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

[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.

..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.

So you'd think then that if a question on the Keystone Pipeline were pending in the federal appeals system on whether or not all states affected must lay pipe on their lands, even if they don't want it, that it would be OK during that pending time for Justices Roberts or Scalia etc. to do photo ops breaking ground in states that had alreadly legalized easments for the Pipeline...and then for them to sit on the Question of whether or not the fed should force the other states to grant those same easements despite their unwillingness? In fact, that would be exceedingly arrogant of them to do that, wouldn't it? That is the precise legal equivalent to what Ginsburg and Kagan did with officiating gay weddings while this quesiton was pending to affect all states.

That wouldn't be suggestive or giving "suspicion of bias" according to the 2009 litmus? (any judicial officer is required to abide by the 2009 Finding)

You know what they call a Keystone Pipeline easement in a state that allows it? An easement...

 

[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.

..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.

So you'd think then that if a question on the Keystone Pipeline were pending in the federal appeals system on whether or not all states affected must lay pipe on their lands, even if they don't want it, that it would be OK during that pending time for Justices Roberts or Scalia etc. to do photo ops breaking ground in states that had alreadly legalized easments for the Pipeline...and then for them to sit on the Question of whether or not the fed should force the other states to grant those same easements despite their unwillingness?

Following your analogy.....Scalia and Thomas would active participants in the Keystone Pipeline. Having sat on the board for 40 years each.

As both are part of a traditional marriage. If officiating a wedding for 20 minutes establishes such a severe bias that a justice must recuse themselves, then surely participating in a marriage for 40 years would be orders of magnitude more severe.

So per your logic, both Scalia and Thomas would have to recuse themselves.

That wouldn't be suggestive or giving "suspicion of bias" according to the 2009 litmus? (any judicial officer is required to abide by the 2009 Finding)

Its impossible to demonstrate a bias against same sex marriage bans when they don't exist. You can't get around that.

Windsor affirmed the State's authority to auithorize same sex marriage. And both Maryland and DC did exactly that. All legal questions regarding those marriages were answered in Windsor. The very bans you lament the justices demonstrated a bias against don't exist. Instead, Kagan and Ginsberg simply acted in accordance with the Windsor decision.

Its not 'bias' to follow legal precedent.

 

[Silhouette]

..Following your analogy.....Scalia and Thomas would active participants in the Keystone Pipeline. Having sat on the board for 40 years each...So per your logic, both Scalia and Thomas would have to recuse themselves....

Absolutely.

Now you're finally getting it!

 

[Skylar]

..Following your analogy.....Scalia and Thomas would active participants in the Keystone Pipeline. Having sat on the board for 40 years each...So per your logic, both Scalia and Thomas would have to recuse themselves....

Absolutely.

Now you're finally getting it!

So you're arguing that Scalia and Thomas should recuse themselves from the Obergefell decision?

 

[Silhouette]

So you're arguing that Scalia and Thomas should recuse themselves from the Obergefell decision?

If they displayed any bias previous to it, absolutely. As should any Justice displaying overt bias on any case before the Court. That's what the 2009 law says; then that's that. You're getting it now. Finally!

 

[Skylar]

So you're arguing that Scalia and Thomas should recuse themselves from the Obergefell decision?

If they displayed any bias previous to it, absolutely. As should any Justice displaying overt bias on any case before the Court. That's what the 2009 law says; then that's that. You're getting it now. Finally!

Ah, but its *suspicion* of bias, according to you. You've moved your goal posts for Scalia and Thomas.

If officiating a wedding once for 20 minutes establishes a recusal worthy bias, then surely 40 years of participation in a marriage would be orders of magnitude more severe. And both Scalia and Thomas are participants in a marriage.

So Scalia and Thomas should recuse themselves per your theory?

 

[guno]

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"

Justice Roy Moore

He is a bible thumping goyim lunatic, whereas Justice Ginsberg is his better in more ways then one

 

[Uncensored2008]

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

Ginsberg and Kagan should be charged with perjury and removed from the Court for swearing to uphold the United States Constitution, since clearly neither of them have even the slightest intent of doing so.

 

[Uncensored2008]

He is a bible thumping goyim lunatic, whereas Justice Ginsberg is his better in more ways then one

Thanks Hakim; now get back to you Koranic studies...

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil must have been hammered in high school debate.

It's even worse here for him.

 

[Silhouette]

So you're arguing that Scalia and Thomas should recuse themselves from the Obergefell decision?

If they displayed any bias previous to it, absolutely. As should any Justice displaying overt bias on any case before the Court. That's what the 2009 law says; then that's that. You're getting it now. Finally!

Ah, but its *suspicion* of bias, according to you. You've moved your goal posts for Scalia and Thomas.

If officiating a wedding once for 20 minutes establishes a recusal worthy bias, then surely 40 years of participation in a marriage would be orders of magnitude more severe. And both Scalia and Thomas are participants in a marriage.

So Scalia and Thomas should recuse themselves per your theory?

No, because the question of completely redacting the 1,000s year old physical structure of marriage (man/woman) was not pending in the appelate courts during the time they were married. Gay marriage is a newly-proposed redaction to everyone's common understanding of the word "marriage" including both a mother and father to children. Ginsburg and Kagan displayed arrogant bias while a new question of dismantling marriage against the will of the governed was/is pending.

Scalia and Thomas during the time they were married and the duration of their marriages had no earthly idea that the very definition of marriage would be challenged. So their stance is utterly benign. They could be trusted to examine the new proposal without bias. The new question pending, Kagan and Ginsburg said to the world "fuck it, we're already on board with this" (as representative of the federal power presiding over a state(s)....before the Court had a chance to hear arguments pro or con.)

That meets the 2009 standard for mandatory recusal. The arrogance was key.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil, give it up. Your legal, sociological, and psychological analyzes simply fail, time after time. You cannot be trusted to judge this without bias, and though you deny it, your know better.

 

[Skylar]

So you're arguing that Scalia and Thomas should recuse themselves from the Obergefell decision?

If they displayed any bias previous to it, absolutely. As should any Justice displaying overt bias on any case before the Court. That's what the 2009 law says; then that's that. You're getting it now. Finally!

Ah, but its *suspicion* of bias, according to you. You've moved your goal posts for Scalia and Thomas.

If officiating a wedding once for 20 minutes establishes a recusal worthy bias, then surely 40 years of participation in a marriage would be orders of magnitude more severe. And both Scalia and Thomas are participants in a marriage.

So Scalia and Thomas should recuse themselves per your theory?

No, because the question of completely redacting the 1,000s year old physical structure of marriage (man/woman) was not pending in the appelate courts during the time they were married. Gay marriage is a newly-proposed redaction to everyone's common understanding of the word "marriage" including both a mother and father to children. Ginsburg and Kagan displayed arrogant bias while a new question of dismantling marriage against the will of the governed was/is pending.

Laughing...and as a shock to everyone who posts here, you *don't* hold those people that agree with you to your own standards. Now who would have seen that coming?

By any rational application of your 'standard', if officiating a wedding for 20 minutes creates a recusal worthy bias, then being part of a marriage for 40 years certainly does. Even you don't take your standard seriously.