Skylar
Diamond Member
- Jul 5, 2014
- 51,401
- 15,068
- 2,180
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.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I am shocked "shadow bias" hasn't been mentioned yet.
Why are you too cowardly to admit your bigotry?The election is in november.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.
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?
To a, what are you - 12?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?
Oh boy. He we go. The USMB Queen of Denial and Butthurt is going to cry about this for decades
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.
This is politics. And like the other side said, it's a culture war.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
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.
Emily, what kind of drugs are you taking..
. My mommy didn't drop me on my head when I was born..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.
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.
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.
Remember, Ruth Bader Ginsburg may not be completely sober.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.
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.
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...Remember, Ruth Bader Ginsburg may not be completely sober.
Remember, Ruth Bader Ginsburg may not be completely sober.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.
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.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...Remember, Ruth Bader Ginsburg may not be completely sober.
As it turns out, I can...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...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.
..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?"
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.