Holder’s Refusal Means Kagan’s Recusal

Traditional Values Coalition (TVC) president Andrea Lafferty reacted to Attorney General Eric Holder’s refusal to answer the questions of Chairman Lamar Smith of the House Judiciary Committee regarding Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan’s condition to hear the impending Supreme Court case on Obamacare:

“Rarely is a Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee treated with such disrespect.  After repeated questions from Chairman Lamar Smith during today’s House Judiciary Committee hearing, Attorney General Eric Holder refused to answer questions regarding Justice Elena Kagan’s involvement in the Patient Protection and Affordable Healthcare Act.

“The language of 28 USC § 455 is unambiguous and clear: “Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

“In 2003, Justice Antonin Scalia spoke at an event commemorating the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom in Fredericksburg, Virginia.  At this event, Scalia specifically commented on the ruling of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals regarding a case where the national motto “In God We Trust” was being challenged by Dr. Michael Newdow.  Though Scalia was not coerced (other than by active public comment and legal pressure from Newdow himself), Scalia voluntarily chose to recuse himself from the case.

“Much like Scalia’s opinion in 2003, there is no question where Justice Kagan’s opinion remains with regards to Obamacare. 

“Holder’s repeated refusals to answer Chairman Smith’s questions are both shocking and outrageous.  I urge members of the House Judiciary Committee to inquire more deeply into what the Obama Administration knows about any potential conflict of interest Justice Kagan may have that would impair her ability to judge impartially on the impending Obamacare case."

 

# # #