The Nook | Information the Liberal Media Intentionally Hides
Monday, 12 December 2011 07:16
Supreme Justice and yenta Elena Kagan has sworn under oath that she played no role in crafting the legal defense against Obamacare. However, following with the liberal elitist mentality and lack of any sense of accountability, facts simply don't add up to support her claim. As solicitor general, your duty is to defend the White House, which Kagan did. On Friday, CNS News dropped a bombshell on Kagan's claim that she wasn't involved in the Obamacare argument. Back in March of 2010, conservative talk show host and constitutional lawyer Mark Levin threatened to sue over the Slaughter Solution, named after the detestable Louise Slaughter, who sought to deem Obamacare passed, without having any members of the House actually have voted on the bill. Internal emails reveal that Kagan was brought into the loop on this situation, contradicting her claims.
READ: House Democrats to Uphold Slaughter Rule; Mark Levin Prepares Lawsuit
Internal Justice Department email communications made just days before the House of Representatives passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act show that then-Solicitor General Elena Kagan was brought into the loop as DOJ began preparing to respond to an anticipated legal complaint that Mark Levin and the Landmark Legal Foundation were planning to file against the act if the House used a procedural rule to “deem” the bill passed even if members never directly voted on it.
In another internal DOJ email communication that same week, Kagan alerted the chief of DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel to the constitutional argument that a former U.S. Appeals Court judge was making against the use of this rule.
Then, during Kagan’s Supreme Court confirmation process four months later, Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee asked her in writing if she had “ever been asked about your opinion” or “offered any view or comments” on the “the underlying legal or constitutional issues related to any proposed health care legislation, including but not limited to Pub. L. No. 111-148 [PPACA], or the underlying legal or constitutional issues related to potential litigation resulting from such legislation?"
Kagan answered both questions: “No.”
The DOJ emails from the week before the health-care bill passed--which were released as the result of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the Media Research Center (CNSNews.com’s parent organization) and Judicial Watch--raise additional questions about whether Kagan should recuse herself from judging the case against PPACA when the court considers it early next year.
A federal law—28 U.S.C 455—says that a Supreme Court justice must recuse from “any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned” or if he “expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy” while he “served in governmental employment.”
In the days leading up to the March 21, 2010 House vote on the health-care bill, one underlying constitutional issue that became part of the national debate was whether the House could approve the Senate version of the bill without ever directly voting on it by using a procedural rule crafted by then-House Rules Chairman Louise Slaughter (D.-N.Y.)
On March 10, 2010, National Journal’s Congress Daily published a brief story under the headline, “Slaughter Preps Rule to Avoid Direct Vote on Senate Bill.”
The next morning, Washington Examiner Editorial Page Editor Mark Tapscott posted a blog entry citing the Congress Daily report. “In the Slaughter Solution,” Tapscott wrote, “the rule would declare that the House ‘deems’ the Senate version of Obamacare to have passed the House. House members would still have to vote on whether to accept the rule, but they would then be able to say they only voted for the rule, not the bill itself.”
That night on his nationally syndicated radio show, Landmark Legal Foundation President Mark Levin, who served as chief of staff to Attorney General Ed Meese in the Reagan Justice Department, gave a seven-minute presentation on the Slaughter rule. Levin explained why, in his view, use of the rule would violate Article 1, Section 7, Clause 2 of the Constitution which requires both houses of Congress to vote on a bill before it can be presented to the president for his signature.
Levin concluded his discussion by vowing to file a lawsuit against the health-care bill if House Democrats used the Slaughter rule to send it to the president without a direct vote.
“I can tell you, if they pursue this process and try to impose this kind of a law without actually passing a statute, that I will be in a race with scores of others to the courthouse to stop this,” said Levin. “I can’t think of a more blatant violation of the United States Constitution than this.”
What we'll continue to see out of the Obama administration and liberals in general is that they lack accountability and refuse to admit when they're at fault. In the situation regarding Obamacare, Supreme Justice Elena Kagan was certainly involved in crafting the alleged health care reform law's defense, despite her saying otherwise under oath. Since liberals act as if they were sent here from God, Kagan won't recuse herself from the Obamacare lawsuit, despite her clear conflict of interest. And to the liberals that say Justice Clarence Thomas should recuse himself because of his wife's involvement in anti-Obamacare organizations, well, that's his wife, you schmucks.
Kagan was involved in crafting Obamacare's legal defense, and this news about her involvement in Mark Levin's lawsuit is just the tip of the iceberg. There are more documents similar to this, it's just a matter of whether or not the Obama administration has already shredded them.
Chuck Justice is the editor-in-chief for Habledash.