People who appear on Fox News have a bad habit of getting
their facts all mixed up in their zeal to promote their Right Wing agenda. The latest example of this has to do with Fox News' coverage of a debate over which Supreme Court justice should or should not
recuse himself or herself from hearing the Obamacare case. Democrats want Clarence Thomas to recuse
himself because his wife takes money from Conservative groups who are working
to repeal Obamacare. Conservatives and
Fox News want to get Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan to recuse herself from
the health care case because she worked in the Obama administration when
the law was passed and sent an email that suggests she was pleased that the law
passed.
Fox News national correspondent, Steve Centanni said this of
Kagan “If she were closely involved with the health care bill, she would
legally be required to recuse herself from the case. According to the Constitution a justice must recuse even if he or
she quote, ‘…expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case
in controversy.’ That’s from Article 28
of the Constitution.” See Centanni on Fox News saying this at this link: http://www.newscorpse.com/ncWP/?p=5801
Now, you probably already recognize the problem with
Centanni’s statement. Right? Well, actually there are two problems. First, there is no such language in the
Constitution. Second, the Constitution
does not have an Article 28. In fact, it
has 21 fewer. Check out the official
transcript of the Constitution here: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
Well, maybe Centanni just got all caught up in the
excitement of getting a “liberal” justice.
So he said, “Constitution” when he really meant U.S. Code. It does have an Title 28 and Section 455,
Sub-section 3 of Title 28 does say a justice shall disqualify himself “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.” However a large number of legal experts have said
that there is no reasonable interpretation of this section to suggest that Kagan’s
role in the administration which had no direct involvement with the health law and any comments she might have made would require
her to recuse herself. See http://mediamatters.org/blog/201111150024
However, the same statute appears to require the recusal of
Justice Clarance Thomas. Sub-section 4 states that a justice must disqualify
himself if…
“(4) 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.”
So Fox News is wrong about the Constitution, wrong about the article, wrong about the meaning of the law and wrong about which Justice really has a
conflict of interest when it comes to hearing a case about Obamacare. Other than that……
No comments:
Post a Comment