Legal hair-splitting by Washington lawyers is a daily occurrence in the nation’s capitol, but not even the most accomplished barrister can twist federal law into something it’s clearly not. Exhibit A here is the law specifying when a federal judge should recuse himself or herself from hearing a case. On the issue of when recusal is appropriate, that law is about as clear as the English language can make it. As Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and three of his Senate Republican colleagues wrote in a Nov. 18 letter to Attorney General Eric Holder, a justice should withdraw from any case in which he or she “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 or controversy.” The law further stipulates that recusal is appropriate whenever a justice’s “impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”

As McConnell and his three colleagues – Sens. Jon Kyl of Arizona, Charles Grassley of Iowa and Mike Lee of Utah – point out to Holder, recently released emails suggest that Justice Elena Kagan’s involvement as U.S. solicitor general in the Obama Administration “may satisfy both requirements for recusal.” Frankly, we think the GOP senators are understating what those emails reveal about Kagan’s efforts in the campaign for Obamacare, even though she claimed before the Senate Judiciary Committee during her confirmation hearing that her role as not “substantial.”