I now understand some things that used to puzzle me, and I saw at least one moment of unvarnished and unspun truth that spoke volumes, and yet made no impact in the discussion the various wags were having on the screen.

First, after listening to these people who live very comfortably in their journolistic bubbles talk about their opinions on what they see as being the decisive events of the last week, the magnitude of the disservice that these people do to the country hit me like a ton of bricks. I don’t pity the people who rely on them to help to shape and warp their opinions on politics; I pity the Republic that is being damaged by people who, like good lemmings, have decided that it is imperative that Mitt Romney release his tax returns, but didn’t feel any burning need to delve into the minutia of the current President’s life…little things like his grades, how he made HIS money, his prowess as a consitutional law professor, or what he wrote while on the Harvard Law Review. The longer I watched, the more I understood how the politicians and the talking heads always seem so disconnected. The only people they pay attention to are each other. But when I thought about it, it made sense, in a perverse and twisted way. After all, they all went to “the best” schools, making them uniquely qualified to analyze events through the lenses so carefully fitted on them in those institutions of higher indoctrination. This is why it is an acceptable practice to wishcast when reality doesn’t match the script they carefully wrote, and why it is acceptable to scorn those who do not share their enlightened world view.

As the hour progressed, we were treated to a short bit about the “importance of math” in this campaign that was almost painful in its juvenility. The old guard of alphabet networks has indeed fallen far when they waste airtime on a piece that isn’t worthy of moveon.org or other simplistic leftwing websites and blogs.

And then the inevitable discussion by the panel on “what Gingrich’s victory in South Carolina means”. The Democratic shills from The Nation and ABC were only too happy to offer their meaningless opinions, but then George Will spoke up, and stated that the prospect of Gingrich as the candidate “must horrify the GOP”. The look on his face betrayed the unmistakable fact that the thought of Gingrich as the candidate horrified HIM.

I have my issues with each of the candidates, but whenever I hear a member of the “approved media” talking about them, all I hear is a chasm between those who are reporting the story, and those who will eventually make the story. The disconnect is jarring, and I foresee a time when the little emperors realize that they are only talking to themselves.

That day can’t come fast enough.

I mean despite the Democrats’ apparent belief that “content of character” actually means “racial identity of office holder”, it still is a remarkable feat to have convinced so many Americans that this is the case, allowing these people to become a bloodsucking embarrassment to the Republic, and deflect any and all deserved and reasonable criticism of their considerable shortcomings as “racist”, and completely underserving of a fair hearing.

It really is quite remarkable when you think about it, and even while doing a double facepalm about it in the Great Beyond, Dr. King might have to admit that while it isn’t the “progress” he was seeking, it is progress nonetheless.

Normally, it might be very entertaining process to let these gentlemen act out today’s equivalent of Idiocracy’s favorite television show, “Ow, My Balls!”, but I’m not a fan of suicidal economic and energy policies, flavored with identity politics and an unhealthy dose of envy.  And the sad thing about the candidates’ current fumbling is that even this crowd, yes even the dreaded Luap Nor has a very real shot at unseating the Naked Emperor, who is trying his hardest to get people thinking about anything but his startling incompetence and unwavering dedication to himself and his twisted vision for this country.

Anyone who has studied history understands that you have to have an ego to want the job of President.  And that’s ok.  Confidence is good.  Narcissism is not.  Again, this might normally be a problem, but since this administration has been faithfully served by a fawning press that shouts down any serious criticism with shouts of “RACISM!”, no extravagance is too excessive for King Barack and Queen Michelle.  This, like so many flaws, provided the GOP candidates with an opportunity, but it is one that they have sadly squandered in favor of the motes in their own eyes.

The first, and greatest opportunity that this presidential election has provided the GOP field is the opportunity to offer a stark and clear alternative to the reigning Democratic philosophy that, if carried to its logical conclusion, can only make us either vassals  or wards of a bankrupt state.  As conservatives, we know where the path we are on will take us.  We can point to evidence of this now in the results of government “compassion”.  We are smart enough to illustrate that the “poor” are the biggest victims of the government’s help without making them the villans.  And yet, what are we doing?  Standing by, watching people who have let their own egos blind them to this simple, powerful truth, as they prove themselves unworthy, or more ambitious than focused on what really matters.  What do I mean?  I’m glad you asked.

I don’t like Mitt Romney.  I’ve watched him on the television, I’ve heard him on the radio, and I’ve looked at his record.  The result is that I have both a personal dislike, and a visceral distrust of him.  And that’s bad, because I want to like the guy.  I really do.  But he is someone who has been running for the job for a decade now, and he, and his supporters are playing from the tried and true GOP method of failure, “Its his turn.”  It is the method that got us the grumpy old guy the last time, and Bob Dole before that.  Running for years isn’t the kind of experience that I want our candidate to have, and his record as governor isn’t exactly a ringing endorsement.  Entitlement isn’t becoming, but it is especially unbecoming for a party that wants to appeal to those who have identified it as a bug and not a feature of our current predicament.  

 While I understand and appreciate that states, and not the federal government are the places where things like Romneycare should be tried, but at the same time, being a leader is more than “giving people what they want.”  Anyone can be a rubber stamp, but offering alternatives to something that clearly goes in the wrong direction, and convincing people that the alternatives are better, or barring that, clearly saying “NO.” to the wrong direction is the mark of leadership.  But then, it also requires the courage and acceptance of the fact that you might not be re-elected.   I really don’t know why he is doing it, and I can’t figure out what, other than an understanding of economics that the current President lacks, that he thinks he truly offers as an alternative.

Newt Gingrich.  If I had to sum it up, I’d say “A smart guy (no, really, not like the “smart like Spock” Obama) who says and does dumb things.  Gingrich is another candidate who I want to like.  I can see him speaking at a debate or talk show, or hear him on the radio, and be nodding in agreement, right up until I can’t, because he’s made a wild leap, clean off the reservation, and off into the next county.  Whether it is the favorable self-comparisons to Wilson, T.R., or FDR, or more than coincidental revelations that his default answer to every perceived problem is “government”, he doesn’t fail to disappoint.  When he started in on his ridiculous attacks on Romney for his work at Bain Capital, and for (gasp!) firing people, while making money, it eliminated any doubt that Newt is all about Newt (for anyone who slept through his previous self-coronation as the nominee weeks before Iowa).  Add it to his other moments of dumb (cozying on the couch with San Fran Nan, and his years of gushing about man-made global warming), and I don’t care about the divorces.  He’s already shown me where his heart and his mind are, and he still seemed to think that he could fool me into believing that he represented the alternative we need to present to the country at large.

Ron Paul.  While I think he has some decent economic ideas, he’s clearly failed to grok a simple but fundamental lesson: Isolationism kills.  And he is so eager to go down that road that he thinks that the single most destructive tool ever built by man is simply an expression of sovereignty for one of the most unhinged and belligerent powers in the world today.   That said, I think he is actually honest about why he’s in the race.  However, his followers have an excessively fanatical dedication to him in more than enough supply to make up for the excessive love of self he seems to lack.  And anyone who has ever been told “You just don’t understand.  Ron Paul is the only one who can save this country!!!!11!!!!” knows it. 

John Huntsman.  What makes a man accept an appointment as ambassador from a President who is hostile to every conservative principle that we can state?  What makes that same President offer it in the first place.  Seriously, the talk isn’t impressive, and the walk isn’t there at all.  Throw in some odd advertisements that say some odd things about the candidate, and the best thing I can say is that his daughters will be invited to all the best parties thrown by the Republican Party Reptiles at the convention, but he stands no chance of mounting a serious challenge to his former boss…and I think he knows it.   You can tell me I’m wrong in 4 to 8 years, but this is about him making it his turn in the next election, or the one after that.  Been there, done that, not interested.

Rick Perry.  I love his platform.  I sincerely believe that he is serious about making government smaller, not larger.  He also inherited an economy from George W. Bush, but since he had no incompetence to distract us from, he doesn’t complain.  He just grows jobs.  Did he mess up with Guardasil?  Yep.  Does he know it?  Yep.  However, I think that he also had an expectation that this just belonged to him.  If that wasn’t the case, then he ran a phenomenally bad campaign when he got into it.  That said, he’s done so poorly up to now, I think that he’s probably done.

Rick Santorum.  I admit that I like Rick.  Yes, it is because I am also a social conservative, which means that I also am not likely to believe the sillier stories that people are likely to tell about him.  I believe that he also understands the threats to our country, and not just our culture.  But some of his negative attacks have smacked of desperation.  I think that his message can resonate.  I think that Iowa  proved that.  Romney certainly didn’t expect what happened.  Newt had no idea it was going to happen.  But I think that the temptation to believe that HE had to do this drove some of those attacks.  And that strikes me as silly, because the only person in this race who should be desperate is Barack Hussein Obama, because he can’t run on his record.  That leaves him with the race card, class warfare, and trying to smear whoever he faces in the general election.

In closing,

Mitt: I don’t trust you.  And I’m not the only one.   If you can’t close the deal after this many years, you aren’t going to.  If you gave a damn about the future of this country, you’d thank your supporters, and step back out of the limelight.

Newt: I would love for you to debate the President.  I think that would show the world that on the subject of intellect, he’s all hat and no cattle.  I don’t care about your divorces.  I’m not looking for someone to date; I’m looking for someone who can cogently identify the things that are broken in Washington D.C.,  speak clearly and honestly about them, present a plan that is simple enough for Democrats to understand, and execute it.  And you come so close, only to lose it on the starting premise.  Government does not and should not be the starting point in proposing solutions.  The worst of it is, I think that you mean well, and that is simply your previous government service conditioning you, which is probably why you thought it appropriate and intelligent to criticize the other unacceptable candidate for his private sector experience.

Ron Paul:  Retire already.  Texas is a big state, big enough to contain your brand of insanity, and not be overly burdened by having to admit when asked that you are from there.  Besides, your supporters are more annoying and condescending than even the Obamafaithful, and as this season progresses, they flirt with the prospect of injury by continuing to try to tell me how I just don’t understand about you.

Rick Perry:  I love you man, and in a very non-homo way.  But being right doesn’t mean that you can take the votes for granted.  You have to want it, and you have to work for it.  You didn’t bring your “A” game, and that is why you’re on track to not be the President next year, which is too bad, because I would have loved to hear the whining from the gun fearing wussies of the self-appointed cognoscenti about you being armed, and them not having the courage to call you “stupid” like they did through 8 years of George W. Bush.

Rick Santorum:  You don’t quit, and I admire that.  You have yet to disappoint me by saying something excessively stupid, and therefore I think that you must understand what further success in the primaries will mean for you.  I’m sure that Dan Savage’s attack is just a taste of what kind of character attacks you can expect for trying to have some character and expect the same for us moving forward.  It won’t be easy, and if the media even suspects that you have a serious shot at the nomination, Colmes’ and Robinson’s remarks will seem like the bleeding edge of a very, very large spear tip.   Keep on the message, please.

From the WaPoo, we have this lovely sign of the apocalypse:

Employers are facing more uncertainty in the wake of a letter from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission warning them that requiring a high school diploma from a job applicant might violate the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Now the story points out that the letter does not have the force of law, and is meant to be taken as a “suggestion”. However, anyone who has ever had to deal with a regulatory agency knows that today’s suggestion is tomorrow’s mandate. And since this idiotic suggestion opens up a whole new avenue of enforcement opportunities (i.e. new budgetary considerations), I fear we can expect this coming soon to an employment application near you.

Also from the article:

The “informal discussion letter” from the EEOC said an employer’s requirement of a high school diploma, long a standard criterion for screening potential employees, must be “job-related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity.” The letter was posted on the commission’s website on Dec. 2.

Now, on one hand, I’m trying to think of what job you could perform without reading skills or math skills. I mean, even the person running the fryer at Mickey D’s has to know how long to set the timer for, right? And a basic knowledge of chemistry made slow days as a stock clerk infinitely more interesting. (Bombs, anyone?  You couldn’t bowl with frozen turkeys and two liter bottles of soda all the time.)

But then, on the other hand, I think of the misspellings we see on fast food signs, or the time when we had that “special” person making our customer service experience a memorable one, courtesy of a public education system that will, when pressed, admit that it doesn’t even do as well as it used to (when our grandparents had to learn LATIN and actually read the hardcore literature prior to a successful matriculation, and now we’re lucky when the kids get out knowing where their own state is located on a map).  I know, I know.  These dedicated experts will always tell us that the answer is to pay teachers more, but I find myself less and less convinced by that reasoning. (And before my friends who are teachers decide to jump down my throat, yes, I understand that there have been other developments changing how you do your jobs, and expecting much more from you than should be expected, but in an age where so much knowledge is literally at our fingertips, how can you be in any way complacent with the almost constant dumbing down of your charges?)

It may be endy, but it certainly isn’t funny.  When government is the only employer, then it will be appropriate for the government to dictate what the minimum requirements for employment will be.

Telling the story of an icon can be a daunting prospect, and while some might find the proposition that a comic-book hero can be an icon to be hyperbole, I would respectfully disagree. While the short story has long been considered an “American” contribution to literature, I think that as comic books came into their own in the 20th Century, they embodied a form of storytelling that was uniquely American as well, and in terms of mytholigical significance in American society, there are those characters that occupy the loftiest heights in this rich pantheon of characters. Captain America is one of those characters, second only to Superman in terms of what he has meant to generations of boys in this country.

For me, Captain America is the character on the cover above, as drawn by one of his two-creators, Jack Kirby, during the 1960s, known to comic book collectors as the “Silver Age” of comics. Having spent as much as my youth as I did seeking out the 60s and 70s Marvel and DC comics, I consider myself a bit better acquainted with the mythology than most, which means that I set the bar very high for these modern film adaptations of the characters. Some times I’ve been disappointed (The Incredible Hulk), sometimes I’ve been underwhelmed (Ghost Rider), sometimes I’ve felt cheated (The Fantastic Four…yes, Jessica Alba in a skin tight suit was fun, but over all, I wanted a story.), and then there have been the times they got it right (Iron Man, Thor). I can say that they impressed me this time.

First, there is the matter of casting. I wasn’t sure that Chris Evans was the right choice for the star-spangled Avenger, and without the magic of CGI animation making him a 98-pound weakling, he wouldn’t have been. I also realized that the rewrite of Nick Fury in the movies would create an issue with Howling Commandos, but seeing Dum Dum Dugan (played by Neal McDonough) on the screen was like seeing an old friend.  Likewise, Stanley Tucci as Dr. Erskine and Tommy Lee Jones as the grumpy senior officer in charge of the Super Soldier Project was inspired. 

While the screenwriters did make some changes to the story (a Bucky who knew Cap before the war, and who was the same age and bigger than the pre-experiment Steve Rogers, a Red Skull who was head of Hydra during the war and more loyal to himself than Hitler, how Bucky died, and how Cap took his 70 year nap), they were deftly handled, and as a fan, I found I was not offended by them.

As the story unfolded, I found myself impressed with how the story drew me in, and how it showed the clear difference between good and evil, as represented by Cap, the former little guy who would not abuse the great power he’d been given, and the Red Skull, a bully made stronger by the early incarnation of the Super Soldier Serum.  Cap became an inspiration to anyone who’d seen him in action.  The Skull inspired fear through his cruelty and sheer brute force.  And as Cap gained the respect of those who knew him, his legend grew, where the Skull was a shadowy figure to a world that never knew the extent of the threat that he posed to them. 

At its heart, this film is the comic book brought to life, showing the spirit of a skinny kid who never let the bullies beat his spirit, even as they sometimes brutalized him physically, and sometimes won by using his head instead of his body.

I only regret that Jack Kirby never got to see it.

I know that it, and other things kept shouting at my muse this year, until I rarely heard her sweet song, enticing me to tap out far fewer lines than I normally would. I just find it difficult to be either insightful or entertaining when my response to 93% of the headlines is “DUH!” and my response to 5% of the remaining 7% really shouldn’t be repeated in polite company anyway.

It was a year when we saw a key economic partner crippled by earthquakes and tsunamis, giving much fodder but little fact to the anti-nuke hysterics. A story that then faded from our conscience as our news outlets found new stories to hyperventilate about, despite the fact that the real story will continue to unfold for years.

It was yet another year when dissent equaled racism in the eyes of the people who believe their opinions should be our own, and tell us so at every opportunity. It isn’t surprising though. The criticism equals racism meme was getting almost as lonely as it was tired.

It was the year when spoiled entitled youth from across the country mounted a frontal assault on the very same capitalism that made it possible to tweet the “revolution” from their iPhones and blog about it on their Macbooks.

It was the year that the middle east erupted in protests against despotic leaders, so they could replace them with…despotic leaders…and terrorists. And in at least one case, it wasn’t enough for the Duffer-in-Chief to “Bear Witness”…he made sure we helped to replace the devil we knew with the one we didn’t. (Go ahead…call this racist, it won’t make you right or me wrong.)

It was a year in which we saw the Federal Government sue states for trying to enforce the same laws that the Federal Government refused to.  And it was a year in which we learned of the most incompetent plan to track illegal firearms and activies with them EVER…a plan that could only exist to curtail a Constitutional right, not make anyone safer.  Just ask Brian Terry, and scores of Mexican citizens…oh, that’s right…you can’t.  And, as predictable as Grandpa going to the bathroom after breakfast with the newspaper tucked under his arm, calling for the resignation of the Attorney General who appears to have known all about it is….wait for it…RACIST!!!!

It was the year in which we learned that needing an ID to drive, buy booze and cigarettes, apply for credit, get an apartment, and go to college was NOT racist, but requiring it before you let someone cast a ballot, IS. (Thank you, Uncle Facts.)

It was the year when our elected officials received the clearest warning yet given from the financial sector that spending more than it takes in is an invitation to ruin and doom…and their response was to ignore the real issue, point fingers at each other, and keep spending money it doesn’t have on things it has no lawful authority to do. I wish the stupid was confined to the government on this point, but our shame is double, since we keep letting them do this. I can’t think of any other situation where we hire people to perform certain duties for us, for which we pay them sums certain, only to have them decide that they also have to feed everyone in the next state, clothe them, make sure they get medical care, and in order to do it, they take out loans in our name, without our consent, and tell us that it will be fine, because it will actually be our kids and grandkids paying the loans back.

I’d like to live just long enough to see those same little children who were singing the creepy “dear leader-esque” songs to the serial vacationer in the Oval Office shouting his name in anger when they are all in their 40s, living in efficiency apartments and clothed in rags as they service the debt to pay off the Spendulous slush funds and payoffs, furious that he and the Senate that hasn’t passed a budget in years so blatantly stole their futures from them so they could live very comfortably in the now. I am sure that when my own sons are grown adults, Senator Reid’s name will be synonymous with corruption, shortsightedness, and FAIL!

It was the year in which we heard an entire party that at least understands the differences between an America that is strong, prosperous, and exceptional, as opposed to one that is gripped by economic decline and malaise, without focus, vision, or unity, decried as evil, mean people who want blacks hanging from trees, and old people and kids with autism to starve.

It was a year when an athlete who openly practiced his faith became a punchline for people too cowardly or too lazy to find and keep their own. And still, he prays. Thank you for that.

It was another year when those who believed in nothing, and had no standards or goals past living another year, and getting whatever they could continued to mock and critique those who do. It was another year when decency was something uttered with a sneer by people who could not or refused to find it in themselves.

It was another year when truth was there to be found by anyone diligent and humble enough to seek it, and accept it for what it is. It was a year in which I learned even more about the “Why?” relating to the design, and to my sorrow, many of the points of deviation.

It was a year when certain divisions became more pronounced, and certain outcomes began to feel more inevitable. It was sobering, and frustrating when I could see where so many people either sleepwalk through it, quietly accept it, or worst of all, embrace it.

My resolution for 2012? To make myself speak, rather than letting this show stun me in to silence for another year. I’m no different from many of you. I’ll be swept along in the tide of events along with every other average Joe and Jill.

But I’ll be damned if I go quietly.

Unserious idiots. This is unforgivable.

And virologist Lynn Enquist, editor-in-chief of the Journal of Virology, which published the St. Jude’s study, says that paper didn’t ring the types of alarm bells that would prompt a referral to the advisory board. It involved putting a key gene from the H5N1 virus into the H1N1 virus that caused the 2009 pandemic.

Having knowledge outstrip wisdom isn’t the recipe for the funniest end to civilization that I was looking for.  I would have much preferred to just dwell on the impending worldwide economic collapse.

So far, the response seems pretty milquetoast:

“If the goal of the experiment is to create a virus for which there currently is no vaccine or treatment, that if it escapes from the lab by accident could start a pandemic , if that literally is one of the outcomes of the experiment, I think the benefits of that would have to be extraordinary to justify that.”

Yeah, I’m sure that “extraordinary benefits” would make a lightning fast pandemic all ok.  How about “ARE YOU INSANE???? WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE?????”

I recently was given a book called Little Masterpieces: Lincoln, which was published in 1907.  (Yes, I handle it carefully.)  It contains some of Lincoln’s speeches, some in their entirety, some excerpts, some of his correspondence, like the very moving letter to Mrs. Bixby, and a reconstruction of his so-called “lost speech”, given at the first Republican convention in spring of 1856.  It is a “reconstruction”, because the reporters sent to cover it were reportedly so mesmerized that they didn’t make their own notes of the speech, and one of his fellow Illinois bar members took notes of the speech, from which the account is written.

Lincoln was against the ruling handed down in the Dred Scot case, and spent considerable time speaking about how it was wrong.  One of the speeches included in this book is from a speech given at Springfield June 26, 1857 on the decision, describing how Chief Justice Taney’s ruling and justification based on the Declaration of Independence was wrong.  One of the parts that I been dwelling on is this:

I think that the authors of this notable instrument intended to include all men, but that they did not intend to declare all men equal in all respects.  They did not mean to say all were equal in color, size, intellect, moral developments, or social capacity.  They defined with tolerable distinctness in what respects they did consider all men equal with “certain inalienable rights, among which are life liberty, and the pursuit of hapiness.”  This they said and this they meant.  They did not mean to assert the obvious untruth that were then enjoying that equality, nor yet that they were about to confer it immediately upon them.  In fact, they had no power to confer such a boon.  They simply meant to declare the right, so that enforcement of it might follow as fast as circumstances should permit.

I’m not sure that Lincoln and Obama would be on the same page with regard to this analysis. 

I’m sure that Lincoln got it wrong.

This isn’t even a question.

As President Obama’s Solicitor General, Justice Kagan was an enthusiastic supporter of the health care take over, and appears to have been part of discussions among those in government planning how to respond to the inevitable challenges.

In emails received pursuant to FOIA requests, Kagan communicated with Lawrence Tribe, and could barely contain her excitement over the passage of the bill.

Kagan punctuated the first sentence of this email to Tribe with two exclamation marks: “I hear they have the votes, Larry!! Simply amazing.”

By itself, this might not be enough, but an email exchange between DOJ attorneys, including Kagan’s top deputy, who forwarded and included her in on the exchange on March 21, 2010, also detailed in the above-linked article makes this case closed.

By not recusing herself, Justice Kagan is violating both the law, and the Federal Judicial Code of Conduct, an act that calls her character and integrity into question.

28 USC 455 [Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge]  states:

(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

(b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances:

(3) 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; [Emph. Mine]

 While we do not know what was said in the phone call to the deputy, or after that point, the evidence before is enough to raise questions about the Justice’s impartiality in the eyes of a reasonable third party observer, which according to the standard set forth in subparagraph (a) would be enough, but there certainly is enough to suggest an opinion and advice on the subject material, making (b) an operative standard as well.

This is not just a legal standard, however.  Judges and Justices are also held to an ethical code of conduct.  Two canons set forth by this code are particularly relevant.

CANON 1: A JUDGE SHOULD UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND INDEPENDENCE OF THE JUDICIARY

An independent and honorable judiciary is indispensable to justice in our society. A judge should maintain and enforce high standards of conduct and should personally observe those standards, so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary may be preserved. The provisions of this Code should be construed and applied to further that objective.

CANON 3: A JUDGE SHOULD PERFORM THE DUTIES OF THE OFFICE FAIRLY, IMPARTIALLY AND DILIGENTLY

The duties of judicial office take precedence over all other activities. In performing the duties prescribed by law, the judge should adhere to the following standards:
(C) Disqualification.

(1) A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances in which:

• (e)the judge has served in governmental employment and in that capacity participated as a judge (in a previous judicial position), counsel, advisor, or material witness concerning the proceeding or has expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy.

We cannot know for certain all that has transpired, and since a FOIA request had to be made to reveal what we do know, any further disclosure undertaken by the Justice and the other parties involved will be suspect.  The Justice’s role and impartiality with regard to this legislation and its defense is already in question.  This is why the recusal rules exist, both as a means of helping jurists from impugning their own character, and to preserve the integrity of the courts.  By proceeding, Justice Kagan does great violence to both.  She should have already recused herself from this matter.