It wasn't exactly news Friday when Hussein the Magnificent was on hand to welcome Elena Kagan as the newest Supreme Court justice. (After all, the Senate had voted her in, and she took the oath of office. Today's round was ceremonial.)

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/10/01/elena-kagan-takes-her-seat-as-112th-supreme-court-justice/

But with Kagan, it's what got left out of the story cited above that bears some comment. In truth, Kagan has recused herself from roughly half of all pending cases now before the Supremes.

And if a 4-4 deadlock results in upholding what liberals might call odious state laws like immigration, abortion and the like---too bad, right?

Not so fast.

QuoteJustice Kagan, who won confirmation this summer to replace retired Justice John Paul Stevens, has said she must step aside for about half the roughly 50 cases the court has so far agreed to hear this term. It is not uncommon for justices to have to step aside when the court hears cases with which they had some previous involvement, but Justice Kagan's unusually high number is a result of her previous job as solicitor general.

It is unclear how many more, if any, recusals Justice Kagan will have this term, or how many she will have in subsequent terms, though the number is likely to be lower in ensuing years. With such a large number of recusals, some cases could end in 4-4 ties, which means they would retain a lower court's ruling.

Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, Vermont Democrat and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, tried to avoid that scenario by proposing a bill this week that would allow retired Justices Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor and David H. Souter to fill in for such cases.

One of this term's high-profile cases is a challenge to an Arizona immigration law enacted in 2007. Others involve prosecutorial misconduct in Louisiana, and how far protesters can go in demonstrating at funerals.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/sep/30/high-profile-cases-fill-supreme-court-docket/

Leahy (who fully deserved what Dick Cheney told him in that cloakroom) clearly wants the deck stacked for the liberals. And I'm damned if I can find where in our Constitution it says Leahy's scheme is even legal.

This may ease your nerves a bit.

Quote from: Solar on October 01, 2010, 06:53:53 PM
This may ease your nerves a bit.

???   What will? I don't put anything past the RINO Senators for their willingness to side with the Donks. Snowe for one would probably do back-flips at the idea of preventing 4-4 deadlocks on cherished liberal causes.

Oh. Was there a link you forgot, above? Did a plane crash and wipe out 11 liberal senators?

Quote from: quiller on October 01, 2010, 07:03:10 PM
???   What will? I don't put anything past the RINO Senators for their willingness to side with the Donks. Snowe for one would probably do back-flips at the idea of preventing 4-4 deadlocks on cherished liberal causes.

Oh. Was there a link you forgot, above? Did a plane crash and wipe out 11 liberal senators?

OOPS!!! :-[
A bit of reading, but makes sense.

http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos