Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Interesting. So now they are after judges also?
CALLS TO IMPEACH OHIO JUDGE WHO DECLINED TO MARRY SAME SEX COUPLE ON RELIGIOUS GROUNDS
The Left is already calling for the impeachment of Toledo Municipal Judge Allen McConnell who respectfully declined to marry a same-sex couple Monday.
“I declined to marry a non-traditional couple during my duties assignment,” he said per Reuters. “The declination was based upon my personal and Christian beliefs established over many years. I apologize to the couple for the delay they experienced and wish them the best.”
Calls to Impeach Ohio Judge Who Declined to Marry Same Sex Couple On Religious Grounds - Breitbart
It's one thing to know the Koch Brothers. It's another thing to advertise for them and let the public know you wear their t-shirt. If Scalia had conflicts he should recuse himself. Two wrongs do not make a right. It is legally-impossible for Kagan and Ginsburg to have sat on this case last Spring. They were performing gay weddings as federal entities while the question of "should the fed or states approve of gay marriage" was pending. There could be zero doubt in any American's mind if these two Justices were impartial on that question. They were FLAUNTING arrogantly that they were not...and they STILL sat on the case. Which is illegal according to Caperton v Massey Coal 2009.
It's one thing to know the Koch Brothers. It's another thing to advertise for them and let the public know you wear their t-shirt. If Scalia had conflicts he should recuse himself. Two wrongs do not make a right. It is legally-impossible for Kagan and Ginsburg to have sat on this case last Spring. They were performing gay weddings as federal entities while the question of "should the fed or states approve of gay marriage" was pending. There could be zero doubt in any American's mind if these two Justices were impartial on that question. They were FLAUNTING arrogantly that they were not...and they STILL sat on the case. Which is illegal according to Caperton v Massey Coal 2009.
Lying again Sil?
"Should the fed or states approve of gay marriage" was not the question before the court.
The questions before the court were:
"The petitioners sought certiorari. This Court granted review, limited to two questions. 574 U. S. ___ (2015). The first, presented by the cases from Michigan and Kentucky, is whether the Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex. The second, presented by the cases from Ohio, Tennessee, and, again, Kentucky, is whether the Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to recognize a samesex marriage licensed and performed in a State which does grant that right."
There was no question before the court about whether jurisdictions could approve of Civil Marriage for same-sex couples of the own accord and since Kagan and Ginsberg performed legal marriages there was no conflict in terms of the question before the court.
>>>>
Exactly. Not only is Sil's claim invalid, its a physical impossibility. As its quite impossible to demonstrate a bias against same sex marriage bans that don't exist.
And no such ban existed in either Maryland nor DC....
Exactly. Not only is Sil's claim invalid, its a physical impossibility. As its quite impossible to demonstrate a bias against same sex marriage bans that don't exist.
And no such ban existed in either Maryland nor DC....
One set of litigants wanted the question to be reserved to the states to...wait for it...*drum roll*.... say yes OR NO to fatherless/motherless (gay) marriages.
Neither Maryland nor DC were a party to that litigation. Both had already affirmed same sex marriage, voting it in. Which the Windsor decision had already affirmed the States have the authority to do.
Thus, Kagan and Ginsberg performing marriages in either Maryland or DC were merely affirming the authority of the State in affirming same sex marriage as recognized in Windsor..
You should be concerned by a precedent set for arrogantly demonstrated bias by any judge, because one day you might find yourself on the receiving end of that abuse of justice. Then we will check back with you to see if you have a flippant and dismissive attitude about it while you're hanging by your wrists in irons...It's a conspiracy by the gays to take over the world and turn everyone gay. That's the goal because some of us are demons.
Exactly. Not only is Sil's claim invalid, its a physical impossibility. As its quite impossible to demonstrate a bias against same sex marriage bans that don't exist.
And no such ban existed in either Maryland nor DC....
One set of litigants wanted the question to be reserved to the states to...wait for it...*drum roll*.... say yes OR NO to fatherless/motherless (gay) marriages. Having Kagan and Ginsburg AS EMBODIMENTS OF THE FEDERAL BODY SET TO DETERMINE THAT RIGHT TO SAY NO THAT WAS PENDING AT THE TIME THEY PERFORMED THE GAY MARRIAGES did display arrogantly as that embodiment, that their pitch was "approval of gay marriage". Ginsburg even did interviews where she said "its time has come...etc etc.". On television aired at prime time viewers. Which of course was tantamount to her announcing "look folks, I'm voting to deny states the right to say "No" to gay marriage, so stick that in your pipe and smoke it awhile"...you know, BEFORE the Hearing took place.
Which of course means that Caperton v Massey Coal 2009 applies. Kagan and Ginsburg's gooses are cooked. As I suggested before, they should be given the option to withdraw their votes from this June's Opinion, the case should be reheard...or...they face real actual impeachment proceedings when the GOP takes over a whopping majority in 2017 in Congress.
In fact, the "Rule of Four" might save the day on this one too. If a person caught up in this "just some favorite deviant sex behaviors of the Court's left Justices" "fatherless/motherless" marriage debacle decided to appeal a case they had stemming from it right back up to the court, they could cite the Caperton v Massey Coal case and win an appeal I'd think to have their case heard.
The question is, who has standing to challenged Ginsburg and Kagan? I would say it is any citizen who feels their civil right to self-govern as a state (perhaps an AG or a Governor...Perry? You listening?) could sue to recuse and rehear th case based on suppression of rights guaranteed to states and to individual citizens under the US Constitution to have Kagan and Ginsburg recuse themselves, and the case reheard?
In 1998, Harman Mining Company president Hugh Caperton filed a lawsuit against A.T. Massey Coal Company alleging that Massey fraudulently canceled a coal supply contract with Harman Mining, resulting in its going out of business. In August 2002, a Boone County, West Virginia jury found in favor of Caperton and awarded $50 million in damages.[1]
While the case was awaiting hearing in the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals, A.T. Massey's Chief Executive Officer, Don Blankenship, became involved in the election campaign pitting incumbent Supreme Court Justice Warren McGraw against Charleston lawyer Brent Benjamin. Blankenship created a non-profit corporation called "And for the Sake of the Kids" in order to force McGraw off the court and replace him with Benjamin[2] through which he contributed over $3 million in Benjamin's behalf, an amount which, if it had been contributed directly to his campaign, was about 3,000 times the maximum permissible direct contribution to an election campaign.[
Writing for the majority, Justice Kennedy called the appearance of a conflict of interest so "extreme" that Benjamin's failure to recuse himself constituted a violation of the plaintiff's Constitutional right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Kennedy noted that not every campaign contribution by a litigant creates a probability of bias that requires a judge's recusal. Justice Kennedy wrote, "We conclude that there is a serious risk of actual bias — based on objective and reasonable perceptions — when a person with a personal stake in a particular case had a significant and disproportionate influence in placing the judge on the case by raising funds or directing the judge's election campaign when the case was pending or imminent."
"The inquiry," Justice Kennedy wrote, "centers on the contribution's relative size in comparison to the total amount of money contributed to the campaign, the total amount spent in the election, and the apparent effect such contribution had on the outcome of the election." Applying that test, Justice Kennedy ruled for the Court that "Blankenship's significant and disproportionate influence—coupled with the temporal relationship between the election and the pending case—"' "offer a possible temptation to the average . . . judge to . . . lead him not to hold the balance nice, clear and true."' "On these extreme facts the probability of actual bias rises to an unconstitutional level."
In holding that Justice Benjamin's participation in the case was a violation of due process, the Court made no finding of actual bias by Justice Benjamin: "In other words, based on the facts presented by Caperton, Justice Benjamin conducted a probing search into his actual motives and inclinations; and he found none to be improper. We do not question his subjective findings of impartiality and propriety. Nor do we determine whether there was actual bias." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caperton_v._A.T._Massey_Coal_Co.
In the United States, the term "recusal" is used most often with respect to court proceedings. Two sections of Title 28 of the United States Code (the Judicial Code) provide standards for judicial disqualification or recusal. Section 455, captioned "Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge," provides that a federal judge "shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_disqualification\
In Lawrence v. Texas (2003), Thomas issued a one-page dissent where he called the Texas anti-gay sodomy statute "uncommonly silly." He then said that if he were a member of the Texas legislature he would vote to repeal the law, as it was not a worthwhile use of "law enforcement resources" to police private sexual behavior. Since he was not a member of the state legislature, but instead a federal judge, and the Due Process Clause did not (in his view) touch on the subject, he could not vote to strike it down. Accordingly, Thomas saw the issue as a matter for the states to decide for themselves.[162]
In Romer v. Evans (1996), Thomas joined Scalia's dissenting opinion arguing that Amendment 2 to the Colorado State Constitution did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Colorado amendment forbade any judicial, legislative, or executive action designed to protect persons from discrimination based on "homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or relationships."[163] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Thomas
Here Are the 7 Worst Things Antonin Scalia Has Said or Written About Homosexuality http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/03/scalia-worst-things-said-written-about-homosexuality-court
The section also provides that a judge is disqualified "where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding"; when the judge has previously served as a lawyer or witness concerning the same case or has expressed an opinion concerning its outcome; or when the judge or a member of his or her immediate family has a financial interest in the outcome of the proceeding. Judicial disqualification - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Virginia "Ginni" Thomas is no ordinary Supreme Court spouse. Unlike Maureen Scalia, mother of nine, or the late Martin Ginsburg, mild-mannered tax law professor who was good in the kitchen, Thomas came from the world of bare-knuckled partisan politics. Over the years, she has enmeshed herself ever more deeply in the world of political advocacy—all the while creating a heap of conflict of interest concerns surrounding her husband, Supreme Court Justice Clarence http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/07/ginni-thomas-groundswell-conflict-interest]
The general rule is that, to warrant recusal, a judge's expression of an opinion about the merits of a case, or his familiarity with the facts or the parties, must have originated in a source outside the case itself. This is referred to in the United States as the "extra-judicial source rule" and was recognized as a general presumption, although not an invariable one, in the 1994 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Liteky v. United States. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_disqualification
Neither Maryland nor DC were a party to that litigation. Both had already affirmed same sex marriage, voting it in. Which the Windsor decision had already affirmed the States have the authority to do.
Thus, Kagan and Ginsberg performing marriages in either Maryland or DC were merely affirming the authority of the State in affirming same sex marriage as recognized in Windsor..
Whether or not Maryland or DC had "legal gay marriage" is not even part of this conversation.
It wasn't the gay wedding that mattered, nor the state or district it was performed in.
