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

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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.

Well said..., whats more Ginsberg has also stated her own prejudice, claiming publicly that her own 'feelings' of popular support for the Normalization of Sexual Abnormality, overrides the Legislative majorities that the Leftist judiciary is busily working to overturn. Absolute INSANITY... which should require her recusal as well and would in a world not governed through MADNESS!

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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

Scalia s Most Anti-Gay Comments - Business Insider

First, Scalia shows no evidence that he has an irrational fear of himself, so he isn't homo-phobic. And his bias is that possessed in the US Constitution, where no preference for the inviable traits of the disordered mind is found.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

If a judge or justice owned a gun, would they be forced to recuse themselves from gun rights cases? If they were religious or wrote a blog, would they have to step aside for First Amendment cases? What's the cut off point for judges not appearing to be biased?

The cut off point is that where their means to reason objectively fails.

Which in truth, precludes any Leftist from ever being seated on the judiciary. As Leftism rests entirely in relativism, which axiomatically rejects objectivity... thus the catastrophic consequences common to the would-be 'decisions' of Leftist jurists.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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)?

Of course not... Her 'choice' is as obvious as is Ginsburg, who literally stated that pop-culture popularity (Invalid Popularity) trumps Legislative popularity (valid popularity).

 

[Syriusly]

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.

f Sexual Abnormality, Absolute INSANITY..MADNESS!

Your posts are absolute insanity- madness and sexual abnormality.

 

[Syriusly]

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

Great recitation.

Now who do you think is biased and why?

I will point out again that Justices decide for themselves if they should recuse themselves- and rarely do so- even when there are wingnuts saying that they should.

 

[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.

Well said..., whats more Ginsberg has also stated her own prejudice, claiming publicly that her own 'feelings' of popular support for the Normalization of Sexual Abnormality, overrides the Legislative majorities that the Leftist judiciary is busily working to overturn. Absolute INSANITY... which should require her recusal as well and would in a world not governed through MADNESS!

Since same sex marriage was legal in both Maryland and DC, what bias are you referring to? How can you express a bias against state same sex marriage bans when no such bans exist?

Obviously, you can't. Nixing even the hypothetical possibility of the expression of bias by conducting weddings in Maryland and DC.

 

[Silhouette]

The cut off point is that where their means to reason objectively fails.

Which in truth, precludes any Leftist from ever being seated on the judiciary. As Leftism rests entirely in relativism, which axiomatically rejects objectivity... thus the catastrophic consequences common to the would-be 'decisions' of Leftist jurists.

That's why the most sane people can be found just right or just left of center. There are just as many relativists on the old guard of the far right spectrum too. It's how they can deny man made Climate Change while swarms of snownados are plowing over the resort town they have one of their mansions in and how seawater got into the New York subway system awhile back...

This is why I brought up the example of seeing Justice Roberts or Thomas in a photo op just before a case on the Keystone Pipeline, shaking hands with the president of Haliburton; showing either of the Justices with a shovel, breaking ground for Haliburton on "the soon to be approved project".

Or going one step further as the Court is doing in this case and actively eroding state laws, allowing sections of the pipeline to be built in violation of states laws one by one by inexplicably refusing to uphold stays...so by the time a couple years had passed, nearly the entire length of the pipeline was complete so the Court could throw up its hands in surprise and say "well golly, it looks like the whole pipeline's nearly in anyway, so we'll just have to go ahead and approve this thing"..

That is the EXACT analogy of what's going on with this gay marriage thing. It's illegal. It's undemocratic. And it's Tyranny of the Judicial over the states.

 

[Syriusly]

The cut off point is that where their means to reason objectively fails.

Which in truth, precludes any Leftist from ever being seated on the judiciary. As Leftism rests entirely in relativism, which axiomatically rejects objectivity... thus the catastrophic consequences common to the would-be 'decisions' of Leftist jurists.

That's why the most sane people can be found just right or just left of center.

That is the EXACT analogy of what's going on with this gay marriage thing. It's illegal. It's undemocratic. And it's Tyranny of the Judicial over the states.

No.
No.
No.

You are delusional.

 

[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.

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)?

Of course not... Her 'choice' is as obvious as is Ginsburg, who literally stated that pop-culture popularity (Invalid Popularity) trumps Legislative popularity (valid popularity).

If she 'literally' said that "that pop-culture popularity (Invalid Popularity) trumps Legislative popularity (valid popularity)" then feel free to quote her saying this.

I don't think 'literally' means what you think it means.

 

[Skylar]

That is the EXACT analogy of what's going on with this gay marriage thing. It's illegal. It's undemocratic. And it's Tyranny of the Judicial over the states.

Nope. Gay marriage is legal in both Maryland and DC by legislative act. Show us the law was violated by performing a marriage in Maryland and DC. You'll find there is none.

So much for your claim that it was 'illegal'. You're just making up excuses for why the June ruling is against you.

 

[Silhouette]

Nope. Gay marriage is legal in both Maryland and DC by legislative act. Show us the law was violated by performing a marriage in Maryland and DC. You'll find there is none.

So much for your claim that it was 'illegal'. You're just making up excuses for why the June ruling is against you.

Again, it's the 2009 Finding of Caperton v A.T. Massey Coal Co. The Court said that it is improper for a judge to demonstrate bias and then not recuse himself or herself. Even if the bias is in a very gray area the Court agreed was "an appearance" or "inherent suspicion". A US Supreme Court Justice must not flaunt bias at all, EVER. That is their job description . It is so because they are the last stop in the justice train. As such the public perception of justice in this country, indeed the glue that holds this nation together, makes it tenfold mandatory for a US Supreme Court Justice not to display even an atom of bias.

A US Supreme Court Justice, therefore, as representative of the federal cohesion and public trust in a fair and utterly unbiased Hearing on gay marriage, broke that good faith and trust of the public when she(s) presided over a gay wedding...even in a state that had it legally enacted, the few that do...

It was the act of the fed looming over and approving of a gay marriage in a state (approved there or not) which was the overt message to the public "we two Justices believe the fed should preside over states on the topic of gay marriage...we want the fed to loom over states in this way."

That meets the standard of suspicion of bias or appearance of bias. Period. Therefore, according to Kagan and Ginsburg's own Finding in 2009, they must recuse themselves from sitting on the gay marriage case. And if they don't, they could technically be impeached for breaking the law.

Here it is again, the legal discussion..

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.

 

[Skylar]

Nope. Gay marriage is legal in both Maryland and DC by legislative act. Show us the law was violated by performing a marriage in Maryland and DC. You'll find there is none.

So much for your claim that it was 'illegal'. You're just making up excuses for why the June ruling is against you.

Again, it's the 2009 Finding of Caperton v A.T. Massey Coal Co. The Court said that it is improper for a judge to demonstrate bias and then not recuse himself or herself. Even if the bias is in a very gray area the Court agreed was "an appearance" or "inherent suspicion". A US Supreme Court Justice must not flaunt bias at all, EVER. That is their job description . It is so because they are the last stop in the justice train. As such the public perception of justice in this country, indeed the glue that holds this nation together, makes it tenfold mandatory for a US Supreme Court Justice not to display even an atom of bias.

That's for elected judges in relation to funding for their campaigns. Neither Kagan nor Ginsberg run elections. Nor do they take contributions for their campaigns.....which don't exist.

So, with same sex marriage legal in both Maryland and DC, how can there be a demonstration of bias against same sex marriage bans....if there were no same sex marriage bans?

You have no answer. As there is none.

 

[Silhouette]

all elected judges can be replaced by appointment if the seat is suddenly vacated...

Try again. A US Supreme Court Justice is the paramount example of who should harbor 0% suspected or apparent bias sitting on a case.. They aren't above the law. They aren't above the 2009 Finding. Recusal is a mandate in this case... or rather two cases..

 

[Skylar]

all elected judges can be replaced by appointment if the seat is suddenly vacated...

Didn't you predict that impeachments of the federal judiciary would start once Republicans took control of the senate?

Laughing.....so, um, how'd that work again?

A US Supreme Court Justice is the paramount example of who should harbor 0% suspected or apparent bias sitting on a case.. They aren't above the law. They aren't above the 2009 Finding. Recusal is a mandate in this case... or rather two cases..

Then explain it to us......with Maryland and DC having voted to affirm gay marriage, how can performing a wedding in DC or Maryland express a 'bias' against same sex marriage bans...

......when there is no same sex marriage ban?

The fact that you have to run anytime this question is asked demonstrates that even *you* recognize your bias argument is meaningless gibberish. Keep running. All your floundering isn't going to change a thing about the June ruling.

 

[Plasmaball]

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.

yes you are

 

[Syriusly]

all elected judges can be replaced by appointment if the seat is suddenly vacated...

Try again. A US Supreme Court Justice is the paramount example of who should harbor 0% suspected or apparent bias sitting on a case.. They aren't above the law. They aren't above the 2009 Finding. Recusal is a mandate in this case... or rather two cases..

There is no mandate for recusal that applies to Supreme Court Justices.

Supreme Court Justices decide whether to recuse themselves.

Since there is no appearance of bias why would any of the justices recuse themselves on such an important case?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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.

yes you are

OH! What a lovely concession.

Your deflection from the point establishes that you've no means to contest the point, thus demonstrates your concession to the point.

Your concession is duly noted... and summarily accepted.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

SO 7 out of 17 respondents to the OP Poll, are saddled with a disordered mind?

(Reader, ONE of the presentations of a mental disorder, is the consistent craving for sexual gratification with a person of the same gender. Which is not to say that all disordered minds crave such, but that such cravings are a symptom of the disordered mind.

Another symptom, is not understanding the essential nature of objectivity in Republican Governance; or governance which is designed to promote 'Equal Protection Under the Law'. Where a Jurist has concluded that Perverse reasoning, or that reasoning which equates deviancy with normalcy, thus treats the deviant mind as if it were sound and aligned with the standard... this shows a subjective preference for the sub-standard example, above and beyond the welfare of those whose viability is intrinsically tethered to the standard.

Meaning that because the deviant represents some kinship with their own life... likely that they themselves ARE Deviant, or that an individual close to them is a deviant, in their mind, for them to accept the individual presenting with mental disorder, they must embrace or accept the deviant reasoning. Which, is a symptom of deviancy on their own part, as there is no reason to accept the deviant reasoning to accept the individual afflicted with such. So what such indicates is a deeper kinship, precluding their means to rise above their own subjective needs.

And it is THERE where we can know that a subjective jurist is NOT a judge, but a vote of affirmation, waiting on the opportunity to cast it... . And there is no potential for justice under such circumstances.

Those familiar with the traits of Relativism, already understand the nature of this problem and why such is prevalent at the end of any culture which has allowed its government to become infected with such.)

 

[SwimExpert]

all elected judges can be replaced by appointment if the seat is suddenly vacated...

Try again. A US Supreme Court Justice is the paramount example of who should harbor 0% suspected or apparent bias sitting on a case.. They aren't above the law. They aren't above the 2009 Finding. Recusal is a mandate in this case... or rather two cases..

How are you even dumb enough to believe that anyone will believe such blathering nonsense?

Supreme Court justices are not elected.

Supreme Court justices are not elected.

Supreme Court justices are not elected.

Supreme Court justices are not elected. I'll say it one more time....

Supreme Court justices are not elected.

Do you understand?