Jew World Order

A huge cloud looms over the coming U.S. Supreme Court decision on
Barack Obama’s health-care law, dubbed Obamacare, that could undermine
any portions of the law that are upheld, according to a key Washington
watchdog organization. ~ Bob Unruh

The issue, which has been raised several times by Judicial Watch,
is that Elena Kagan served in the Obama administration when the law
advanced through Congress and now is on the Supreme Court bench sitting
in judgment of it.

“Justice Kagan should provide the American people a full explanation
about her refusal to recuse herself in light of the new information
about her potential involvement with Obamacare when she served as
solicitor general,” Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, told WND.

“And the Department of Justice’s stonewall of our information
requests shows that [Attorney General] Eric Holder is, once again, in
full cover up mode,” he said today.

Judicial Watch confirmed it still is waiting for an answer from Kagan
and the DOJ to questions about her involvement in and support for the
law during its construction phase.

“It is a real scandal that she and DOJ refuse to provide more information,” the organization reported.

Email exchanges previously made public reveal that during Kagan’s
time as solicitor general, her office helped develop a strategy to
defend Obamacare legally.

Ordinary judicial ethics would mandate that if she participated in
such discussions, she should not later sit in judgment of the law,
Judicial Watch has argued.

Judicial Watch noted that records that have been released “included
an email showing what appeared to be then-Solicitor General Kagan’s
excitement and support for the passage of PPACA,” the Patient Protection
and Affordable Care Act.

Fitton several months ago wrote in a letter to Kagan challenging her participation in the case:

“The failure of the Justice Department to produce requested records
in a timely manner, the dribbling out of requested records over time,
the redaction and withholding of other records, and the refusal to
respond to requests for records and information from several members of
Congress have contributed to the substantial impression that additional
details about your tenure as Solicitor General and the enactment and
subsequent legal defense of the PPACA are being withheld from the
American people.

“Judicial Watch is not calling on you to recuse yourself from the
PPACA litigation at this time, just as Judicial Watch did not call on
Justice Scalia to recuse himself from the litigation involving the
National Energy Policy Development Group (‘NEPDG’) – to which Judicial
Watch was a party – in 2004. When a controversy arose during the course
of the NEPDG litigation over whether Justice Scalia should recuse
himself from that matter, Justice Scalia issued an opinion stating: ‘The
decision whether a judge’s impartiality can ‘reasonably be questioned’
is to be made in light of the facts as they existed, and not as they
were surmised or reported.’ Justice Scalia then provided a comprehensive
recitation of the facts ‘as they existed,’ not as they were ‘surmised
or reported,’ and an articulation of the reasoning behind his decision
not to recuse himself.

“During your confirmation process, you wrote that you would ‘consider
carefully the recusal practices of current and past justices’ as well
as consult with your colleagues if questions about recusal in particular
cases arose. Judicial Watch believes that it would be of substantial
benefit to the court’s consideration of the legal challenges to the
PPACA if, like Justice Scalia in the NEPDG matter, you were to address
the facts surrounding your tenure as Solicitor General and the enactment
and subsequent legal defense of the PPACA as they ‘existed,’ not as
they are being ‘surmised or reported,’ as well as provide an
articulation of your reasoning behind any decision regarding recusal.”

The White House, despite repeated inquiries, has declined to affirm
that Kagan was excluded from Obamacare defense discussions during that
time period.

Judicial Watch has been trying for a considerable time to obtain
records that would explain Kagan’s participation in the discussions.
Those efforts include a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the
Department of Justice for not releasing the information.

The group also sought access to calendars, schedules and phone logs for Kagan and others.

Another concerned group, Freedom Watch USA, led by attorney Larry Klayman, also has been trying to raise the issue of Kagan’s possible bias.

Klayman requested twice that the Supreme Court address the issue of Kagan’s expressed support for Obamacare but was rejected.

“The integrity of the court is even more important than the issue of
the constitutionality of Obamacare,” said Klayman. “Without a court that
represents ‘We the People,’ Americans are left without any recourse to
combat the tyranny of the other two branches of government. When the
colonies saw that they had no recourse against the British crown, they
declared their independence and waged a revolution to change their form
of government and their rulers. Let us hope that this does not happen
again, given the arrogance of establishment institutions like the
Supreme Court, which seemingly think they are ‘above the law.’”

Klayman has pointed out the importance of stopping even the appearance of untoward influence on the court.

Among the evidence that has been released is an email exchange from
March 21, 2010, in which Kagan, then senior counselor for access to
Justice Laurence Tribe, wrote: “I hear they have votes, Larry!! Simply
amazing.”

Tribe then responded, “So healthcare is basically done! Remarkable.”

Additionally, on March 16, 2010, there was an email from Kagan to
David Barron, asking if he had seen a Wall Street Journal article on the
issue.

And Deputy Solicitor General Neal Katyal told Kagan in a 2009 email, “We just got [Olympia] Snowe on health care.”

Klayman wrote at the time: “Without a neutral, unbiased Supreme
Court, there simply is no rule of law and any decision concerning the
act will be seen as illegitimate.”

Fitton told WND that if Judicial Watch doesn’t “get full disclosure
from either Justice Kagan or the DOJ, Americans will have fair reason to
question whether the Supreme Court impartially handled the Obamacare
constitutional charges.”

Bob Unruh – June 28, 2012 – WorldNetDaily

diggmutidel.icio.usgoogleredditfacebook