Topic: Breaking: Kagen Recuses

[Alphabet Soup]

...herself from the Øbamacare case. I just heard this announced on Medved's radio show. I will seek confirmation.

[LadyVirginia]

...herself from the Øbamacare case. I just heard this announced on Medved's radio show. I will seek confirmation.

 

[Alphabet Soup]

My bad (see modified title).

"Will the court strike down affirmative action?"

(CNN) -- The Supreme Court has just agreed to take on the case of Fisher v. University of Texas. Abigail Fisher, a white woman, argues that she has been a victim of the university's race-conscious admission policies; the university contends that its drive for racial and ethnic diversity is educationally enriching -- a benefit to all students.

Will the ugly discourse that generally characterizes debate over racially preferential policies disappear with the wave of a magic Supreme Court wand? It seems unlikely. The issue is a cat with many more than nine lives. It arrived in the early 1970s and, despite many attacks, some of which have taken the form of amendments to state constitutions, it has survived in pretty fine fettle.

The court will have only eight justices to hear the arguments. Elena Kagan, having been involved in the case as solicitor general in the Obama administration, has bowed out of participation. Her absence, however, leaves five justices likely to express at least some degree of skepticism about the racial preferences given to non-Asian minorities in the admissions process.

More here: http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/22/opinion/thernstrom-race-court/index.html?iref=allsearch

Sorry to get your hopes up! 

[AlanS]

Sorry to get your hopes up! 

You tease.

[Glock32]

I knew there was no way she'd recuse herself from the Obamacare case. One can easily deduce that because it is an axiom that liberals never, ever relent. They are always pursuing their vile agenda. Play by the rules? Propriety? Ha! That's for us suckers to do. And, to be sure, they can make quite a show of holding their opponents to their own rules; but they themselves never play by any such rules. Hence we are always in the ring with one hand tied behind our backs, swaying unsteadily on a hobbled foot. Straight from Alinsky.

As to recusal in this other case, surely there has been some political calculus beforehand. They must know they have an ace in the hole that will negate her recusing herself. That's even better for them, because they get to make a show of pretending to play by the same rules of propriety.

[CatholicCrusader]

...herself from the Øbamacare case. I just heard this announced on Medved's radio show. I will seek confirmation.

Isn't that TWO cases she recused herself from now?

EDIT: Nevermind. 

[Pandora]

...herself from the Øbamacare case. I just heard this announced on Medved's radio show. I will seek confirmation.

Isn't that TWO cases she recused herself from now?

Yes.

Nevertheless .....  Since folks are counting, she is counting on her previous recusals to negate her obvious bias toward Obamacare.

[Alphabet Soup]

Sorry to get your hopes up! 

You tease.

Yea, I feel like crap for jumping like that. I figures that Medved would get all excited over an issue that had merit but pales in comparison to Øbamacare. Ending Affirmative Action would be nice but ending Øbamacare means that this country continues to have a chance to survive a while longer.

[Libertas]

...herself from the Øbamacare case. I just heard this announced on Medved's radio show. I will seek confirmation.

Isn't that TWO cases she recused herself from now?

Yes.

Nevertheless .....  Since folks are counting, she is counting on her previous recusals to negate her obvious bias toward Obamacare.

Exactly as I've contended from the start.  "See, I can do it, this case however is too important for me to sit on the sidelines...blah blah blah, yadda yadda yadda..."