Breaking: Justice Kagan Must Recuse Herself From Upcoming Gay Marriage Hearing

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

In the case of Kagan, we have an unbelievable display of overt bias in addition to the shadow-bias the entire Court is displaying to the public: Justices Indicate Shadow-Bias Gay Marriage Question Erodes Last Bastion of Impariality Page 40 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This is behavior unbecoming on an unsettled question of law for a US Supreme Court Justice. I just stumbled upon this today:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Justice Elena Kagan has officiated for the first time at a same-sex wedding, a Maryland ceremony for her former law clerk and his husband.
Kagan presided on Sunday over the wedding of former clerk Mitchell Reich and Patrick Pearsall in the Washington suburb of Chevy Chase, Maryland. Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan Performs Her First Same-Sex Wedding

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Monday that elected judges must step aside from cases when large campaign contributions from interested parties create the appearance of bias...Voting 5-4 in a case from West Virginia, the high court said that a judge who remained involved in a lawsuit — one filed against a company helmed by a generous supporter of the justice's campaign — deprived the other side of the constitutional right to a fair trial.Court Judges must avoid appearance of bias - politics - Supreme Court NBC News

By the Court's 2009 Finding, Kagan must recuse herself from sitting on the upcoming Hearing on gay marriage.

I remember Alito recusing himself, but do Leftist justices ever recuse themselves? In my experience, only conservatives disarm themselves at every opportunity.

 

[Skylar]

Sil is quite literally just making shit up. What you're witnessing is the dawning realization that the June ruling isn't going to go Sil's way. That creates a lot of emotional and mental pressure, classically called 'cognitive dissonance'. Its the uncomfortable sensation of one's perception of reality not matching actual reality. And Sil is scrambling for a way of relieving it.

So rather than admit that all of his predictions were meaningless gibberish based on meaningless pseudo-legal babble.......he is making up elaborate conspiracies backed by absolutely nothing. As self deception and self delusion are more comfortable than admitting that Silo's claims were wrong.

And we get to watch the elaborate delusions constructed, piece by piece and in slow motion, from now until June.

The court currently has 5 Constitutionalists and 4 who oppose the Constitution. Unless the makeup of the court changes, it is unlikely that the decision will go the way your party wants and that the Constitution will be upheld.

And who wrote court's majority opinion in the landmark gay rights cases of Romer v. Evans, Lawrence v. Texas and Windsor v. US?

And if your claims were valid, why then why did the USSC deny cert for *every* state that had had its gay marriage bans overturned? 5 justices are more than enough to hear such cases. Yet the court refused to hear every single one.

And why was Alabama and every other State denied a stay after their gay marriage bans were overturned done by a ratio of 7 to 2? With only Scalia and Thomas voting that a stay should be granted.

Read Scalia's dissent on Windsor v. US. Pay special attention to the words 'inevitable' and 'beyond mistaking' when describing what the court was going to do with state gay marriage bans.

And then tell me how much you like your odds.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Sil is quite literally just making shit up. What you're witnessing is the dawning realization that the June ruling isn't going to go Sil's way. That creates a lot of emotional and mental pressure, classically called 'cognitive dissonance'. Its the uncomfortable sensation of one's perception of reality not matching actual reality. And Sil is scrambling for a way of relieving it.

So rather than admit that all of his predictions were meaningless gibberish based on meaningless pseudo-legal babble.......he is making up elaborate conspiracies backed by absolutely nothing. As self deception and self delusion are more comfortable than admitting that Silo's claims were wrong.

And we get to watch the elaborate delusions constructed, piece by piece and in slow motion, from now until June.

The court currently has 5 Constitutionalists and 4 who oppose the Constitution. Unless the makeup of the court changes, it is unlikely that the decision will go the way your party wants and that the Constitution will be upheld.

I only count 4 constitutionalists.

Oh, you think that Roberts is a....

 

[Uncensored2008]

And who wrote court's majority opinion in the landmark gay rights cases of Romer v. Evans, Lawrence v. Texas and Windsor v. US?

And if your claims were valid, why then why did the USSC deny cert for *every* state that had had its gay marriage bans overturned? 5 justices are more than enough to hear such cases. Yet the court refused to hear every single one.

And why was Alabama and every other State denied a stay after their gay marriage bans were overturned done by a ratio of 7 to 2? With only Scalia and Thomas voting that a stay should be granted.

Read Scalia's dissent on Windsor v. US. Pay special attention to the words 'inevitable' and 'beyond mistaking' when describing what the court was going to do with state gay marriage bans.

And then tell me how much you like your odds.

Under the Constitution, marriage laws are the domain of the state, the Federal government has no say. This is what the SCOTUS will decide, which is entirely consistent with their rulings thus far.

 

[Skylar]

And who wrote court's majority opinion in the landmark gay rights cases of Romer v. Evans, Lawrence v. Texas and Windsor v. US?

And if your claims were valid, why then why did the USSC deny cert for *every* state that had had its gay marriage bans overturned? 5 justices are more than enough to hear such cases. Yet the court refused to hear every single one.

And why was Alabama and every other State denied a stay after their gay marriage bans were overturned done by a ratio of 7 to 2? With only Scalia and Thomas voting that a stay should be granted.

Read Scalia's dissent on Windsor v. US. Pay special attention to the words 'inevitable' and 'beyond mistaking' when describing what the court was going to do with state gay marriage bans.

And then tell me how much you like your odds.

Under the Constitution, marriage laws are the domain of the state, the Federal government has no say. This is what the SCOTUS will decide, which is entirely consistent with their rulings thus far.

Under the constitution, the states can't violate the priveledges and immunities of US citizens. Nor can they apply their law without equal protection.

And as the Loving v. Virginia case in 1967 demonstrates, the USSC can most definitely overturn state marriage laws that violate constitutional guarantees.

Rights trump state powers. No matter how much conservatives might loathe the concept.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

And who wrote court's majority opinion in the landmark gay rights cases of Romer v. Evans, Lawrence v. Texas and Windsor v. US?

And if your claims were valid, why then why did the USSC deny cert for *every* state that had had its gay marriage bans overturned? 5 justices are more than enough to hear such cases. Yet the court refused to hear every single one.

And why was Alabama and every other State denied a stay after their gay marriage bans were overturned done by a ratio of 7 to 2? With only Scalia and Thomas voting that a stay should be granted.

Read Scalia's dissent on Windsor v. US. Pay special attention to the words 'inevitable' and 'beyond mistaking' when describing what the court was going to do with state gay marriage bans.

And then tell me how much you like your odds.

Under the Constitution, marriage laws are the domain of the state, the Federal government has no say. This is what the SCOTUS will decide, which is entirely consistent with their rulings thus far.

Under the constitution, the states can't violate the priveledges and immunities of US citizens. Nor can they apply their law without equal protection.

And as the Loving v. Virginia case in 1967 demonstrates, the USSC can most definitely overturn state marriage laws that violate constitutional guarantees.

Rights trump state powers. No matter how much conservatives might loathe the concept.

No matter how the SC rules, gays will still be able to marry in America.

But that's not good enough for you Nazis.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[

Under the constitution, the states can't violate the priveledges and immunities of US citizens. Nor can they apply their law without equal protection.

And as the Loving v. Virginia case in 1967 demonstrates, the USSC can most definitely overturn state marriage laws that violate constitutional guarantees.

Rights trump state powers. No matter how much conservatives might loathe the concept.

There is no Constitutional right to sexual behavior. You will be very unhappy in June - and Obama will again issue EO's in violation of the Constitution.

 

[Skylar]

Oh, and have you checked what I suggested you look at?

Still happy with your odds? Tell me, who said this?

"There is an immediate legal injury and that's the voice of these children......There's some 40,000 children in California, according to the Red Brief, that live with same-sex parents, and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case, don't you think?"

Name that justice!

 

[Skylar]

[

Under the constitution, the states can't violate the priveledges and immunities of US citizens. Nor can they apply their law without equal protection.

And as the Loving v. Virginia case in 1967 demonstrates, the USSC can most definitely overturn state marriage laws that violate constitutional guarantees.

Rights trump state powers. No matter how much conservatives might loathe the concept.

There is no Constitutional right to sexual behavior.

There is however, a right to marriage and equal protection. And most every case overturning gay marriage bans have done so the violation of equal protection.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The court currently has 5 Constitutionalists and 4 who oppose the Constitution. Unless the makeup of the court changes, it is unlikely that the decision will go the way your party wants and that the Constitution will be upheld.

If the court is likely to uphold state bans on Civil Marriage based on gender, the why did the SCOTUS not grant stays when requested of the SCOTUS involving cases from the 11th, 9th, 7th, and 4th Circuit Courts where bans were found unconstitutional?

If the court is likely to uphold state bans on Civil Marriage based on gender, the why did the SCOTUS not grant certiorari when appeals were made to the SCOTUS involving cases from the 11th, 9th, 7th, and 4th Circuit Courts where bans were found unconstitutional?



>>>>

 

[Skylar]

And who wrote court's majority opinion in the landmark gay rights cases of Romer v. Evans, Lawrence v. Texas and Windsor v. US?

And if your claims were valid, why then why did the USSC deny cert for *every* state that had had its gay marriage bans overturned? 5 justices are more than enough to hear such cases. Yet the court refused to hear every single one.

And why was Alabama and every other State denied a stay after their gay marriage bans were overturned done by a ratio of 7 to 2? With only Scalia and Thomas voting that a stay should be granted.

Read Scalia's dissent on Windsor v. US. Pay special attention to the words 'inevitable' and 'beyond mistaking' when describing what the court was going to do with state gay marriage bans.

And then tell me how much you like your odds.

Under the Constitution, marriage laws are the domain of the state, the Federal government has no say. This is what the SCOTUS will decide, which is entirely consistent with their rulings thus far.

Under the constitution, the states can't violate the priveledges and immunities of US citizens. Nor can they apply their law without equal protection.

And as the Loving v. Virginia case in 1967 demonstrates, the USSC can most definitely overturn state marriage laws that violate constitutional guarantees.

Rights trump state powers. No matter how much conservatives might loathe the concept.

No matter how the SC rules, gays will still be able to marry in America.

But that's not good enough for you Nazis.

The Nazi's didn't support gay marriage. Their view of gays was much closer to yours.

I support same sex marriage.

 

[Skylar]

The court currently has 5 Constitutionalists and 4 who oppose the Constitution. Unless the makeup of the court changes, it is unlikely that the decision will go the way your party wants and that the Constitution will be upheld.

If the court is likely to uphold state bans on Civil Marriage based on gender, the why did the SCOTUS not grant stays when requested of the SCOTUS involving cases from the 11th, 9th, 7th, and 4th Circuit Courts where bans were found unconstitutional?

If the court is likely to uphold state bans on Civil Marriage based on gender, the why did the SCOTUS not grant certiorari when appeals were made to the SCOTUS involving cases from the 11th, 9th, 7th, and 4th Circuit Courts where bans were found unconstitutional?



>>>>

You're not going to get an answer. I already tried and Uncensored just ran.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

And who wrote court's majority opinion in the landmark gay rights cases of Romer v. Evans, Lawrence v. Texas and Windsor v. US?

And if your claims were valid, why then why did the USSC deny cert for *every* state that had had its gay marriage bans overturned? 5 justices are more than enough to hear such cases. Yet the court refused to hear every single one.

And why was Alabama and every other State denied a stay after their gay marriage bans were overturned done by a ratio of 7 to 2? With only Scalia and Thomas voting that a stay should be granted.

Read Scalia's dissent on Windsor v. US. Pay special attention to the words 'inevitable' and 'beyond mistaking' when describing what the court was going to do with state gay marriage bans.

And then tell me how much you like your odds.

Under the Constitution, marriage laws are the domain of the state, the Federal government has no say. This is what the SCOTUS will decide, which is entirely consistent with their rulings thus far.

Under the constitution, the states can't violate the priveledges and immunities of US citizens. Nor can they apply their law without equal protection.

And as the Loving v. Virginia case in 1967 demonstrates, the USSC can most definitely overturn state marriage laws that violate constitutional guarantees.

Rights trump state powers. No matter how much conservatives might loathe the concept.

No matter how the SC rules, gays will still be able to marry in America.

But that's not good enough for you Nazis.

The Nazi's didn't support gay marriage. Their view was much closer to yours.

I support same sex marriage.

The Nazis controlled every facet of life, including who can marry and who can have an abortion. Their view was much closer to yours.

See what I did there?

 

[Skylar]

And who wrote court's majority opinion in the landmark gay rights cases of Romer v. Evans, Lawrence v. Texas and Windsor v. US?

And if your claims were valid, why then why did the USSC deny cert for *every* state that had had its gay marriage bans overturned? 5 justices are more than enough to hear such cases. Yet the court refused to hear every single one.

And why was Alabama and every other State denied a stay after their gay marriage bans were overturned done by a ratio of 7 to 2? With only Scalia and Thomas voting that a stay should be granted.

Read Scalia's dissent on Windsor v. US. Pay special attention to the words 'inevitable' and 'beyond mistaking' when describing what the court was going to do with state gay marriage bans.

And then tell me how much you like your odds.

Under the Constitution, marriage laws are the domain of the state, the Federal government has no say. This is what the SCOTUS will decide, which is entirely consistent with their rulings thus far.

Under the constitution, the states can't violate the priveledges and immunities of US citizens. Nor can they apply their law without equal protection.

And as the Loving v. Virginia case in 1967 demonstrates, the USSC can most definitely overturn state marriage laws that violate constitutional guarantees.

Rights trump state powers. No matter how much conservatives might loathe the concept.

No matter how the SC rules, gays will still be able to marry in America.

But that's not good enough for you Nazis.

The Nazi's didn't support gay marriage. Their view was much closer to yours.

I support same sex marriage.

The Nazis controlled every facet of life, including who can marry and who can have an abortion. Their view was much closer to yours.

See what I did there?

And how does a gay couple getting married 'control your life'? Or effect you in any way?

Is your marriage somehow less valid because someone else is allowed to marry?

And the Nazi hatred of gays was well established. Putting their positions much closer to yours than mine.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Under the Constitution, marriage laws are the domain of the state, the Federal government has no say. This is what the SCOTUS will decide, which is entirely consistent with their rulings thus far.

Under the constitution, the states can't violate the priveledges and immunities of US citizens. Nor can they apply their law without equal protection.

And as the Loving v. Virginia case in 1967 demonstrates, the USSC can most definitely overturn state marriage laws that violate constitutional guarantees.

Rights trump state powers. No matter how much conservatives might loathe the concept.

No matter how the SC rules, gays will still be able to marry in America.

But that's not good enough for you Nazis.

The Nazi's didn't support gay marriage. Their view was much closer to yours.

I support same sex marriage.

The Nazis controlled every facet of life, including who can marry and who can have an abortion. Their view was much closer to yours.

See what I did there?

And how does a gay couple getting married 'control your life'? Or effect you in any way?

Is your marriage somehow less valid because someone else is allowed to marry?

And the Nazi hatred of gays was well established. Putting their positions much closer to yours than mine.

The Nazi hatred of Jews and Christians was well established, putting their position much closer to yours than mine.

I can do this all day.

 

[Skylar]

Under the constitution, the states can't violate the priveledges and immunities of US citizens. Nor can they apply their law without equal protection.

And as the Loving v. Virginia case in 1967 demonstrates, the USSC can most definitely overturn state marriage laws that violate constitutional guarantees.

Rights trump state powers. No matter how much conservatives might loathe the concept.

No matter how the SC rules, gays will still be able to marry in America.

But that's not good enough for you Nazis.

The Nazi's didn't support gay marriage. Their view was much closer to yours.

I support same sex marriage.

The Nazis controlled every facet of life, including who can marry and who can have an abortion. Their view was much closer to yours.

See what I did there?

And how does a gay couple getting married 'control your life'? Or effect you in any way?

Is your marriage somehow less valid because someone else is allowed to marry?

And the Nazi hatred of gays was well established. Putting their positions much closer to yours than mine.

The Nazi hatred of Jews and Christians was well established, putting their position much closer to yours than mine.

I don't hate any Jew or Christian. I just don't exempt them from any law they disagree with.

And you never did answer: how does a gay couple getting married 'control your life'? Or effect you in any way?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

In the case of Kagan, we have an unbelievable display of overt bias in addition to the shadow-bias the entire Court is displaying to the public: Justices Indicate Shadow-Bias Gay Marriage Question Erodes Last Bastion of Impariality Page 40 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This is behavior unbecoming on an unsettled question of law for a US Supreme Court Justice. I just stumbled upon this today:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Justice Elena Kagan has officiated for the first time at a same-sex wedding, a Maryland ceremony for her former law clerk and his husband.
Kagan presided on Sunday over the wedding of former clerk Mitchell Reich and Patrick Pearsall in the Washington suburb of Chevy Chase, Maryland. Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan Performs Her First Same-Sex Wedding

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Monday that elected judges must step aside from cases when large campaign contributions from interested parties create the appearance of bias...Voting 5-4 in a case from West Virginia, the high court said that a judge who remained involved in a lawsuit — one filed against a company helmed by a generous supporter of the justice's campaign — deprived the other side of the constitutional right to a fair trial.Court Judges must avoid appearance of bias - politics - Supreme Court NBC News

By the Court's 2009 Finding, Kagan must recuse herself from sitting on the upcoming Hearing on gay marriage.

I remember Alito recusing himself, but do Leftist justices ever recuse themselves? In my experience, only conservatives disarm themselves at every opportunity.

No... Recusal is a function of honor.

Leftists; adherents of Left-think are Relativists; adherents to Relativism.

Relativism is the doctrine which holds that knowledge, truth, and morality exist only in relation to one's own cultural, societal, historical and personal context, and, as such can never be the result of soundly reasoned absolutes.

It is through this perversion of reason, wherein relativism axiomatically rejects the objectivity that is essential to truth.

And with truth being essential to trust and, both of those being critical to the establishment of a soundly reasoned morality, and because a soundly reasoned morality is essential to Justice... it becomes clear to reasonable people, that Relativism can never serve justice.

Thus, such notions as 'honor' and such honorable actions as "Recusal" are not clubs to be found the Leftist bag.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

And who wrote court's majority opinion in the landmark gay rights cases of Romer v. Evans, Lawrence v. Texas and Windsor v. US?

And if your claims were valid, why then why did the USSC deny cert for *every* state that had had its gay marriage bans overturned? 5 justices are more than enough to hear such cases. Yet the court refused to hear every single one.

And why was Alabama and every other State denied a stay after their gay marriage bans were overturned done by a ratio of 7 to 2? With only Scalia and Thomas voting that a stay should be granted.

Read Scalia's dissent on Windsor v. US. Pay special attention to the words 'inevitable' and 'beyond mistaking' when describing what the court was going to do with state gay marriage bans.

And then tell me how much you like your odds.

Under the Constitution, marriage laws are the domain of the state, the Federal government has no say. This is what the SCOTUS will decide, which is entirely consistent with their rulings thus far.

Under the constitution, the states can't violate the priveledges and immunities of US citizens. Nor can they apply their law without equal protection.

And as the Loving v. Virginia case in 1967 demonstrates, the USSC can most definitely overturn state marriage laws that violate constitutional guarantees.

Rights trump state powers. No matter how much conservatives might loathe the concept.

No matter how the SC rules, gays will still be able to marry in America.

But that's not good enough for you Nazis.

The Nazi's didn't support gay marriage. Their view was much closer to yours.

I support same sex marriage.

The Nazis controlled every facet of life, including who can marry and who can have an abortion. Their view was much closer to yours.

See what I did there?

Yes, you outlined a mindset common to most on the right.
Not that American conservatives are "Nazis," of course, but seeking to compel conformity through force of law is typical of many on the right.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Under the constitution, the states can't violate the priveledges and immunities of US citizens.[sic]

Which would be SUCH an excellent point, > IF < the representation of deviancy, as normality, were so privileged and otherwise immune from being recognized as insanity; which is to say a function of mental disorder.

Sadly, for your advocacy, there is NO RIGHT to represent that which is false, as truth. But in fairness... there is not even the POTENTIAL for such a right, as such represents the pure antithesis of the very concept of "Rights".

 

[Skylar]

Under the constitution, the states can't violate the priveledges and immunities of US citizens.[sic]

Which would be SUCH an excellent point, > IF < the representation of deviancy, as normality, were so privileged and otherwise immune from being recognized as insanity; which is to say a function of mental disorder.

Sadly, for your advocacy, there is NO RIGHT to represent that which is false, as truth. But in fairness... there is not even the POTENTIAL for such a right, as such represents the pure antithesis of the very concept of "Rights".

Says you. Citing yourself. And you're nobody.