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

[mudwhistle]

Being Homophobic and being against gay marriage aren't the same.
Homophobic - Irrational hatred of homosexuality

Actually:

Homophobia:
irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals.

Homophobia - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary​

A desire to discriminate against homosexuals is also homophobia.


>>>>

Same difference....


I suppose it's discrimination if you issue a citation for running a red light? Same-sex marriage and traffic violations both used to be against the law.

In 37 of 50 States....your equivalence doesn't work. And in the other 13, your equivalence doesn't work. As traffic violations are a crime, albiet a minor one. While the law simply doesn't recognize same sex marriage.

But don't worry. June is coming soon enough to take care of even that.

What was the punishment for getting married to someone of the same sex before they made it legal in a number of states?

There is no punishment. It simply wasn't recognized. You don't seem to get the difference between a crime and something that has no legal recognition. The former is punishable by jail or fines. The latter is simply ignored.

I take it law isn't your bag.

What exactly did they want?

Legal recognition of their marriages and ALL of their rights and protections. Not just 'some of them'. As would any rational person.

They wanted to somehow be accepted by society and to have legal recourse against any who do not accept them. This is why they claim this is a civil right. On the other hand, how are they going to rid themselves of their own hatred of folks that cannot change for one reason or another?

They call it a civil right because it is a civil right. And its not 'gays' alone that have called marriage a civil right. That would include the Supreme Court:

"Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man"

Loving v. Virginia (1967)

And with support for gay marriage continuing to surge, now outpacing opposition by 12 to 19 points, their fight for their civil rights seems to be winning them public support as well. The hate I leave to your ilk.

Actually, gays are winning, gay-activists are losing public support. We're getting tired of the constant double-standards and constant accusations. I could point out several instances where you attempted to put words in my mouth. With folks like you it's always black or white. You're either for gay marriage or you're a homophobe.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

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.

That's absurd. It's like saying men need to recuse themselves when a woman's issue is under discussion. Also, I notice the Court's ruling you're trying to use as justification says "elected" must recuse. Supremes are "appointed."

 

[Skylar]

Actually:

Homophobia:
irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals.

Homophobia - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary​

A desire to discriminate against homosexuals is also homophobia.


>>>>

Same difference....


I suppose it's discrimination if you issue a citation for running a red light? Same-sex marriage and traffic violations both used to be against the law.

In 37 of 50 States....your equivalence doesn't work. And in the other 13, your equivalence doesn't work. As traffic violations are a crime, albiet a minor one. While the law simply doesn't recognize same sex marriage.

But don't worry. June is coming soon enough to take care of even that.

What was the punishment for getting married to someone of the same sex before they made it legal in a number of states?

There is no punishment. It simply wasn't recognized. You don't seem to get the difference between a crime and something that has no legal recognition. The former is punishable by jail or fines. The latter is simply ignored.

I take it law isn't your bag.

What exactly did they want?

Legal recognition of their marriages and ALL of their rights and protections. Not just 'some of them'. As would any rational person.

They wanted to somehow be accepted by society and to have legal recourse against any who do not accept them. This is why they claim this is a civil right. On the other hand, how are they going to rid themselves of their own hatred of folks that cannot change for one reason or another?

They call it a civil right because it is a civil right. And its not 'gays' alone that have called marriage a civil right. That would include the Supreme Court:

"Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man"

Loving v. Virginia (1967)

And with support for gay marriage continuing to surge, now outpacing opposition by 12 to 19 points, their fight for their civil rights seems to be winning them public support as well. The hate I leave to your ilk.

Actually, gays are winning, gay-activists are losing public support.

Gays are winning. With 44 of 46 federal court cases going their way. And the USSC looking poised to make it 45 of 47.

And with the public the support for gay marriage continues to surge. Last time Gallup checked it, it was the latest in a string of 'all time highs'.

 

[mudwhistle]

Same difference....


I suppose it's discrimination if you issue a citation for running a red light? Same-sex marriage and traffic violations both used to be against the law.

In 37 of 50 States....your equivalence doesn't work. And in the other 13, your equivalence doesn't work. As traffic violations are a crime, albiet a minor one. While the law simply doesn't recognize same sex marriage.

But don't worry. June is coming soon enough to take care of even that.

What was the punishment for getting married to someone of the same sex before they made it legal in a number of states?

There is no punishment. It simply wasn't recognized. You don't seem to get the difference between a crime and something that has no legal recognition. The former is punishable by jail or fines. The latter is simply ignored.

I take it law isn't your bag.

What exactly did they want?

Legal recognition of their marriages and ALL of their rights and protections. Not just 'some of them'. As would any rational person.

They wanted to somehow be accepted by society and to have legal recourse against any who do not accept them. This is why they claim this is a civil right. On the other hand, how are they going to rid themselves of their own hatred of folks that cannot change for one reason or another?

They call it a civil right because it is a civil right. And its not 'gays' alone that have called marriage a civil right. That would include the Supreme Court:

"Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man"

Loving v. Virginia (1967)

And with support for gay marriage continuing to surge, now outpacing opposition by 12 to 19 points, their fight for their civil rights seems to be winning them public support as well. The hate I leave to your ilk.

Actually, gays are winning, gay-activists are losing public support.

Gays are winning. With 44 of 46 federal court cases going their way. And the USSC looking poised to make it 45 of 47.

And with the public the support for gay marriage continues to surge. Last time Gallup checked it, it was the latest in a string of 'all time highs'.

Sure, you can point out federal court actions till you're blue in the face. The primary reason for that is we have an evolving president who lied about his true stance on gay marriage till after he won election and is currently stacking courts all over the country with pro-gay activists.

Truth is public opinion is changing only slightly. Everyone is falling in line or face prosecution.

I don't have an official stance other than my own conscience.

 

[Skylar]

In 37 of 50 States....your equivalence doesn't work. And in the other 13, your equivalence doesn't work. As traffic violations are a crime, albiet a minor one. While the law simply doesn't recognize same sex marriage.

But don't worry. June is coming soon enough to take care of even that.

What was the punishment for getting married to someone of the same sex before they made it legal in a number of states?

There is no punishment. It simply wasn't recognized. You don't seem to get the difference between a crime and something that has no legal recognition. The former is punishable by jail or fines. The latter is simply ignored.

I take it law isn't your bag.

What exactly did they want?

Legal recognition of their marriages and ALL of their rights and protections. Not just 'some of them'. As would any rational person.

They wanted to somehow be accepted by society and to have legal recourse against any who do not accept them. This is why they claim this is a civil right. On the other hand, how are they going to rid themselves of their own hatred of folks that cannot change for one reason or another?

They call it a civil right because it is a civil right. And its not 'gays' alone that have called marriage a civil right. That would include the Supreme Court:

"Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man"

Loving v. Virginia (1967)

And with support for gay marriage continuing to surge, now outpacing opposition by 12 to 19 points, their fight for their civil rights seems to be winning them public support as well. The hate I leave to your ilk.

Actually, gays are winning, gay-activists are losing public support.

Gays are winning. With 44 of 46 federal court cases going their way. And the USSC looking poised to make it 45 of 47.

And with the public the support for gay marriage continues to surge. Last time Gallup checked it, it was the latest in a string of 'all time highs'.

Sure, you can point out federal court actions till you're blue in the face. The primary reason for that is we have an evolving president who lied about his true stance on gay marriage till after he won election and is currently stacking courts all over the country with pro-gay activists.

Kennedy wrote the Windsor decision in 2013 which dismantled gay marriage restrictions for DOMA. A Reagan nominee. And its Kennedy that will almost certainly write the ruling in June on gay marriage.

You can lie to yourself that its "Obama's fault' that you're going to lose in June. But there's a much simpler explanation: gay marriage bans are unconstitutional.

Truth is public opinion is changing only slightly. Everyone is falling in line or face prosecution.

Its actually changed quite dramatically.

- Americans' views on same-sex marriage have essentially stayed the same in the past year, with a majority of 57% opposed to granting such marriages legal status and 40% in favor of doing so.

Gallup, 2009

Majority of Americans Continue to Oppose Gay Marriage

Fast forward 5 years later....

Same-Sex Marriage Support Reaches New High at 55%

Americans' support for the law recognizing same-sex marriages as legally valid has increased yet again, now at 55%.

Gallup, 2014
Same-Sex Marriage Support Reaches New High at 55

So 40 points of support to 55% of support. That's a move of 15 points. With opposition falling 15%.

That's a huge. With support and opposition numbers essentially reversing themselves in 5 years.

I don't have an official stance other than my own conscience.

And what objection of 'conscience' would you have against gay marriage?

 

[Silhouette]

Kennedy wrote the Windsor decision in 2013 which dismantled gay marriage restrictions for DOMA. A Reagan nominee. And its Kennedy that will almost certainly write the ruling in June on gay marriage.

You can lie to yourself that its "Obama's fault' that you're going to lose in June. But there's a much simpler explanation: gay marriage bans are unconstitutional....

Kennedy avered 56 times in Windsor that the topic of dismantling the word "marriage" was up to the states and BECAUSE OF THAT the Court said the fed HAD TO LISTEN TO WHAT THE STATES SAID ABOUT IT. There was no constitutional Finding in Windsor apart from that; which means that was/is interim law until and unless further notice on the merits.

And doesn't there have to be a majority vote in order for any of the Justices to write the prevailing opinion of the judicial panel? Check the title of the thread. If two of those votes are overtly biased from two Justices who by their own 2009 mandate must have recused themselves, then the Decision is bogus and I would urge any state to ignore it based on it being arrived at illegally on two counts:

1. The forced-attrition of state laws by meritless refusals of stays to preserve interim law and the packing the numbers of illegal "gay marriages" in states where they still are legally barred access to the word "marriage". (presumably so Kennedy can say this June "gee, so many MORE kids will now be in "immediate legal harm" we HAVE to overturn Windsor and mandate the dismantling: of the word marriage :...and children-into-the-untold future's civil right to have a mom and dad in marriage..."). So the brand new experiment and federally-forced redacted meaning of the word "marriage" (by just 9 people over 100s of millions) can use kids in the separate states' discreet communities as lab rats.

2. Two of the Justices performed as a federal entity publicly flaunting their bias in using a shovel and breaking ground for the appearance of the fed looming over the dismantling of the word marriage in a state with manifest approval, in violation of the 2009 Finding by SCOTUS of "appearance of bias" or "suspicion of bias" mandating a self-recusal.

 

[mudwhistle]

What was the punishment for getting married to someone of the same sex before they made it legal in a number of states?

There is no punishment. It simply wasn't recognized. You don't seem to get the difference between a crime and something that has no legal recognition. The former is punishable by jail or fines. The latter is simply ignored.

I take it law isn't your bag.

What exactly did they want?

Legal recognition of their marriages and ALL of their rights and protections. Not just 'some of them'. As would any rational person.

They wanted to somehow be accepted by society and to have legal recourse against any who do not accept them. This is why they claim this is a civil right. On the other hand, how are they going to rid themselves of their own hatred of folks that cannot change for one reason or another?

They call it a civil right because it is a civil right. And its not 'gays' alone that have called marriage a civil right. That would include the Supreme Court:

"Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man"

Loving v. Virginia (1967)

And with support for gay marriage continuing to surge, now outpacing opposition by 12 to 19 points, their fight for their civil rights seems to be winning them public support as well. The hate I leave to your ilk.

Actually, gays are winning, gay-activists are losing public support.

Gays are winning. With 44 of 46 federal court cases going their way. And the USSC looking poised to make it 45 of 47.

And with the public the support for gay marriage continues to surge. Last time Gallup checked it, it was the latest in a string of 'all time highs'.

Sure, you can point out federal court actions till you're blue in the face. The primary reason for that is we have an evolving president who lied about his true stance on gay marriage till after he won election and is currently stacking courts all over the country with pro-gay activists.

Kennedy wrote the Windsor decision in 2013 which dismantled gay marriage restrictions for DOMA. A Reagan nominee. And its Kennedy that will almost certainly write the ruling in June on gay marriage.

You can lie to yourself that its "Obama's fault' that you're going to lose in June. But there's a much simpler explanation: gay marriage bans are unconstitutional.

Truth is public opinion is changing only slightly. Everyone is falling in line or face prosecution.

Its actually changed quite dramatically.

- Americans' views on same-sex marriage have essentially stayed the same in the past year, with a majority of 57% opposed to granting such marriages legal status and 40% in favor of doing so.

Gallup, 2009

Majority of Americans Continue to Oppose Gay Marriage

Fast forward 5 years later....

Same-Sex Marriage Support Reaches New High at 55%

Americans' support for the law recognizing same-sex marriages as legally valid has increased yet again, now at 55%.

Gallup, 2014
Same-Sex Marriage Support Reaches New High at 55

So 40 points of support to 55% of support. That's a move of 15 points. With opposition falling 15%.

That's a huge. With support and opposition numbers essentially reversing themselves in 5 years.

I don't have an official stance other than my own conscience.

And what objection of 'conscience' would you have against gay marriage?

I don't have a dog in this race.

Sorry.

You may be able to change public opinion by hook or by crook, that doesn't make it moral in religious terms. Face up to the fact that Obama felt he wouldn't have been elected if he had been honest about his sexuality or his stance on the issue. Most people are like me; If it makes them happy they can call it marriage. Try to attack straights for their beliefs is only going to turn public opinion against it. Assuming a lack of acceptance on my part simply because I don't gush of over the issue doesn't mean I'm some sort of deviant, as if being straight is a perverse act all of the sudden.

 

[Skylar]

Kennedy wrote the Windsor decision in 2013 which dismantled gay marriage restrictions for DOMA. A Reagan nominee. And its Kennedy that will almost certainly write the ruling in June on gay marriage.

You can lie to yourself that its "Obama's fault' that you're going to lose in June. But there's a much simpler explanation: gay marriage bans are unconstitutional....

Kennedy avered 56 times in Windsor that the topic of dismantling the word "marriage" was up to the states and BECAUSE OF THAT the Court said the fed HAD TO LISTEN TO WHAT THE STATES SAID ABOUT IT. There was no constitutional Finding in Windsor apart from that; which means that was/is interim law until and unless further notice on the merits.

Ah, but you well know (but really hope we don't) ....Kennedy cited state marriage laws as being subject to constitutional guarantees.

Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States,” Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393.

Windsor v. US

And every ruling overturning same sex marriage bans has been on the basis of the violation of those constitutional guarantees. With case before the court being about the violation of constitutional guarantees.

You can ignore constitutional guarantees. But you can't make the courts ignore them.

And doesn't there have to be a majority vote in order for any of the Justices to write the prevailing opinion of the judicial panel? Check the title of the thread. If two of those votes are overtly biased from two Justices who by their own 2009 mandate must have recused themselves, then the Decision is bogus and I would urge any state to ignore it based on it being arrived at illegally on two counts:

The 2009 ruling was about elected judges and campaign contributions. Neither Kagan nor Ginsburg were elected. Neither take campaign contributions.

Worse, there can be no demonstration of bias against same sex marriage bans by officiating a wedding in Maryland or DC....as neither DC nor Maryland have same sex marriage bans.

Both of which simply destroy your absurd 'bias' argument.

The forced-attrition of state laws by meritless refusals of stays to preserve interim law and the packing the numbers of illegal "gay marriages" in states where they still are legally barred access to the word "marriage".

You claim the refusals for stay were 'meritless'. Citing yourself. And you're nobody. You're offering us your personal opinion, which carries no legal weight nor has any legal relevance.

And 7 of 9 justices refused to grant stay. You simply don't know what you're talking about.

The justices will educate you in June.

 

[Skylar]

There is no punishment. It simply wasn't recognized. You don't seem to get the difference between a crime and something that has no legal recognition. The former is punishable by jail or fines. The latter is simply ignored.

I take it law isn't your bag.

Legal recognition of their marriages and ALL of their rights and protections. Not just 'some of them'. As would any rational person.

They call it a civil right because it is a civil right. And its not 'gays' alone that have called marriage a civil right. That would include the Supreme Court:

And with support for gay marriage continuing to surge, now outpacing opposition by 12 to 19 points, their fight for their civil rights seems to be winning them public support as well. The hate I leave to your ilk.

Actually, gays are winning, gay-activists are losing public support.

Gays are winning. With 44 of 46 federal court cases going their way. And the USSC looking poised to make it 45 of 47.

And with the public the support for gay marriage continues to surge. Last time Gallup checked it, it was the latest in a string of 'all time highs'.

Sure, you can point out federal court actions till you're blue in the face. The primary reason for that is we have an evolving president who lied about his true stance on gay marriage till after he won election and is currently stacking courts all over the country with pro-gay activists.

Kennedy wrote the Windsor decision in 2013 which dismantled gay marriage restrictions for DOMA. A Reagan nominee. And its Kennedy that will almost certainly write the ruling in June on gay marriage.

You can lie to yourself that its "Obama's fault' that you're going to lose in June. But there's a much simpler explanation: gay marriage bans are unconstitutional.

Truth is public opinion is changing only slightly. Everyone is falling in line or face prosecution.

Its actually changed quite dramatically.

- Americans' views on same-sex marriage have essentially stayed the same in the past year, with a majority of 57% opposed to granting such marriages legal status and 40% in favor of doing so.

Gallup, 2009

Majority of Americans Continue to Oppose Gay Marriage

Fast forward 5 years later....

Same-Sex Marriage Support Reaches New High at 55%

Americans' support for the law recognizing same-sex marriages as legally valid has increased yet again, now at 55%.

Gallup, 2014
Same-Sex Marriage Support Reaches New High at 55

So 40 points of support to 55% of support. That's a move of 15 points. With opposition falling 15%.

That's a huge. With support and opposition numbers essentially reversing themselves in 5 years.

I don't have an official stance other than my own conscience.

And what objection of 'conscience' would you have against gay marriage?

I don't have a dog in this race.

Sorry.

You may be able to change public opinion by hook or by crook, that doesn't make it moral in religious terms.

If the Supreme Court were a religious institution, that might have some relevance to this thread or the upcoming ruling.

But it isn't. So it doesn't.

Your silly little batshit conspiracy theories about Obama's 'sexuality', I leave to you.

 

[mudwhistle]

Actually, gays are winning, gay-activists are losing public support.

Gays are winning. With 44 of 46 federal court cases going their way. And the USSC looking poised to make it 45 of 47.

And with the public the support for gay marriage continues to surge. Last time Gallup checked it, it was the latest in a string of 'all time highs'.

Sure, you can point out federal court actions till you're blue in the face. The primary reason for that is we have an evolving president who lied about his true stance on gay marriage till after he won election and is currently stacking courts all over the country with pro-gay activists.

Kennedy wrote the Windsor decision in 2013 which dismantled gay marriage restrictions for DOMA. A Reagan nominee. And its Kennedy that will almost certainly write the ruling in June on gay marriage.

You can lie to yourself that its "Obama's fault' that you're going to lose in June. But there's a much simpler explanation: gay marriage bans are unconstitutional.

Truth is public opinion is changing only slightly. Everyone is falling in line or face prosecution.

Its actually changed quite dramatically.

- Americans' views on same-sex marriage have essentially stayed the same in the past year, with a majority of 57% opposed to granting such marriages legal status and 40% in favor of doing so.

Gallup, 2009

Majority of Americans Continue to Oppose Gay Marriage

Fast forward 5 years later....

Same-Sex Marriage Support Reaches New High at 55%

Americans' support for the law recognizing same-sex marriages as legally valid has increased yet again, now at 55%.

Gallup, 2014
Same-Sex Marriage Support Reaches New High at 55

So 40 points of support to 55% of support. That's a move of 15 points. With opposition falling 15%.

That's a huge. With support and opposition numbers essentially reversing themselves in 5 years.

I don't have an official stance other than my own conscience.

And what objection of 'conscience' would you have against gay marriage?

I don't have a dog in this race.

Sorry.

You may be able to change public opinion by hook or by crook, that doesn't make it moral in religious terms.

If the Supreme Court were a religious institution, that might have some relevance to this thread or the upcoming ruling.

But it isn't. So it doesn't.

Your silly little batshit conspiracy theories about Obama's 'sexuality', I leave to you.

Regardless, he had to lie to get into the Oval Office. That pretty much makes him an illegitimate president. Democrats in general have to act like Republicans to get elected in most districts outside of San Francisco. They can't be honest because their ideology doesn't fly with most Americans.

My sister is a lesbian. She would tell people like you to go fuck yourselves. She figures what she does at home is nobody's business. I concur.

 

[Silhouette]

If the Supreme Court were a religious institution, that might have some relevance to this thread or the upcoming ruling.

But it isn't. So it doesn't.

Your silly little batshit conspiracy theories about Obama's 'sexuality', I leave to you.

******

Agreed, and it is a strawman to the points of legal precedent requiring recusal on this matter of two Justices:

As I was saying..

Kennedy wrote the Windsor decision in 2013 which dismantled gay marriage restrictions for DOMA. A Reagan nominee. And its Kennedy that will almost certainly write the ruling in June on gay marriage.
You can lie to yourself that its "Obama's fault' that you're going to lose in June. But there's a much simpler explanation: gay marriage bans are unconstitutional....

Kennedy avered 56 times in Windsor that the topic of dismantling the word "marriage" was up to the states and BECAUSE OF THAT the Court said the fed HAD TO LISTEN TO WHAT THE STATES SAID ABOUT IT. There was no constitutional Finding in Windsor apart from that; which means that was/is interim law until and unless further notice on the merits.

And doesn't there have to be a majority vote in order for any of the Justices to write the prevailing opinion of the judicial panel? Check the title of the thread. If two of those votes are overtly biased from two Justices who by their own 2009 mandate must have recused themselves, then the Decision is bogus and I would urge any state to ignore it based on it being arrived at illegally on two counts:

1. The forced-attrition of state laws by meritless refusals of stays to preserve interim law and the packing the numbers of illegal "gay marriages" in states where they still are legally barred access to the word "marriage". (presumably so Kennedy can say this June "gee, so many MORE kids will now be in "immediate legal harm" we HAVE to overturn Windsor and mandate the dismantling: of the word marriage :...and children-into-the-untold future's civil right to have a mom and dad in marriage..."). So the brand new experiment and federally-forced redacted meaning of the word "marriage" (by just 9 people over 100s of millions) can use kids in the separate states' discreet communities as lab rats.

2. Two of the Justices performed as a federal entity publicly flaunting their bias in using a shovel and breaking ground for the appearance of the fed looming over the dismantling of the word marriage in a state with manifest approval, in violation of the 2009 Finding by SCOTUS of "appearance of bias" or "suspicion of bias" mandating a self-recusal.

 

[Skylar]

If the Supreme Court were a religious institution, that might have some relevance to this thread or the upcoming ruling.

But it isn't. So it doesn't.

Your silly little batshit conspiracy theories about Obama's 'sexuality', I leave to you.

******

Agreed, and it is a strawman to the points of legal precedent requiring recusal on this matter of two Justices:

Nope. First, the case you cited relates to elected judges and campaign contributions. Neither Kagan nor Ginsberg were elected. Neither accept campaign contributions. Making your accusation irrelevant even hypothetically.

Worse for you, its impossible for Kagan and Ginsberg to have demonstrated a bias against same sex marriage bans by officiating a wedding Maryland or DC....as neither DC nor Maryland have same sex marriage bans.

Ending your argument again. You simply have no idea what you're talking about.

Kennedy avered 56 times in Windsor that the topic of dismantling the word "marriage" was up to the states and BECAUSE OF THAT the Court said the fed HAD TO LISTEN TO WHAT THE STATES SAID ABOUT IT. There was no constitutional Finding in Windsor apart from that; which means that was/is interim law until and unless further notice on the merits.

Ah, but you well know (but really hope we don't) ....Kennedy cited state marriage laws as being subject to constitutional guarantees.

Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States,” Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393.

Windsor v. US

And every ruling overturning same sex marriage bans has been on the basis of the violation of those constitutional guarantees. With case before the court being about the violation of constitutional guarantees.

You can ignore constitutional guarantees. But you can't make the courts ignore them.

 

[Silhouette]

What does any of that have to do with the two Justices having to recuse themselves as a matter of their own 2009 Finding on "appearance" or "suspicion" of bias?

 

[Skylar]

What does any of that have to do with the two Justices having to recuse themselves as a matter of their own 2009 Finding on "appearance" or "suspicion" of bias?

As has been explained to you in detail...

The 2009 case you cited relates to elected judges and campaign contributions. Neither Kagan nor Ginsberg were elected. Neither accept campaign contributions. Making your accusation irrelevant even hypothetically.

Worse for you, its impossible for Kagan and Ginsberg to have demonstrated a bias against same sex marriage bans by officiating a wedding Maryland or DC....as neither DC nor Maryland have same sex marriage bans.

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

 

[Syriusly]

Justices SHOULD show bias to precedent. Its the entire basis for stare decisis.

Wrong. And only a Leftist could get this so wrong.

Justices should show bias to the Constitution.

Ginsburg and Kagan must recuse themselves. No objective or even subjective person on the face of the earth .

LOL- as if you have any clue as to what any objective person thinks about homosexuals or this case.

Justices decide if they will recuse themselves- I see no evidence of bias by performing a legal wedding in a state where the wedding is legal.

 

[Syriusly]

Being Homophobic and being against gay marriage aren't the same.
Homophobic - Irrational hatred of homosexuality

Actually:

Homophobia:
irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals.

Homophobia - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary​

A desire to discriminate against homosexuals is also homophobia.


>>>>

Same difference....

Very different.

Your definition is based on "hate", when in fact the definition simply calls for a desire to discriminate against. A desire to discriminate need not be born out of "hate".

For example a person may not "hate" homosexuals, but feel - for religious reasons - that they should not be treated the same as heterosexuals under the law. That isn't "hate", but it is a call for discrimination.


>>>>

Nope. They may have been able to make Webster's or Merriam's more PC, but the truth is phobia .

The truth is that we use the term 'homophobia' to describe people who are bigots towards homosexuals.

The truth is that the dictionary reflects the accepted common usage of the English language and the truth is that you just don't like that definition.

 

[mdk]

What does any of that have to do with the two Justices having to recuse themselves as a matter of their own 2009 Finding on "appearance" or "suspicion" of bias?

This has been explained to you on numerous occasions. You just don't like the answer. Neither Justices are elected or accept campaign contributions making your entire point meaningless. They are not going to recuse themselves from this case on the account of your butt-hurt. Make peace with that fact.

 

[mudwhistle]

Being Homophobic and being against gay marriage aren't the same.
Homophobic - Irrational hatred of homosexuality

Actually:

Homophobia:
irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals.

Homophobia - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary​

A desire to discriminate against homosexuals is also homophobia.


>>>>

Same difference....

Very different.

Your definition is based on "hate", when in fact the definition simply calls for a desire to discriminate against. A desire to discriminate need not be born out of "hate".

For example a person may not "hate" homosexuals, but feel - for religious reasons - that they should not be treated the same as heterosexuals under the law. That isn't "hate", but it is a call for discrimination.


>>>>

Nope. They may have been able to make Webster's or Merriam's more PC, but the truth is phobia .

The truth is that we use the term 'homophobia' to describe people who are bigots towards homosexuals.

The truth is that the dictionary reflects the accepted common usage of the English language and the truth is that you just don't like that definition.

I just don't agree with it because it's wrong. Any phobia, according to Merriam, is fear based other than Homophobia. How do you explain that? Could be an oxymoron, or a made up term, because every other phobia is based in fear or anxiety.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I just don't agree with it because it's wrong. Any phobia, according to Merriam, is fear based other than Homophobia. How do you explain that? Could be an oxymoron, or a made up term, because every other phobia is based in fear or anxiety.

That's false also:

​

phobia​

​

: an extremely strong dislike or fear of someone or something"​

A strong dislike qualifies as a phobia (according to Merriam-Webster) and need not be fear based, note the use of "OR" in the definition.



>>>>>

 

[mudwhistle]

What does any of that have to do with the two Justices having to recuse themselves as a matter of their own 2009 Finding on "appearance" or "suspicion" of bias?

This has been explained to you on numerous occasions. You just don't like the answer. Neither Justices are elected or accept campaign contributions making your entire point meaningless. They are not going to recuse themselves from this case on the account of your butt-hurt. Make peace with that fact.

Hell, it would remove the entire purpose of putting them on the court in the first place. This is why Obama wants Ginsburg to retire,....so he can stick another Dyke in her place.