Al Sharpton Slams Fox For Citing Non-Existent Part Of Constitution To Push For Kagan Recusal

Politics Nation's Al Sharpton went after Fox for their continued drum beat to have Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan recuse herself from the upcoming hearing on the whether the individual mandate is constitutional and ignoring Justices Scalia and
up

Politics Nation's Al Sharpton went after Fox for their continued drum beat to have Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan recuse herself from the upcoming hearing on the whether the individual mandate is constitutional and ignoring Justices Scalia and Thomas and Thomas' wife Ginni and their many conflicts of interest in hearing the case, the latest being a fundraising dinner they attended with opponents of the health care law.

Here's more from Media Matters on Fox's ridiculous attacks on Kagan -- Fox Cites Non-Existent Part Of The Constitution To Hype Argument For Kagan Recusal:

For the second day in a row, Fox's "straight news" division has hyped the claim that U.S Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan should recuse herself from the case involving the constitutionality of a provision of the Affordable Care Act. Fox pointed to an email Kagan sent to then-Justice Department adviser Laurence Tribe on the day the House of Representatives passed the Affordable Care Act in which Kagan said, "I hear they have the votes, Larry!! Simply amazing."

Legal ethicists have thrown cold water on the argument that Kagan needs to recuse herself over that email. But Fox seems to have an argument that the legal ethicists haven't thought of: Fox national correspondent Steve Centanni said Kagan's recusal may be required by "Article 28 of the Constitution." Fox's graphics department provided the relevant quote from the "U.S. Constitution, Article 28, Sec. 144":

Three glaring problems with this argument: The Constitution has no Article 28, has no Section 144, and does not contain the language quoted.

The Constitution actually contains seven articles, none of which have more than 10 sections. It also has 27 amendments, none of which contain anywhere near 144 sections.

The language Fox quoted from actually comes from a statute passed by Congress, Title 28 of the U.S. Code, Section 455. But that's the very statute legal ethicists have analyzed in finding that Kagan does not need to recuse herself because of the email.

About Heather

Comments

We welcome relevant, respectful comments. Please refer to our Terms of Service for information on our posting policy.