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

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

"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.

Like all your posts.

All of them.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"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.

Then saintmike projects with

Like all your posts.

All of them.

The social conservative Christian far right, as evidenced by saintmichaeldefendthem and Where_r_my_Keys and so many others on this Board, constantly fail America and hate where they should love.

 

[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 ****.

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

Blow it out your ass you fake piece of shit.

 

[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.

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.

As usual faggots and their supporters twist the constitution to make it SEEM to say what you want it to say. I am under no impression this country will be fixed by legal means your kind doesn't want that. Its either your way or no way and that just won't work. Rome fell so will America. Except this time it won't be barbarians killing Romans it will be Americans killing scum. The trash needs taken out and it hasn't been done in a long long time.I already know what you will say. Claim I am an internet warrior and you will stop us blah blah blah...heard it all before all it takes is wall street to collapse or dollar to fail or a nuclear attack on america or EMP attack on the electrical grid..something is bound to happen...and hopefully soon while I am still young enough to fight.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Wolf and his ilk do not control the Constitution. End of story.

Their far right social conservative trash like Moore et al will be dumped at the end of the month when marriage equality becomes the law of the land.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Wolf and his ilk do not control the Constitution. End of story.

Their far right social conservative trash like Moore et al will be dumped at the end of the month when marriage equality becomes the law of the land.

Can't happen fast enough. Truly, it can't.

 

[Skylar]

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.

As usual faggots and their supporters twist the constitution to make it SEEM to say what you want it to say. I am under no impression this country will be fixed by legal means your kind doesn't want that. Its either your way or no way and that just won't work. Rome fell so will America. Except this time it won't be barbarians killing Romans it will be Americans killing scum. The trash needs taken out and it hasn't been done in a long long time.I already know what you will say. Claim I am an internet warrior and you will stop us blah blah blah...heard it all before all it takes is wall street to collapse or dollar to fail or a nuclear attack on america or EMP attack on the electrical grid..something is bound to happen...and hopefully soon while I am still young enough to fight.

If you actually believed any of the bullshit you just posted, you'd be doing it rather than talking about it.

You simply don't have the numbers nor the conviction for your death cult fantasies to come true. Millennials are our fighting age folks. And they aren't killing anyone because you don't like gay people.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Skylar just thread slapped Wolf silly.

Let's see what the Wolf is made of: silly putty?

 

[mdk]

Moore is just doing this to get his name in the press in a lame attempt to stay relevant. He thinks he can use this issue to climb into the governor's chair.

 

[Skylar]

Moore is just doing this to get his name in the press in a lame attempt to stay relevant. He thinks he can use this issue to climb into the governor's chair.

He may be right. Which is where things get awkward. As Moore's primary funders.......are literal neo-secessionists. Chief justice is an elected position in Alabama. He had to campaign for it.

 

[mdk]

Moore is just doing this to get his name in the press in a lame attempt to stay relevant. He thinks he can use this issue to climb into the governor's chair.

He may be right. Which is where things get awkward. As Moore's primary funders.......are literal neo-secessionists. Chief justice is an elected position in Alabama. He had to campaign for it.

He seems to able to win the Chief Justice seat but he had a very poor showing the each time ran for governor. He got slaughtered in the primaries.

 

[Stephanie]

We need to have AGE and term limits on these people.

they are suppose to be Neutral. She sure as hell isn't.

 

[mdk]

We need to have AGE and term limits on these people.

they are suppose to be Neutral. She sure as hell isn't.

The silliness you suggest would require a constitutional amendment. You can name it "I don't like the way you may rule" amendment. Good luck with your fool's errand. You'll certainly need it.

 

[Silhouette]

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"

Well there are several threads on this topic. Here's another: Breaking Justice Kagan Must Recuse Herself From Upcoming Gay Marriage Hearing US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[bodecea]

We need to have AGE and term limits on these people.

they are suppose to be Neutral. She sure as hell isn't.

Why do you hate women so?

 

[Silhouette]

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.

Yup. The Court even ruled in 2009 that this was the case. The case name was "Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co"

Here are excerpts from the arguments that won 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.

********

Because both Kagan and Ginsburg performed "gay marriages" while the question was hotly contested & pending and on it's way up on appeal as to whether or not the fed (they as the embodiement thereof due to their Office) should preside over the states in approval of gay marriage, they both were required by their own 2009 Finding to have recused themselves from presiding over April 2015's Hearing.

 

[Skylar]

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.

Yup. The Court even ruled in 2009 that this was the case. The case name was "Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co"

Here are excerpts from the arguments that won http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/08-22.pdf :

Nope. Caperton was about a judge who was elected and had adjudicated a case involving one of his major campaign donors.

Neither Ginsberg nor Kagan were elected. Neither have campaign donors. Nor have they received campaign contributions from anyone in the case they are excruciating. Nor did they receive any immediate or lasting benefit from performing those weddings. Every tenet that defined the Capterton case doesn't exist in Obergefell.

Worse, its quite impossible for either Ginsberg or Kagan to demonstrate a bias against state same sex marriage bans by performing a same sex wedding in Maryland or DC. As neither have same sex marriage bans. Both voted same sex marriage in. And as the Windsor ruling in 2013 made ridiculously clear, the States have the authority to include same sex marriage. So Ginsberg and Kagan's actions were merely an expression of precedent in the Windsor ruling, where the States in which they performed marriages had already voted same sex marriage in.

Making your entire narrative a physical impossibility. You can't demonstrate a bias against something that doesn't exist.

 

[The Wolf]

Skylar just thread slapped Wolf silly.

Let's see what the Wolf is made of: silly putty?

Game time soon bitch...

 

[Skylar]

Skylar just thread slapped Wolf silly.

Let's see what the Wolf is made of: silly putty?

Game time soon bitch...

Nope. As i said, if you meant it....you'd be doing it. Instead, all you have are excuses why you're not.

You don't have the numbers, you don't have the support, you don't have the conviction. Which translates into empty threats.......and happy pot bellies as you kick back for another brew.

Enjoy the beer.

 

[mdk]

Skylar just thread slapped Wolf silly.

Let's see what the Wolf is made of: silly putty?

Game time soon bitch...

That quaking you hear is our boots. Despair in knowing that none of us take your bluster very serious.