Obamacare Oral Arguments Begin, and Justice Kagan is In The House (Where She Shouldn't Be)

I may not be able to recall the entire post that Blogger ate yesterday, but at least I can re-post part of it -- the entry from last December that points out the damage that Supreme Court Associate Justice Elena Kagan has done to the image of the federal judiciary by refusing to recuse from participation in the Obamacare appeal, to-wit:

Friday, December 2, 2011

Justice Kagan Sullies the Supreme Court Bench. Badly.

Article III, sec. 1, of the U.S. Constitution establishes the federal judiciary. The requirements aren't much -- one needn't even be a lawyer to qualify as a federal judge. There are only two simple requirements:

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

So, to become and remain a federal judge (or Justice) for life, one need only (1) behave him/herself and (2) get paid.

In my opinion, if she continues to refuse to recuse herself from the Obamacare case, Justice Elena Kagan will meet only one of those two simple requisites for service in the federal judiciary.

In her role as Solicitor General, Kagan became so inextricably intertwined in efforts to pass the Act that she cannot possibly be able to remain impartial in hearing arguments against, and deciding on, its constitutionality. Because such an appearance of impropriety falls well shy of "Good Behavior," Justice Kagan should be Impeached, convicted by the Senate, and removed from the bench.

Yes. I contend that such egregious behavior amounts to nothing less than "high crimes and misdemeanors." The woman clearly perjured herself during her confirmation hearings by denying any participation in the Obamacare process, and her threatened participation in the Obamacare case is an oozing blemish on the face of the Supreme Court.

Where's the Clearasil?!?!

The rest of the post had to do with distinguishing Justice Clarence Thomas' decline to recuse.  Liberals had demanded his recusal because his wife was an anti-Obamacare activist before the bill passed.  Based on a personal experience I endured in the wayback, I noted that it's pretty silly to suggest that someone trained in the law would be overwhelmingly swayed by his spouse's take on an issue.

Trust me.  That's a pretty silly argument.

The Supreme Court must get this right and strike down the individual mandate, or we, as a free People, will fade into memory.  We'd better start sending subliminal messages to Justice Kennedy so he'll swing to the side that will rein in the Commerce Clause (and Congress).  All week.