Followups: SCOTUS and Public Education

More news has come out in the day(s) since I posted on these two subjects. None of that new information has changed my positions.

re·cuse/riˈkyo͞oz/

Verb:
  1. Challenge (a judge, prosecutor, or juror) as unqualified to perform legal duties because of a possible conflict of interest or lack of…: “a motion to recuse the prosecutor”
  2. (of a judge) Excuse oneself from a case because of a possible conflict of interest or lack of impartiality.

 On the subject yesterday where SCOTUS is going to hear arguments on Obamacare. A significant number of ‘Pub congressmen are calling for Elena Kagan to recuse herselfThere is documentary evidence that Kagan, while Obama’s Solicitor General, played a significant part in planning the passage of Obamacare.  The State Media has, as expected, been silent on the issue.  In fact the State Media continues to ignore Kagan’s conflict-of-interest on issues since she joined the court. No, they ignore Kagan’s issues and instead demand Clarence Thomas recuse himself due to positions taken “by his wife”.

The State Media thinks that it’s mandatory for Justice Thomas to recuse himself due to positions and statements by his wife—not for anything he has done himself, while it is perfectly OK for Kagan who actively worked for Obamacare’s passage to not recuse herself.  When Kagan was in the nomination process, the New York Times had this to say on Kagan’s recusals.

The 2010 term’s arguments and decisions will be scrutinized for insights into how Justice Kagan thinks. But because she served as solicitor general, Justice Kagan will not participate in about half of the 54 cases on the docket so far, raising the possibility of 4-to-4 deadlocks.

 Do I expect Kagan to recuse herself?  No. For eight decades the democrat/liberal party has proven they believe in the rule of law only when it benefits themselves.  When it does not, they ignore or blatantly ignore the law.  Why should I believe a liberal and democrat operative such as Elena Kagan to follow precedent and recuse herself.  There is nothing, no law, no rule, nothing except tradition that can force her to do so.

***

On Monday of this week, I wrote a post about The Fraud known as Public Education. The column below appeared in the Washington Times containing more information how the Occupy Wall Street crowds have been actively supported by the education unions, the NEA and the AFT.  You can read the entire column here.

Since the class-warfare message of the Occupy Wall Street protests started nearly two months ago, the two largest teachers unions, the National Education Association (NEA) and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), have taken every chance possible to stand in solidarity with the group of mostly underemployed college students and left-leaning activists. With AFT President Randi Weingarten joining in protests and state affiliates taking part and organizing protests of their own, the teachers unions are quick to point out that “public education, teachers and unions have increasingly come under attack from the one percent,” as Leo Casey, spokesman for the AFT’s New York City local put it.
The union support is pouring in state after state. For example, in the union stronghold of California, California NEA affiliate President Dean Vogel called on the rich to pay more taxes. “It’s time to put Main Street before Wall Street, and for corporations to pay their fair share of taxes,” he said. Meanwhile, the union rank and file are resorting to taking the fight into the classroom with lesson plans titled “Who are the 99 percent? Ways to teach about Occupy Wall Street.”
As the protests continue and the union rhetoric becomes more radical, one can’t help but find the situation ironic. While the teachers unions claim they are being persecuted by the wealthiest Americans, clearly it is the unions and union bosses themselves that have benefited from a system that takes advantage of taxpayers at the expense of our students.
When any profession or trade is taken over by a union, the main purpose of that union is not the benefit of the members, no it is the survival and growth of power of the union that is the priority.  Why are these unions so strident at eating at the public trough?  To get more union jobs—and the increased union revenue from dues that can be used by the union to increase their politic power.  You’ll note that nowhere in all this is any priority at these unions supposed purpose—improving education.  No, that is the last thing they want.  If education improves why it may mean that there won’t be as big a demand for union jobs.
Unions have evolved into parasites and the NEA and the AFT, along with the SEIU, all public service unions, are the worse of the lot.