WHY Forcing ACB to Recuse Herself on Election Cases is WRONG

People have incredibly short memories - I know there are things that never made it into my long-term memory. Looking back at archived stories of past events that hit the headlines, I'm struck by, not only the details I've forgetten, but how much I misremembered of those events.

It's human. We tend to focus on events that have intense meaning for us personally. World events don't, generally, have that impact. Oh, sure, we'll remember where we were, and what we were doing at critical moments - Nixon's resignation, the attempted assasination of Ford or Reagan, or 9/11. But, the less-than world-shaking events have disappeared into the ether.

And, that's reasonable - we only have so much ready access to memories. Filling up those long-term storage cells with detritus would inhibit our recollection of really important things - important to us.

Recent brain studies have indicated that forgetting is the NORM for our brains; clearing out the 'trash memories' is a good thing, as it facilitates access to the important stuff.

So, I'm neither surprised, nor alarmed at the forgetfulness of the average person, when it comes to remembering that Justice Kagan did NOT follow the standard they want ACB to follow (note the bolded section):

Democrats were powerless to stop the confirmation of Justice Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, but anti-Trumpers aren’t giving up their anti-ACB crusade. Some are already calling for her to be impeached if she doesn’t recuse herself from a likely election challenge out of Pennsylvania, according to a report from the Washington Times.

Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court recently ruled that signatures on mail-in ballots do not have to match—which makes such votes highly susceptible to fraud. Republicans are looking to challenge this ruling in the high court.

Even during her confirmation hearings, Democrats argued that ACB should recuse herself from any election disputes that reach the court, claiming that her nomination by Trump has somehow compromised her ability to rule on such disputes.

Calls for Justice Barrett’s recusal on election disputes are, of course, absurd. Justice Elena Kagan has been casting votes in Supreme Court cases on Obamacare for years when, by law, she was disqualified from doing so and should have recused herself. As Ed Whelen noted at National Review four years ago, Kagan’s role in “advising how to defend against challenges to Obamacare” is a matter of public record.

Prior to serving on the Supreme Court, Justice Kagan was solicitor general for the Obama administration and played a major role in defending the constitutionality of Obamacare. In order to cover up the details of her involvement in Obamacare cases prior to her being on the court, the Obama administration simply refused to release documents pertaining to her role in those cases, citing attorney work-product protection, which, as Hans Bader of the Competitive Enterprise Institute noted, was contradictory to Kagan’s claim that “she never acted as the administration’s lawyer” with regards to Obamacare cases.

We have to start saying, "No, we are NOT going to follow some rule that has never been enforced by OTHER Justices." I do hope that ACB has a spine - which, she seemed to have during her confirmation hearings - and refuses to unfairly recuse herself, as no OTHER Justice has had to.

BTW, I have no access to Facebook or Twitter today, so I'd appreciate it if those who have will Share this link. (I'm not cut off from social media by banning, I just am working at a site that does not provide the access).