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

[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.

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)..

There is a doubt of the bias you alleged, so much so you yourself cannot define it or even demonstrate that one even exists.

I do find it comical that you would call me organically stupid and then in the same sentence use "abstruse" incorrectly. Too funny.

These justices are not going to recuse themselves from hearing this case on the account of your anti-gay narrative. Tough shit for you I suppose. At least you'll have a built-in excuse you can cry about after June.

 

[Silhouette]

Ted Olsen and the 2009 Court believes there was bias...nevermind what I think..

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.

There is no doubt whatsoever in any person's mind how Ginsburg or Kagan will vote on this Hearing: therein lies the problem...

 

[WorldWatcher]

There is no doubt whatsoever in any person's mind how Ginsburg or Kagan will vote on this Hearing: therein lies the problem...

Do you think there is any doubt as to how Thomas and Scalia will vote?



>>>>

 

[SwimExpert]

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.

Are you fucking illiterate? Or are you just that much of a fucking stooge that you simply choose to not read your own links that you post? The article that you posted is about elected judges hearing cases involving a campaign donor. Supreme court justices are not elected, so none of the parties involved in the upcoming cases could have donated money to Kagan's campaign.

 

[SwimExpert]

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.

The bias that people he's never met in life being married absolutely ruins his own life.

 

[Skylar]

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.

Are you fucking illiterate? Or are you just that much of a fucking stooge that you simply choose to not read your own links that you post? The article that you posted is about elected judges hearing cases involving a campaign donor. Supreme court justices are not elected, so none of the parties involved in the upcoming cases could have donated money to Kagan's campaign.

You're talking to the guy who literally ignored the entire concept of constitutional guarantees in the entire Windsor ruling. Despite the court finding that all state marriage laws are subject to them.

Silo's capacity for self deception and willful ignorance is at a Flat Earther or Ryan Seacrest fan level.

 

[Skylar]

There is no doubt whatsoever in any person's mind how Ginsburg or Kagan will vote on this Hearing: therein lies the problem...

Do you think there is any doubt as to how Thomas and Scalia will vote?



>>>>

*Blinking*

Are you trying to use consistency, reason and logic? Honestly, what the fuckity fuck dude?

 

[Syriusly]

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

But Olson didn't say "the appearance of bias to Silhouette or any other delusional person or persons".

The Supreme Court Justices decide for themselves whether there is a bias.

Generally the Justices ignore what everyone says and don't recuse themselves.

 

[Syriusly]

There is no doubt whatsoever in any person's mind how Ginsburg or Kagan will vote on this Hearing: therein lies the problem...

I have no dbout whatsoever how Ginsburg, Kagan, Thomas,

The only Justices I don't feel I know how they will vote are Kennedy, Roberts, and maybe Scalia.

Should all of the Justice except Kennedy, Roberts and Scalia recuse themselves because there is a perception we know how they will vote?

 

[Silhouette]

I have no dbout whatsoever how Ginsburg, Kagan...

Not one person in the world after reading the OP has any doubt at all how Kagan (or Ginsburg) will vote. And that my friend is a big problem.

 

[Syriusly]

I have no dbout whatsoever how Ginsburg, Kagan...

Not one person in the world after reading the OP has any doubt at all how Kagan (or Ginsburg) will vote. And that my friend is a big problem.

Not one person in the world believes your OP.

And that is no problem.

 

[Silhouette]

I have no dbout whatsoever how Ginsburg, Kagan...

Not one person in the world after reading the OP has any doubt at all how Kagan (or Ginsburg) will vote. And that my friend is a big problem.

Not one person in the world believes your OP.

And that is no problem.

Answer this question. After reading the OP, would a reasonable person doubt how Kagan was going to vote (pro state's choice or federally mandated gay marriage) upon the "Hearing" (what I'm calling the kangaroo Court session soon to be had)?

 

[Skylar]

I have no dbout whatsoever how Ginsburg, Kagan...

Not one person in the world after reading the OP has any doubt at all how Kagan (or Ginsburg) will vote. And that my friend is a big problem.

No one doubts how Scalia and Thomas will vote. And?

You claim a 'bias', but you can't explain what bias you're talking about. If even you can't describe it, then clearly there are some doubt.

 

[koshergrl]

If Ginsburg knew that same-sex marriage were going to come before the court she should have recused herself from performing the marriage in question.

If she didn't know the case was coming then she could be excused criticism for having participated.

However, if she didn't know the case was coming then she should be completely removed from the court for proven mental incompetence.

The woman is a complete fruitcake.

 

[Syriusly]

I have no dbout whatsoever how Ginsburg, Kagan...

Not one person in the world after reading the OP has any doubt at all how Kagan (or Ginsburg) will vote. And that my friend is a big problem.

Not one person in the world believes your OP.

And that is no problem.

Answer this question. After reading the OP, would a reasonable person doubt how Kagan was going to vote (pro state's choice or federally mandated gay marriage) upon the "Hearing" (what I'm calling the kangaroo Court session soon to be had)?

Oh a 'reasonable person'? I am a reasonable person- I was fairly confident how Kagan is going to vote- and I am fairly confident how Thomas will vote.

But there is no evidence of bias, nor would any 'reasonable' conclusion agree with you about anything.

 

[Silhouette]

Right, you pull any person off the street and show them a picture of Kagan or Ginsburg performing a gay wedding and then ask them "how do you think this Justice is going to vote after the "hearing"?

100% of respondants to that question would say "federal mandate on gay marriage...duh!"...

...and that's a problem...

 

[Skylar]

Right, you pull any person off the street and show them a picture of Kagan or Ginsburg performing a gay wedding and then ask them "how do you think this Justice is going to vote after the "hearing"?

100% of respondants to that question would say "federal mandate on gay marriage...duh!"...

...and that's a problem...

What bias do you claim they're demonstrating?

Because when I ask you, you start talking about YOUR feelings. Not their bias.

You...you realize that your personal feelings aren't going to have much impact on this ruling, right?

 

[Silhouette]

What bias do you claim they're demonstrating?

Because when I ask you, you start talking about YOUR feelings. Not their bias.

No, when you ask me I CITE Olsen's premise in 2009 Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co.

Notice the parts in larger font in bold...

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

 

[rdean]

Fat Tony Scalia should be forced to recuse himself since he is openly homophobic and biased.

Scalia s Most Anti-Gay Comments - Business Insider

Exactly.

 

[Silhouette]

Fat Tony Scalia should be forced to recuse himself since he is openly homophobic and biased.

Scalia s Most Anti-Gay Comments - Business Insider

Exactly.

Well, then you're saying in fairness the Court should be minus Scalia, Kagan and Ginsberg on the issue. OK.