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

[Skylar]

Well?...

.... if the Ruling on Friday were reversed and the states won the right to define marriage 5-4 for the sake of the best interest of its most important components (children) and let's say Scalia and Thomas had been photographed in a Christian picket line protesting gay marriage in all 50 states at a demonstration in DC last year, would gays be calling for their recusal and withdrawel of votes?

Nothing you're describing actually happened. So why don't you get to your point rather than setting up loaded hypothetical questions pulled from your imagination.

 

[Silhouette]

Well?...

.... if the Ruling on Friday were reversed and the states won the right to define marriage 5-4 for the sake of the best interest of its most important components (children) and let's say Scalia and Thomas had been photographed in a Christian picket line protesting gay marriage in all 50 states at a demonstration in DC last year, would gays be calling for their recusal and withdrawel of votes?

Nothing you're describing actually happened. So why don't you get to your point rather than setting up loaded hypothetical questions pulled from your imagination.

Because if Thomas and Scalia had done that, it is exactly on par with what Ginsburg and Kagan did while the question of "should the brand new redaction to the physical structure of marriage be forced on the states by the fed" was pending. Their presiding over gay marriages at that time as the embodiment of federal powers was arrogant and instantly disqualified them from sitting on the Hearing this last Spring according to their own Ruling in 2009 on the Massey Coal case which found there can't be even a flicker of bias evident on any judge sitting on any case, either for or against either of the parties to the suit.

 

[Skylar]

Well?...

.... if the Ruling on Friday were reversed and the states won the right to define marriage 5-4 for the sake of the best interest of its most important components (children) and let's say Scalia and Thomas had been photographed in a Christian picket line protesting gay marriage in all 50 states at a demonstration in DC last year, would gays be calling for their recusal and withdrawel of votes?

Nothing you're describing actually happened. So why don't you get to your point rather than setting up loaded hypothetical questions pulled from your imagination.

Because if Thomas and Scalia had done that, it is exactly on par with what Ginsburg and Kagan did while the question of "should the brand new redaction to the physical structure of marriage be forced on the states by the fed" was pending.

But it isn't on par with what Ginsberg and Kagan did. They performed weddings in states that already recognized same sex marriage. Something that the Windsor court had already affirmed the States had the authority to do. So you know what they call same sex marriage in Maryland?

Marriage.

As has been explained to you repeatedly but you keep ignoring, its impossible to demonstrate a bias against a same sex marriage ban that doesn't exist.

 

[Silhouette]

But it isn't on par with what Ginsberg and Kagan did. They performed weddings in states that already recognized same sex marriage. Something that the Windsor court had already affirmed the States had the authority to do. So you know what they call same sex marriage in Maryland?

Marriage.

As has been explained to you repeatedly but you keep ignoring, its impossible to demonstrate a bias against a same sex marriage ban that doesn't exist.

Round and round and round and round and round you go. I'm going to call you the "Rounder" for the LGBT propaganda machine.

And YET, YOU KNOW that I gave the example of Thomas or Scalia posing for photo ops, say, breaking ground on sections of the Keystone Pipeline where states had made those easements legal themselves, WHILE A QUESTION OF "SHOULD ALL STATES BE FORCED TO ACCEPT THAT EASMENT" WAS PENDING.

In that likely hypothetical scenario, would Scalia and Thomas have to recuse themselves? The left would say YES! ABSOLUTELY! THATS BIAS!!

And so it would be. Just like what Kagan and Ginsburg did..

 

[Skylar]

But it isn't on par with what Ginsberg and Kagan did. They performed weddings in states that already recognized same sex marriage. Something that the Windsor court had already affirmed the States had the authority to do. So you know what they call same sex marriage in Maryland?

Marriage.

As has been explained to you repeatedly but you keep ignoring, its impossible to demonstrate a bias against a same sex marriage ban that doesn't exist.

Round and round and round and round and round you go. I'm going to call you the "Rounder" for the LGBT propaganda machine.

As the Obergefell decision demonstrates, what you 'call' someone or something is gloriously irrelevant. As you don't know what you're talking about.

And YET, YOU KNOW that I gave the example of Thomas or Scalia posing for photo ops, say, breaking ground on sections of the Keystone Pipeline where states had made those easements legal themselves, WHILE A QUESTION OF "SHOULD ALL STATES BE FORCED TO ACCEPT THAT EASMENT" WAS PENDING.

I 'know' that in your analogy, Scalia and Thomas would be on the board of directors for the Keystone Pipleline for 40 years. As they've have been active participants in one half of the issue for decades.

If officiating a wedding for a few minutes creates a bias worthy of impeachment, then surely being a participant in a 'traditional' marriage for 40 years would create a bias that is orders and orders of magnitude worse. By your own logic, neither Scalia nor Thomas should have been allowed anywhere near the Obergefell case. And should have recused themselves immediately.

But they didn't. And you're perfectly cool with that. As even you don't buy your bullshit.

We're in luck! As neither do I.

 

[Silhouette]

Saw a discussion on Bill O's show of exactly this topic.

 

[Silhouette]

If officiating a wedding for a few minutes creates a bias worthy of impeachment, then surely being a participant in a 'traditional' marriage for 40 years would create a bias that is orders and orders of magnitude worse....

Again, when Scalia was married, the question of fundamentally restructuring marriage to render kids in it fatherless or motherless was not even dreamed of. Are you suggesting he was incapable of weighing that question objectively? You might have a point if you saw a picture of him in 2013 or 2014 in a picket line with other real marriage folks with a sign that said "down with gay marriage". But you didn't see that.

Instead you saw the opposite crime of a Justice. You saw them with a "picket sign" saying "yes! to gay marriage". And that is what this thread is all about. Only presiding over a gay marriage, wherever that happened while the quesiton was pending, was even more of an arrogant display. It was more like Kagan and Ginsburg were holding a highway billboard that said the same thing.

That type of arrogance is simply inexcusable. Supreme Court Justices while a question is pending are not allowed to display public and flagrant bias towards one party or another. Near as I can tell I never saw a picture of Scalia in a real marriage picket line protesting gay sex marriage.

 

[kiwiman127]

Should Scalia and Thomas recused themselves from the Citizens Untied decision? After all, they are butt-buddies with the Koch boys that have pledged nearly $ 1 billion for the 2016 campaign season.

 

[Syriusly]

The churches are not "quasi-Christian" sects, they include The United Church of Canada, the largest Protestant denomination in Canada.

UCC is about as mainstream as it gets. And it's certainly larger than the supposedly Christian sects in the U.S. which consider baking a cake for a gay wedding, sinful.

Interesting that you have to cite the more obscure Gospels...

Let's see...who is bigger with more influence, the Vatican or the UCC?

So, next up is the cult of LGBT telling Christians which of the New Testament Gospels to pay attention to and which to ignore; or else punishable by law?

Jude was Jesus's personal servant, daily companion, friend and close confidant. Jude's first passage is about how God will punish Christians who fail to stop the spread of any homosexual cultural invasion. Marriage is the hub of any culture.

No...no. This is loggerhead time. Not some obscure passage about eating pork in the Old Testament. This is Jesus's right hand man in the New Testament warning Christians of eternal damnation should they fail to heed the warnings in Jude 1. It's a mortal sin. Soon the Pope will make an official annoucement to catholics. In fact, I'm suprised the Vatican hasn't done so already. There are so many people disgusted and shocked by this imposition of a cult upon Faith's values and democracy itself, that you'd think if they ever wanted to recruit more catholics, they'd strike while the iron is hot.

We'll see. Gonna be a long, hot Summer...

Returning to the topic, if the Ruling on Friday were reversed and the states won the right to define marriage 5-4 for the sake of the best interest of its most important components (children) and let's say Scalia and Thomas had been photographed in a Christian picket line protesting gay marriage in all 50 states at a demonstration in DC last year, would gays be calling for their recusal and withdrawel of votes?

I think the answer would probably be yes. Don't you?

There is no 'withdrawal of votes' - once the vote is cast it is cast.

This will be a long hot Summer of Silhouette's complete meltdown.

 

[Syriusly]

If officiating a wedding for a few minutes creates a bias worthy of impeachment, then surely being a participant in a 'traditional' marriage for 40 years would create a bias that is orders and orders of magnitude worse....

Again, when Scalia was married, the question of fundamentally restructuring marriage to render kids in it fatherless or motherless was not even dreamed of. .

Which of course- allowing people of the same gender to marry does not do.

Most gay couples who marry will never become parents.

And those gay couples who do have children- denying them marriage just means that their children will be denied married parents- doesn't change who is parenting them at all.

Just more of Silhouettes' 'hate the homosexuals' spiel.

 

[JoeB131]

There is no 'withdrawal of votes' - once the vote is cast it is cast.

This will be a long hot Summer of Silhouette's complete meltdown.

Maybe we should give him a suicide prevention hotline number.

 

[Silhouette]

The founder and president of a coalition of black pastors has called upon U.S. Supreme Court Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan to recuse themselves from the same-sex marriage case that is currently before the high court CAAP Calls on Justices Ginsburg and Kagan to Recuse Themselves from Same-Sex Marriage Decision - Breitbart

Rep. Steve King said:
“That provision [impeachment] does exist, and let’s hear what the public has to say. If that were put up before me today, and I think I mentioned Ginsburg and Kagan as being two that had been conducting same-sex marriages on their spare time and did not recuse themselves, I would put up the vote to remove them from office. And I’d like to see that case heard again Rep. Steve King Says Impeach Kagan and GinsburgOver Gay Marriage Decision

“Both of these justices’ personal and private actions that actively endorse gay marriage clearly indicate how they would vote on same-sex marriage cases before the Supreme Court,” said AFA President Tim Wildmon. “Congress has directed that federal judicial officers must disqualify themselves from hearing cases in specified circumstances. Both Kagan and Ginsburg have not only been partial to same-sex marriage but they have also proven themselves to be activists in favor of it. In order to ensure the Court’s integrity and impartiality, both should recuse themselves from same-sex marriage cases. Congress has an obligation to Americans to see that members of the Supreme Court are held to the highest standards of integrity. The law demands it, and the people deserve it.” Kagan and Ginsburg Recuse Yourselves

2009 Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co.
Here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/08-22.pdf
...says that any presiding judge, justice, commissioner etc. etc. etc. must recuse themselves from a case if they have an obvious discernable bias towards or against one set of litigants. There couldn't be a more textbook case of need for recusal than Ginsburg and Kagan sitting on the gay marriage vs states' rights hearing last Spring. The Massey case was about campaign contributions but the premise used to sustain the conclusions was "no judge may indicate discernable bias, ever". If so they must recuse. And if they don't recuse and the wronged set of litigants request, the case has to be retried.

What is critical to remember is that the obvious bias of Ginsburg and Kagan made the difference in how this case turned out...whaddya know? ....it went they way they'd been publicly-advocating for before they Heard it..

Shocker!..

 

[bodecea]

Saw a discussion on Bill O's show of exactly this topic.

Oh...that makes it so much more real.

 

[Syriusly]

What is critical to remember..

Is that Silhouette is a looney homophobic bigot.

 

[Silhouette]

Saw a discussion on Bill O's show of exactly this topic.

Oh...that makes it so much more real.

Will you be saying that when the first formal hearings on Kagan and Ginsburg are launched by a republican-dominated Congress in 2017?

Please list the reasons you have why a republican-heavy (significantly so) Congress in 2017 would not launch to recuse two Justices the party generally despises anyway, using rock-solid grounds to impeach if not them, their votes from the Spring 2015 Hearing on gay marriage and either retry the case or take the final tally down to 4-3 opposed to removing the decision from states?

Please tell me why a Congress with a heavy GOP makeup would not sieze any (especially rock solid and publicly supported...evidenced by the fact they took a majority) opportunity to remove two liberal fascists from the Court and replace them with two of their own fast-tracked appointments for life?

Use as much detail in your answers as possible. Thanks.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Will you be saying that when the first formal hearings on Kagan and Ginsburg are launched by a republican-dominated Congress in 2017?

You said that in January 2015 the GOP Congress would begin impeachment procedures on the Court of Appeals Judges that ruled that same-sex marriage bans were unconstitutional.

How'd that work out for you?


>>>

 

[Syriusly]

Saw a discussion on Bill O's show of exactly this topic.

Oh...that makes it so much more real.

Will you be saying that when the first formal hearings on Kagan and Ginsburg are launched by a republican-dominated Congress in 2017?
.

Since your record of predictions is one of 100% failure- we can be assured by your prediction that no such thing will ever happen.

And based upon your predictions, Republicans now appear to be facing losing control of Congress.

 

[Silhouette]

You said that in January 2015 the GOP Congress would begin impeachment procedures on the Court of Appeals Judges that ruled that same-sex marriage bans were unconstitutional.

How'd that work out for you?

Election 2014....How'd that work out for you? You can only wield power as long as you hold power..

 

[WorldWatcher]

You said that in January 2015 the GOP Congress would begin impeachment procedures on the Court of Appeals Judges that ruled that same-sex marriage bans were unconstitutional.

How'd that work out for you?

Election 2014....How'd that work out for you? You can only wield power as long as you hold power..

Being a registered Republican since 1978, just fine.

If the social authoritarian wing of the party would realize society has desire to discriminate against homosexuals and start focusing on important issues like illegal aliens, the debt, and job creation (here in the US, not exporting work overseas) it would be even better.


But now, people like you will push for NOM's pledge to actively support an amendment to the US constitution to exclude same-sex couples from Civil Marriage which will drive younger voters into the arms of the Democrats.


>>>>

 

[Syriusly]

You said that in January 2015 the GOP Congress would begin impeachment procedures on the Court of Appeals Judges that ruled that same-sex marriage bans were unconstitutional.

How'd that work out for you?

Election 2014....How'd that work out for you? You can only wield power as long as you hold power..

And where is the push for impeachment?

GOP majority in House and Senate- and no interest in impeachment.

Just your pipe dream.

Along with your wierd fantasies of the ruling being reversed.