Holder dodges, stonewalls senate questioning on Kagan, gun-running

Do you believe one of the legitimate, constitutional functions of congress is to ensure that the executive branch obeys the law?

Today's Democrats in the senate clearly don't, as evidenced by their velvet-glove treatment of Attorney-General Eric Holder.

There's a U.S. law that says judges must recuse themselves from cases involving any law that they were involved with as a government employee prior to becoming a judge. That law is intended to ensure the impartiality of the courts, because if someone who worked to pass a law is later asked to rule on its constitutionality, it would be reasonable to suspect they'd be biased to defend their earlier position.

As the Supreme Court deliberates on the constitutionality of the ridiculously overreaching law called Obamacare, conservatives noticed that while newly appointed Supreme Court judge Elena Kagan was Solicitor General for Obama's justice department, emails suggested she had worked to vet the bill and get it passed. If that was true, by law she was required recuse herself from all cases involving the constitutionality of that law.

No one will be surprised to learn that she has refused to do so.

When questioned by the senate during the hearings to confirm her nomination to the court, Kagan denied any involvement with the extensive, slimy political maneuvering involved in getting the law passed. However, email evidence appears to contradict her on this point.

Taking the law on recusal seriously, senator Jeff Sessions asked Holder to answer eight specific, written questions designed to learn the details of Kagan's involvement with passing Obamacare before Obama appointed her to the Supreme Court.

Not surprisingly, Holder has refused to give a responsive answer, instead repeatedly "answering" by referring to a previous letter from a Holder assistant to Sessions stating that they were refusing to provide the information Sessions had asked for. Short version of the letter: "We don't think this is the proper forum to be debating this matter."

Now, for those of you old enough to remember Watergate: Congress held hearings lasting the better part of a year that eventually resulted in Nixon (a Republican, for you young'uns) being forced to resign the presidency. The hearings were designed to learn the truth, and Republicans didn't obstruct that search.

Contrast that with the hearings in the senate judiciary committee on Kagan.

Sad that today's Democratic congresswhores would rather protect Obama's appointee than discover the truth.

Sad that Dems are putting party loyalty before the rule of law.

But not surprising.