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

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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.

In point of fact, it is NATURE which compels conformity... and it does so through the evolutionary process wherein the failure to conform, brings extinction. (For the edification of the Intellectually Less Fortunate, you may consider "extinction" to be the rough equivalent of "death" and to go the extra mile and put a pin it for you... "THAT'S BAD!")

 

[Silhouette]

There is no mandate for recusal that applies to Supreme Court Justices.

Supreme Court Justices decide whether to recuse themselves.

Since there is no appearance of bias why would any of the justices recuse themselves on such an important case?

No... Recusal is a function of honor..

Actually Syriusly is completely wrong and Swimexpert is only half right. According to 2009 Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co. a Judge (any and all of them) may not indicate connections or displays of bias that an objective person would see as their penchant to vote for either the plaintiff or the defendant before the arguments on the merits are heard. "Appearance of bias" and "suspicion of bias" meet the standard for recusal. No judge or Justice is immune from laws regulating judges or justices. It goes beyond decorum and in fact became a mandate in 2009.


Here (again) for the legal definition/winning premise on bias of a judicial officer (ANY judicial officer)

http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/08-22.pdf
(page 3 attorney Ted Olsen for petitioners) "

Olsen: "A fair trial in a fair tribunal is a fundamental constitutional right. That means not only the absence of actual bias, but a guarantee against even the probability of an unfair tribunal."

Scalia: "Who says? Have we ever held that?"

Olsen: "You have said that in the Murchison case and in a number of cases, Your Honor....the language of the Murchison case specifically says so. The Court said in that case: "A fair trial in a fair tribunal is a basic requirement of due process. Fairness, of course, requires an absence of actual bias in the trial of cases, but our system of law has always endeavored to prevent even the probability of unfairness." ...(page 4 continues Olsen).."the Court has said that frequently, not only the probability of bias, the appearance of bias, the likelihood of bias, the inherent suspicion of bias. The Court has repeatedly said that in the context -- a series of contexts or cases...It's probable cause, Mr. Chief Justice (speaking to Roberts now). The Court frequently decides questions involving due process, equal protection, probable cause, speedy trial, on the basis not of mathematical certainty, but in this case where an objective observer (page 5 continuing) would come to the conclusion -- knowing all of the facts, would come to the conclusion that a judge or jurist would probably be biased against that individual or in favor of his opponent, that would be sufficient under the Due Process Clause, we submit.

Ginsburg: "Does it mean the same thing as likelihood of bias?"

Olsen: "The Court -- the Court, Justice Ginsburg, has used the changes interchangeably. We think the probably -- the "probable" standard is the one we would advance to this Court. But the -- but the seminal case, the Tumey case, said that even if there was a possibility -- any procedure where there would be a possible temptation for the judge not to hold the balance nice, clear, and true, would be the standard. But -- and the Aetna -- in the Aetna v. Lavoie case not very many years ago, the Court repeated that standard, and that standard has been repeated again and again.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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

LOL! A pitiful deflective appeal to popularity? Seriously? How positively sad ... ... for you.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[Skylar]

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

LOL! A pitiful deflective appeal to popularity? Seriously? How positively sad ... ... for you.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

Once again, you offered us your personal opinion and then laughably insisted that the courts are bound to it.

Um, no. They're not. In determining any legal right, the USSC is authorative having been delegatd authority to adjudicate any case that arises under the constitution.

And in determining any legal right, you're nobody.

We're simply not stripping gays and lesbians of their rights because of your personal opinion.

 

[Skylar]

There is no mandate for recusal that applies to Supreme Court Justices.

Supreme Court Justices decide whether to recuse themselves.

Since there is no appearance of bias why would any of the justices recuse themselves on such an important case?

No... Recusal is a function of honor..

Actually Syriusly is completely wrong and Swimexpert is only half right. According to 2009 Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co. a Judge (any and all of them) may not indicate connections or displays of bias that an objective person would see as their penchant to vote for either the plaintiff or the defendant before the arguments on the merits are heard.

In what universe are you objective?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

...

...

No... Recusal is a function of honor..

Sil... that quote is wrongly attributed. SE isn't the one that made the point... I did. #217

The legitimacy of entire US Judiciary, from fundamental concept, UP... rests entirely upon honor. "Your Honor"... "The Honorable Judge ..." Absent 'honor', the entire exercise is a waste of time.

But I get it that the law reflects honorable obligations... and the lack of honor on the part of the Ideological Left (The Relativists) is why the law requires it.

And how cool is it that not a single of our in-house relativists can admit to so much as having a SENSE of it? .... Right?

 

[Syriusly]

There is no mandate for recusal that applies to Supreme Court Justices.

Supreme Court Justices decide whether to recuse themselves.

Since there is no appearance of bias why would any of the justices recuse themselves on such an important case?

No... Recusal is a function of honor..

Actually Syriusly is completely wrong.

I am of course correct.

There is no mandate for recusal that applies to Supreme Court Justices.

Supreme Court Justices decide whether to recuse themselves.

Since there is no appearance of bias why would any of the justices recuse themselves on such an important case?

 

[Syriusly]

There is no mandate for recusal that applies to Supreme Court Justices.

Supreme Court Justices decide whether to recuse themselves.

Since there is no appearance of bias why would any of the justices recuse themselves on such an important case?

No... Recusal is a function of honor..

Actually Syriusly is completely wrong and Swimexpert is only half right. According to 2009 Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co. a Judge (any and all of them) may not indicate connections or displays of bias that an objective person would see as their penchant to vote for either the plaintiff or the defendant before the arguments on the merits are heard.

In what universe are you objective?

The one between her left ear and her right ear.

 

[Syriusly]

[

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.

The Supreme Court has said that there is.

Not that sexual behavior has anything to do with marriage or the cases before the courts.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

'Nazis'

You lose.

 

[Shrimpbox]

Supreme Court Justices generally do not officiate at weddings. That is not their job. The fact that she went out of her way to do so indicates a lack of impartiality. It doesnt help that she's also gay.
No, she will need to recuse.

Agreed.

And for those who think this isn't breaking, it is. Though the gay marriage performed by Kagan happened in 2014 late, according to the article, the news that the Court is taking up the gay marriage question in a couple weeks, coupled with this revelation, is breaking news. Combining the two is the "breaking" part..

But what if she refused to officiate over it.
Then what?

I would agree that attending the wedding would not be the same as officiating and I am disappointed that Kagan did not think this was improper. Don't think for a minute that the gay lobby isn't saying that we got her in the bag for our side and that this will really stick it to all those homophobes.

 

[Silhouette]

I would agree that attending the wedding would not be the same as officiating and I am disappointed that Kagan did not think this was improper. Don't think for a minute that the gay lobby isn't saying that we got her in the bag for our side and that this will really stick it to all those homophobes.

It goes further than that. There is no person on earth who would doubt how Kagan or Ginsburg (they both officiated at gay weddings/the dismantling of the structural meaning of the word marriage as presided over by the fed) will cast their vote at the Hearing coming up in April.

Therefore, according to 2009 Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co, there is an appearance and a suspicion of bias on behalf of both Kagan and Ginsburg on the question of law pending: whether or not the structure of the word "marriage" should be dismantled from its thousands-years-old definition in order to allow...gays...and any other seeking to expand the definition a la "equality" as mandated by the fed over the states.

It would be, therefore, illegal for Kagan or Ginsburg to preside over that question of law by their own Finding in 2009..

 

[SwimExpert]

You are making this up. You are making up bullshit. You're not even misinformed, you're outright delusional. If Picard declared himself a Democrat, you would actually see five lights.

Actually Syriusly is completely wrong and Swimexpert is only half right.

Glad you finally admit you are making shit up.

 

[Skylar]

Supreme Court Justices generally do not officiate at weddings. That is not their job. The fact that she went out of her way to do so indicates a lack of impartiality. It doesnt help that she's also gay.
No, she will need to recuse.

Agreed.

And for those who think this isn't breaking, it is. Though the gay marriage performed by Kagan happened in 2014 late, according to the article, the news that the Court is taking up the gay marriage question in a couple weeks, coupled with this revelation, is breaking news. Combining the two is the "breaking" part..

But what if she refused to officiate over it.
Then what?

I would agree that attending the wedding would not be the same as officiating and I am disappointed that Kagan did not think this was improper.

Why would it be improper? Maryland and DC had already voted same sex marriage in. It creates no more of a bias for same sex marriage than being married traditionally does against same sex marriage.

As there's a word for both traditional marriage and same sex marriage in maryland and DC:

"Marriage"

 

[Skylar]

I would agree that attending the wedding would not be the same as officiating and I am disappointed that Kagan did not think this was improper. Don't think for a minute that the gay lobby isn't saying that we got her in the bag for our side and that this will really stick it to all those homophobes.

It goes further than that. There is no person on earth who would doubt how Kagan or Ginsburg (they both officiated at gay weddings/the dismantling of the structural meaning of the word marriage as presided over by the fed) will cast their vote at the Hearing coming up in April.

Blithering nonsense. The Windsor court explicitly found the NY state definition of marriage that included same sex couples as constitutionally valid. Simply destroying any of your 'dismanlting of the structural meaning of the word marriage' bullshit.

As both Maryland and DC voted same sex marriage in in the same fashion as NY state did.

As usual, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

Therefore, according to 2009 Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co, there is an appearance and a suspicion of bias on behalf of both Kagan and Ginsburg on the question of law pending: whether or not the structure of the word "marriage" should be dismantled from its thousands-years-old definition in order to allow...gays...and any other seeking to expand the definition a la "equality" as mandated by the fed over the states.

First, there's no such bias. As DC and Maryland already voted same sex marriage in. With the WIndsor court explicitly finding that state defined same sex marriage was fully legitimate and utterly constitutional. So your entire 'structural argument' is useless idiocy.

Second, the case that you cited was for ELECTED judges in relation to CAMPAIGN contributions. Neither Kagan nor Ginsberg were elected. Neither take campaign contributions. Meaning that even hypothetically, your argument is entirely irrelevant.

It would be, therefore, illegal for Kagan or Ginsburg to preside over that question of law by their own Finding in 2009..

Nope. Not even close. As usual, you have no idea what you're talking about. You're simply building up your list of excuses for why you're going to lose in June. Lying to yourself that it must be the entire judiciary that's wrong....

....instead of just you.

 

[AceRothstein]

I would agree that attending the wedding would not be the same as officiating and I am disappointed that Kagan did not think this was improper. Don't think for a minute that the gay lobby isn't saying that we got her in the bag for our side and that this will really stick it to all those homophobes.

It goes further than that. There is no person on earth who would doubt how Kagan or Ginsburg (they both officiated at gay weddings/the dismantling of the structural meaning of the word marriage as presided over by the fed) will cast their vote at the Hearing coming up in April.

Therefore, according to 2009 Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co, there is an appearance and a suspicion of bias on behalf of both Kagan and Ginsburg on the question of law pending: whether or not the structure of the word "marriage" should be dismantled from its thousands-years-old definition in order to allow...gays...and any other seeking to expand the definition a la "equality" as mandated by the fed over the states.

It would be, therefore, illegal for Kagan or Ginsburg to preside over that question of law by their own Finding in 2009..

Your obsession with gay marriage is getting really fucking weird. You should go see a doctor, you might have dementia.

 

[Silhouette]

Your obsession with gay marriage is getting really fucking weird. You should go see a doctor, you might have dementia.

I seek to protect children from the brand new social experiment. It is my position that children do not make good lab rats..

..you can call that demented and I will wear that as a badge of honor.

 

[Skylar]

I would agree that attending the wedding would not be the same as officiating and I am disappointed that Kagan did not think this was improper. Don't think for a minute that the gay lobby isn't saying that we got her in the bag for our side and that this will really stick it to all those homophobes.

It goes further than that. There is no person on earth who would doubt how Kagan or Ginsburg (they both officiated at gay weddings/the dismantling of the structural meaning of the word marriage as presided over by the fed) will cast their vote at the Hearing coming up in April.

Therefore, according to 2009 Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co, there is an appearance and a suspicion of bias on behalf of both Kagan and Ginsburg on the question of law pending: whether or not the structure of the word "marriage" should be dismantled from its thousands-years-old definition in order to allow...gays...and any other seeking to expand the definition a la "equality" as mandated by the fed over the states.

It would be, therefore, illegal for Kagan or Ginsburg to preside over that question of law by their own Finding in 2009..

Your obsession with gay marriage is getting really fucking weird. You should go see a doctor, you might have dementia.

You should have seen Silo shit himself over Ebola. He predicted the extinction of civilization and nuclear meltdowns if we treated anyone in the US.

In comparison, his panty shitting hysterics over gay marriage are quite tame.

 

[Skylar]

Your obsession with gay marriage is getting really fucking weird. You should go see a doctor, you might have dementia.

I seek to protect children from the brand new social experiment. It is my position that children do not make good lab rats..

..you can call that demented and I will wear that as a badge of honor.

And how would denying marriage to same sex parents help their children? Because the courts have gone into elaborate detail how your proposals will harm them. A lot.

If you 'seek to protect children', wouldn't this be a significant concern for you? If children were nothing but a tool to use to hurt gay people....you'd ignore any child your proposal hurts.

Gee, I wonder which you're gonna do.

 

[Silhouette]

Oops, you managed introduce a strawman, didn't you?