A Shortcut to Nixing The Gay Marriage Decision: Subtract Two Votes

[Silhouette]

Reposting because the usual suspects/routine were trying to hijack/kill the thread with a strawman

Those who think as you do are dying off, literally. Your day in the sun is now over, and theirs is just beginning. That is a very good thing...

This ain't over. Ginsburg and Kagan cheated the system of Justice in this country set forth by their own 2009 Massey Coal Decision that bound them to recuse themselves for presiding as the embodiment of the fed over a state performing gay marriages while the question of "should the fed preside over any state on the question of gay marriage" was pending.

Their flagrant display of bias before that question was Heard was large, evident, blatant and arrogant. On those grounds they must withdraw their votes or face impeachment.

I've said this before but if this was a question pending on easements for the Keystone Pipeline; which some states are resisting, where the fed was to preside in eminant domain, it would be like a conservative Justice posing in a state who had ratified the easement (unlike its neighbor) with a shovel breaking ground on the Pipeline in that state's section and at the same time asking the public to believe he would be unbiased at a hearing on eminant domain of the Pipeline forced upon the states that don't want it.

The same people celebrating this gutting of Justice in the gay marriage Decision would flip out about the same exact scenario if it was the Keystone Pipeline. They would demand recusal. And well they should. So in a sense, we all agree: Ginsburg and Kagan must withdraw their votes or be impeached.

 

[toxicmedia]

We've been through this, Sil. The Supreme Court upheld the rights of states to authorize same sex marriage in Windsor v. US. Both Maryland and DC had already authorized it. Kagan and Ginsberg officiated weddings in Maryland DC respectively. Destroying your argument.

Its impossible to demonstrate a bias against same sex marriage bans when there are no same sex marriage bans.

Caperton was about an elected judge that had received huge campaign contributions from someone that he was adjudicating a case for. Neither Ginsberg nor Kagan were elected. Neither accept campaign contributions. No one involved in Obergefell provided them with anything. And they received no benefit from performing those weddings.

Nixing every tenet of possible bias in Caperton.

You simply don't know what you're talking about.

Everyone has been through this with Sil. And not just on this site

Sil is building up a way to relieve the dissonance between what he believed was gonna happen and what actually did. Part of that process is finding pseudo-legal gibberish to convince himself that the ruling was invalid and thus doesn't count. Its like the birthers and their birth certificate. They can't contest the vote. So they're going to insist it was invalid because they made up a conspiracy.

Yep, they call that bargaining

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Reposting because the usual suspects/routine were trying to hijack/kill the thread with a strawman

Those who think as you do are dying off, literally. Your day in the sun is now over, and theirs is just beginning. That is a very good thing...

This ain't over. Ginsburg and Kagan cheated the system of Justice in this country set forth by their own 2009 Massey Coal Decision that bound them to recuse themselves for presiding as the embodiment of the fed over a state performing gay marriages while the question of "should the fed preside over any state on the question of gay marriage" was pending.

Their flagrant display of bias before that question was Heard was large, evident, blatant and arrogant. On those grounds they must withdraw their votes or face impeachment.

I've said this before but if this was a question pending on easements for the Keystone Pipeline; which some states are resisting, where the fed was to preside in eminant domain, it would be like a conservative Justice posing in a state who had ratified the easement (unlike its neighbor) with a shovel breaking ground on the Pipeline in that state's section and at the same time asking the public to believe he would be unbiased at a hearing on eminant domain of the Pipeline forced upon the states that don't want it.

The same people celebrating this gutting of Justice in the gay marriage Decision would flip out about the same exact scenario if it was the Keystone Pipeline. They would demand recusal. And well they should. So in a sense, we all agree: Ginsburg and Kagan must withdraw their votes or be impeached.

The word unhinged doesn't even begin to cover what a total loon you are...

 

[toxicmedia]

Reposting because the usual suspects/routine were trying to hijack/kill the thread with a strawman

Those who think as you do are dying off, literally. Your day in the sun is now over, and theirs is just beginning. That is a very good thing...

This ain't over. Ginsburg and Kagan cheated the system of Justice in this country set forth by their own 2009 Massey Coal Decision that bound them to recuse themselves for presiding as the embodiment of the fed over a state performing gay marriages while the question of "should the fed preside over any state on the question of gay marriage" was pending.

Their flagrant display of bias before that question was Heard was large, evident, blatant and arrogant. On those grounds they must withdraw their votes or face impeachment.

I've said this before but if this was a question pending on easements for the Keystone Pipeline; which some states are resisting, where the fed was to preside in eminant domain, it would be like a conservative Justice posing in a state who had ratified the easement (unlike its neighbor) with a shovel breaking ground on the Pipeline in that state's section and at the same time asking the public to believe he would be unbiased at a hearing on eminant domain of the Pipeline forced upon the states that don't want it.

The same people celebrating this gutting of Justice in the gay marriage Decision would flip out about the same exact scenario if it was the Keystone Pipeline. They would demand recusal. And well they should. So in a sense, we all agree: Ginsburg and Kagan must withdraw their votes or be impeached.

we all agree: Ginsburg and Kagan must withdraw their votes or be impeached?.........???

Did anyone actually agree with you? Or did that just happen in your mind?

 

[Silhouette]

Yep, they call that bargaining

Well, it's good you hard lefters are studying the stages of grief. Because something tells me in 2016, you're going to need to be intimately familiar with them...

...or sooner if the middle-dem campaign donation protest takes off... We want our party back and since 2016 is already a loss, there's no harm done telling the hard left a hard message right now, where it hurts...right in the wallet. You wear the rainbow label on your lapel and your campaign is doomed.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

by this time next year the courts will be filled with QWEERS/LESBOS suing for divorce due to spousal physical and mental abuse.

i am taking bets, anyone else ?

They aren't any better than the average bear, just gay. Now you know...

 

[toxicmedia]

Dude, congress can't vote to SUBTRACT THE VOTES JUST CASTED!!!!!!!!! The OP said the 2 votes can be "subtracted" that it is mandatory for them to step DOWN. NO THERE IS NOT!

'Congress'? You're moving your goal posts. Lets review what you actually said.

There is no law or authority that can reverse a vote that was casted by a supreme court justice. Period. This thread is a joke and I'm sorry, but wishful thinking. Watch the massive repercussions of this dicission yesterday and watch many states calling for a constitutional amendment. Watch North Carolina in particular.

There's no mention of 'congress'. You're backpedalling. Admit it....you were wrong. There is an authority that reverse a vote of the supreme court: an amendment.

So no, you weren't correct. You were demonstrably wrong.

BTW I'M THE ONE WHO TOLD YOU EARIER ABOUT THE CONSTUTIONAL AMENDMENT PROCEDURE.

You.....you do realize that the amendment process predates you, right? That you didn't 'discover' it. Nor was it a grand secret. Or do you really think that no one had even heard of an amendment until you mentioned it....

.....today

There is no rule or current authority in place RIGHT now that can be implimented to SUBTRACT 2 SC Justices votes. period. No direct way. However, ther eis a way AROUND it and that is with a constitutional amendment.

You need to read the OP yet AGAIN. I'm AGREEING WITH YOU I NEVER DIDN"T NOT AGREE WITH YOU. There is a difference between DIRECT and going AROUND. Remember the SC has to INTERPRET the CONSTITUTION. So and indirect way of getting this entire thing null and void is by CHANGING the CONSTITUTION not the SC.

1 last chance and it's ignore for you for TROLLLING.

I am sorry your homophobia has led you to believe that your God given right is to discriminate against a minority...

You can't force a religion to go against it's teaching of not rewarding what there religion calls SIN. Period. This right was so much more important than marriage it was part of the original 1st amendment 1st bill of rights. Tough shit moonass.

There is a twist to that.

You're right, and we shouldn't require someone to go violate their religious beliefs....but....that is limited to things that happen within their religious institutions...and not necessarily outside of them, like at your bakery, which is not a religious extablishment

 

[toxicmedia]

Yep, they call that bargaining

Well, it's good you hard lefters are studying the stages of grief. Because something tells me in 2016, you're going to need to be intimately familiar with them...

...or sooner if the middle-dem campaign donation protest takes off... We want our party back and since 2016 is already a loss, there's no harm done telling the hard left a hard message right now, where it hurts...right in the wallet. You wear the rainbow label on your lapel and your campaign is doomed.

Romney by a landlside huh?...oh wait, I meant Jeb Bush, Or Scott Walker, or Marco Rubio "by a landslide"

"middle-dem campaign donation protest"?.......rainbow lapels?....where do you get this stuff?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

You wear the rainbow label on your lapel and your campaign is doomed.

No one needs to now dummy...

 

[Skylar]

Yep the stupid, myopic, pandering Justice who caved to political pressure when he should've known better will be facing this issue again in the form of "The cult of deviant sex vs Christianity" when a Christian adoption agency refuses to adopt kids to two dudes they just saw dry-humping in a pride parade in front of kids the day before....or when gays single out Christian business people to force them into participating in "gay weddings".

Or.....you simply had no idea what you're talking about.

Sil, Kennedy's decision was utterly predictable. We told you how he was going to rule. We told you what cases he was going to cite. We told you what the split was going to be. We told you the legal logic he was going to use. And point for point, we were right.

Are we possessors of magic who mystically view a completely random future with perfect clarity? Or was Kennedy merely consistent with his previous rulings, with his sentiment in Windsor 'beyond mistaking' and his application of the logic of Windsor 'inevitable', as Justice Scalia himself stated.

You keep making the same silly mistake over and over, projecting your beliefs onto people. And then seem dumbfounded when they act in accordance with their own reasoning rather than whatever you make up for them. And even after failing in to predict any part of this ruling, you're still doing it. Making up an imaginary narrative for Kennedy....

....and ignoring the reasoning he actually used.

Riddle me this: has that ever worked for you?

 

[Skylar]

The topic of this thread is Ginsburg and Kagan recusing themselves for displaying bias on the gay marriage issue before it was Heard.

Which explains all your inane babble about Kennedy. You're a little late for finger wagging, Sil. You don't get to go on little off topic rants and then tell us what we can post about.

 

[Silhouette]

The topic of this thread is Ginsburg and Kagan recusing themselves for displaying bias on the gay marriage issue before it was Heard.

Which explains all your inane babble about Kennedy. You're a little late for finger wagging, Sil. You don't get to go on little off topic rants and then tell us what we can post about.

You can post about whatever you like but make sure it matches the title in some way. For this title, Kagan and Ginsburg either withdraw their votes for violating the 2009 Massey Coal Decision by presiding over a case they publicly displayed grotesquely-arrogant bias about, or they face impeachment when the GOP roundhouses the dems in 2016. Their choice.

 

[mdk]

It's over Sil, you lost. Move on...

Check back with me when Christian vs cult of LGBT gets on the federal appeals docket.. Good luck with the democratic race in 2016, if you think it's over..

It is over, but you are damn fool enough to believe that it isn't I'm sure. In a few days only irrational morons like you will care, and you've already lost where it matters most in this case, the court of public opinion.

The mourners have departed, the funeral is over, that sound you hear is two men in overalls with shovels filling in the grave of your purpose in life...

Yeah "only a few irrational morons". That's why dems were round-housed in 2014....because everyone "sane" is so down with gay marriage...

Good luck cuz we "only a few" will be protesting the LGBT cult hijacking and killing all our other good platforms by the simplest protest of all...doing nothing. No campaign funds for any democratic candidate. You know what they say, money talks. How easy! Do NOTHING and send a message to the dems. Don't worry Paint. Like you say, "it's only a few of us" in the liberal world who think marriage should provide both a mother and father to children....

France, 2013

United States

Why don't you post pictures from the March for Marriage this year? There are more people on a subway car then what showed to that lame event. Sorry.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

It's over Sil, you lost. Move on...

Check back with me when Christian vs cult of LGBT gets on the federal appeals docket.. Good luck with the democratic race in 2016, if you think it's over..

It is over, but you are damn fool enough to believe that it isn't I'm sure. In a few days only irrational morons like you will care, and you've already lost where it matters most in this case, the court of public opinion.

The mourners have departed, the funeral is over, that sound you hear is two men in overalls with shovels filling in the grave of your purpose in life...

Yeah "only a few irrational morons". That's why dems were round-housed in 2014....because everyone "sane" is so down with gay marriage...

Good luck cuz we "only a few" will be protesting the LGBT cult hijacking and killing all our other good platforms by the simplest protest of all...doing nothing. No campaign funds for any democratic candidate. You know what they say, money talks. How easy! Do NOTHING and send a message to the dems. Don't worry Paint. Like you say, "it's only a few of us" in the liberal world who think marriage should provide both a mother and father to children....

France, 2013

United States

Why don't you post pictures from the March for Marriage this year? There are more people on a subway car then what showed to that lame event. Sorry.

Got that march, right here...

It sure sucks to be Sil eh?

 

[Silhouette]

I rather like this picture better, because it speaks to the topic. This person and her buddy Kagan who also performed a gay marriage as a federal entity before the Hearing were both disqualified from presiding over that Hearing by their own law decreed in 2009. Presiding as they did was a clear message to those who wanted states to be able to preserve the thousands-years-old static defintion of marriage to only mean "father/mother". Those people were the opposing party. A judge is not allowed to display overt (or in this case, arrogant) bias against one of the parties to a lawsuit. It's in the OP:

 

[Skylar]

The topic of this thread is Ginsburg and Kagan recusing themselves for displaying bias on the gay marriage issue before it was Heard.

Which explains all your inane babble about Kennedy. You're a little late for finger wagging, Sil. You don't get to go on little off topic rants and then tell us what we can post about.

You can post about whatever you like but make sure it matches the title in some way.

Your babble about Kennedy had nothing to do with the thread title. You've lost all rights to tell us what to post. Don't bother. You go off topic whenever it suits you. And so will we.

For this title, Kagan and Ginsburg either withdraw their votes for violating the 2009 Massey Coal Decision by presiding over a case they publicly displayed grotesquely-arrogant bias about, or they face impeachment when the GOP roundhouses the dems in 2016. Their choice.

Obvious nonsense. As same sex marriage was already legal in both Maryland and DC, where Kagan and Ginsberg performed those marriages. You can't demonstrate a bias against a same sex marriage ban that doesn't exist.

Your theory is not only false....its physically impossible. And you already know it. You're merely grasping at straws, trying to sooth your cognitive dissonance.

 

[Skylar]

I rather like this picture better, because it speaks to the topic. This person and her buddy Kagan who also performed a gay marriage as a federal entity before the Hearing were both disqualified from presiding over that Hearing by their own law decreed in 2009.

Nope. The 2009 case you speak of was in reference to an elected judge who had received massive campaign contributions from a client he was adjudicating a case for. Ginsberg wasn't elected. She received no campaign contributions. Nor did she receive anything from any party to the Obergefell case. Nor benefited from performing the wedding in anyway.

Failing every single criteria of bias in the 2009 Caperton case.

Worse for you, she performed the wedding in DC....which had already affirmed same sex marriage. There was no ban. Its physically impossible for Ginsberg to demonstrate a bias against same sex marriage bans when no such bans exist.

Your theory is quite impossible. And you know it.

 

[Silhouette]

Worse for you, she performed the wedding in DC....which had already affirmed same sex marriage. There was no ban. Its physically impossible for Ginsberg to demonstrate a bias against same sex marriage bans when no such bans exist.

Your theory is quite impossible. And you know it.

Like I said, the equivalent would be a matter yet to be Heard to determine whether or not the fed should preside over states' rights on allowing or not a portion of the Keystone Pipeline easement through the states that do not want it...and having Scalia or Thomas in a photo op while that question was pending in a STATE THAT ALREADY ALLOWED AN EASMENT THROUGH THEIR LAND, with a shovel breaking ground for the Keystone Pipeline. The effect is the same. The overt and arrogant message to any state opposing the easement as one of the parties to the pending lawsuit would be from said Justices "we are prejudiced against your position, we (the fed with the last power to say so) approve in whole of the Keystone Pipeline".

 

[JFK_USA]

I guess the question to ask is, can Congress do something about Judicial misconduct at this level? Can Justices Kagan and Ginsburg be impeached for presiding over a trial that they told the world in no uncertain terms "we have already decided before the Hearing"?

The poster above me just pointed out the law of unintended consequences.

Scalia and Thomas had already made up their minds as well in their dissent of the stay on Alabama law. Should they be recused? Of course not because it's your side.

 

[Skylar]

Worse for you, she performed the wedding in DC....which had already affirmed same sex marriage. There was no ban. Its physically impossible for Ginsberg to demonstrate a bias against same sex marriage bans when no such bans exist.

Your theory is quite impossible. And you know it.

Like I said, the equivalent would be a matter yet to be Heard to determine whether or not the fed should preside over states' rights on allowing or not a portion of the Keystone Pipeline easement through the states that do not want it...and having Scalia or Thomas in a photo op while that question was pending in a STATE THAT ALREADY ALLOWED AN EASMENT THROUGH THEIR LAND, with a shovel breaking ground for the Keystone Pipeline.

In your analogy, Scalia and Thomas would be on the board of directors for the Keystone Pipeline for the last 40 years.

As Scalia and Thomas have been part of a hetero marriage for that long. If officiating a wedding for a few minutes creates a bias, then certainly participating in a marriage for 40 years wouuld create a bias orders of magnitude more severe.

Yet you give Scalia and Thomas a pass. Demonstrating even you don't buy your bullshit 'reasoning'. You're merely looking for an excuse to sooth the cognitive dissonance between what you thought was going to happen....and what actually did.