges are to prevent even the appearance of partiality in a case on which they rule.
The issue remains before the court, in the form of a friend-of-the-court brief Freedom Watch filed.
The organization was the only interested party requesting to address during oral argument Kagan’s participation in the case.
“Regrettably, this decision comes as no surprise,” the announcement from Freedom Watch said. “Chief Justice Roberts recently commented in the Supreme Court’s annual report that its justices do not have to adhere to the rules of judicial ethics that apply to other federal judges, essentially stating that they are above the law. … It is Freedom Watch’s hope that the Supreme Court will sober up and realize that the integrity of the court must be beyond reproach.
“The integrity of the court is even more important than the issue of the constitutionality of Obamacare. Without a court that represents ‘We the People,’ Americans are left without any recourse to combat the tyranny of the other two branches of government. When the colonies saw that they had no recourse against the British crown, they declared their independence and waged a revolution to change their form of government and their rulers. Let us hope that this does not happen again, given the arrogance of establishment institutions like the Supreme Court, which seemingly think they are ‘above the law,'” state Klayman.
Regarding Kagan’s participation in the Obamacare case, Klayman said the justices need to squelch even the appearance of untoward influence on the court.
Klayman earlier cited statements in emails that reveal “Kagan’s personal bias in favor of the act.”
Among the evidence cited is an email from March 21, 2010, when Kagan, “then senior counselor for access to Justice Laurence Tribe, wrote, ‘I hear they have votes Larry!! Simply amazing . . . ‘ Tribe then responded, ‘So healthcare is basically done! Remarkable.'”
Additionally, on March 16, 2010, there was an email from Kagan to David Barron, asking if he had seen a Wall Street Journal article on the issue.
And Deputy Solicitor General Neal Katyal told Kagan in a 2009 email, “We just got [Olympia] Snowe on health care.”
Klayman wrote, “Without a neutral, unbiased Supreme Court, there simply is no rule of law and any decision concerning the act will be seen as illegitimate.”
WND previously reported a former federal appeals court clerk has confirmed Kagan’s advocacy for an Obama-style health care policy dates back to the Clinton administration.
In a separate action, the Obama administration now has been sued under the Freedom of Information Act over details about Kagan’s exact level of advocacy for Obamacare.