US Supreme Court refuses to hear argument against Kagan

English: Justice Elena Kagan in the Justices' ...

In his year-end report, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, “I have complete confidence in the capability of my colleagues to determine when recusal is warranted.  They are jurists of exceptional integrity and experience whose character and fitness have been examined through a rigorous appointment and confirmation process.”

Unfortunately, I suspect he is wrong.  I believe Justice Kagan is a plant.  She was placed on the court for the sole purpose of ruling on this case.  If I am correct, it would necessitate that she is not, as the Chief Justice wrote, “of exceptional integrity.”

I received this email today from Grassfire Nation and I’m posting it here.  It supplements and updates my essay on Elena Kagan from last November.

From the Desk of:
Steve Elliott, Grassfire Nation
On Monday, the Supreme Court refused to hear oral arguments on 
whether Justice Elena Kagan should recuse herself from the
ObamaCare lawsuit.

This was no surprise. The Supreme Court is the most isolated 
and powerful branch of government. Despite the overwhelming 
evidence indicating that Kagan should recuse herself, the
Court has refused to take any action.

Let’s review the facts…

The Judicial Crisis Network (JCN) has carefully documented 
Kagan’s work on behalf of ObamaCare while she served as 
Obama’s Solicitor General.

**According to JCN, Kagan engaged her department in the strategy 
to defend ObamaCare in court “before [ObamaCare] had even been 
signed into law.”  So Kagan was an advocate for ObamaCare even 
before the final votes were cast.
**JCN also tracks how Kagan was involved in the “deliberative 
process” for her office’s legal defense of ObamaCare. By 
definition, this means Kagan has knowledge of information (i.e. 
the Administration’s deliberative process) which is protected and 
therefore the other justices may not be allowed to hear!

Politico has the story here:   Supreme Court says no to debate over Elena Kagan health care role

It is clear that Elena Kagan was an open advocate of ObamaCare
and that, in her position as Solicitor General, she was involved
in defending the legislation.
By any judicial ethical standards, she should recuse herself.
But now her colleagues on the Supreme Court are “circling the
wagons” to protect their elevated station in our society!
But this goes beyond her personal sense of ethics…


Federal law (28 U.S.C. 455) clearly stipulates the grounds for
judges to disqualify themselves in cases, including if the
judge’s “impartiality might reasonably be questioned” or if the
judge served in federal office as “counsel” or “adviser” or
“expressed an opinion” on a matter.
Kagan has crossed all these lines and by law she must recuse
herself for the ObamaCare case -- something she has already done
dozens of times on other cases. But for ObamaCare, Obama’s
hand-picked advocate refuses to step aside.
To make matters worse, much of the facts of Kagan’s open advocacy
on behalf of ObamaCare was not disclosed during her confirmation
hearings and has only come to light in the last few weeks after
repeated Freedom of Information Act inquiries.
The Obama team hid the facts of Kagan’s ObamaCare advocacy!

Immediate Action Needed

Grassfire Nation has launched a national petition calling on
Justice Kagan to recuse herself form the ObamaCare case or to be
disqualified by appropriate legal means. Already, more than
20,000 citizens have signed. Now, with the Supreme Court
“circling the wagons,” it’s time for grassroots citizens to let
their voice be heard:
Please go here now to sign the petition:

We have posted links to resources, including JCN’s excellent
report, so you can study up on this very important issue.
Again… we are just weeks away from the most important legal
showdown in years. And as it stands right now, Obama’s hand-
picked justice -- who openly supported ObamaCare -- could cast
the deciding vote.

Thank you for taking a stand!
Steve Elliott
Grassfire Nation

P.S. We cannot allow Obama’s hand-picked advocate of his
ObamaCare law to cast what could be the deciding vote on

Sign the petition today:
  1. I never thought about her in the equation, as a plant.

    I am sure the Obama side will argue that group coverage lowers cost, thus a “greater good”. But alas, supply and demand if forgotten. This will probably be forgotten in arguments against. Costs for consumers will spiral, as cost of supply go down, since demand is raised. 101 economics. Oh, I guess you need to daily run a small company to realize this. Something no one in government does. Again supply v. demand = costs , and, product cost cost to produce (zero relation, nada, none, sorry)

    Who again is are arguing this case?

  2. That last line of equation didn’t translate, due to html bracke restrictionst:

    Supply v. demand = cost of product for consumer
    Cost to produce DOES NOT EQUAL cost of product

    If you have run a small business for last 30 years in a competitive and difficult field, you will know there is zero, nada, none, nill, relationship other than suppy v. demand. Sorry, hard workers, hard thinkers, and governmental employees.

  3. At first I thought she was a plant now I am convinced of it.

  4. I think Chuck is starting to lose his mind. He’s made some other crazy setaemtnts recently too .didn’t he talk about death panels even after finding out it wasn’t true? A friend of mine interviewed him for a documentary and by the time it is done, he may have to exclude Chuck Grassley’s interview if he wants it to have any credibility.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply or add your opinion

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: