Saturday, December 10, 2011

Did Kagan Lie During Senate Hearing?

Does "no" mean "maybe" or "yes"?  Does "is" mean something, or not?  Does it make any difference to Democrats?

Internal Justice Department email communications made just days before the House of Representatives passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act show that then-Solicitor General Elena Kagan was brought into the loop as DOJ began preparing to respond to an anticipated legal complaint that Mark Levin and the Landmark Legal Foundation were planning to file against the act if the House used a procedural rule to “deem” the bill passed...

In another internal DOJ email communication that same week, Kagan alerted the chief of DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel to the constitutional argument that a former U.S. Appeals Court judge was making against the use of this rule

...during Kagan’s Supreme Court confirmation process four months later, Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee asked her in writing if she had “ever been asked about your opinion” or “offered any view or comments” on the “the underlying legal or constitutional issues related to any proposed health care legislation, including but not limited to Pub. L. No. 111-148 [PPACA], or the underlying legal or constitutional issues related to potential litigation resulting from such legislation?"

Kagan answered both questions: “No.”

This was not an off-the-cuff oral response.  This was written testimony; she had time to research the answer.


Jim said...

Judging by what you have presented in your post, I see no issue in Kagan's reply.

The subject memos appear to be solely about the legislative process in passing the bill into law and have nothing to do with the "underlying" constitutionality of the contents of the PPACA.

Try again.

Dad29 said...

You might want to read the basis for Levin's threat-of-suit.

The Constitution is dead-center of the argument he proposed--and the one SHE reviewed.

Try again.

Jim said...

OK, here is from your link:

The complaint argued that a health-care bill passed under the Slaughter rule would not be a law because it did not satisfy the bicameral voting requirements of Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution.

Clearly this complaint is about the legislative process and NOT about the provisions of the PPACA itself.

If a suit about the way in which the PPACA made it to the president's desk reaches the Court, then you MAY have a case for Kagan's recusal.

That said, I'm sure no Supreme Court Justice, including Scalia, Alito, Roberts, and Thomas was ever less than fully forthcoming during their confirmation hearings.

Dad29 said...

Well, Jim, you have to demonstrate your accusations, you know.

I did. Kagan WAS involved in advice re Obozocare, no matter her written denials.