Yes, everyone pretty much did know how the decision would come down since two of the Justices (as living embodiments of the last stop in federal justice) were openly performing "gay weddings" as the question was pending before their Court. That question being "should the Fed overrule (preside over the) states on gay marriage?".....
Alas, you forgot one small detail: the weddings officiated were in states that had already voted same sex marriage in. And Windsor makes it ludicrously clear that the States have every authority to decide that same sex marriage should be authorized.
56 times, as you've noted yourself. Thus, there were no states to 'overrule'. As the states in question had already decided for themselves. Killing your argument.
...Caperton vs A.T. Massey Coal (2009 USSC) states that any judge who the public would have reason to believe would be biased on a case, must recuse themselves from that case.
Nope. Caperton was about an elected judge who had received major contributions from a party to a case the judge was adjudicating.
The Supreme Court judges aren't elected. They've received no campaign contributions. Nor have they received anything from any party to the Obergefell decision. Killing your argument yet again.
Be that as it may, that Obergefell was a mistrial, even if Obama had clear "thumbs up" from two of the Justices, there were still 7 more supposedly undecided before the Hearing...as the law requires them to be. That "everyone pretty much knew how the case would come down" IS THE ISSUE OF WRONGDOING. Nobody should know how a case will come down before it does. Especially at the SCOTUS level. And the executive should N-E-V-E-R give the impression that it was "in the know" before the case was decided!!
Of course it wasn't a 'mistrial'. You don't have a clue what a 'mistrial' is. You didn't see the Obergefell ruling coming because you equate your desires with the future. Where any outcome must match what you want to happen.
Alas, that's not how reality works. The evidence is what suggests future outcomes. With the evidence of the Obergefell ruling coming down in favor of same sex marriage being so varied and vast that you'd have to be blind to have missed them. For example, Justice Scalia's dissent in Windsor:
Scalia said:
In my opinion, however, the view that this Court will take of state prohibition of same-sex marriage is indicated beyond mistaking by today’s opinion. As I have said, the real rationale of today’s opinion, whatever disappearing trail of its legalistic argle-bargle one chooses to follow, is that DOMA is motivated by "‘bare . . . desire to harm’ couples in same-sex marriages. How easy it is, indeed how inevitable, to reach the same conclusion with regard to state laws denying same-sex couples marital status.”
The words 'beyond mistaking' and 'inevitable' would have been your first clue.
But you insisted that Scalia was wrong, and you knew better.
So....um, how'd that work out for you?
Everyone pretty much knew...yes...that is the essence of the treachery right there...
That's the essence of your willful ignorance. You ignored anything that didn't affirm what you wanted to believe.
The rest of us didn't.
