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

[Syriusly]

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.

Nothing says 'patriotic American' like someone like you hoping for the deaths of millions of Americans.

Scum like you always are hoping that something will happen so you can kill other Americans without being hindered by the law or the Constitution.

 

[Syriusly]

Skylar just thread slapped Wolf silly.

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

Game time soon bitch...

I remembered who you reminded me of

WASHINGTON (Catholic Online) - Shortly before 1:00pm on Wednesday an elderly man with a rifle entered the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum and exchanged fire with security guards.

He shot one guard before being wounded himself. Both were taken to George Washington University Hospital with life-threatening injuries. A third unidentified person sustained minor injuries.
The guard, Stephen Tyrone Jones, died later, according to officials .

 

[JakeStarkey]

Wolf will never make it to "game time", so that is not an issue, because he will screw up to help LEO catch up to him sooner than later.

But there are hundreds, if not thousands, of mentally ill sociopaths like Wolf in the country.

Report them at every opportunity when they threaten, implicitly as well as explicitly.

 

[Silhouette]

It looks as if the topic of this thread has been changed. Here, let's get back to the meat and potatoes. The legal discussion of whether or not Ginsburg and Kagan were required to recuse themselves. "Only the probability of bias" or even just the "suspicion of bias" need be present to mandate their recusal. These arguments were supported by the maker prevailing upon them. I'd say presiding as a federal entity "blessing" a gay wedding qualifies..

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.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil continues deliberately to misanalyze court cases.

Such is fraud on Sil's part.

 

[Silhouette]

Sil continues deliberately to misanalyze court cases.

Such is fraud on Sil's part.

The arguments are there. It is indisputable that they won the 2009 case.

Two federal judges blessed a gay wedding in a state, while the precise question of whether or not the fed should preside over states in approval of gay marriage was pending in the courts of appeals. And it was known at the time to both Ginsburg and Kagan to be coming to their courtroom.

Those actions apply in spades to the 2009 winning premise that even the suspicion of bias is enough to mandate recusal.

 

[Syriusly]

It looks as if the topic of this thread has been changed. Here, let's get back to the meat and potatoes. The legal discussion of whether or not Ginsburg and Kagan were required to recuse themselves. .

Supreme Court Justices are never required to recuse themselves- as only the Justices themselves can recuse themselves.

So the answer is no.

 

[Silhouette]

It looks as if the topic of this thread has been changed. Here, let's get back to the meat and potatoes. The legal discussion of whether or not Ginsburg and Kagan were required to recuse themselves. .

Supreme Court Justices are never required to recuse themselves- as only the Justices themselves can recuse themselves.

So the answer is no.

In the American justice system a judge is a judge is a judge. Any person who is sitting, hearing a legal case and makes a binding decision upon it in an unbiased way is bound by the 2009 Decision. Justices are not exempt. The only legal system where I've seen bias allowed or at least inexplicable weirdness is the military justice system. And that isn't the case with this year's Hearing. It's civilian-civil court of course. The 2009 Decision binds it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil continues deliberately to misanalyze court cases.

Such is fraud on Sil's part.

The arguments are there. It is indisputable that they won the 2009 case.

Two federal judges blessed a gay wedding in a state, while the precise question of whether or not the fed should preside over states in approval of gay marriage was pending in the courts of appeals. And it was known at the time to both Ginsburg and Kagan to be coming to their courtroom.

Those actions apply in spades to the 2009 winning premise that even the suspicion of bias is enough to mandate recusal.

The laws were clear in those states, not at issue in law at all.

So stop your fraudulent postings.

 

[JakeStarkey]

It looks as if the topic of this thread has been changed. Here, let's get back to the meat and potatoes. The legal discussion of whether or not Ginsburg and Kagan were required to recuse themselves. .

Supreme Court Justices are never required to recuse themselves- as only the Justices themselves can recuse themselves.

So the answer is no.

In the American justice system a judge is a judge is a judge. Any person who is sitting, hearing a legal case and makes a binding decision upon it in an unbiased way is bound by the 2009 Decision. Justices are not exempt. The only legal system where I've seen bias allowed or at least inexplicable weirdness is the military justice system. And that isn't the case with this year's Hearing. It's civilian-civil court of course. The 2009 Decision binds it.

No, it does the opposite.

 

[Silhouette]

The laws were clear in those states, not at issue in law at all.

So stop your fraudulent postings.

Unfortunately the question of law was/is whether the fed should preside over ANY state, legal or not for gay marriage to force all 50 states to assimilate it. THAT was the arrogant display of bias both Justices Ginsburg and Kagan engaged in. And THAT is the reason they'll likely be disciplined on this matter.

It is an EXTREMELY SERIOUS MATTER for a US Supreme Court Justice to display this level of bias on a question pending before their Court. They more than any other judge in the American legal system are most tightly bound to a completely monastic display of fairness in the public eye. It is the extreme power of the Court to affect daily life from just the whims of 9 people over 100s of millions, combined with a virtually air-tight lifetime tenure that makes it the most of the 3 branches of government to be susceptible to tyranny.

 

[bodecea]

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.

Nothing says 'patriotic American' like someone like you hoping for the deaths of millions of Americans.

Scum like you always are hoping that something will happen so you can kill other Americans without being hindered by the law or the Constitution.

Surely you jest. He would would only dare be on the sidelines if such a thing really happened. Those who talk like The Wolf does are always all talk.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, Sil, the question was not whether "the question of law was/is whether the fed should preside over ANY state, legal or not for gay marriage to force all 50 states to assimilate it."

The question was did the law permit marriage equality.

Since it did, any qualified official from SCOTUS down was authorized to celebrate the ceremony.

You need to state honestly what are the issues instead of making up happy horseshit.

You are going to lose this issue sometime in the next four weeks. Get ready for it.

 

[Silhouette]

...Since it did, any qualified official from SCOTUS down was authorized to celebrate the ceremony.

They were qualified to celebrate the ceremony. But did their duty to Office override that? Yes.

I'm sure that Justice Roberts is qualified to wield a shovel. But should he do so breaking ground for a part of the Keystone Pipeline in a state that authorized it; while other states who do not want it are currently appealing against a federal mandate to force them to allow it across their land?

If Roberts did such a thing on the eve of that hypothetical Hearing, the nation would come unglued. Yet we're supposed to give this elevated level of sedition a pass because it's about the neo gay sex cult? It think not. The "bigot/hater/homophobe" billy-club and the fear it engenders in people is crushing American systems of government. That's what happens when cults get out of hand.

 

[Skylar]

The laws were clear in those states, not at issue in law at all.

So stop your fraudulent postings.

Unfortunately the question of law was/is whether the fed should preside over ANY state, legal or not for gay marriage to force all 50 states to assimilate it.

Again, its physically impossible to demonstrate a bias against same sex marriage bans....when there is no ban. And the Windsor ruling already affirmed that States can affirm same sex marriage. Killing your argument twice.

The entire premise of your argument is nonsense.

THAT was the arrogant display of bias both Justices Ginsburg and Kagan engaged in. And THAT is the reason they'll likely be disciplined on this matter.

There's nothing 'arrogant' about performing a wedding for friends. You're simply overreacting....as you did when you called the Supreme Court's denial of stay an act of 'treason' and 'tyranny', and called for their impeachment.

Melodramatic overreaction is kind of your thing.

It is an EXTREMELY SERIOUS MATTER for a US Supreme Court Justice to display this level of bias on a question pending before their Court.

Again, they can't display a bias against same sex marriage bans when there are no bans.

Killing your entire argument.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil concedes the justices were legally qualified to perform the marriages.

She then argues fraudulently that "their duty to Office override that" was paramount. By whose authority: Sil's?

The following is truly the appropriate evaluation of Sil's argumentation on this subject.

You're simply overreacting....as you did when you called the Supreme Court's denial of stay an act of 'treason' and 'tyranny', and called for their impeachment.

Melodramatic overreaction is kind of your thing. You're simply overreacting....as you did when you called the Supreme Court's denial of stay an act of 'treason' and 'tyranny', and called for their impeachment.

Melodramatic overreaction is kind of your thing.

 

[bodecea]

Sil continues deliberately to misanalyze court cases.

Such is fraud on Sil's part.

The arguments are there. It is indisputable that they won the 2009 case.

Two federal judges blessed a gay wedding in a state, while the precise question of whether or not the fed should preside over states in approval of gay marriage was pending in the courts of appeals. And it was known at the time to both Ginsburg and Kagan to be coming to their courtroom.

Those actions apply in spades to the 2009 winning premise that even the suspicion of bias is enough to mandate recusal.

7 federal judges blessed straight weddings. (Actually Ginsburg and Kagan have also blessed straight weddings) So what?

 

[Silhouette]

Sil concedes the justices were legally qualified to perform the marriages.

She then argues fraudulently that "their duty to Office override that" was paramount. By whose authority: Sil's?

By the authority of the Separation of Powers in our government, and the 2009 case they found where even suspicion of bias in a judicial officer was grounds for that person to recuse themselves as a judge of an issue pending before them.

Would you have the US Supreme Court legislate for the 50 states on a completely brand-new proposal for the physical makeup of marriage which institutionalizes motherless or fatherless "marriages" without the consent of the governed?

 

[Skylar]

Sil concedes the justices were legally qualified to perform the marriages.

She then argues fraudulently that "their duty to Office override that" was paramount. By whose authority: Sil's?

By the authority of the Separation of Powers in our government, and the 2009 case they found where even suspicion of bias in a judicial officer was grounds for that person to recuse themselves as a judge of an issue pending before them.

The 2009 case you're citing involved an elected judge who had received massive campaign contributions from someone he adjucated a case for. USSC justices aren't elected. They don't receive campaign contributions. Nor has anyone who is before their court given them such contributions.

Worse, its physically impossible for Kagan or Ginsberg to demonstrate a bias against same sex marriage bans by performing a wedding in Maryland or DC.....as neither have same sex marriage bans. Both voted same sex marriage into law.

So you know what they call same sex marriage in Maryland or DC?

Marriage.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Skylar decisively thread slaps Sil.