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

[NLT]

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.

Yea A Bulldyke Justice wont have any bias on same sex marriage rulings

 

[Jarhead]

How does one adhering to the law by officiating over a gay wedding show bias?

Easy. When one is a US Supreme Court Justice who Upheld in 2009 that no judge may sit on a case yet to be Heard for which s/he has displayed clear bias. This rule applies most rigorously to a US Supreme Court Justice.

So then let me ask you this...If she had refused to officiate over that wedding....wouldn't that, too, show bias?

So that being said.....being asked to officiate it....regardless of her answer.....would put her in a position to show bias one way or the other.....am I correct?

 

[Silhouette]

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..

 

[The Rabbi]

How does one adhering to the law by officiating over a gay wedding show bias?

Easy. When one is a US Supreme Court Justice who Upheld in 2009 that no judge may sit on a case yet to be Heard for which s/he has displayed clear bias. This rule applies most rigorously to a US Supreme Court Justice.

So then let me ask you this...If she had refused to officiate over that wedding....wouldn't that, too, show bias?

So that being said.....being asked to officiate it....regardless of her answer.....would put her in a position to show bias one way or the other.....am I correct?

The answer to the first quesiton is no. Not if her response was "Officiating would indicate bias on my part so I cant do it."

 

[Jarhead]

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?

 

[Jarhead]

How does one adhering to the law by officiating over a gay wedding show bias?

Easy. When one is a US Supreme Court Justice who Upheld in 2009 that no judge may sit on a case yet to be Heard for which s/he has displayed clear bias. This rule applies most rigorously to a US Supreme Court Justice.

So then let me ask you this...If she had refused to officiate over that wedding....wouldn't that, too, show bias?

So that being said.....being asked to officiate it....regardless of her answer.....would put her in a position to show bias one way or the other.....am I correct?

The answer to the first quesiton is no. Not if her response was "Officiating would indicate bias on my part so I cant do it."

I see. I was not aware that she officiated it after she was a Supreme Court Justice.

To be frank...it was poor judgment on her part.

 

[Silhouette]

So then let me ask you this...If she had refused to officiate over that wedding....wouldn't that, too, show bias?

So that being said.....being asked to officiate it....regardless of her answer.....would put her in a position to show bias one way or the other.....am I correct?

No, the correct way to conduct herself would have been to privately tell her friends "as you know the question of federal over state on gay marriage is still pending to be heard on the merits, my appearance at your wedding would indicate bias in that regard, I'm sorry."

The act on Kagan's behalf was deliberate...and chilling...for the decorum a US Supreme Court Justice whose job description is to maintain a scrupulous conduct of not appearing biased on issues pending of the day. She cannot claim ignorance of this. She absolutely must recuse herself or face impeachment.

 

[AceRothstein]

If Thomas didn't have to sit out the ACA ruling, nobody will have to sit out this one.

 

[The Rabbi]

How does one adhering to the law by officiating over a gay wedding show bias?

Easy. When one is a US Supreme Court Justice who Upheld in 2009 that no judge may sit on a case yet to be Heard for which s/he has displayed clear bias. This rule applies most rigorously to a US Supreme Court Justice.

So then let me ask you this...If she had refused to officiate over that wedding....wouldn't that, too, show bias?

So that being said.....being asked to officiate it....regardless of her answer.....would put her in a position to show bias one way or the other.....am I correct?

The answer to the first quesiton is no. Not if her response was "Officiating would indicate bias on my part so I cant do it."

I see. I was not aware that she officiated it after she was a Supreme Court Justice.

To be frank...it was poor judgment on her part.

Apparently late 2014 so yeah she was in office.
She's a dyke. Of course she's for gay marriage. She couldnt in a 100 years be unbiased about this. Thats why she needs to recuse herself.

 

[The Rabbi]

If Thomas didn't have to sit out the ACA ruling, nobody will have to sit out this one.

Why should Thonas have had to sit out ACA? Other than he is a conservative and those people are held to higher standards.

 

[Jarhead]

I mean...heck...she knew that the gay marriage debate was hot and the SCOTUS was going to be involved.....she should have immediately declined on a basis of it being inappropriate.

Really poor judgment on her part. Kind of scary that she did not see what kind of concern it would raise.

Is she not aware of the importance of showing a lack of bias when you are a supreme court justice?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The anti-marriage equality derangement syndrome is strong in this one. The vote will be 6 -2 with Alito running around in his office yelling, "Just shoot me now."

 

[Silhouette]

If Thomas didn't have to sit out the ACA ruling, nobody will have to sit out this one.

Two wrongs do not make a right. These two women must recuse themselves if they presided over a "gay wedding" while they had knowledge that such a question of law was currently contested and pending in the US circuit of appeals: their stop being the last and final word.

They themselves said so in 2009 (see the OP for details and link)

It is extraordinarily important, especially in these troubled times with suspicions of the Public over their governement's heavy-hand in all branches, to maintain the purity of the last vestige of justice in this country. If Kagan and Ginsburg do not recuse themselves for performing gay marriages while the question of that was/is pending, the rift created in Public trust of its government could prove the final death blow to the stability of the populace.

It was a straw, not a piano that broke the proverbial overloaded camel's back..

 

[AceRothstein]

If Thomas didn't have to sit out the ACA ruling, nobody will have to sit out this one.

Why should Thonas have had to sit out ACA? Other than he is a conservative and those people are held to higher standards.

His wife lobbied against it. There was clear financial gain to be made by Thomas and his wife if the law was scrapped.

 

[The Rabbi]

If Thomas didn't have to sit out the ACA ruling, nobody will have to sit out this one.

Why should Thonas have had to sit out ACA? Other than he is a conservative and those people are held to higher standards.

His wife lobbied against it. There was clear financial gain to be made by Thomas and his wife if the law was scrapped.

Thomas is not his wife.
Try again.

 

[AceRothstein]

If Thomas didn't have to sit out the ACA ruling, nobody will have to sit out this one.

Two wrongs do not make a right. These two women must recuse themselves if they presided over a "gay wedding" while they had knowledge that such a question of law was currently contested and pending in the US circuit of appeals: their stop being the last and final word.

They themselves said so in 2009 (see the OP for details and link)

The article in the OP is about elected judges and bias due to campaign contributions. This has nothing to do with the Supremes.

 

[AceRothstein]

If Thomas didn't have to sit out the ACA ruling, nobody will have to sit out this one.

Why should Thonas have had to sit out ACA? Other than he is a conservative and those people are held to higher standards.

His wife lobbied against it. There was clear financial gain to be made by Thomas and his wife if the law was scrapped.

Thomas is not his wife.
Try again.

And Kagan is not married to a woman. Try again.

 

[AceRothstein]

Kagan will take part in the ruling. Gay marriage will be legal across the countries. Conservatives will still bitch.

 

[mdk]

You know you can't win this arguement on its merits so now the tactic is trying gin up outrage and claim they she should recuse herself from the case. It isn't going to happen.

 

[007]

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: .

Breaking?

You have been claiming this same crap for days now.

Justices decide for themselves when they should recuse themselves.

yes, its a question of judicial ethics. Does Kagan have any?

No, she's a Soetoro nominated leftist hack.