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

[J.E.D]

you are REAAAAAACCHING bro.

Ironic post is ironic

 

[Silhouette]

you are REAAAAAACCHING bro.

Ironic post is ironic

Have any thoughts on the problem of Kagan and Ginsburg officiating at gay weddings while the question pends before their Court? Or are you here just to troll-spam?

 

[J.E.D]

you are REAAAAAACCHING bro.

Ironic post is ironic

Have any thoughts on the problem of Kagan and Ginsburg officiating at gay weddings while the question pends before their Court? Or are you here just to troll-spam?

My thoughts? There is no conflict of interest. Not anymore than if she officiated a straight wedding.

You're on the losing side of history. Gay marriage is here to stay. Get used to it.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I wonder if Sil knows that Mr. Olsen is the one that argued against the Prop 8 case before the SCOTUS in support of the position that Prop 8 was unconstitutional.

Paul Clement and Olsen were both on the same side of the fence on that one. One covert, one overt. Are you saying that your strawman justifies what Kagan and Ginsburg did?

Kagan, Ginsburg, Thomas, and Beyer have all performed Civil Marriage ceremonies in jurisdictions where that marriage was not banned under Civil Law.

Performing a Civil Marriage in a jurisdiction where a Civil Marriage is legal isn't an issue that will be before the court. The issue before the court is whether jurisdictions can BAN civil marriages based on gender. To my knowledge no SCOTUS Justice has performed (or attempted to perform) a Civil Marriage in a jurisdiction where that Civil Marriage is banned.


There is no reason for any of the Justices to recuse themselves based on the fact they performed legal Civil Marriages as an indication of bias.


>>>>

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

You're pathetic, desperate, and ridiculous.

 

[Skylar]

I wonder if Sil knows that Mr. Olsen is the one that argued against the Prop 8 case before the SCOTUS in support of the position that Prop 8 was unconstitutional.

Paul Clement and Olsen were both on the same side of the fence on that one. One covert, one overt. Are you saying that your strawman justifies what Kagan and Ginsburg did?

And what did Kagan and Ginsburg do? I've asked you this question like a dozen times.....what bias does officiating a gay marriage demonstrate?

You've never been able to answer. You can't even describe it.

Remember that.

 

[Silhouette]

Kagan, Ginsburg, Thomas, and Beyer have all performed Civil Marriage ceremonies in jurisdictions where that marriage was not banned under Civil Law.
There is no reason for any of the Justices to recuse themselves based on the fact they performed legal Civil Marriages as an indication of bias.

There is according to Olsen's premise in 2009 Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co. Did you forget it already?

Here:

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.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Kagan, Ginsburg, Thomas, and Beyer have all performed Civil Marriage ceremonies in jurisdictions where that marriage was not banned under Civil Law.
There is no reason for any of the Justices to recuse themselves based on the fact they performed legal Civil Marriages as an indication of bias.

There is according to Olsen's premise in 2009 Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co. Did you forget it already?

So - recusal for Kegan, Ginsburg, Thomas, and Beyer based on peformance of a Civil Marraige in a jurisdiction where those marriages were legal and not in question. (Each of these Justices has performed Civil Marriages)

To my knowledge none of the Justices has performed a Civil Marriage in any state where that type of Civil Marriage is banned and therefore part of an issue before the court.


>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

So - recusal for Kegan, Ginsburg, Thomas, and Beyer based on peformance of a Civil Marraige in a jurisdiction where those marriages were legal and not in question. (Each of these Justices has performed Civil Marriages)

To my knowledge none of the Justices has performed a Civil Marriage in any state where that type of Civil Marriage is banned and therefore part of an issue before the court.

"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..." ~Ted Olsen, Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co 2009

 

[WorldWatcher]

So - recusal for Kegan, Ginsburg, Thomas, and Beyer based on peformance of a Civil Marraige in a jurisdiction where those marriages were legal and not in question. (Each of these Justices has performed Civil Marriages)

To my knowledge none of the Justices has performed a Civil Marriage in any state where that type of Civil Marriage is banned and therefore part of an issue before the court.

"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..." ~Ted Olsen, Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co 2009

So - recusal for Kegan, Ginsburg, Thomas, and Beyer based on peformance of a Civil Marraige in a jurisdiction where those marriages were legal and not in question. (Each of these Justices has performed Civil Marriages)

To my knowledge none of the Justices has performed a Civil Marriage in any state where that type of Civil Marriage is banned and therefore part of an issue before the court.


>>>>

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Supreme Cout is the high kangaroo court of the land. The Obamacare process/decision showed that once and for all.

 

[Silhouette]

Supreme Cout is the high kangaroo court of the land. The Obamacare process/decision showed that once and for all.

Two wrongs don't make a right. Time to stop the nonsense now before it goes another inch. These Justices must recuse themselves. Nobody forced them to do these public displays of bias. They chose to and now they must live by their choices.

 

[Skylar]

Supreme Cout is the high kangaroo court of the land. The Obamacare process/decision showed that once and for all.

Two wrongs don't make a right. Time to stop the nonsense now before it goes another inch. These Justices must recuse themselves. Nobody forced them to do these public displays of bias. They chose to and now they must live by their choices.

And what bias are you claiming they demonstrated?

Remember, Maryland and DC both voted in same sex marriage. So you know what they call same sex marriage in Maryland and DC?

Marriage.

 

[Silhouette]

And what bias are you claiming they demonstrated?
Remember, Maryland and DC both voted in same sex marriage. So you know what they call same sex marriage in Maryland and DC?
Marriage.

Olsen's premise in 2009 Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co. Did you forget it already? If the public has a suspicion of bias they should recuse. The issue at hand is whether or not the fed should preside over states on deciding gay marriage. Ginsburg and Kagan as supreme federal entities, presided over/blessed gay marriages in DC and Maryland. Regardless of those states passing gay marriage for themselves (today's legal standard), the act of a federal Supreme Justice presiding over gay marriage in a state is symbolic of their bias and where they are showing the world the Court is looming towards.

That is enough to promote a public suspicion of bias; that there will be no fair voice. Not one person on the planet thereafter doubts exactly and already how each of these two Justices will cast their vote. (you know, BEFORE arguments are heard) And too, as a whole, the Court's silence on this problem is also telling. At least Thomas and Scalia spoke out about refusing the Alabama stay and rebuked their colleagues. But on this they are silent. You'd think at least Kennedy would have stern words for these two. Nada. So really then, the public sees these things:

1. The Court has already made up its mind to overturn Windsor's interim law by denying stays before an actual Hearing allowing it to overturn itself. The states feel dominated, silenced in the debate (about a lifestyle, remember, not a race), forced into something their majority doesn't want making up kids' formative environment (that's why any state rejects gay marriage BTW)

2. The Court gives its implied blessing of an extraordinary biased public display of the Court's Decision on the question of law. The two gay marriages performed by the federal authorities in the states is the big "HINT HINT", elbow jab to the public.

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

 

[mdk]

And what bias are you claiming they demonstrated?
Remember, Maryland and DC both voted in same sex marriage. So you know what they call same sex marriage in Maryland and DC?
Marriage.

Olsen's premise in 2009 Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co. Did you forget it already? If the public has a suspicion of bias they should recuse. The issue at hand is whether or not the fed should preside over states on deciding gay marriage. Ginsburg and Kagan as supreme federal entities, presided over/blessed gay marriages in DC and Maryland. Regardless of those states passing gay marriage for themselves (today's legal standard), the act of a federal Supreme Justice presiding over gay marriage in a state is symbolic of their bias and where they are showing the world the Court is looming towards.

That is enough to promote a public suspicion of bias; that there will be no fair voice. Not one person on the planet thereafter doubts exactly and already how each of these two Justices will cast their vote. (you know, BEFORE arguments are heard) And too, as a whole, the Court's silence on this problem is also telling. At least Thomas and Scalia spoke out about refusing the Alabama stay and rebuked their colleagues. But on this they are silent. You'd think at least Kennedy would have stern words for these two. Nada. So really then, the public sees these things:

1. The Court has already made up its mind to overturn Windsor's interim law by denying stays before an actual Hearing allowing it to overturn itself. The states feel dominated, silenced in the debate (about a lifestyle, remember, not a race), forced into something their majority doesn't want making up kids' formative environment (that's why any state rejects gay marriage BTW)

2. The Court gives its implied blessing of an extraordinary biased public display of the Court's Decision on the question of law. The two gay marriages performed by the federal authorities in the states is the big "HINT HINT", elbow jab to the public.

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

You yourself can't even describe the bias these justices allegedly demonstrated. At this point all you have is spam. Sorry my dear, these justices are not going recuse themselves over a bias you cannot describe or demonstrate.

 

[Silhouette]

The Justices themselves had difficulty articulating just how a judge receiving a large campaign contribution in Caperton v A.T. Massey Coal Co. could autmatically be presumed to let that cloud his judgment. I think that judge found against the company that contributed to him on a couple other lesser cases. So to say some re-election money (if I read the transcripts right) bought him anew was a stretch. It was the nature and size of the donation that lent apparently enough suspicion of bias (all that was required by the winning premise, remember?) to Find that that judge should have recused himself.

Equally large and "out there" deserving of suspicion of bias was Kagan and Ginsburg presiding publicly over gay weddings in states. The question of law is "should the fed preside over states" on gay marriage approval". And there they were, ahead of arguments and the Hearing presiding over gay marriages in states. It's enough. It meets the standard of suspicion of bias. No honest objective person would declare thereafter that Ginsburg or Kagan would be impartial as to the question of law to be Heard.

 

[mdk]

The Justices themselves had difficulty articulating just how a judge receiving a large campaign contribution in Caperton v A.T. Massey Coal Co. could autmatically be presumed to let that cloud his judgment. I think that judge found against the company that contributed to him on a couple other lesser cases. So to say some re-election money (if I read the transcripts right) bought him anew was a stretch. It was the nature and size of the donation that lent apparently enough suspicion of bias (all that was required by the winning premise, remember?) to Find that that judge should have recused himself.

Equally large and "out there" deserving of suspicion of bias was Kagan and Ginsburg presiding publicly over gay weddings in states. The question of law is "should the fed preside over states" on gay marriage approval". And there they were, ahead of arguments and the Hearing presiding over gay marriages in states. It's enough. It meets the standard of suspicion of bias. No honest objective person would declare thereafter that Ginsburg or Kagan would be impartial as to the question of law to be Heard.

That isn't the question that this hearing is going to determine. The question before the court has been explained to you on numerous occasions but since that doesn't fit your narrative you have decided to make up your own question instead.

 

[Silhouette]

The Justices themselves had difficulty articulating just how a judge receiving a large campaign contribution in Caperton v A.T. Massey Coal Co. could autmatically be presumed to let that cloud his judgment. I think that judge found against the company that contributed to him on a couple other lesser cases. So to say some re-election money (if I read the transcripts right) bought him anew was a stretch. It was the nature and size of the donation that lent apparently enough suspicion of bias (all that was required by the winning premise, remember?) to Find that that judge should have recused himself.

Equally large and "out there" deserving of suspicion of bias was Kagan and Ginsburg presiding publicly over gay weddings in states. The question of law is "should the fed preside over states" on gay marriage approval". And there they were, ahead of arguments and the Hearing presiding over gay marriages in states. It's enough. It meets the standard of suspicion of bias. No honest objective person would declare thereafter that Ginsburg or Kagan would be impartial as to the question of law to be Heard.

That isn't the question that this hearing is going to determine. The question before the court has been explained to you on numerous occasions but since that doesn't fit your narrative you have decided to make up your own question instead.

Are you organically stupid or being wilfully abstruse? I'm hoping it's the latter for your sake.

AS YOU KNOW the point I was just making is that the standard of "suspicion of bias" by an objective observer (argued as the winning premise by Ted Olsen in Caperton v A.T. Massey Coal Co. that Found a judge should have recused himself) was met in the cases of Kagan and Ginsburg presiding as a federal entity over a state gay wedding.

There is no doubt, not even from you, that those two Justices have already displayed that their mind is settled on the question (you know, before arguments are Heard)..

 

[PaintMyHouse]

There is no doubt, not even from you, that those two Justices have already displayed that their mind is settled on the question (you know, before arguments are Heard)..

All of their minds are settled on the question. It's an easy one.

 

[bodecea]

you are REAAAAAACCHING bro.

Ironic post is ironic

Have any thoughts on the problem of Kagan and Ginsburg officiating at gay weddings while the question pends before their Court? Or are you here just to troll-spam?

They were legal, right? Right?