A Jan. 23 WorldNetDaily article -- stolen from Politico without attribution -- notes that the Supreme Court rejected the amicius brief from sue-happy defamer Larry Klayman demanding that Elena Kagan be removed from deliberation over cases involving the constitutionality of health care reform.
Reading the brief -- promoted in a Jan. 5 WND article by Bob Unruh -- it's easy to see why. It's filled with dubious arguments, logical fallacies, and self-aggrandizement by Klayman, who has a surprising amount of trouble making an honest living as an attorney.
Klayman kicked things off by declaring that his little right-wing legal organization, Freedom Watch, "is dedicated to ensuring the rights of all citizens through action, frequently with legal cases and other means." Those "other means," of course, tend to involve hurling libelous insults and unproven allegations at people he hates. Klayman later declares that Freedom Watch is "speaking on behalf of the American people."
Speaking of insults, Klayman goes on to attack and arrogantly lecture Chief Justice John Roberts and the court -- never a good idea when you're trying to get a favorable ruling from said court:
Recent comments by Chief Justice John Roberts in his Annual Report on the State of the Federal Judiciary, which seek to defend Justice Kagan and clearly state that she should not recuse herself, are an affront the judicial system and the American people, who depend on judges to be neutral, unbiased and independent. They underscore why the nation has lost trust in government, and why movements like the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street have sprung up from all ends of the political spectrum. Simply put, “We the People” are fed up and have already entered into what is in effect a Second American Revolution because judges and other government officials behave as if they are “above the law,” in effect nobility who can do as they please. This amicus brief, which addresses the recusal or disqualification of Justice Kagan, is even more important to preserving the ethical foundations of our Republic than the underlying issues of the constitutionality of the Act. Without a neutral, unbiased Supreme Court, there simply is no rule of law and any decision concerning the Act will be seen as illegitimate.
Regrettably, and outrageously, before even considering these recusal and disqualification issues, Chief Justice Roberts prejudged these serious issues and stated in his annual report that Supreme Court justices need not follow the recusal and disqualification ethics rules that pertain to other federal judges and that these ethics rules may be unconstitutional. Incredibly, and to add insult to injury, he added that “(t)he Supreme Court does not sit in judgment of one of its own members. . . .” This admission, among others in the report, says it all and ironically under- scores why recusal or disqualification of Justice Kagan is necessary to preserve the integrity of the Supreme Court for the citizens of the United States. The Court does not belong to either Chief Justice Roberts or any other justice; it belongs to “We the People.” And, if the justices cannot adhere to the rule of law, which includes judicial ethics, then the Court must be stripped clean of this lawlessness by removing and prosecuting, through whatever legal means are available, those justices who refuse and fail to play by the same rules that they hold citizens and others accountable for.
In short, the comments of Chief Justice Roberts are an affront to the high ethical standards of our Founding Fathers and amount to a subversion of our laws. They are disgraceful at best and at worst amount to obstruction of justice. They are the result of someone who became Chief Justice by first ingratiating himself to the “Washington establishment,” and now seeks to act as the Chief Justice not just of the Court, but of this same establishment – which for decades has pushed the nation to the brink of revolution by representing mostly its own interests, perpet- uating and consolidating its power and selling out “We the People.” This is why in large part the nation is in a deep crisis; the majority of Americans have little if any respect for either the Supreme Court or our judiciary as a whole, notwithstanding their current similar disdain for the other two branches of government.
The situation is as bad as in 1776 when “We the People” declared independence from King George III and the British Crown.
Klayman went on to assert that "While serving as Solicitor General, Justice Kagan took significant part in health care reform issues and the crafting of the Act" -- something that Klayman offers no evidence to support. Klayman then claimed: "It is also believed that before the Act was even passed, the Department of Justice had, in fact, been meeting to develop a strategy for defending the law from constitutional attacks. Involved in these efforts was Justice Kagan." In fact, the only meeting Kagan was involved in on the issue was to appoint someone else to handle the case.
Klayman then cited "incriminating documents" he claims are "un- equivocally evidencing Justice Kagan’s strong support of the Act." In fact, they show no such thing. The section of the U.S. Code that states grounds for recusal (which Klayman curiously does not quote) specifically states that the judge should recuse "where he has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy." None of the instances Klayman cites is anything close to an opinion on the merits or legality of health care reform.
Klayman even rushes to the defense of Clarence Thomas over his alleged conflict of interest on health care reform: "Unlike allegations of partiali- ty concerning Justice Clarence Thomas, Justice Kagan’s involvement is not a matter of another member of her family playing a partisan role concerning the Act. Her past involvement is personal and direct. The case to recuse or disqualify Justice Kagan is thus much stronger." In fact, Thomas' situation -- his wife is a paid activist to repeal health care reform -- is directly addressed in the recusal code, whichstates that a judge must recuse if "he knows that he, individually or as a fiduciary, or his spouse or minor child residing in his household, has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding."
Nevertheless, Klayman proclaims: "In objectively examining these statements and the circumstances surrounding this case, there is no doubt that a reasonable person would question the blatant partiality of Justice Kagan." Never mind the fact that Klayman is neither objective nor reasonable.