May 22nd, 2011 7:48 am ET
Jim Kouri
- Judicial Watch's lawsuit has been consolidated with a similar FOIA lawsuit that had been first filed against the DOJ by Brent Bozell and the Media Research Center. The lawsuits are now both before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The documents referenced in this article were first produced in the Media Research litigation.
During her confirmation, Kagan claimed she was not involved in the Department of Justice (DOJ) preparations for legal challenges to Obamacare. Moreover, the Supreme Court justice did not recuse herself from the High Court decision in April 2011 when she and other Justices refused to "fast-track" the Supreme Court review of Virginia's lawsuit challenging Obamacare.
The following are highlights from the documents obtained by Judicial Watch as a result of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed on February 24, 2011. (Judicial Watch's lawsuit has been consolidated with a similar FOIA lawsuit that had been first filed against the DOJ by Brent Bozell and the Media Research Center. The lawsuits are now both before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The documents referenced in this article were first produced in the Media Research litigation.)
According to a memo from former Deputy Solicitor General (and current Acting Solicitor General) to Brian Hauck, Senior Counsel to Associate Attorney General Thomas Perrelli, Kagan was involved in the strategy to defend Obamacare from the very beginning:
Subject: Re: Health Care Defense:
- Brian, Elena would definitely like OSG [Office of Solicitor General] to be involved in this set of issues…we will bring in Elena as needed. [The "set of issues" refers to another email calling for assembling a group to figure out "how to defend against the…health care proposals that are pending."]
In another email exchange that took place on January 8, 2010, Katyal's Department of Justice colleague Brian Hauck asked Katyal about putting together a group to discuss challenges to Obamacare. "Could you figure out the right person or people for that?" Hauck asked. "Absolutely right on. Let's crush them," Katyal responded. "I'll speak with Elena and designate someone."
However, following the May 10, 2010, announcement that President Obama would nominate Kagan to the U.S. Supreme Court, Katyal position changed significantly as he began to suggest that Kagan had been "walled off" from Obamacare discussions.
For example, the documents included the following May 17, 2010 exchange between Kagan, Katyal and Tracy Schmaler, a DOJ spokesperson:
- Shmaler to Katyal, Subject HCR [Health Care Reform] litigation: "Has Elena been involved in any of that to the extent SG ]Solicitor General's] office was consulted?...
- Katyal to Schmaler: "No she has never been involved in any of it. I've run it for the office, and have never discussed the issues with her one bit."
- Katyal (forwarded to Kagan): "This is what I told Tracy about Health Care."
- Kagan to Schmaler: "This needs to be coordinated. Tracy you should not say anything about this before talking to me."
- Katyal to Schmaler: "No she has never been involved in any of it. I've run it for the office, and have never discussed the issues with her one bit."
For example, Kagan was included in an email chain (March 17–18, 2010) in which the following subject was discussed: "on what categories of legal arguments may arise and should be prepared in the anticipated lawsuit." The subject of the email was "Health Care." Another email chain on March 21, 2010, entitled "Health care litigation meeting," references an "internal government meeting regarding the expected litigation." Kagan is both author and recipient in the chain.
The index also references a series of email exchanges on May 17, 2010, between Kagan and Obama White House lawyers and staff regarding Kagan's "draft answer" to potential questions about recusal during the Supreme Court confirmation process.
The White House officials involved include: Susan Davies, Associate White House Counsel; Daniel Meltzer, then-Principal Deputy White House Counsel; Cynthia Hogan, Counsel to the Vice President; and Ronald Klain, then-Chief of Staff for Vice President Biden.
The DOJ is refusing to produce this draft answer, according to Judicial Watch.
The Vaughn index also describes a March 24, 2010, email exchange between Associate Attorney General Beth Brinkmann and Michael Dreeben, Kagan's Deputy Solicitor General, with the subject header, "Health Care Challenges:" "…I had a national conference call with the Civil Chiefs. A memo also went out the day before. I am forwarding right after this. Let's discuss if you have more ideas about what to do."
As reported by CNS News:
In the questionnaire she filled out for the Senate Judiciary Committee during her confirmation process, Kagan said she would abide by the "letter and spirit" of 28 U.S.C. 455 in deciding whether she felt compelled to recuse herself as a Supreme Court Justice from any case that came before the High Court.
According to the law, a 'justice … shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might be reasonably questioned.' It further says any justice 'shall also disqualify himself … [w]here he has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceedings or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy.
"Any reasonable person would read these documents and come to the same conclusion: Elena Kagan helped coordinate the Obama administration's defense of Obamacare. And as long as the Justice Department continues to withhold key documents, the American people won't know for sure whether her involvement would warrant her recusal from any Obamacare litigation that comes before the High Court," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.
Special thanks to Jill Farrell, director of communications, for her assistance in gathering the above information.
http://www.examiner.com/law-enforcement-in-national/supreme-court-judge-suspected-of-deception-during-confirmation-hearings#ixzz1N75y8PEQ
No comments:
Post a Comment