Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Kagan recused herself from 25 of the 51 cases the court has accepted so far

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread		 This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
PoliticAverse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-04-10 12:20 PM
Original message
Kagan recused herself from 25 of the 51 cases the court has accepted so far
Source: Washington Post

"Kagan, 50, has recused herself from 25 of the 51 cases the court has accepted so far this term, all as a result of her 14-month tenure as solicitor general, the government's chief legal representative in the Supreme Court and the nation's lower appellate courts."
...
"But initially, Kagan's absence will affect some important corporate and employment-discrimination cases, as well as a highly anticipated review of one of Arizona's attempts to crack down on illegal immigrants."

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/03/AR2010100303890.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
chemp Donating Member (569 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-04-10 12:24 PM
Response to Original message
1. +1
this just adds to her appointment being the right move.
Any of the right leaning, corporate owned judges would never recuse themselves from the opportunity to inject themselves into a case they were involved in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tesha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-04-10 12:32 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. I dunno; I sort of wanted Obama to choose a justice who could actually hear cases and help...
...to see them decided in the "non-conservative" direction,
not one who's just warming the bench.

Do you suppose he could have found someone like that?
Or was Kagan the only possible choice in all the land?

Tesha
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-04-10 01:02 PM
Response to Reply #2
10. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
WeekendWarrior Donating Member (849 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-04-10 01:56 PM
Response to Reply #10
14. I'm so glad you have the inside scoop on this conspiracy.
The paranoia is staggering.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robinlynne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-04-10 12:35 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. nice. instead of 5 rightwing judges to 4, we will now have 5 to 3. How is that good?
I guess it WILL be good 10 years down the road, but not for now. For the enxt few years it guarantees right wing victories where there was a slight possibility of middle or progressive rulings.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Qutzupalotl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-04-10 12:38 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. NPR says they expect most of these cases to go through the court this year,
so by next year she should be hearing all or nearly all cases.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tesha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-04-10 05:27 PM
Response to Reply #7
18. So it's only for one year or so that we lose *MANY IMPORTANT CASES*.
Oh joy -- I feel so much better now!

Tesha
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-04-10 12:36 PM
Response to Reply #1
6. Why appoint someone who can only do half her job during her first year
of employment? Why appoint a part-time member to the Supreme Court? We will be short a vote that we really, really need.

Didn't anyone think about this before selecting Kagan?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Javaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-04-10 01:17 PM
Response to Reply #6
11. Maybe that was the point. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ian David Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-04-10 12:34 PM
Response to Original message
3. For someone with "no experience," she sure seems to have been involved in a lot of cases. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jester Messiah Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-04-10 12:36 PM
Response to Original message
5. She's doing it right
Edited on Mon Oct-04-10 12:36 PM by Jester Messiah
And that will decrease as time goes on.

Edit: Er, the recusals will decrease... not so much the doing it right (one hopes.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
littlewolf Donating Member (920 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-04-10 12:38 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. +1
it is normal the first year or even two for a judge to recuse themselves ... esp. when they were doing a lot of work
before that court ....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
R Merm Donating Member (39 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-04-10 12:43 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. Robert's recused himself form cases he ruled on his first year.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Luminous Animal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-04-10 03:27 PM
Response to Reply #5
17. Of course she is doing it right but many liberals were apprehensive precisely
because the high number of cases that she would feel obligated to recuse herself. We are looking at a 4-4 tie with no recourse for resolution.

There were many excellent candidates for Obama to choose from. He did not need to appoint a lame duck.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-04-10 06:09 PM
Response to Reply #17
21. People are assuming that she'd take the position they'd prefer
Probably not wise to make that assumption, yet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spanone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-04-10 01:53 PM
Response to Original message
12. that's good
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Arkana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-04-10 01:54 PM
Response to Original message
13. Well, that's very responsible of her.
If she feels she can't render an impartial verdict she SHOULD recuse herself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BurtWorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-04-10 02:29 PM
Response to Original message
15. The court shifts further right.
D'oh!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gratuitous Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-04-10 03:19 PM
Response to Original message
16. Meanwhile, Scalia chuckles and issues rulings affecting his hunting buddies
"Recusal," Scalia mutters. "Such a quaint concept."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SidDithers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-04-10 05:36 PM
Response to Original message
19. She's an honest justice...
Good for her. She'll be a very good justice for many years to come.

Sid
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SidDithers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-04-10 06:01 PM
Response to Original message
20. Thurgood Marshall recused himself 57% of the time in his first term...
http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/10/an-update-on-recusal/

Marshall served as Solicitor General from August 1965 to August 1967. He joined the Court on August 31, 1967. According to Lawrence S. Wrightsman’s The Psychology of the Supreme Court (p. 79), “Marshall recused himself from 98 of the 171 cases that were decided by the Supreme Court during the 1967-1968 term.” That’s 57% of the total. (Wrightsman states that “most of these were cases in which the federal government had been a party”; I suspect that all or nearly all of them were.)


http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/49132/more-kagans-extraordinary-recusal-obligations/ed-whelan

Excuse the NRO sourcing.

Sid
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 30th 2024, 07:40 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC