A Shortcut to Nixing The Gay Marriage Decision: Subtract Two Votes

[Silhouette]

The court on this same day in 2013 struck down a law that prevented the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriage. But it was still banned in 13 states: Arkansas, Kentucky, Georgia, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Ohio, Texas and Tennessee....Once the Supreme Court's ruling takes effect in two weeks, those states must recognize same-sex couples who were married in a state where it already was legal. And those states must issue marriage licenses to couples who want to get married now. Same-sex marriage is legal nationwide - Video - Business News

This is politics. And like the other side said, it's a culture war.

The vote was 5-4 for forcing the 50 states, 35 of which do not want it, to promote to kids (via example) that gay marriage is "normal". Prime time TV shows are airing transgender-promotional material on family networks with the kids plopped down in front of it...absorbing it all.

But what if 2 of the 5 votes were disqualified? 2 of the Justices broke the law sitting on this case, so their votes don't count. They are not above the law and we must not let them be above the law. If the GOP wants my vote, they need to act and act fast on this one. They will be seen as powerful, champions of the popular opinion of 35 states. Inaction will breed a feeling of disgust and disbelief that our last bastion of activism to protect states rights has rolled over and is pissing on itself, quivering in fear of the rainbow jackboots and in this case frankly, Judicial Tyranny. Then it will just be even-steven. The usual rollout of disgusted voters who want to throw all the bums out.

Here's what Justices Kagan and Ginsburg did WHILE THEY KNEW THE CONTEST WAS MAKING ITS WAY ON APPEAL. According to the Massey Coal 2009 Finding, they could not sit on this case. Breaking Justice Kagan Must Recuse Herself From Upcoming Gay Marriage Hearing Page 61 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Kagan and Ginsburg presided as federal entities over a neo-redacted form of the millenial-long definition of marriage WHILE THEY KNEW FOR A FACT THE QUESTION OF WHETHER OR NOT THE FED SHOULD PRESIDE OVER THAT NEO-REDACTION AS IMPOSED UPON THE 50 STATES WAS PENDING.

They were expressing publicly, their literal federal blessing over that redaction of the word "marriage" BEFORE the Hearing on the federally-forced redaction of the word had happened. And they knew full well, from Windsor & Prop 8 2013 that this is/was a hotly contested area of public debate and a pending legal question.

THEREFORE they should have recused themselves from this case.

Read the premise below and the quote from the conclusion above. There is no "objective" person on the face of the earth that would conclude anything but that after they'd see Ginsburg or Kagan perform a "gay wedding" (as federal entities even in a state where it made it legal itself) those two Justices believed that the fed should "bless" gay marraige. None. Not one person in the world would conclude anything but that.

Here's Olsen's argument again...

Olsen's (winning) premise in 2009 Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co.
Here: 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.
******

Discussion:

Scalia or Thomas etc. who were married normally, at the time would have no way of knowing or even guessing in their wildest imagination that the word itself would come under attack in such a way that the proposed neo-redaction would be a situation asked to be forced federally upon the states. So their marraige was innocent and in no way impedes their ability to consider the proposed neo-redaction for application by force federally.

Ginsburg and Kagan at the time they presided over (blessed) gay marriages as federal entities, while the nation reeled against that notion...knew full well that the question was and is up in the air. And that, friends, makes all the difference when they chose to preside as federal entities conspicuously-blessing the neo-redaction of the word "marriage". It was beyond improper. I'd say it was impeachable. But at rock bottom minimum it is recusable. It fits like a glove the 2009 Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co standard they themselves set.

The public's trust of the Judicial is at stake here. So this is no minimal or laughing matter..
the fact that children (who cannot vote) will be placed without their own consent as an neo-institituion in homes absent a father for boys or a mother for girls as a federal mandate upon the conclusion of this quesiton of law, to affect the core of society itself into unknown numbers of generations...BY JUST 5 PEOPLE 2 OF WHICH HARBOR OBVIOUS BIAS, makes the recusal/disqualification discussion rise to the forefront of American politics.

ie: no cult will be allowed to use its Yes-Women placed in positions of power to dictate their subjective agenda to the masses.

 

[Silhouette]

The recusal would make the vote 3-4 in favor of returning the definition of marriage to the states.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Silhouette I agree this is about political bias over political beliefs.
There are more than one level of political beliefs involved here, which makes it harder to hash out
why the conflicts are happening - they are coming from several sources at once.

1. the homosexuality issue itself which is faith based and not proven
2. the beliefs about role of govt, where the two parties do not respect each other members' beliefs
and have abused the legal legislative political and media process to attack exclude and discriminate
against each others' beliefs, which is a Constitutional issue in itself
3. the role of parties and media in skewing this process, neither of which is checked by the Constitution,
both are defended as the right for people to use and practice. But there is no legislation to protect
anyone from the abuse of media or parties to "conspire to violate equal civil rights" as has been going on
Bullying and imposing beliefs is actually endorsed, and actively engaged in and egged on
This is like the Elephant or Donkey in the room that nobody wants to stand up to,
because everyone wants their bigger bully to win, so they won't pull them out of the fight.

This is in addition to the two views of marriage of whether the argument is over the civil contracts,
or about the social institution and definition, or about the religious and spiritual implications of marriage.

NONE of this has been addressed transparently, but masked completely in attacks of one side or another.

I hope the leaders and mediators who are spiritually mature, understand our country is heading in a collaborative direction (and away from bipartisan conflicting interests), and can communicate effectively on these points ***ACKNOWLEDGING these political beliefs exist and are equal under law*** will come together and work out position statements that cover all these areas, separate them out instead of jumbling them together for propaganda, and quit this nonsense of abusing conflicts over iinherent differences in beliefs to slam other views for political points.

The goal should be Constitutional resolution, agreement, inclusion, representation by FREE CHOICE not by political coercion abusing the process and power. Any party or leader working by any other agenda besides representing ALL people and views under the Constitution
have a political conflict of interest and should not be imposing their BELIEFS over others.

This practice of political bullying to impose beliefs, whether secular or religious or political,
is a violation of the Code of Ethics for Govt Service because it violates Constitutional equal protections and is a form of discrimination instituted through public office and policy.

What is sad is the people arguing against discrimination BENEFIT from the slamming
because they can argue SEE this is why we need protection for homosexual people and couples!

So there is a POLITICAL conflict of interest where parties are BENEFITING from the conflict instead of seeking a solution. So anything that promotes more conflict, and doesn't resolve it, is politically biased.

Same with the issues over war, abortion, immigration. When the political party interests get involved
and don't favor inclusive solutions, the Conflicts of Interests cause the legislation to be skewed toward
political interests instead of representing the entire public equally, which goes against the partisan agendas.

We need to address this as a nation.

it turns out the gay marriage issue may be a blessing in disguise,
because if we can address this one, we can figure out the others.
It is easier in comparison, and there are many more people who have figured out the solution' is to remove marriage from the state and keep it private. Only the political parties and politicians who benefit from pushing one belief over another refuse to remove it from the govt but keep pushing it to stir up active support for their agenda. They are biased AGAINST a unilateral neutral solution and that is why either one side wins or loses over the other, because the parties are not seeking a win-win solution that includes, appeased and represents all parties.


=====================================

The court on this same day in 2013 struck down a law that prevented the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriage. But it was still banned in 13 states: Arkansas, Kentucky, Georgia, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Ohio, Texas and Tennessee....Once the Supreme Court's ruling takes effect in two weeks, those states must recognize same-sex couples who were married in a state where it already was legal. And those states must issue marriage licenses to couples who want to get married now. Same-sex marriage is legal nationwide - Video - Business News

This is politics. And like the other side said, it's a culture war.

The vote was 5-4 for forcing the 50 states, 35 of which do not want it, to promote to kids (via example) that gay marriage is "normal". Prime time TV shows are airing transgender-promotional material on family networks with the kids plopped down in front of it...absorbing it all.

But what if 2 of the 5 votes were disqualified? 2 of the Justices broke the law sitting on this case, so their votes don't count. They are not above the law and we must not let them be above the law. If the GOP wants my vote, they need to act and act fast on this one. They will be seen as powerful, champions of the popular opinion of 35 states. Inaction will breed a feeling of disgust and disbelief that our last bastion of activism to protect states rights has rolled over and is pissing on itself, quivering in fear of the rainbow jackboots and in this case frankly, Judicial Tyranny. Then it will just be even-steven. The usual rollout of disgusted voters who want to throw all the bums out.

Here's what Justices Kagan and Ginsburg did WHILE THEY KNEW THE CONTEST WAS MAKING ITS WAY ON APPEAL. According to the Massey Coal 2009 Finding, they could not sit on this case. Breaking Justice Kagan Must Recuse Herself From Upcoming Gay Marriage Hearing Page 61 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Kagan and Ginsburg presided as federal entities over a neo-redacted form of the millenial-long definition of marriage WHILE THEY KNEW FOR A FACT THE QUESTION OF WHETHER OR NOT THE FED SHOULD PRESIDE OVER THAT NEO-REDACTION AS IMPOSED UPON THE 50 STATES WAS PENDING.

They were expressing publicly, their literal federal blessing over that redaction of the word "marriage" BEFORE the Hearing on the federally-forced redaction of the word had happened. And they knew full well, from Windsor & Prop 8 2013 that this is/was a hotly contested area of public debate and a pending legal question.

THEREFORE they should have recused themselves from this case.

Read the premise below and the quote from the conclusion above. There is no "objective" person on the face of the earth that would conclude anything but that after they'd see Ginsburg or Kagan perform a "gay wedding" (as federal entities even in a state where it made it legal itself) those two Justices believed that the fed should "bless" gay marraige. None. Not one person in the world would conclude anything but that.

Here's Olsen's argument again...

Olsen's (winning) premise in 2009 Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co.
Here: 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.
******

Discussion:

Scalia or Thomas etc. who were married normally, at the time would have no way of knowing or even guessing in their wildest imagination that the word itself would come under attack in such a way that the proposed neo-redaction would be a situation asked to be forced federally upon the states. So their marraige was innocent and in no way impedes their ability to consider the proposed neo-redaction for application by force federally.

Ginsburg and Kagan at the time they presided over (blessed) gay marriages as federal entities, while the nation reeled against that notion...knew full well that the question was and is up in the air. And that, friends, makes all the difference when they chose to preside as federal entities conspicuously-blessing the neo-redaction of the word "marriage". It was beyond improper. I'd say it was impeachable. But at rock bottom minimum it is recusable. It fits like a glove the 2009 Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co standard they themselves set.

The public's trust of the Judicial is at stake here. So this is no minimal or laughing matter..
the fact that children (who cannot vote) will be placed without their own consent as an neo-institituion in homes absent a father for boys or a mother for girls as a federal mandate upon the conclusion of this quesiton of law, to affect the core of society itself into unknown numbers of generations...BY JUST 5 PEOPLE 2 OF WHICH HARBOR OBVIOUS BIAS, makes the recusal/disqualification discussion rise to the forefront of American politics.

ie: no cult will be allowed to use its Yes-Women placed in positions of power to dictate their subjective agenda to the masses.

 

[Silhouette]

I guess the question to ask is, can Congress do something about Judicial misconduct at this level? Can Justices Kagan and Ginsburg be impeached for presiding over a trial that they told the world in no uncertain terms "we have already decided before the Hearing"?

The poster above me just pointed out the law of unintended consequences.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The court on this same day in 2013 struck down a law that prevented the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriage. But it was still banned in 13 states: Arkansas, Kentucky, Georgia, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Ohio, Texas and Tennessee....Once the Supreme Court's ruling takes effect in two weeks, those states must recognize same-sex couples who were married in a state where it already was legal. And those states must issue marriage licenses to couples who want to get married now. Same-sex marriage is legal nationwide - Video - Business News

This is politics. And like the other side said, it's a culture war.

The vote was 5-4 for forcing the 50 states, 35 of which do not want it, to promote to kids (via example) that gay marriage is "normal". Prime time TV shows are airing transgender-promotional material on family networks with the kids plopped down in front of it...absorbing it all.

But what if 2 of the 5 votes were disqualified? 2 of the Justices broke the law sitting on this case, so their votes don't count. They are not above the law and we must not let them be above the law. If the GOP wants my vote, they need to act and act fast on this one. They will be seen as powerful, champions of the popular opinion of 35 states. Inaction will breed a feeling of disgust and disbelief that our last bastion of activism to protect states rights has rolled over and is pissing on itself, quivering in fear of the rainbow jackboots and in this case frankly, Judicial Tyranny. Then it will just be even-steven. The usual rollout of disgusted voters who want to throw all the bums out.

Here's what Justices Kagan and Ginsburg did WHILE THEY KNEW THE CONTEST WAS MAKING ITS WAY ON APPEAL. According to the Massey Coal 2009 Finding, they could not sit on this case. Breaking Justice Kagan Must Recuse Herself From Upcoming Gay Marriage Hearing Page 61 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Kagan and Ginsburg presided as federal entities over a neo-redacted form of the millenial-long definition of marriage WHILE THEY KNEW FOR A FACT THE QUESTION OF WHETHER OR NOT THE FED SHOULD PRESIDE OVER THAT NEO-REDACTION AS IMPOSED UPON THE 50 STATES WAS PENDING.

They were expressing publicly, their literal federal blessing over that redaction of the word "marriage" BEFORE the Hearing on the federally-forced redaction of the word had happened. And they knew full well, from Windsor & Prop 8 2013 that this is/was a hotly contested area of public debate and a pending legal question.

THEREFORE they should have recused themselves from this case.

Read the premise below and the quote from the conclusion above. There is no "objective" person on the face of the earth that would conclude anything but that after they'd see Ginsburg or Kagan perform a "gay wedding" (as federal entities even in a state where it made it legal itself) those two Justices believed that the fed should "bless" gay marraige. None. Not one person in the world would conclude anything but that.

Here's Olsen's argument again...

Olsen's (winning) premise in 2009 Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co.
Here: 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.
******

Discussion:

Scalia or Thomas etc. who were married normally, at the time would have no way of knowing or even guessing in their wildest imagination that the word itself would come under attack in such a way that the proposed neo-redaction would be a situation asked to be forced federally upon the states. So their marraige was innocent and in no way impedes their ability to consider the proposed neo-redaction for application by force federally.

Ginsburg and Kagan at the time they presided over (blessed) gay marriages as federal entities, while the nation reeled against that notion...knew full well that the question was and is up in the air. And that, friends, makes all the difference when they chose to preside as federal entities conspicuously-blessing the neo-redaction of the word "marriage". It was beyond improper. I'd say it was impeachable. But at rock bottom minimum it is recusable. It fits like a glove the 2009 Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co standard they themselves set.

The public's trust of the Judicial is at stake here. So this is no minimal or laughing matter..
the fact that children (who cannot vote) will be placed without their own consent as an neo-institituion in homes absent a father for boys or a mother for girls as a federal mandate upon the conclusion of this quesiton of law, to affect the core of society itself into unknown numbers of generations...BY JUST 5 PEOPLE 2 OF WHICH HARBOR OBVIOUS BIAS, makes the recusal/disqualification discussion rise to the forefront of American politics.

ie: no cult will be allowed to use its Yes-Women placed in positions of power to dictate their subjective agenda to the masses.

Tissue?

 

[Skylar]

We've been through this, Sil. The Supreme Court upheld the rights of states to authorize same sex marriage in Windsor v. US. Both Maryland and DC had already authorized it. Kagan and Ginsberg officiated weddings in Maryland DC respectively. Destroying your argument.

Its impossible to demonstrate a bias against same sex marriage bans when there are no same sex marriage bans.

Caperton was about an elected judge that had received huge campaign contributions from someone that he was adjudicating a case for. Neither Ginsberg nor Kagan were elected. Neither accept campaign contributions. No one involved in Obergefell provided them with anything. And they received no benefit from performing those weddings.

Nixing every tenet of possible bias in Caperton.

You simply don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Silhouette]

Tissue?

Why yes, I bought stock in a tissue company in anticipation of the escalating sales in December 2016 to members of the democratic party.

 

[G.T.]

Emily is actually not that good of a person.

Ya dont fool me, Em. Very disappointing. Your "mutual solution" rhetoric is empty and a canard --> heres why.

The mutual solution WOULD BE legalizing gay marriage, and those who dont believe in it can...guess what?? CONTINUE NOT BELIEVING IN IT!!

Thats so fucking obvious to any good person that your veiled partisan views masked by "mutual compromise" are smelling dirty as fuck, to me. Snake in the grass

 

[Skylar]

Tissue?

Why yes, I bought stock in a tissue company in anticipation of the escalating sales in December 2016 to members of the democratic party.

You've been laughably wrong in predicting virtually everything regarding the case. And yet wallowing in your little bucket of fail, you're going to offer us MORE predictions you can't possibly back up?

 

[G.T.]

Tissue?

Why yes, I bought stock in a tissue company in anticipation of the escalating sales in December 2016 to members of the democratic party.

The election is in november.
Inauguration in january.
Wtf does december have to do with it?

Bigots have fascinating minds.

 

[Silhouette]

Tissue?

Why yes, I bought stock in a tissue company in anticipation of the escalating sales in December 2016 to members of the democratic party.

You've been laughably wrong in predicting virtually everything regarding the case. And yet wallowing in your little bucket of fail, you're going to offer us MORE predictions you can't possibly back up?

Like they say...denial ain't just a river in egypt. Enjoy it while it lasts you traitor to the democratic party...

Well at least now we have two men who can pretend to be both "mom" and dad to little boys they adopt and bring home...all legally; with the blessing of society...erm...I mean 5 people in Washington DC; two of which should have their votes disqualified.

 

[Unedited]

Ka

The court on this same day in 2013 struck down a law that prevented the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriage. But it was still banned in 13 states: Arkansas, Kentucky, Georgia, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Ohio, Texas and Tennessee....Once the Supreme Court's ruling takes effect in two weeks, those states must recognize same-sex couples who were married in a state where it already was legal. And those states must issue marriage licenses to couples who want to get married now. Same-sex marriage is legal nationwide - Video - Business News

This is politics. And like the other side said, it's a culture war.

The vote was 5-4 for forcing the 50 states, 35 of which do not want it, to promote to kids (via example) that gay marriage is "normal". Prime time TV shows are airing transgender-promotional material on family networks with the kids plopped down in front of it...absorbing it all.

But what if 2 of the 5 votes were disqualified? 2 of the Justices broke the law sitting on this case, so their votes don't count. They are not above the law and we must not let them be above the law. If the GOP wants my vote, they need to act and act fast on this one. They will be seen as powerful, champions of the popular opinion of 35 states. Inaction will breed a feeling of disgust and disbelief that our last bastion of activism to protect states rights has rolled over and is pissing on itself, quivering in fear of the rainbow jackboots and in this case frankly, Judicial Tyranny. Then it will just be even-steven. The usual rollout of disgusted voters who want to throw all the bums out.

Here's what Justices Kagan and Ginsburg did WHILE THEY KNEW THE CONTEST WAS MAKING ITS WAY ON APPEAL. According to the Massey Coal 2009 Finding, they could not sit on this case. Breaking Justice Kagan Must Recuse Herself From Upcoming Gay Marriage Hearing Page 61 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Kagan and Ginsburg presided as federal entities over a neo-redacted form of the millenial-long definition of marriage WHILE THEY KNEW FOR A FACT THE QUESTION OF WHETHER OR NOT THE FED SHOULD PRESIDE OVER THAT NEO-REDACTION AS IMPOSED UPON THE 50 STATES WAS PENDING.

They were expressing publicly, their literal federal blessing over that redaction of the word "marriage" BEFORE the Hearing on the federally-forced redaction of the word had happened. And they knew full well, from Windsor & Prop 8 2013 that this is/was a hotly contested area of public debate and a pending legal question.

THEREFORE they should have recused themselves from this case.

Read the premise below and the quote from the conclusion above. There is no "objective" person on the face of the earth that would conclude anything but that after they'd see Ginsburg or Kagan perform a "gay wedding" (as federal entities even in a state where it made it legal itself) those two Justices believed that the fed should "bless" gay marraige. None. Not one person in the world would conclude anything but that.

Here's Olsen's argument again...

Olsen's (winning) premise in 2009 Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co.
Here: 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.
******

Discussion:

Scalia or Thomas etc. who were married normally, at the time would have no way of knowing or even guessing in their wildest imagination that the word itself would come under attack in such a way that the proposed neo-redaction would be a situation asked to be forced federally upon the states. So their marraige was innocent and in no way impedes their ability to consider the proposed neo-redaction for application by force federally.

Ginsburg and Kagan at the time they presided over (blessed) gay marriages as federal entities, while the nation reeled against that notion...knew full well that the question was and is up in the air. And that, friends, makes all the difference when they chose to preside as federal entities conspicuously-blessing the neo-redaction of the word "marriage". It was beyond improper. I'd say it was impeachable. But at rock bottom minimum it is recusable. It fits like a glove the 2009 Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co standard they themselves set.

The public's trust of the Judicial is at stake here. So this is no minimal or laughing matter..
the fact that children (who cannot vote) will be placed without their own consent as an neo-institituion in homes absent a father for boys or a mother for girls as a federal mandate upon the conclusion of this quesiton of law, to affect the core of society itself into unknown numbers of generations...BY JUST 5 PEOPLE 2 OF WHICH HARBOR OBVIOUS BIAS, makes the recusal/disqualification discussion rise to the forefront of American politics.

ie: no cult will be allowed to use its Yes-Women placed in positions of power to dictate their subjective agenda to the masses.

Kagan and Ginsberg should never have ruled on this case.

 

[Skylar]

Tissue?

Why yes, I bought stock in a tissue company in anticipation of the escalating sales in December 2016 to members of the democratic party.

You've been laughably wrong in predicting virtually everything regarding the case. And yet wallowing in your little bucket of fail, you're going to offer us MORE predictions you can't possibly back up?

Like they say...denial ain't just a river in egypt. Enjoy it while it lasts you traitor to the democratic party...

Denial of events that haven't happened? Predicted by a poster whose record of accuracy on future events is worse than guessing?

I don't think 'denial' means what you think it means.

 

[candycorn]

Nobody suggested any justice recuse themselves in the Miranda rulings, or the Brown v. Board of Education rulings because one of the justices may have been arrested at one time or represented/persecuted/ruled on a criminal case or represented the accused or that they were all educated men at the time.

To suggest recusal now smells of sheer desperation.

Good.

 

[Skylar]

Ka

The court on this same day in 2013 struck down a law that prevented the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriage. But it was still banned in 13 states: Arkansas, Kentucky, Georgia, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Ohio, Texas and Tennessee....Once the Supreme Court's ruling takes effect in two weeks, those states must recognize same-sex couples who were married in a state where it already was legal. And those states must issue marriage licenses to couples who want to get married now. Same-sex marriage is legal nationwide - Video - Business News

This is politics. And like the other side said, it's a culture war.

The vote was 5-4 for forcing the 50 states, 35 of which do not want it, to promote to kids (via example) that gay marriage is "normal". Prime time TV shows are airing transgender-promotional material on family networks with the kids plopped down in front of it...absorbing it all.

But what if 2 of the 5 votes were disqualified? 2 of the Justices broke the law sitting on this case, so their votes don't count. They are not above the law and we must not let them be above the law. If the GOP wants my vote, they need to act and act fast on this one. They will be seen as powerful, champions of the popular opinion of 35 states. Inaction will breed a feeling of disgust and disbelief that our last bastion of activism to protect states rights has rolled over and is pissing on itself, quivering in fear of the rainbow jackboots and in this case frankly, Judicial Tyranny. Then it will just be even-steven. The usual rollout of disgusted voters who want to throw all the bums out.

Here's what Justices Kagan and Ginsburg did WHILE THEY KNEW THE CONTEST WAS MAKING ITS WAY ON APPEAL. According to the Massey Coal 2009 Finding, they could not sit on this case. Breaking Justice Kagan Must Recuse Herself From Upcoming Gay Marriage Hearing Page 61 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Kagan and Ginsburg presided as federal entities over a neo-redacted form of the millenial-long definition of marriage WHILE THEY KNEW FOR A FACT THE QUESTION OF WHETHER OR NOT THE FED SHOULD PRESIDE OVER THAT NEO-REDACTION AS IMPOSED UPON THE 50 STATES WAS PENDING.

They were expressing publicly, their literal federal blessing over that redaction of the word "marriage" BEFORE the Hearing on the federally-forced redaction of the word had happened. And they knew full well, from Windsor & Prop 8 2013 that this is/was a hotly contested area of public debate and a pending legal question.

THEREFORE they should have recused themselves from this case.

Read the premise below and the quote from the conclusion above. There is no "objective" person on the face of the earth that would conclude anything but that after they'd see Ginsburg or Kagan perform a "gay wedding" (as federal entities even in a state where it made it legal itself) those two Justices believed that the fed should "bless" gay marraige. None. Not one person in the world would conclude anything but that.

Here's Olsen's argument again...

Olsen's (winning) premise in 2009 Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co.
Here: 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.
******

Discussion:

Scalia or Thomas etc. who were married normally, at the time would have no way of knowing or even guessing in their wildest imagination that the word itself would come under attack in such a way that the proposed neo-redaction would be a situation asked to be forced federally upon the states. So their marraige was innocent and in no way impedes their ability to consider the proposed neo-redaction for application by force federally.

Ginsburg and Kagan at the time they presided over (blessed) gay marriages as federal entities, while the nation reeled against that notion...knew full well that the question was and is up in the air. And that, friends, makes all the difference when they chose to preside as federal entities conspicuously-blessing the neo-redaction of the word "marriage". It was beyond improper. I'd say it was impeachable. But at rock bottom minimum it is recusable. It fits like a glove the 2009 Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co standard they themselves set.

The public's trust of the Judicial is at stake here. So this is no minimal or laughing matter..
the fact that children (who cannot vote) will be placed without their own consent as an neo-institituion in homes absent a father for boys or a mother for girls as a federal mandate upon the conclusion of this quesiton of law, to affect the core of society itself into unknown numbers of generations...BY JUST 5 PEOPLE 2 OF WHICH HARBOR OBVIOUS BIAS, makes the recusal/disqualification discussion rise to the forefront of American politics.

ie: no cult will be allowed to use its Yes-Women placed in positions of power to dictate their subjective agenda to the masses.

Kagan and Ginsberg should never have ruled on this case.

Of course they should have. Of all the justices, Kagan was probably the most qualified. If officiating a wedding creates a conflict of interest then surely participating in such a union for 40 years could do the trick.

And Kagan is the only one who has never been married. By the reasoning offered by Sil, Kagan is the only one that could vote. Everyone else would have had to recuse themselves.

 

[emilynghiem]

I guess the question to ask is, can Congress do something about Judicial misconduct at this level? Can Justices Kagan and Ginsburg be impeached for presiding over a trial that they told the world in no uncertain terms "we have already decided before the Hearing"?

The poster above me just pointed out the law of unintended consequences.

Silhouette
At this point I expect no less than the people fed up with political beliefs pushed through media and parties
to use the internet to organize coalitions and a system of checking Govt constitutionally for ethics violations.

Many people besides me have been calling for this; I even know one activist who wrote out a State bill to set up a Civilian review board similar to my idea for a Constitutional ethics commission run by the public to take grievances and see they are resolved by mediation and consensus.

The main conflicts I have seen to be resolved in order for such a commission to finish organizing
A. people are divided by party. But if the movement continues of bringing together progressives with libertarians, greens and conservatives, liberal with conservative Constitutionalists, to work together, this can change
B. there is disagreement over whether this needs to take place as a Constitutional conference instead of convention which people disagree over. What format is used to bring people together to reform the system.
C. I had a disagreement with my friend over whether this should be funded through govt or independent.
I said independent, because once the govt gets involved it creates a conflict of interest between the people representing the govt position vs. the people petitioning for reform or redress of grievances. the same way the media or press must remain independent, I argued so should the redress process.
D. However I do foresee a separate formal institution in every state and also nationally to address Constitutional ethics and conflicts of interest. This might become a separate level of law per state similar to civil and criminal.
I believe this can be worked out, and the most successful models created can be replicated nationally.

I believe this is where we are heading and that's why these conflicts are not being ersolved through congress or courts. if they were, we would continue using the system as is. the system has to max out when we have exceeded its capacity. The sensitivity and consensus required for the issues brought up now, from gay marriage to health care, mean moving towards more direct representation and separation by party to accommodate the different beliefs that don't fit under one umbrella.

So we have outgrown the system on issues where people are asking to address political beliefs on a level that will require separation and organization by party, in order to accommodate everyone equally under law.

this is actually a positive stage in growth and we need to meet that challenge
instead of trying to attack and defend views using the given choices.

otherwise the govt system is being abused beyond its intended capacity and design, to try to address 'social legislation" of marriage and health care that belong on a personal level outside federal govt.

Just because people want a statewide or national system does not mean it has to go through state or federal govt. There are political parties and nonprofit groups with a national and statewide presence that work on this level, so why not handle health care and marriage through that type of institution that allows equal free choice.
Instead of trying to ram "one way" through govt when people clearly have different beliefs that govt cannot force anyone to change. The solutions people want do not fit in the current restrictions and structures of govt, so we need to create structures that do work and these do not necessarily have to be mandated through govt.

This is like in the Bible, that if there is new wine, it cannot be contained in the old wineskins,
but first we are to create new wineskins and then pour the new wine in.

If we cannot agree on keeping the old or changing the new, that is where people can separate
and do not need to make one system for all people. let the old keep the old ways, and let the new have their new ways. These do not need to be under one policy, but let people freely exercise their own beliefs equally
and quit trying to impose one way on everyone.

 

[mdk]

Ka

The court on this same day in 2013 struck down a law that prevented the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriage. But it was still banned in 13 states: Arkansas, Kentucky, Georgia, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Ohio, Texas and Tennessee....Once the Supreme Court's ruling takes effect in two weeks, those states must recognize same-sex couples who were married in a state where it already was legal. And those states must issue marriage licenses to couples who want to get married now. Same-sex marriage is legal nationwide - Video - Business News

This is politics. And like the other side said, it's a culture war.

The vote was 5-4 for forcing the 50 states, 35 of which do not want it, to promote to kids (via example) that gay marriage is "normal". Prime time TV shows are airing transgender-promotional material on family networks with the kids plopped down in front of it...absorbing it all.

But what if 2 of the 5 votes were disqualified? 2 of the Justices broke the law sitting on this case, so their votes don't count. They are not above the law and we must not let them be above the law. If the GOP wants my vote, they need to act and act fast on this one. They will be seen as powerful, champions of the popular opinion of 35 states. Inaction will breed a feeling of disgust and disbelief that our last bastion of activism to protect states rights has rolled over and is pissing on itself, quivering in fear of the rainbow jackboots and in this case frankly, Judicial Tyranny. Then it will just be even-steven. The usual rollout of disgusted voters who want to throw all the bums out.

Here's what Justices Kagan and Ginsburg did WHILE THEY KNEW THE CONTEST WAS MAKING ITS WAY ON APPEAL. According to the Massey Coal 2009 Finding, they could not sit on this case. Breaking Justice Kagan Must Recuse Herself From Upcoming Gay Marriage Hearing Page 61 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Kagan and Ginsburg presided as federal entities over a neo-redacted form of the millenial-long definition of marriage WHILE THEY KNEW FOR A FACT THE QUESTION OF WHETHER OR NOT THE FED SHOULD PRESIDE OVER THAT NEO-REDACTION AS IMPOSED UPON THE 50 STATES WAS PENDING.

They were expressing publicly, their literal federal blessing over that redaction of the word "marriage" BEFORE the Hearing on the federally-forced redaction of the word had happened. And they knew full well, from Windsor & Prop 8 2013 that this is/was a hotly contested area of public debate and a pending legal question.

THEREFORE they should have recused themselves from this case.

Read the premise below and the quote from the conclusion above. There is no "objective" person on the face of the earth that would conclude anything but that after they'd see Ginsburg or Kagan perform a "gay wedding" (as federal entities even in a state where it made it legal itself) those two Justices believed that the fed should "bless" gay marraige. None. Not one person in the world would conclude anything but that.

Here's Olsen's argument again...

Olsen's (winning) premise in 2009 Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co.
Here: 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.
******

Discussion:

Scalia or Thomas etc. who were married normally, at the time would have no way of knowing or even guessing in their wildest imagination that the word itself would come under attack in such a way that the proposed neo-redaction would be a situation asked to be forced federally upon the states. So their marraige was innocent and in no way impedes their ability to consider the proposed neo-redaction for application by force federally.

Ginsburg and Kagan at the time they presided over (blessed) gay marriages as federal entities, while the nation reeled against that notion...knew full well that the question was and is up in the air. And that, friends, makes all the difference when they chose to preside as federal entities conspicuously-blessing the neo-redaction of the word "marriage". It was beyond improper. I'd say it was impeachable. But at rock bottom minimum it is recusable. It fits like a glove the 2009 Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co standard they themselves set.

The public's trust of the Judicial is at stake here. So this is no minimal or laughing matter..
the fact that children (who cannot vote) will be placed without their own consent as an neo-institituion in homes absent a father for boys or a mother for girls as a federal mandate upon the conclusion of this quesiton of law, to affect the core of society itself into unknown numbers of generations...BY JUST 5 PEOPLE 2 OF WHICH HARBOR OBVIOUS BIAS, makes the recusal/disqualification discussion rise to the forefront of American politics.

ie: no cult will be allowed to use its Yes-Women placed in positions of power to dictate their subjective agenda to the masses.

Kagan and Ginsberg should never have ruled on this case.

Nonsense. The only reason Sil didn't want them to hear the case is b/c she didn't like the way they were going to vote. Nothing more.

 

[emilynghiem]

Ka

The court on this same day in 2013 struck down a law that prevented the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriage. But it was still banned in 13 states: Arkansas, Kentucky, Georgia, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Ohio, Texas and Tennessee....Once the Supreme Court's ruling takes effect in two weeks, those states must recognize same-sex couples who were married in a state where it already was legal. And those states must issue marriage licenses to couples who want to get married now. Same-sex marriage is legal nationwide - Video - Business News

This is politics. And like the other side said, it's a culture war.

The vote was 5-4 for forcing the 50 states, 35 of which do not want it, to promote to kids (via example) that gay marriage is "normal". Prime time TV shows are airing transgender-promotional material on family networks with the kids plopped down in front of it...absorbing it all.

But what if 2 of the 5 votes were disqualified? 2 of the Justices broke the law sitting on this case, so their votes don't count. They are not above the law and we must not let them be above the law. If the GOP wants my vote, they need to act and act fast on this one. They will be seen as powerful, champions of the popular opinion of 35 states. Inaction will breed a feeling of disgust and disbelief that our last bastion of activism to protect states rights has rolled over and is pissing on itself, quivering in fear of the rainbow jackboots and in this case frankly, Judicial Tyranny. Then it will just be even-steven. The usual rollout of disgusted voters who want to throw all the bums out.

Here's what Justices Kagan and Ginsburg did WHILE THEY KNEW THE CONTEST WAS MAKING ITS WAY ON APPEAL. According to the Massey Coal 2009 Finding, they could not sit on this case. Breaking Justice Kagan Must Recuse Herself From Upcoming Gay Marriage Hearing Page 61 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Kagan and Ginsburg presided as federal entities over a neo-redacted form of the millenial-long definition of marriage WHILE THEY KNEW FOR A FACT THE QUESTION OF WHETHER OR NOT THE FED SHOULD PRESIDE OVER THAT NEO-REDACTION AS IMPOSED UPON THE 50 STATES WAS PENDING.

They were expressing publicly, their literal federal blessing over that redaction of the word "marriage" BEFORE the Hearing on the federally-forced redaction of the word had happened. And they knew full well, from Windsor & Prop 8 2013 that this is/was a hotly contested area of public debate and a pending legal question.

THEREFORE they should have recused themselves from this case.

Read the premise below and the quote from the conclusion above. There is no "objective" person on the face of the earth that would conclude anything but that after they'd see Ginsburg or Kagan perform a "gay wedding" (as federal entities even in a state where it made it legal itself) those two Justices believed that the fed should "bless" gay marraige. None. Not one person in the world would conclude anything but that.

Here's Olsen's argument again...

Olsen's (winning) premise in 2009 Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co.
Here: 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.
******

Discussion:

Scalia or Thomas etc. who were married normally, at the time would have no way of knowing or even guessing in their wildest imagination that the word itself would come under attack in such a way that the proposed neo-redaction would be a situation asked to be forced federally upon the states. So their marraige was innocent and in no way impedes their ability to consider the proposed neo-redaction for application by force federally.

Ginsburg and Kagan at the time they presided over (blessed) gay marriages as federal entities, while the nation reeled against that notion...knew full well that the question was and is up in the air. And that, friends, makes all the difference when they chose to preside as federal entities conspicuously-blessing the neo-redaction of the word "marriage". It was beyond improper. I'd say it was impeachable. But at rock bottom minimum it is recusable. It fits like a glove the 2009 Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co standard they themselves set.

The public's trust of the Judicial is at stake here. So this is no minimal or laughing matter..
the fact that children (who cannot vote) will be placed without their own consent as an neo-institituion in homes absent a father for boys or a mother for girls as a federal mandate upon the conclusion of this quesiton of law, to affect the core of society itself into unknown numbers of generations...BY JUST 5 PEOPLE 2 OF WHICH HARBOR OBVIOUS BIAS, makes the recusal/disqualification discussion rise to the forefront of American politics.

ie: no cult will be allowed to use its Yes-Women placed in positions of power to dictate their subjective agenda to the masses.

Kagan and Ginsberg should never have ruled on this case.

Of course they should have. Of all the justices, Kagan was probably the most qualified. If officiating a wedding creates a conflict of interest then surely participating in such a union for 40 years could do the trick.

And Kagan is the only one who has never been married. By the reasoning offered by Sil, Kagan is the only one that could vote. Everyone else would have had to recuse themselves.

Dear Silhouette
Any judge who cannot see that beliefs were involved that are equal under law
should be removed as imposing their own political beliefs as a conflict of interest with Constitutional equality and neutrality. People cannot be forced by law to change their views;
if both sides had beliefs at stake, both sides should be ordered to mediate to come up with an equally inclusive policy so that all beliefs are protected and represented. If the govt officials HELP the citizens and parties to rewrite the laws so they reach agreement, that would be constitutional; but just picking one side over the other is not resolving the conflicts but establishing one belief over another which violates Constitutional equal protections from discrimination by creed.

Ruling in favor of one over another, when both beliefs about marriage are equally protected under law,
is unconstitutionally favoring one belief and establishing by govt.

The right answer would be to remove govt from making any such decisions
and order the parties to mediate to come up with a neutral, equally inclusive policy that people
of all parties and beliefs agree is written objectively enough to protect and represent their views equally.

If it isn't equally inclusive, then it should be rejected as unconstitutionally biased by belief,
and ordered to be corrected to remove the flaws and conflicts causing the sides to disagree.

The right answer would be written well enough that all sides believe it represents ALL the public,
not just one side or another, in violation of the First and Fourteenth amendments

 

[Skylar]

Ka

The court on this same day in 2013 struck down a law that prevented the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriage. But it was still banned in 13 states: Arkansas, Kentucky, Georgia, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Ohio, Texas and Tennessee....Once the Supreme Court's ruling takes effect in two weeks, those states must recognize same-sex couples who were married in a state where it already was legal. And those states must issue marriage licenses to couples who want to get married now. Same-sex marriage is legal nationwide - Video - Business News

This is politics. And like the other side said, it's a culture war.

The vote was 5-4 for forcing the 50 states, 35 of which do not want it, to promote to kids (via example) that gay marriage is "normal". Prime time TV shows are airing transgender-promotional material on family networks with the kids plopped down in front of it...absorbing it all.

But what if 2 of the 5 votes were disqualified? 2 of the Justices broke the law sitting on this case, so their votes don't count. They are not above the law and we must not let them be above the law. If the GOP wants my vote, they need to act and act fast on this one. They will be seen as powerful, champions of the popular opinion of 35 states. Inaction will breed a feeling of disgust and disbelief that our last bastion of activism to protect states rights has rolled over and is pissing on itself, quivering in fear of the rainbow jackboots and in this case frankly, Judicial Tyranny. Then it will just be even-steven. The usual rollout of disgusted voters who want to throw all the bums out.

Here's what Justices Kagan and Ginsburg did WHILE THEY KNEW THE CONTEST WAS MAKING ITS WAY ON APPEAL. According to the Massey Coal 2009 Finding, they could not sit on this case. Breaking Justice Kagan Must Recuse Herself From Upcoming Gay Marriage Hearing Page 61 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Kagan and Ginsburg presided as federal entities over a neo-redacted form of the millenial-long definition of marriage WHILE THEY KNEW FOR A FACT THE QUESTION OF WHETHER OR NOT THE FED SHOULD PRESIDE OVER THAT NEO-REDACTION AS IMPOSED UPON THE 50 STATES WAS PENDING.

They were expressing publicly, their literal federal blessing over that redaction of the word "marriage" BEFORE the Hearing on the federally-forced redaction of the word had happened. And they knew full well, from Windsor & Prop 8 2013 that this is/was a hotly contested area of public debate and a pending legal question.

THEREFORE they should have recused themselves from this case.

Read the premise below and the quote from the conclusion above. There is no "objective" person on the face of the earth that would conclude anything but that after they'd see Ginsburg or Kagan perform a "gay wedding" (as federal entities even in a state where it made it legal itself) those two Justices believed that the fed should "bless" gay marraige. None. Not one person in the world would conclude anything but that.

Here's Olsen's argument again...

Olsen's (winning) premise in 2009 Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co.
Here: 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.
******

Discussion:

Scalia or Thomas etc. who were married normally, at the time would have no way of knowing or even guessing in their wildest imagination that the word itself would come under attack in such a way that the proposed neo-redaction would be a situation asked to be forced federally upon the states. So their marraige was innocent and in no way impedes their ability to consider the proposed neo-redaction for application by force federally.

Ginsburg and Kagan at the time they presided over (blessed) gay marriages as federal entities, while the nation reeled against that notion...knew full well that the question was and is up in the air. And that, friends, makes all the difference when they chose to preside as federal entities conspicuously-blessing the neo-redaction of the word "marriage". It was beyond improper. I'd say it was impeachable. But at rock bottom minimum it is recusable. It fits like a glove the 2009 Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co standard they themselves set.

The public's trust of the Judicial is at stake here. So this is no minimal or laughing matter..
the fact that children (who cannot vote) will be placed without their own consent as an neo-institituion in homes absent a father for boys or a mother for girls as a federal mandate upon the conclusion of this quesiton of law, to affect the core of society itself into unknown numbers of generations...BY JUST 5 PEOPLE 2 OF WHICH HARBOR OBVIOUS BIAS, makes the recusal/disqualification discussion rise to the forefront of American politics.

ie: no cult will be allowed to use its Yes-Women placed in positions of power to dictate their subjective agenda to the masses.

Kagan and Ginsberg should never have ruled on this case.

Of course they should have. Of all the justices, Kagan was probably the most qualified. If officiating a wedding creates a conflict of interest then surely participating in such a union for 40 years could do the trick.

And Kagan is the only one who has never been married. By the reasoning offered by Sil, Kagan is the only one that could vote. Everyone else would have had to recuse themselves.

Dear Silhouette
Any judge who cannot see that beliefs were involved that are equal under law
should be removed as imposing their own political beliefs as a conflict of interest with Constitutional equality.

Ruling in favor of one over another, when both beliefs about marriage are equally protected under law,
is unconstitutionally favoring one belief and establishing by govt.

Nope. As not all views are equally valid under the constitution.

 

[Silhouette]

Emily, what kind of drugs are you taking..