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

[Skylar]

I am shocked "shadow bias" hasn't been mentioned yet.

Give it time. Sil has entire theme parks of batshit prepared for this little meltdown. We'll hit all the classics.

 

[J.E.D]

Oh boy. He we go. The USMB Queen of Denial and Butthurt is going to cry about this for decades

 

[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.

Apparently you lack the definition of bigot:

a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)

Opposing gay marriage doesn't mean you dislike gays. It means you don't accept that two men can marry, they are two totally different things. Why are liberals so stupid?

Why are you too cowardly to admit your bigotry?

Well, that answers itself.....youre a coward.

 

[G.T.]

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.

A view that excludes another is in violation of the Constitution.

Nope. As not all views are constitutionally valid.

Dear Skylar and G.T.
A. would you say that my view of including and protecting BOTH beliefs equally
is more constitutionally valid because it is more neutral, objectively inclusive and
respects the other two views that otherwise exclude each other
B. and the two views that would impose theirs over the other are
not fully constitutional because they violate the equal beliefs or creed of the other,
while my views do not. My view protects and respects both sides. Does yours meet this same standard?

To a, what are you - 12?

The views are logically opposed to one another.....how in the fuck could the government accommodate both?

"Oh hey..uhhh....gay marriage is legal and illegal....cuz uhhh....emily wanted to include both views."

Again, a daft fucking dummy idea that doesnt even warrant the response Im giving it. Jesus christ.

 

[Skylar]

Oh boy. He we go. The USMB Queen of Denial and Butthurt is going to cry about this for decades

After all the weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth, I suspect Sil will settle on this:

Sil imagines some pseudo-legal gibberish that he insists makes the ruling invalid. Thus, gay marriage isn't legal. Thus, gay marriage is still banned in California.

Lets see how good my prediction are. As so far, they've been pretty good.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

There were tears today, much as there were on 1 Jan 1863 when the slaves were emancipated. The same morally corrupt personalities objected then as they did today. Racism, homophobia and bigotry are mothered by ignorance and fathered by hate.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

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.

And who do you imagine disqualifies any votes?

I know you just pull this crap wholesale out of your ass- but somewhere in your fevered fantasy you must be imagining something- maybe Chuck Norris swinging in on a rope, and arresting them and dragging them off to Texas?

 

[Syriusly]

Emily, what kind of drugs are you taking..

LOL......oh the kettle getting annoyed with pot.....

 

[Syriusly]

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.

. My mommy didn't drop me on my head when I was born..

Prove it.

 

[JoeB131]

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.

Oh, Sil, I was wondering what your meltdown would look like today.

 

[SwimExpert]

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.

 

[Unedited]

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.

Remember, Ruth Bader Ginsburg may not be completely sober.

 

[Silhouette]

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.

Remember, Ruth Bader Ginsburg may not be completely sober.

I think she was sober and fully present of mind/knew what she was doing when she posed for this photo while the question of whether or not the fed should preside over state laws defining the structure of marriage....was pending...yet to be Heard...

2009, SCOTUS Massey Coal Decision. She should have recused herself. She voted in affirmative on the Massey Coal Decision.

 

[Ravi]

To be honest, I would support SSM just to make Sil melt down.

 

[Skylar]

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.

Remember, Ruth Bader Ginsburg may not be completely sober.

Yeah, because she had a glass of wine once at dinner.

Sigh....

 

[Skylar]

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.

Remember, Ruth Bader Ginsburg may not be completely sober.

I think she was sober and fully present of mind/knew what she was doing when she posed for this photo while the question of whether or not the fed should preside over state laws defining the structure of marriage....was pending...yet to be Heard...

None of the issues she was hearing had a thing to do with that wedding. As DC and Maryland had already affirmed same sex marriage by vote. And the USSC in the Windsor decision had already affirmed that States could do exactly that.

You can't demonstrate a bias against a state same sex marriage ban when there is no same sex marriage ban.

You can't get around that.

 

[Silhouette]

None of the issues she was hearing had a thing to do with that wedding. As DC and Maryland had already affirmed same sex marriage by vote. And the USSC in the Windsor decision had already affirmed that States could do exactly that.

You can't demonstrate a bias against a state same sex marriage ban when there is no same sex marriage ban....You can't get around that.

As it turns out, I can...

..She is the physical embodiment of the federal government as defined in her position. The question of law pending was "should the fed preside over any state on the question of gay marriage?" The question of a national position of fed over state was the whole of the question. As it turns out they now preside over 50 of them on that exact question of law. Her display of her beliefs as the embodiment of the fed, long before she Heard the case makes even a brain dead chimp certain she would be biased at the Hearing. And as it turns out, the letter of the 2009 Massey Coal case says that even a shadow of suspicion that a judge would be biased is enough to overturn for failure of mandatory recusal.

 

[L.K.Eder]

Hahahaha

 

[Skylar]

None of the issues she was hearing had a thing to do with that wedding. As DC and Maryland had already affirmed same sex marriage by vote. And the USSC in the Windsor decision had already affirmed that States could do exactly that.

You can't demonstrate a bias against a state same sex marriage ban when there is no same sex marriage ban....You can't get around that.

As it turns out, I can...

..She is the physical embodiment of the federal government as defined in her position. The question of law pending was "should the fed preside over any state on the question of gay marriage?"

Nope. These were the questions:

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

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

Both DC and Maryland already license a marriage between people of the same sex. DC and Maryland already recognize a marraige between two people of the same sex when their marriages were lawfully licened and performed out of state.

And the Windsor decision already affirmed that they have the States have the power to recognize same sex marriages. There is no constitutional conflict in performing a marriage that the State recognizes as legally valid. Your reasoning is physically impossible. As the ban you insist they demonstrated a bias against....

....didn't exist.

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

 

[Statistikhengst]

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.

Oh, Sil, I was wondering what your meltdown would look like today.

And now you know.

It's so batshit crazy, even the bats are hiding from her.