It’s too late to get into discussions of whether our President is in fact a citizen and eligible to be President of this Country, that should have been done in 2008 before the Democratic primary began between Hilliary Clinton and Barack Obama. Most assuredly it should have been done before his name was placed on the ballot as the Democratic nominee for the Presidential election in 2008. Even now some of our citizens still contend that the he is not Constitutionally eligible to be President because his father was not born in this Country. Many lawsuits have been filed on this issue and many lawsuits have been struck done for various technicalities all throughout the Country. The few lawsuits that did reach our Justice Department were held up or detained at the office of the Solicitor General by Elena Kagan and none were or have been allowed to reach the Supreme Court for various reasons. Is it a coincidence that later when a vacancy existed on the Supreme Court Ms Kagan was the nominee by Barack Obama to be on the Supreme Court and she has been thusly appointed to the Supreme Court and approved by Congress. Am I the only person in this Country that feels our beloved President owed Ms Kagan that appointment?

Now that several states have sued the Federal government saying certain provisions of Obamacare are unconstitutional, who do you think is going to hear and rule on the Constitutionality of Obamacare? None other than Ms Elena Kagan. There have been many citizens and organizations to include Congress that are concerned that Ms Kagan may have helped formulate the government’s legal position on Obamacare and now have the opportunity to rule on it’s Constitutionality. This procedure has received hearings in Congress and several requests from the Attorney General’s office as well as Ms Kagan’s former office have not been complied with to date.

Update: A recent article entitled, “Kagan Defended Obamacare as Solicitor General — Case closed on recusal,” written by John Hayward and published in Human Events on 27 Jan 2012, and quoted below, clearly reflects the current status concerning Ms Kagan’s recusal from hearing Obamacare as a member of the Supreme Court:

"Until now, those who say Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan shouldn’t recuse herself from the upcoming ObamaCare case, even though federal code clearly requires her to do so, have argued that even though she was President Obama’s Solicitor General, she was kept hermetically sealed away from anything pertaining to ObamaCare. This was supposedly done even though the Supreme Court seat she would later occupy wasn’t vacant yet – a forward-looking move designed to keep her viable for both the Court seat, and the ObamaCare thumbs-up desperately needed by the President in a few weeks.

"That excuse always seemed preposterous. Solicitor General Kagan was kept totally out of the loop on the most important legal defense her Administration would ever mount, in order to keep her unsullied for the chance that she might sit on one of the most important cases the Supreme Court would ever hear?

"Well, the Kagan firewall just went up in smoke. Fox News reports: With just weeks until the U.S. Supreme Court considers the constitutionality of President Obama's health care law, there are new calls for Justice Elena Kagan to recuse herself from the case. Her critics point to a 2010 case regarding a San Francisco health measure, in which then-Solicitor General Kagan's office filed an amicus brief touting the newly passed health care law.

"In May 2010, after Kagan had been nominated to the nation's highest court, Principal Deputy Solicitor General Neal Katyal sent her a memo outlining the cases in which she had 'substantially participated.' Kaytal specifically referenced the Golden Gate case, noting that it had been 'discussed with Elena several times.'

"That's enough to convince Heritage Foundation Senior Legal Fellow Hans von Spakovsky that Kagan shouldn't take part in the current health care case before the high court. 'I don't see how any ethical lawyer adhering to professional codes of conduct could not consider that they need to recuse themselves from this case,' he said." (Emphasis mine.)

"And we all know that Obama appointees hold themselves to the highest ethical standards, don’t we?

"Kagan defenders have been hilariously reduced to hair-splitting about how the “issues” in the San Francisco case were so unique that she’s still in the clear to rule on ObamaCare in general. We really have degenerated into a banana republic if those arguments are taken seriously.

"U.S. code could not be more clear on this issue. The third condition set forth for judicial disqualification reads, in its entirety: '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.'

"Until today, Kagan’s defenders pretended to understand what those words meant. That’s why they so desperately insisted that she never went anywhere near ObamaCare during her Solicitor General days. That argument was absurd, but everyone trying to keep her on the case at the Supreme Court understood it was vital.

"There are emails showing Kagan celebrating passage of ObamaCare during her time with the Administration, but that’s different, even though many observers find it unseemly. It skirts the edge of the prohibition against 'personal bias' on the part of judges, but the law is less concerned with appearances than with concrete relationships that compromise judicial impartiality, and ruin public trust in the judiciary. Any reasonable person can understand the absurdity of allowing someone who actively argued one side of a case to sit in judgment upon it.

"Elena Kagan evidently understands the standards for disqualification, because in December she recused herself from the Supreme Court’s hearing of the Justice Department challenge to Arizona’s immigration law, precisely because she was Solicitor General when the DOJ suit was filed. Game, set, match. There’s nothing else for any ethical jurist or lawyer to discuss. Kagan must not rule on ObamaCare!"

Note: I have been waiting for an updated status on this situation since I knew Congress was supposed to ask Attorney General Holder detailed questions concerning this matter but apparently that hearing turned into a long session on “Fast and Furious” and they never got around to the Kagan issue. Apparently Congress didn’t want to be late for the Christmas holidays! Although this article appears to be current as of 27 Jan 2012, I recently noted Justice Scalia stated he saw no reason why Ms Kagan should not hear the Obamacare case. I would hope Ms Kagan recuses herself as stipulated in law, otherwise in my opinion it will be a mockery of our judicial system. Never before have I seen a player be able to formulate the game plan to include it’s legal position and then be able to rule on the flags on the play. I guess under a Barack Obama presidency though anything is possible, especially since he doesn’t enforce the laws of this Country or our Constitution either!