Kagan Defies Judicial Ethics and Sits on Obamacare Case

PRNewsWire

Larry Klayman

Today, the Supreme Court began oral arguments on the constitutionality of one of the most controversial pieces of legislation in the past fifty years. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, referred to as "Obamacare," stretches the power of the federal government to a level never before seen. Yet this is not the most important decision the Court faces. Justice Elena Kagan, the former Solicitor General, is continuing to illegally preside over a case in which her impartiality has been seriously called into question. 

Freedom Watch was the only group to file an amicus brief on the issue of Kagan's recusal and/or disqualification. Larry Klayman, the founder of Freedom Watch and before that Judicial Watch, has been the most ardent critic of the Court's avoidance of this issue. Never before has a justice, who championed legislation during its passage and crafted a legal defense for it, been able to preside over its validity. In no other court of the United States would this be acceptable. 

The Supreme Court, in a showing of defiance that its impartiality would be called into question, not only refused to hear oral argument on the issue of recusal and/or disqualification from Mr. Klayman, but today Justice Kagan presided over the case. This is consistent with Chief Justice Roberts' outrageous claim that the Supreme Court is not bound to the same ethic standards as lower courts, and that these standards may be "unconstitutional" -- a fabricated position meant only to justify the court's illegal actions. This serves to delegitimize not only this decision but the Supreme Court as an institution. 

Klayman adds, "It is now clear that the Supreme Court considers itself above the law, does not represent the American people and much less the rule of law. This is a formula for revolution."

For more information or to schedule an interview with Mr. Klayman call Tom Madden or Adrienne Mazzone, 561-750-9800 x210. The docket number in the Supreme Court is 11-393, 11-400.

SOURCE Larry Klayman 

Kagan helped shield Saudis from 9/11 lawsuits

War On You

Elena Kagan, President Barack Obama’s latest nominee to the Supreme Court, helped protect the Saudi royal family from lawsuits that sought to hold al Qaeda financiers responsible in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. The suits were filed by thousands family members and others affected by the Sept. 11 attacks. In court papers, they provided evidence that members of the Saudi royal family had channeled millions to al Qaeda prior to the bombings, often in contravention of direct guidance from the United States. But Kagan, acting as President Obama’s Solicitor General, argued that the case should not be heard even if evidence proved that the Saudis helped underwrite al Qaeda, because it would interfere with US foreign policy with the oil-rich nation. She posited “that the princes are immune from petitioners’ claims” because of “the potentially significant foreign relations consequences of subjecting another sovereign state to suit.” In an interview with the Philadelphia Inquirer published Tuesday, the mother of a man who was killed on United Flight 93 in Pennsylvania said he didn’t know why Kagan argued that the case not even be heard. By keeping the case off the dockets, the Saudis were spared scrutiny of their finances. “We had hoped she would be with us so that we could have our day in court,” Beverly Burnett said.

“I find this reprehensible,” said Kristen Breitweiser, another family member whose husband was killed in the 9/11 attacks, said at the time. “One would have hoped that the Obama administration would have taken a different stance than the Bush administration, and you wonder what message this sends to victims of terrorism around the world.”

The Obama Administration’s decision to intervene in the Saudi-al Qaeda case so irritated two Republican senators that they introduced legislation aiming to ensure that Americans have the ability to sue foreign governments.

Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) offered a proposal to amend the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, which Kagan cited as one reason the Saudi case should not be heard. Both senators said that US citizens should be able to sue foreign governments if they are found to be supporting terrorist activity.

Specter, who has since become a Democrat, was unusually blunt.

“She wants to coddle the Saudis,” he said.