printable article

Originally published July 8 2011

Supreme Court Justice Kagan lied about ties to Obamacare

by J. D. Heyes

(NaturalNews) President Barack Obama's signature healthcare law, dubbed "Obamacare," has been in litigation since it was passed last year. A number of federal courts have already issued rulings on whether or not the provision contained within the law that requires Americans to purchase health insurance is constitutional.

Federal courts have differed on that point, with some ruling that the provision passes constitutional muster and other courts ruling it does not. For that reason, most legal experts believe that Obamacare will eventually end up before the U.S. Supreme Court.

And at least one Supreme Court justice may not be the impartial arbiter of the Constitution she claims to be, at least on this particular issue.

Some 49 members of Congress are pointing to what they have termed "contradictory" evidence regarding Justice Elena Kagan's confirmation testimony regarding the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), and say Kagan should excuse herself from all cases having anything to do with it.

"We respectfully call upon the House Judiciary Committee to promptly investigate the extent to which U.S. Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan was involved in preparing a legal defense of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) during her tenure as Solicitor General," the lawmakers said in a letter to Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, chairman of the committee, and Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., the committee's ranking member.

"Contradictory to her 2010 confirmation testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, recently released Department of Justice (DOJ) documents indicate that Justice Kagan actively participated with her Obama Administration colleagues in formulating a defense of PPACA," said the letter.

The letter is a result of a Freedom of Information Act request filed by and the Media Research Center, both of which allege that Kagan's involvement in the case as solicitor general disqualifies her from ruling on any cases dealing with the law.

"As you know," the lawmakers wrote, "Section 455 of Title 28 of the United States Code establishes unambiguous conditions in which federal judges must excuse themselves from proceedings in which their impartiality might reasonably be questioned. According to the law, a justice should excuse themselves in cases where he has served in governmental employment and in such capacity served as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceedings or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy."

During her Senate confirmation hearings, Kagan was asked point-blank whether she had ever been asked her opinion regarding the underlying constitutional questions surrounding the law, or offered any views about it, to which she replied simply, "No."

All content posted on this site is commentary or opinion and is protected under Free Speech. Truth Publishing LLC takes sole responsibility for all content. Truth Publishing sells no hard products and earns no money from the recommendation of products. is presented for educational and commentary purposes only and should not be construed as professional advice from any licensed practitioner. Truth Publishing assumes no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. For the full terms of usage of this material, visit