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

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You know that the Supreme Court will likely reverse the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, affirming the judgments of the four Federal district courts that measures seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law violate the 14th Amendment.

Consequently, you fabricate this ridiculous and unfounded contrivance in a pathetic effort to undermine that likely ruling.

You stating emphatically that anyone could know that before a fair and impartial hearing is actually supporting my arguments here. Are you aware of that?

Wrong - likely, not will.

It's the general consensus of the legal community – given the current make up of the Court, and Justice Kennedy's previous rulings concerning measures denying gay Americans their civil rights – that the High Court will likely reverse the Six Circuit, having nothing to do with a given justice participating in a gay wedding ceremony.

This is not necessarily rare, we saw a similar situation in 2008 with Heller and again in 2010 with McDonald, where Justice Scaila's participation in the shooting sports had no bearing whatsoever concerning his opinion in either case.

Just like presidents and members of Congress, Supreme Court justices are allowed to have personal opinions, express those opinions, and engage in personal activities with the understanding they'll perform their duties objectively and in good faith.

Again, you seek only to remove from the case a justice whom you perceive likely to vote with the majority and reverse, motivated solely by your unwarranted hatred of gay Americans, having nothing at all to do with the facts of the case or the law.

 

[Skylar]

You know that the Supreme Court will likely reverse the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, affirming the judgments of the four Federal district courts that measures seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law violate the 14th Amendment.

Consequently, you fabricate this ridiculous and unfounded contrivance in a pathetic effort to undermine that likely ruling.

You stating emphatically that anyone could know that before a fair and impartial hearing is actually supporting my arguments here. Are you aware of that?

No more so than Scalia:

In my opinion, however, the view that this Court will take of state prohibition of same-sex marriage is indicated beyond mistaking by today’s opinion. As I have said, the real rationale of today’s opinion, whatever disappearing trail of its legalistic argle-bargle one chooses to follow, is that DOMA is motivated by “ ‘bare . . . desire to harm’ ” couples in same-sex marriages. Supra, at 18. How easy it is, indeed how inevitable, to reach the same conclusion with regard to state laws denying same-sex couples marital status.

These rulings don't occur in a vacuum. They are based on precedent. And as Justice Scalia pointed out, the court's position as expressed in the Windsor decision on this matter is 'beyond mistaking' with the application of Windsor's legal logic on the States 'inevitable'.

Are you aware of stare decisis? If not, you may want to look into it.

 

[Silhouette]

What I am aware of, Skylar, is the Public's perception of lack of bias in a Supreme Court Justice . Maybe you should look into THAT...

You know that the Supreme Court will likely reverse the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, affirming the judgments of the four Federal district courts that measures seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law violate the 14th Amendment.

Consequently, you fabricate this ridiculous and unfounded contrivance in a pathetic effort to undermine that likely ruling.

You stating emphatically that anyone could know that before a fair and impartial hearing is actually supporting my arguments here. Are you aware of that?

Wrong - likely, not will.

It's the general consensus of the legal community – given the current make up of the Court, and Justice Kennedy's previous rulings concerning measures denying gay Americans their civil rights – that the High Court will likely reverse the Six Circuit, having nothing to do with a given justice participating in a gay wedding ceremony.

I think the prediction is a likely one based on the fact that Ginsburg and Kagan presided over gay weddings while the question of whether or not the fed should preside over all states on gay marriage is still pending. That's what any objective observer would deduce.

Just like if these two presided over 13 year olds marrying in New Hampshire, while a hypothetical question of "should 13 year olds be allowed to marry in all 50 state against the will of those states" was pending in appeals courts. Or Scalia & Thomas presiding over a hypothetical mandate to allow the Keystone Pipeline easements across states that don't want that against their will, while Scalia & Thomas pose for photo ops in states where the easement is allowed, breaking ground for new sections of the pipeline, holding shovels and smiling for the camera.

In those cases and this one, no objective observer would be able to conclude anything but bias.

 

[Skylar]

I think the prediction is a likely one based on the fact that Ginsburg and Kagan presided over gay weddings while the question of whether or not the fed should preside over all states on gay marriage is still pending. That's what any objective observer would deduce.

I think you're desperately scrambling for excuses why you'll lose. Neither Maryland nor DC are party to any case the USSC is hearing on gay marriage. Nor are they effected by any such ruling, as both voted in same sex marriage. Which Windsor v. US found was completely constitutional.

Making your entire argument not only irrelevant, but a physical impossibility.

The actual reasons for the court ruling in favor of gay marriage cited so far have been;

1) The USSC preserving every lower court ruling that overturns gay marriage bans. Without exception.

2) The USSC denying every stay by a State defending gay marriage bans. Without exception.

3) The federal judiciary overwhelmingly finding that gay marriage violates the constitution, with 44 of 46 rulings overturning gay marriage bans.

4) Justice Kennedy being the court's leading champion of gay rights, having written the Romer v. Evans, Lawerence v. Texas and Windsor v. US rulings, each overturning laws that restrict gays rights.

5) Justice Kennedy's comments about how denying marriage to same sex parents causes an immediate legal harm to their children by the 10s of thousands.

6) Justice Scalia's dissent in Windsor v. US where he stated that the court's position against gay marriage bans was 'beyond mistaking' and that the application of Windsor's legal logic against State gay marriage bans was 'inevitable'.

7) The USSC denying the stay requested by Alabama of a federal ruling overturning their State gay marriage bans....AFTER the USSC had agreed to hear an appeal from the 6th district court.

This last one you actually started a thread on. Yet now you bizarrely ignore.

You're scrambling, Sil. With your rhetorical gradually growing more shrill and less rational as June looms nearer. 'Beyond Mistaking' and 'inevitable', buddy.

Remember those three words.