Justice Kagan Does Not Recuse Herself From Court's Decision To Dismiss Health Care Petition

WASHINGTON -- The United States Supreme Court on Monday denied a petition by the Attorney General of Virginia to fast-track its ruling on the president’s health care law.

The decision, passed down in a simple 11-word sentence (included at the bottom of this post) means that the Affordable Care Act will go through traditional legal processes -- including a likely hearing at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit starting in June. Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli had hoped to skip that step, arguing that it would be counter-intuitive to implement a law that could, eventually, be ruled unconstitutional because of its individual mandate.

The rejection of Cuccinelli's effort to short-circuit the process represents a small but welcomed victory for the law’s defenders. There will be more time for the laws to be implemented before it comes before the court.

The more important win, however, can be read in between the lines of the ruling. Justice Elena Kagan, who recused herself from five similar fast-track decisions on Monday morning, decided to weigh in against Cuccinelli’s request for an expedited ruling.

There had been some concern among the law’s defenders that Kagan would remove herself from any consideration on the health care legislation, owing to her past work as President Obama's Solicitor General. Kagan’s defenders routinely argued that, since she never worked on the Affordable Care Act while in that post, she had no inherent conflict of interest. Her decision to partake in Monday’s decision, suggests that she too sees little downside -- ethically or politically -- to rule on the topic.

With Kagan apparently set to vote in the Supreme Court’s ultimate decision on the Affordable Care Act (and the case is destined to eventually end there) the chances that the law, or part of it, will be ruled unconstitutional are diminished. Justice Anthony Kennedy likely remains the critical vote, though there has been speculation that a more conservative court member could end up voting to uphold the law.

"The petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment is denied," read the full text of the Court's decision in the case of Virginia v. Sebelius, who is the Sec. of Health and Human Services.

Comments

[Jenny Graham]

03:54 AM on 05/09/2011

It is really a great decision against such types of activist.Thanks for sharing this news with us.
President has done really a very good job.Thanks!

http://www.totalhealthguide.net

[kingbuzz]

10:23 PM on 04/27/2011

a face only mister ed could love.

[My five cents]

01:00 PM on 04/27/2011

Read this and weep America. I moved to Germany 7 yrs ago.The health care system here is great.
http://www.nowpublic.com/world/brazilian-public-option-health-care-beats-usa-market-hands-down

[UnRed]

05:59 AM on 04/27/2011

You've got Scalia hearing cases from his son's law firm. You've got Thomas hearing cases that will benefit Wifey. You've got Scalia gong ashootin' with Dick before ruling on his case. But...because she worked on health care legislation this whole topic would be a conflict of interest?

Wow.

[Lisa Shields]

11:40 PM on 04/26/2011

Seems to me that after Clarence Thomas refused to recuse himself from hearing cases where he had a marked conflict of personal interest, no one has room to talk. Oh but I forgot...when a CONSERVATIVE judge makes that kind of move, we have to let him. He couldn't possibly be expected to be partisan, right?

[Dazzled]

03:09 AM on 04/27/2011

Moreover, the Conservative Justice would have a kicking, screaming tantrum
if it was even hinted that he should recuse himself!

[JDZSB]

10:14 PM on 04/26/2011

What a gig? Appointed for life, 3 months paid vacation, celebrity status in Washington, high salaries and benefits, Cadillac medical and pension benefits, but, too busy to take on the single largest federal entitlement program in our history and do their job, which is to determine if it is constitutional or not. This is important to the country at large and their vacation should be postponed until they deal with it one way or the other. And these people have this "gig" at our expense. The court system in this country, including the Supreme Court, has been politicized to the point where they are no longer effective. Every court determination can almost be predicted based on the subject, it's political basis, and the political party majority of the court or judge him/herself. It is not the way our founders set up our government to operate. It is a shame and those politicians and attorneys that have let this happen should be ashamed of themselves.

[seted]

08:48 PM on 04/26/2011

I'm of the opinion that any one who owned stock in a corporation should have excused themselves from the decision on whether or not companies should be allowed to buy off politicians. Of course I also believe that if Companies are going to be considered legal persons with rights, then they should take the good with the bad. If they break the law, then instead of these meaningless fines the CEO and others, all who took part in the companies decisions, should be carted off to jail either as perps or aiding and abetting.

[fresberg]

03:44 PM on 04/26/2011

Recusal is a relic of the past, seemingly non-partisan Supreme Court.

[inkhosi]

03:40 PM on 04/26/2011

Duuuude...Sonia is, like, SO much hotter than Elena!

Sotamayor can be my "mayor" ANY time.

[Figerre]

01:21 PM on 04/26/2011

So? Thomas never recuses himself - and then he votes to help his wife.

[bluelyne]

03:44 PM on 04/26/2011

Exactly my thoughts and he benefits financially from her wacky organization. The day he recuses himself from a case, then we'll talk about anyone else. He was a mistake to put on the court and with the scandal involved at the time, they should have never confirmed him.

[AlindaFaye2000]

04:27 PM on 04/26/2011

AMEN to both of you.

[runtexas]

11:53 AM on 04/26/2011

Thank you Mr President for putting unqualified activist in these positions.

Eventually the American people will be controlled as they should be.

[runtwelds]

01:12 PM on 04/26/2011

spare us this mockery you call a comment. what do you call thomas, scalia, and roberts. and incidentally, Thomas didn't recuse himself either.

[Figerre]

01:22 PM on 04/26/2011

Texas, hm? So you were educated with the same guys that rewrote history? No wonder you having issues with facts.

[seegray]

01:31 PM on 04/26/2011

Hey, watch it!

We've still got a few progressives down here...just not nearly enough :-)

F&F back at you.

[Dunkleberger Karl]

11:49 AM on 04/26/2011

The last time Thomas wrote an Opinion, he used a crayon and asked for exstra fries!

[fireart]

11:43 AM on 04/26/2011

President Obama has been a real encouragement to the unqualified. He appointed them to high positions.

[widcirc]

12:07 PM on 04/26/2011

how is she unqualified . . . she is a respected constitutional law scholar . . . she was dean of Harvard Law School . . . she was solicitor general . . . it's not like she was Harriet Miers . . .

[runtwelds]

01:13 PM on 04/26/2011

don't waste your time with fireart, he's paraphrasing trump.

[seegray]

01:33 PM on 04/26/2011

Oh, lawdy. And Thomas is what? Qualified?

LOL. Not even the rightest of righties believe that!

[Finnegans Wake]

01:44 PM on 04/26/2011

But he issued... an opinion! Finally! The stone speaks!!!

[Glenn Osborne]

10:31 AM on 04/26/2011

Nor should she have, there is absolutely No conflict of interest here. The right wingers on the court don't recuse themselves when there are actual conflicts of interests.

[Glenn Osborne]

10:30 AM on 04/26/2011

Nor should she have, there is absolutely No conflict of interest here. The on the court don't recuse themselves when there are actual conflicts of interests.