State chief justice calls out Ginsburg for backing same-sex 'marriage'

[Skylar]

Should Justices who have performed opposite sex marriages have to recuse themselves?

If that is the issue before the court and that Justice has performed opposite sex marriages, sure. It means they have already made up their minds and cannot rule on the merits.

Isn't the fact that seven of the Judges have performed only opposite sex marriages showing that they have made up their minds?

Is the legality of opposite sex marriage before the court?

The legality of same sex marriage bans are before the court. The issue of the legality of same sex marriage was firmly established in 2013 in the Windsor decision. And since neither Maryland nor DC had such a ban, its simply impossible to demonstrate a bias against such bans by performing a wedding in either.

Actually the legality of the federal government saying that States cannot set their own marriage contracts with regards to Same sex marriage is what is in question.

Here's the actual questions:

1) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a
marriage between two people of the same sex?

2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage
between two people of the same sex when their marriage was
lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?

http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/011615zr_f2q3.pdf

It has nothing to do with the legality of gay marriage. But if a state has to issue licenses to same sex couples under the 14th amendment.

 

[rightwinger]

Should Justices who have performed opposite sex marriages have to recuse themselves?

If that is the issue before the court and that Justice has performed opposite sex marriages, sure. It means they have already made up their minds and cannot rule on the merits.

Isn't the fact that seven of the Judges have performed only opposite sex marriages showing that they have made up their minds?

Is the legality of opposite sex marriage before the court?

The legality of same sex marriage bans are before the court. The issue of the legality of same sex marriage was firmly established in 2013 in the Windsor decision. And since neither Maryland nor DC had such a ban, its simply impossible to demonstrate a bias against such bans by performing a wedding in either.

Actually the legality of the federal government saying that States cannot set their own marriage contracts with regards to Same sex marriage is what is in question.

I think the actual question is more the applicability of the 14th amendment and are states forced to recognize marriage contracts issued in another state?

 

[martybegan]

If that is the issue before the court and that Justice has performed opposite sex marriages, sure. It means they have already made up their minds and cannot rule on the merits.

Isn't the fact that seven of the Judges have performed only opposite sex marriages showing that they have made up their minds?

Is the legality of opposite sex marriage before the court?

The legality of same sex marriage bans are before the court. The issue of the legality of same sex marriage was firmly established in 2013 in the Windsor decision. And since neither Maryland nor DC had such a ban, its simply impossible to demonstrate a bias against such bans by performing a wedding in either.

Actually the legality of the federal government saying that States cannot set their own marriage contracts with regards to Same sex marriage is what is in question.

Here's the actual questions:

1) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a
marriage between two people of the same sex?

2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage
between two people of the same sex when their marriage was
lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?

http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/011615zr_f2q3.pdf

It has nothing to do with the legality of gay marriage. But if a state has to issue licenses to same sex couples under the 14th amendment.

Basically, what I said, can the feds force States to re-write their marriage contracts, or at least, invalidate an existing one vis a vis SSM?
(at least question 1).

As for question 2, I agree the constitution requires a state to recognize an SSM from another state, even if it doesn't want to issue their own.

My guess is 6-3 saying you can't force a state, and 7-2 saying full faith and credit applies.

 

[Katzndogz]

My guess would be full legalization and a unanimous court.

 

[Syriusly]

Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore, known for his opposition to federal courts imposing same-sex “marriage” on states, says U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Ginsburg could be penalized for her public advocacy of “gay” rights as the court considers a case that could redefine marriage in federal law.
As WND reported, Ginsburg has performed same-sex wedding ceremonies and made supportive public statements. Justice Elena Kagan also has performed same-sex weddings and promoted “gay” rights at Harvard’s law school while she was at its helm.

State chief justice calls out Ginsburg for backing same-sex marriage

Nothing new here. Another example of double sandarts. Another gay issue. Another unequality, vice-versa.
Nothing surprising when it comes to queers - no one can be against them, but everyone should scream yes even if it is abhorrent to their opinion and values. Just shut your mouth or you will be hated for "intolerance"

I can only hope that some brain dead Republican follows Moore's advice and suggests impeachment of Ginsburg.

Republicans are trying as much as they can to distance themselves from the issue- this would make the entire Presidential election revolve around gay marriage.

That would be fun.

 

[Katzndogz]

By the time election day arrives no one will be thinking about gay marriage.

Between the race riots, the war on the police, police stand downs and terrorist attacks, gays will have to be moved to the back burner.

 

[The Wolf]

the 2 "justices" should be removed from the case since its obvious they can't be impartial in the case. He is correct.

Nope.

Yep. Fuck off ****.

 

[JakeStarkey]

the 2 "justices" should be removed from the case since its obvious they can't be impartial in the case. He is correct.

Nope.

Yep. Fuck off ****.

So you are a jerk. You are wrong, legally and morally, where as bodecea succinctly hits the nail on the head.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

By the time election day arrives no one will be thinking about gay marriage.

Between the race riots, the war on the police, police stand downs and terrorist attacks, gays will have to be moved to the back burner.

They already are back burners.

 

[rightwinger]

By the time election day arrives no one will be thinking about gay marriage.

Between the race riots, the war on the police, police stand downs and terrorist attacks, gays will have to be moved to the back burner.

Gay marriage will be the law of the land in a month. It should be forgotten unless Republicans continue to beat a dead horse and threaten further anti- gay legislation

Can Ted Cruz keep quiet on the issue?

 

[Czernobog]

Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore, known for his opposition to federal courts imposing same-sex “marriage” on states, says U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Ginsburg could be penalized for her public advocacy of “gay” rights as the court considers a case that could redefine marriage in federal law.
As WND reported, Ginsburg has performed same-sex wedding ceremonies and made supportive public statements. Justice Elena Kagan also has performed same-sex weddings and promoted “gay” rights at Harvard’s law school while she was at its helm.

State chief justice calls out Ginsburg for backing same-sex marriage

Nothing new here. Another example of double sandarts. Another gay issue. Another unequality, vice-versa.
Nothing surprising when it comes to queers - no one can be against them, but everyone should scream yes even if it is abhorrent to their opinion and values. Just shut your mouth or you will be hated for "intolerance"

Okay..so, just so I'm clear...

First of all, WND as a source? Really??? Whatt next? The National Enquirer, or The Daily Star? But, let's put a pin in that..

So, this is a story about an ANTI-marriage equality judge calling a Pro-marriage equality judge to the mat for their views, and publicly denouncing them, and somehow, in your mind this is an example of gay rights supporters being intolerant?!?! Uhhh...you're gonna have to explain that little bit of logical gymnastics to me...

 

[Czernobog]

Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore, known for his opposition to federal courts imposing same-sex “marriage” on states, says U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Ginsburg could be penalized for her public advocacy of “gay” rights as the court considers a case that could redefine marriage in federal law.
As WND reported, Ginsburg has performed same-sex wedding ceremonies and made supportive public statements. Justice Elena Kagan also has performed same-sex weddings and promoted “gay” rights at Harvard’s law school while she was at its helm.

State chief justice calls out Ginsburg for backing same-sex marriage

Nothing new here. Another example of double sandarts. Another gay issue. Another unequality, vice-versa.
Nothing surprising when it comes to queers - no one can be against them, but everyone should scream yes even if it is abhorrent to their opinion and values. Just shut your mouth or you will be hated for "intolerance"

Should Justices who have performed opposite sex marriages have to recuse themselves?

I dunno...Justice Alito didn't have to recuse himself from any of the Obamacare cases, even after very publicly being seen calling Obama a liar on national television. Apparently, we trust the Supreme Court Justices to keep any personal opinions on a subject out of the court room, and only rule on the precedents presented.

 

[Skylar]

Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore, known for his opposition to federal courts imposing same-sex “marriage” on states, says U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Ginsburg could be penalized for her public advocacy of “gay” rights as the court considers a case that could redefine marriage in federal law.
As WND reported, Ginsburg has performed same-sex wedding ceremonies and made supportive public statements. Justice Elena Kagan also has performed same-sex weddings and promoted “gay” rights at Harvard’s law school while she was at its helm.

State chief justice calls out Ginsburg for backing same-sex marriage

Nothing new here. Another example of double sandarts. Another gay issue. Another unequality, vice-versa.
Nothing surprising when it comes to queers - no one can be against them, but everyone should scream yes even if it is abhorrent to their opinion and values. Just shut your mouth or you will be hated for "intolerance"

Okay..so, just so I'm clear...

First of all, WND as a source? Really??? Whatt next? The National Enquirer, or The Daily Star? But, let's put a pin in that..

So, this is a story about an ANTI-marriage equality judge calling a Pro-marriage equality judge to the mat for their views, and publicly denouncing them, and somehow, in your mind this is an example of gay rights supporters being intolerant?!?! Uhhh...you're gonna have to explain that little bit of logical gymnastics to me...

You're deep in 'truthiness' territory now. A factually baseless, tacitly absurd, logically inconsistent argument on one hand. And his claims 'feeling' true to his adherents on the other.

Which do you think his supporters are going to follow?

 

[Skylar]

By the time election day arrives no one will be thinking about gay marriage.

Between the race riots, the war on the police, police stand downs and terrorist attacks, gays will have to be moved to the back burner.

Gay marriage will be the law of the land in a month. It should be forgotten unless Republicans continue to beat a dead horse and threaten further anti- gay legislation

Can Ted Cruz keep quiet on the issue?

Nope. This is the one major downside of a decentralized GOP: they can't manage their own message. No matter how much the issue will cost them, no matter how badly they've been beaten, no matter how little benefit there is in it, no matter how heavily public opinion swings in favor of gay marriage....

......there will always be a religious fundamentalist like Huckabee or Cruz who can't shut the fuck up about it. And will say the most outlandish shit that the democrats can use to paint the entire GOP has zealots and headjobs.

 

[rightwinger]

By the time election day arrives no one will be thinking about gay marriage.

Between the race riots, the war on the police, police stand downs and terrorist attacks, gays will have to be moved to the back burner.

Gay marriage will be the law of the land in a month. It should be forgotten unless Republicans continue to beat a dead horse and threaten further anti- gay legislation

Can Ted Cruz keep quiet on the issue?

Nope. This is the one major downside of a decentralized GOP: they can't manage their own message. No matter how much the issue will cost them, no matter how badly they've been beaten, no matter how little benefit there is in it, no matter how heavily public opinion swings in favor of gay marriage....

......there will always be a religious fundamentalist like Huckabee or Cruz who can't shut the fuck up about it. And will say the most outlandish shit that the democrats can use to paint the entire GOP has zealots and headjobs.

It seems like Foxnews is trying to control the GOP message and weed out the crazies. They are no longer offering the fringe candidates a free pass. They challenge their outlandish statements

The best thing for the GOP is to blame the Supreme Court and let the issue die. I don't think they can

 

[Skylar]

Isn't the fact that seven of the Judges have performed only opposite sex marriages showing that they have made up their minds?

Is the legality of opposite sex marriage before the court?

The legality of same sex marriage bans are before the court. The issue of the legality of same sex marriage was firmly established in 2013 in the Windsor decision. And since neither Maryland nor DC had such a ban, its simply impossible to demonstrate a bias against such bans by performing a wedding in either.

Actually the legality of the federal government saying that States cannot set their own marriage contracts with regards to Same sex marriage is what is in question.

Here's the actual questions:

1) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a
marriage between two people of the same sex?

2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage
between two people of the same sex when their marriage was
lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?

http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/011615zr_f2q3.pdf

It has nothing to do with the legality of gay marriage. But if a state has to issue licenses to same sex couples under the 14th amendment.

Basically, what I said, can the feds force States to re-write their marriage contracts, or at least, invalidate an existing one vis a vis SSM?
(at least question 1).

As for question 2, I agree the constitution requires a state to recognize an SSM from another state, even if it doesn't want to issue their own.

My guess is 6-3 saying you can't force a state, and 7-2 saying full faith and credit applies.

6-3 against? That seems very unlikely. If question 1 is breaking against gay marriage then the issue will be 5-4 against at most. And almost all court watchers and legal scholars are expecting at least a 5-4 in favor.

Hell, even Scalia predicated a gay marriage win, calling the Court's position against gay marriage bans 'beyond mistaking' and their application of the logic of the Windsor ruling against state same sex marriage bans 'inevitable';

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. How easy it is, indeed how inevitable, to reach the same conclusion with regard to state laws denying same-sex couples marital status.

Justice Scalia in dissent of Windsor decision

And remember, the USSC has preserved every single lower court ruling that overturned gay marriage bans, without exception....by at least a 7-2 margin. Every single solitary case.

Worse for you, every single stay was denied the States trying to defend gay marriage bans.

Even the Alabama case, which was submitted to the court AFTER they had agreed to hear Obergefell. Scalia and Thomas was so pissed by that 7-2 vote that they actually issued a dissent of a denial of stay. Something that's really, really rare. And once again Scalia affirmed that the denials of stay could be interpreted as the court's view on the matter:

Yet rather than treat like applicants alike, the Court looks the other way as yet another Federal District Judge casts aside state laws without making any effort to preserve the status quo pending the Court’s resolution of a constitutional question it left open in United States v. Windsor. This acquiescence may well be seen as a signal of the Court’s intended resolution of that question. This is not the proper way to discharge our Article III responsibilities. And, it is indecorous for this Court to pretend that it is.

Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14a840_gol1.pdf

And you predict a 6-3 loss for gay marriage? I think you may be projecting what you want to happen over what the evidence actually suggests. And the predictive value of that kind of wishful thinking is quite poor.

My guess? A 5-4 victory for gay marriage on question 1. And a 7 to 2 victory for gay marriage on question 2.

I think its plausible to see a 6-3 victory for same sex marriage in question 1....with Roberts recognizing this is a big, big decision and ruling with the majority to add gravitas to the ruling. Roberts puts plenty of weight on the integrity of the court and its reputation. Given the 7-2 split on every denial of stay, I'd say its within the realm of possibility that the the decision may go 7-2 in favor of gay marriage on question 1, though I think it unlikely.

On question 2, its not even a question. Of course they'll rule in favor. A 9-0 is unlikely, but possible on that one.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The ruling will be in favor at 7-2 or possibly 6-3.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

the 2 "justices" should be removed from the case since its obvious they can't be impartial in the case. He is correct.

You're as ignorant as Moore, if not more so.

Predicating one's ruling on settled, accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence is not 'failing' to be impartial.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"State chief justice calls out Ginsburg for backing same-sex 'marriage'"

Moor's opinion is completely devoid of merit – it's ignorant, ridiculous, and unfounded.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Alabama needs Moore no more.