Breaking: Justice Kagan Must Recuse Herself From Upcoming Gay Marriage Hearing

[Silhouette]

One only imagines the meltdown Sil is going to have when SCOTUS strikes down the last gay marriage bans in the few states that still have them.

You used the word "when". There are vast numbers of states (around 35) that have marriage defined correctly as it always has been: man/woman, father/mother, dad/mom. Forced-dismantling without a Hearing on the merits to overturn Windsor 2013, done by lower circuit judges citing meritless shadowy refusals of stays does not count as due process or current law.

Would you be so certain of your conclusions because you know that two Justices have displayed publicly their bias on the fed looming over the dismantling of the word "marriage" to institutionalize subjecting kids not having either a mom or dad in the grand new experiment?

Agreed, it would be hard not to anticipate the bias of SCOTUS with the shadowy meritless stays aimed at forced erosion of state laws so they could later write an Opinion that says "gee so many gay people are married now with kids that we have to force it on the other 35 states"...or two Justices presiding over a gay marriage while the question of fed forcing the dismantling of the word marriage is yet to be Heard..

 

[mdk]

One only imagines the meltdown Sil is going to have when SCOTUS strikes down the last gay marriage bans in the few states that still have them.

You used the word "when". There are vast numbers of states (around 35) that have marriage defined correctly as it always has been: man/woman, father/mother, dad/mom. Forced-dismantling without a Hearing on the mertis to overturn Windsor 2013, done by lower circuit judges citing meritless shadowy refusals of stays does not count as due process or current law.

Would you be so certain of your conclusions because you know that two Justices have displayed publicly their bias on the fed looming over the dismantling of the word "marriage" to institutionalize subjecting kids not having either a mom or dad in the grand new experiment?

Agreed, it would be hard not to anticipate the bias of SCOTUS with the shadowy meritless stays aimed at forced erosion of state laws so they could later write an Opinion that says "gee so many gay people are married now with kids that we have to force it on the other 35 states"...or two Justices presiding over a gay marriage while the question of fed forcing the dismantling of the word marriage is yet to be Heard..

One doesn't need to be a mother or a father to get married in this nation. Gays raising children isn't some grand new experiment like you foolishly claim b/c they have been doing so for a very long time. Get over it.

As usual you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

 

[Skylar]

One only imagines the meltdown Sil is going to have when SCOTUS strikes down the last gay marriage bans in the few states that still have them.

You used the word "when".

Yup. The USSC has preserved every lower court ruling overturning gay marriage bans. And denied stay for every state seeking to protect gay marriage bans.

Seems pretty clear which direction the court is leaning.

There are vast numbers of states (around 35) that have marriage defined correctly as it always has been: man/woman, father/mother, dad/mom. Forced-dismantling without a Hearing on the merits to overturn Windsor 2013, done by lower circuit judges citing meritless shadowy refusals of stays does not count as due process or current law.

An argument that might have some relevaance if any of the lower court rulings overturned Windsor. But none did. Every lower court ruling overturning gay marriage bans did so on the basis of the violation of constitutional guarantees.

And Windsor explicitly found that state marriage laws are subject to constitutional guarantees;

Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States,” Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393.

Windsor v. US

Just because you pretend constitutional guarantees doesn't mean they magically disappear. Or that the courts are similarly obligated to pretend with you.

Remember, Sil...and this point is fundamental: you don't know what you're talking about. Seriously.

 

[Silhouette]

It's not what I'm talking about...it's what Ted Olsen was arguing in 2009 as his premise that won the case. He argued, successfully, that if a judge showed apparent bias or engendered a "suspicion of bias" in a party to a case, then the judge had to recuse himself/herself. In that particular case the premise was applied to campaign funding.

In this case it would be applied to Kagan and Ginsburg as federal entities looming with approval over the dismantling of the word (legally or not) in a state before the Hearing about a federal-mandate to dismantle the word "marriage" should be imposed upon the states.

The 2009 Finding by SCOTUS, approved of in the "aye" by Ginsburg and Kagan if memory serves, applies to all judges in the US legal system. They are not above their own law.

 

[Skylar]

It's not what I'm talking about...it's what Ted Olsen was arguing in 2009 as his premise that won the case. He argued, successfully, that if a judge showed apparent bias or engendered a "suspicion of bias" in a party to a case, then the judge had to recuse himself/herself. In that particular case the premise was applied to campaign funding.

In cases with Elected Judges......who receive campaign contributions. Neither Kagan nor Ginsberg were elected. Neither Kagan nor Ginsberg receive campaign

In this case it would be applied to Kagan and Ginsburg as federal entities looming with approval over the dismantling of the word (legally or not) in a state before the Hearing about a federal-mandate to dismantle the word "marriage" should be imposed upon the states.

Amazing, you're wrong twice in only one sentence.

First, the question before the court has nothing to do with 'redefining marriage'. Its about the application of the 14th amendment:

[quote:"(ORDER LIST: 574 U.S.)"]]
The cases are consolidated and the petitions for writs of
certiorari are granted limited to the following 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?

http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/011615zr_f2q3.pdf
[/quote]

Second, its impossible to show a bias against same sex marriage bans by officiating a wedding in Maryland or DC as there are no same sex marriage bans in Maryland or DC.

 

[Silhouette]

Better question than all of those, why are you discussing the arguments of the merits when this thread is about displaying bias and mandatory recusal before the arguments are Heard?

And..

Where in the 14th does it talk about some lifestyles that are repugnant to the majority getting special protections and priveleges while other lifestyles repugnant to the majority (arbitrarily) do not?

 

[mdk]

Better question than all of those, why are you discussing the arguments of the merits when this thread is about displaying bias and mandatory recusal before the arguments are Heard?

And..

Where in the 14th does it talk about some lifestyles that are repugnant to the majority getting special protections and priveleges while other lifestyles repugnant to the majority (arbitrarily) do not?

The merits of the 2009 finding you cite do not support your absurd claims of bias. You can't even demonstrate that such a bias even exists. I can understand why you don't want to discuss the merits of that case b/c it blows your assertions to smithereens.

I do love that in a post where you chide others for being allegedly off-topic, you yourself than go off-topic with a question about the 14th Amendment. I thought this thread was about bias? Too funny.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I do love that in a post where you chide others for being allegedly off-topic, you yourself than go off-topic with a question about the 14th Amendment. I thought this thread was about bias? Too funny.

Maybe Sil is really Hillary...

You know, do as I say, not as I do.


>>>>

 

[bendog]

I do love that in a post where you chide others for being allegedly off-topic, you yourself than go off-topic with a question about the 14th Amendment. I thought this thread was about bias? Too funny.

Maybe Sil is really Hillary...

You know, do as I say, not as I do.


>>>>

Nah, Sil can't be Hillary. If she were, most of the posts would be deleted and shredded. (-:

 

[Silhouette]

Spamming again eh?

 

[Syriusly]

Where in the 14th does it talk about some lifestyles that are repugnant to the majority getting special protections and priveleges while other lifestyles repugnant to the majority (arbitrarily) do not?

The current court cases do not have anything to do with 'lifestyles that are repugnant to the majority'.

 

[Silhouette]

Better question than all of those, why are you discussing the arguments of the merits when this thread is about displaying bias and mandatory recusal before the arguments are Heard?
And..
Where in the 14th does it talk about some lifestyles that are repugnant to the majority getting special protections and priveleges while other lifestyles repugnant to the majority (arbitrarily) do not?

The merits of the 2009 finding you cite do not support your absurd claims of bias. You can't even demonstrate that such a bias even exists. I can understand why you don't want to discuss the merits of that case b/c it blows your assertions to smithereens...

Two Justices (as federal entities of power) presided over a dismantled definition of marriage, as the issue of whether or not the fed should mandate the forced-dismantling of the definition of the word marriage to states, before the merits of that Hearing are argued. That is an exhibition of bias.

2009 Finding says no judge may exhibit bias before the merits are argued. That was including apparent or even reasonable suspicion of bias. That is what the winning premise included. The exhibition of bias by these two Justices was overt and obvious. No one thereafter would doubt how their vote would be case on a federal "blessing' (mandate) on forced-redaction of the word "marriage" upon states. Throngs of your ilk here dance around in a veritable jubilee stating that the Decision is already a done-deal. There's a reason that is the case. Their names are Justices Kagan and Ginsburg.

One also wonders how much influence those two had on the denial of stays without explanation that is calculated to erode state laws and pack the numbers of illegal "gay marriages" in the 20-something states affected thusly?

 

[mdk]

Better question than all of those, why are you discussing the arguments of the merits when this thread is about displaying bias and mandatory recusal before the arguments are Heard?
And..
Where in the 14th does it talk about some lifestyles that are repugnant to the majority getting special protections and priveleges while other lifestyles repugnant to the majority (arbitrarily) do not?

The merits of the 2009 finding you cite do not support your absurd claims of bias. You can't even demonstrate that such a bias even exists. I can understand why you don't want to discuss the merits of that case b/c it blows your assertions to smithereens...

Two Justices (as federal entities of power) presided over a dismantled definition of marriage, as the issue of whether or not the fed should mandate the forced-dismantling of the definition of the word marriage to states, before the merits of that Hearing are argued. That is an exhibition of bias.

2009 Finding says no judge may exhibit bias before the merits are argued. That was including apparent or even reasonable suspicion of bias. That is what the winning premise included. The exhibition of bias by these two Justices was overt and obvious. No one thereafter would doubt how their vote would be case on a federal "blessing' (mandate) on forced-redaction of the word "marriage" upon states. Throngs of your ilk here dance around in a veritable jubilee stating that the Decision is already a done-deal. There's a reason that is the case. Their names are Justices Kagan and Ginsburg.

One also wonders how much influence those two had on the denial of stays without explanation that is calculated to erode state laws and pack the numbers of illegal "gay marriages" in the 20-something states affected thusly?

As you well know; but choose to ignore anyway, the 2009 finding you speak of deals with elected judges and the campaign donations they have received. Neither of which apply in this case. You also ignore the fact that the locations of these two wedding were in jurisdictions where gay marriage is legal, one passed by the people and other passed by their representatives. This bias you claim doesn't exist but I am sure it does In your own head. You are free to be as obtuse as you wish, the rest of us on the other hand are under no such obligation.

 

[Syriusly]

Better question than all of those, why are you discussing the arguments of the merits when this thread is about displaying bias and mandatory recusal before the arguments are Heard?
And..
Where in the 14th does it talk about some lifestyles that are repugnant to the majority getting special protections and priveleges while other lifestyles repugnant to the majority (arbitrarily) do not?

The merits of the 2009 finding you cite do not support your absurd claims of bias. You can't even demonstrate that such a bias even exists. I can understand why you don't want to discuss the merits of that case b/c it blows your assertions to smithereens...

Two Justices (as federal entities of power) presided over a dismantled definition of marriage,

Who are you speaking of?

Two justices officiated at two legal marriages, under the laws of the State(and District) they were in.

As usual you just are making crap up.

 

[Silhouette]

As you well know; but choose to ignore anyway, the 2009 finding you speak of deals with elected judges and the campaign donations they have received. Neither of which apply in this case. You also ignore the fact that the locations of these two wedding were in jurisdictions where gay marriage is legal, one passed by the people and other passed by their representatives. This bias you claim doesn't exist but I am sure it does In your own head. You are free to be as obtuse as you wish, the rest of us on the other hand are under no such obligation.

1. Are you suggesting that non-elected judges like ones that are appointed to fill vacant seats all over the country are exempt from the 2009 Finding that appearance or suspicion of bias must mandate recusal? Seriously? You're saying that some judges are above that law?

2. The WINNING PREMISE of the 2009 case that just happened to apply to campaign contributions as a source of bias(among a sea of potential sources that could be cited, like family relations or a personal vendetta or an expressed political crusade etc. etc.) was the mere appearance or suspicion of bias from an objective onlooker.

3. Nobody on earth would doubt after seeing Ginsburg or Kagan preside as a federal entity blessing the redaction of the world "marriage" that they would do anything but vote for the fed presiding over the mandating of the redaction in that same form they presided over/blessed publicly.

 

[AceRothstein]

Spamming again eh?

Yes, you keep spamming the board with the same ******* tired threads/posts.

 

[mdk]

As you well know; but choose to ignore anyway, the 2009 finding you speak of deals with elected judges and the campaign donations they have received. Neither of which apply in this case. You also ignore the fact that the locations of these two wedding were in jurisdictions where gay marriage is legal, one passed by the people and other passed by their representatives. This bias you claim doesn't exist but I am sure it does In your own head. You are free to be as obtuse as you wish, the rest of us on the other hand are under no such obligation.

1. Are you suggesting that non-elected judges like ones that are appointed to fill vacant seats all over the country are exempt from the 2009 Finding that appearance or suspicion of bias must mandate recusal? Seriously? You're saying that some judges are above that law?

2. The WINNING PREMISE of the 2009 case that just happened to apply to campaign contributions as a source of bias(among a sea of potential sources that could be cited, like family relations or a personal vendetta or an expressed political crusade etc. etc.) was the mere appearance or suspicion of bias from an objective onlooker.

3. Nobody on earth would doubt after seeing Ginsburg or Kagan preside as a federal entity blessing the redaction of the world "marriage" that they would do anything but vote for the fed presiding over the mandating of the redaction in that same form they presided over/blessed publicly.

What I am saying is that you do not know what the hell you are talking about. The 2009 finding applies to elected judges that have accepted campaign donations, neither of which is the case concerning Ginsberg and Kagan Your modus operandi is to misrepresent or ignore anything that doesn't fit your anti-gay narrative. The Justices are not going to recuse themselves over a bias that only exists in your terribly narrow and foolish mind. It is plain for all to see that you just crafting excuses to comfort yourself in the likelihood that the June ruling will not be in favor.

 

[Silhouette]

As you well know; but choose to ignore anyway, the 2009 finding you speak of deals with elected judges and the campaign donations they have received. Neither of which apply in this case. You also ignore the fact that the locations of these two wedding were in jurisdictions where gay marriage is legal, one passed by the people and other passed by their representatives. This bias you claim doesn't exist but I am sure it does In your own head. You are free to be as obtuse as you wish, the rest of us on the other hand are under no such obligation.

1. Are you suggesting that non-elected judges like ones that are appointed to fill vacant seats all over the country are exempt from the 2009 Finding that appearance or suspicion of bias must mandate recusal? Seriously? You're saying that some judges are above that law?

2. The WINNING PREMISE of the 2009 case that just happened to apply to campaign contributions as a source of bias(among a sea of potential sources that could be cited, like family relations or a personal vendetta or an expressed political crusade etc. etc.) was the mere appearance or suspicion of bias from an objective onlooker.

3. Nobody on earth would doubt after seeing Ginsburg or Kagan preside as a federal entity blessing the redaction of the world "marriage" that they would do anything but vote for the fed presiding over the mandating of the redaction in that same form they presided over/blessed publicly.

What I am saying is that you do not know what the hell you are talking about. The 2009 finding applies to elected judges that have accepted campaign donations, neither of which is the case concerning Ginsberg and Kagan Your modus operandi is to misrepresent or ignore anything that doesn't fit your anti-gay narrative. The Justices are not going to recuse themselves over a bias that only exists in your terribly narrow and foolish mind. It is plain for all to see that you just crafting excuses to comfort yourself in the likelihood that the June ruling will not be in favor.

Any prior ruling that has bearing upon law in general is not limited in such a specific way. It is ABSOLUTELY ABSURD to assert that SCOTUS found that a judge should recuse themselves ONLY if the appearance of bias or suspicion of bias surrounded ONLY campaign contributions. The conclusion from that absurd rendering would mean that if apparent or reasonably suspected bias existed for any other reason, a party to a case would not have a right that that judge recuse himself. Bias is bias is bias is bias. No judge may have it or exhibit it.

Your EQUALLY ABSURD conclusion that the 2009 Finding only applies to just some judges is the more laughable of the two inane renderings.. Oh sure. We have different rules of protection of due process depending I suppose on what day of the week a judge was elected too?..oh...and a freeforall for any judge appointed to his/her position. Anything goes!

 

[mdk]

As you well know; but choose to ignore anyway, the 2009 finding you speak of deals with elected judges and the campaign donations they have received. Neither of which apply in this case. You also ignore the fact that the locations of these two wedding were in jurisdictions where gay marriage is legal, one passed by the people and other passed by their representatives. This bias you claim doesn't exist but I am sure it does In your own head. You are free to be as obtuse as you wish, the rest of us on the other hand are under no such obligation.

1. Are you suggesting that non-elected judges like ones that are appointed to fill vacant seats all over the country are exempt from the 2009 Finding that appearance or suspicion of bias must mandate recusal? Seriously? You're saying that some judges are above that law?

2. The WINNING PREMISE of the 2009 case that just happened to apply to campaign contributions as a source of bias(among a sea of potential sources that could be cited, like family relations or a personal vendetta or an expressed political crusade etc. etc.) was the mere appearance or suspicion of bias from an objective onlooker.

3. Nobody on earth would doubt after seeing Ginsburg or Kagan preside as a federal entity blessing the redaction of the world "marriage" that they would do anything but vote for the fed presiding over the mandating of the redaction in that same form they presided over/blessed publicly.

What I am saying is that you do not know what the hell you are talking about. The 2009 finding applies to elected judges that have accepted campaign donations, neither of which is the case concerning Ginsberg and Kagan Your modus operandi is to misrepresent or ignore anything that doesn't fit your anti-gay narrative. The Justices are not going to recuse themselves over a bias that only exists in your terribly narrow and foolish mind. It is plain for all to see that you just crafting excuses to comfort yourself in the likelihood that the June ruling will not be in favor.

Any prior ruling that has bearing upon law in general is not limited in such a specific way. It is ABSOLUTELY ABSURD to assert that SCOTUS found that a judge should recuse themselves ONLY if the appearance of bias or suspicion of bias surrounded ONLY campaign contributions. The conclusion from that absurd rendering would mean that if apparent or reasonably suspected bias existed for any other reason, a party to a case would not have a right that that judge recuse himself. Bias is bias is bias is bias. No judge may have it or exhibit it.

Your EQUALLY ABSURD conclusion that the 2009 Finding only applies to just some judges is the more laughable of the two inane renderings.. Oh sure. We have different rules of protection of due process depending I suppose on what day of the week a judge was elected too?

 

[Skylar]

Better question than all of those, why are you discussing the arguments of the merits when this thread is about displaying bias and mandatory recusal before the arguments are Heard?
And..
Where in the 14th does it talk about some lifestyles that are repugnant to the majority getting special protections and priveleges while other lifestyles repugnant to the majority (arbitrarily) do not?

The merits of the 2009 finding you cite do not support your absurd claims of bias. You can't even demonstrate that such a bias even exists. I can understand why you don't want to discuss the merits of that case b/c it blows your assertions to smithereens...

Two Justices (as federal entities of power) presided over a dismantled definition of marriage, as the issue of whether or not the fed should mandate the forced-dismantling of the definition of the word marriage to states, before the merits of that Hearing are argued. That is an exhibition of bias.

Nope. These are the questions before the court:

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?

(ORDER LIST: 574 U.S.)

As same sex marriage was already legal in both Maryland and DC, these two questions are irrelevant to the both Maryland and DC.

You can't demonstrate a bias against same sex marriage bans when there are no same sex marriage bans. Making your 'bias' claim an impossibility.

2009 Finding says no judge may exhibit bias before the merits are argued.

The 2009 case was in regard to elected judges and campaign contributions. Neither Kagan nor Ginsberg were elected. Neither take campaign contributions. Destroying your argument yet again.

Again, Silo....your claims are irrelevant even hypothetically.