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

[Syriusly]

SCOTUS can certainly demonstrate "an overt affiliation or bias" based on Constitutional clarity. The 14th is about equal treatment. Your ilk have not been able to bring forth an actual compelling interest to prohibit marriage equality. Your continued evasions and misdirections and outright lies have failed to erode our citizenry's faith in the American judicial system and SCOTUS.

The American public, therefore, will wholeheartedly, with a fanatical minority in opposition, and openly embrace national marriage equality this June.

And nowhere in the Constitution is it written that a minority behavioral group (that doesn't even clearly understand itself...Anne Heche...) repugnant to the majority seeking to torpedo.

Since that is not the question before the court- doesn't really matter.

 

[Skylar]

SCOTUS can certainly demonstrate "an overt affiliation or bias" based on Constitutional clarity. The 14th is about equal treatment. Your ilk have not been able to bring forth an actual compelling interest to prohibit marriage equality. Your continued evasions and misdirections and outright lies have failed to erode our citizenry's faith in the American judicial system and SCOTUS.

The American public, therefore, will wholeheartedly, with a fanatical minority in opposition, and openly embrace national marriage equality this June.

And nowhere in the Constitution is it written that a minority behavioral group (that doesn't even clearly understand itself...Anne Heche...) repugnant to the majority seeking to torpedo the physical structure of the word "marriage" has a "right" to force that federally upon the states where motherless daughters and fatherless sons have to become an institution there without the permission of the governed.

The constitution doesn't mention marriage at all. It does, however, mandate equal protection under the law. If you're going to deny marriage to same sex couples you need a very good reason, a valid legislative end, and a legitimate state interest.

And gay marriage bans have none. The constitution need not list each and every law specifically to require that ALL laws be applied equally.

"Equal treatment"? You mean like the blind being able to get a drivers license, or homosexuals play-acting mom and dad to kids?

Both are very dangerous propositions to the priveleges they seek to turn into "rights".

More pseudo legal gibberish. You're literally equating the danger of a blind person driving on the freeway with a pair of lesbians raising their own child. Which is nonsense.

Again, you're not going to be able to convince rational people of your claims by making shrilly hysteric and irrational argument. And no judge is going to accept your gibberish as a valid legal argument. All you're doing is lying to yourself, trying to justify to yourself why the June ruling is going to be against you.

Which doesn't actually effect the outcome of any case.

 

[Syriusly]

Your "save the children" argument has been exploded several times. You have never cared about heteros exploiting children at a larger per capita average and a far greater number annually.

Stop yer whining.

What does child exploitation have to do with their natural right to a mother and father? .

"natural right to a mother and father"- I think that the 100,000 children each year who have been abandoned by their 'mother and father' would appreciate having that 'natural right'......but that is not happening- is it?

I think that the millions of children being raised by one parent, with no other parent involved would love to know more about that 'natural right'.

But wait- that 'natural right' apparently only occurs when the children are being raised by gay parents- and apparently the only purpose of that 'right' is to prevent those parents from marrying- to ensure those children cannot have married parents.

That is the wierdest natural right........it comes down to the 'natural right to prevent the children of gay parents from marrying"

 

[Silhouette]

Why can Scalia rule on Gun Control Issues when he goes hunting with Dick Cheney?

Why can Thomas rule on the PPACA?

Meme Alleges Clarence Thomas s Wife Got 1.5M From Healthcare Act Foes - US News

Groundswell Ginni Thomas And Continued Conflicts Of Interest For Justice Clarence Thomas Blog Media Matters for America

You are arguing the "two wrongs make a right" angle. Good luck.

The point of this thread is that Kagan and Ginsburg knew the pending question of law in this instance is "should the fed bless the radical redaction of the physical structure of the word "marriage" to include fatherless or motherless "marriages". And so knowing and so pending and so yet to be Heard, on this radical departure that really just dissolves the public's understanting of the word "marriage" altogether and that deprives sons of fathers and daughters of mothers as an institution, Justices Kagan and Ginsburg did wilfully and knowingly as federal entities, preside over (blessed) the radical redaction of the word marriage. So doing, they left no doubt whatsoever in anyone's mind how they will cast their vote by June. There will be zero deliberation on their behalf. The Court might as well issue the Decision 5 minutes after the Hearing for all they care.

And that is the problem. The public must never be certain how a Justice will cast their vote. Using past transgressions of other Justices in this way does not excuse a new trend in the present or future.

 

[mdk]

Why can Scalia rule on Gun Control Issues when he goes hunting with Dick Cheney?

Why can Thomas rule on the PPACA?

Meme Alleges Clarence Thomas s Wife Got 1.5M From Healthcare Act Foes - US News

Groundswell Ginni Thomas And Continued Conflicts Of Interest For Justice Clarence Thomas Blog Media Matters for America

You are arguing the "two wrongs make a right" angle. Good luck.

The point of this thread is that Kagan and Ginsburg knew the pending question of law in this instance is "should the fed bless the radical redaction of the physical structure of the word "marriage" to include fatherless or motherless "marriages". And so knowing and so pending and so yet to be Heard, on this radical departure that really just dissolves the public's understanting of the word "marriage" altogether and that deprives sons of fathers and daughters of mothers as an institution, Justices Kagan and Ginsburg did wilfully and knowingly as federal entities, preside over (blessed) the radical redaction of the word marriage. So doing, they left no doubt whatsoever in anyone's mind how they will cast their vote by June. There will be zero deliberation on their behalf. The Court might as well issue the Decision 5 minutes after the Hearing for all they care.

And that is the problem. The public must never be certain how a Justice will cast their vote. Using past transgressions of other Justices in this way does not excuse a new trend in the present or future.

That isn't the question pending before the court. The two actual questions pending before the court have been posted for you on countless occasions and by numerous posters.
It is clear you are just making shit up as you go along now. At least you'll have a little built-in excuse as to why your foolishness is likely to lose come June.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Why can Scalia rule on Gun Control Issues when he goes hunting with Dick Cheney?

Why can Thomas rule on the PPACA?

Meme Alleges Clarence Thomas s Wife Got 1.5M From Healthcare Act Foes - US News

Groundswell Ginni Thomas And Continued Conflicts Of Interest For Justice Clarence Thomas Blog Media Matters for America

You are arguing the "two wrongs make a right" angle. Good luck.

The point of this thread is that Kagan and Ginsburg knew the pending question of law in this instance is "should the fed bless the radical redaction of the physical structure of the word "marriage" to include fatherless or motherless "marriages". And so knowing and so pending and so yet to be Heard, on this radical departure that really just dissolves the public's understanting of the word "marriage" altogether and that deprives sons of fathers and daughters of mothers as an institution, Justices Kagan and Ginsburg did wilfully and knowingly as federal entities, preside over (blessed) the radical redaction of the word marriage. So doing, they left no doubt whatsoever in anyone's mind how they will cast their vote by June. There will be zero deliberation on their behalf. The Court might as well issue the Decision 5 minutes after the Hearing for all they care.

And that is the problem. The public must never be certain how a Justice will cast their vote. Using past transgressions of other Justices in this way does not excuse a new trend in the present or future.

Wow, a spinning rant - many words, but sadly the spin just can't turn. Many unions between same sex couples include natural born children of one or both of the partners, and a child adopted is in the eyes of the law, and in the eyes of all non bigots, is the child of the family.

The fact that Scalia and Thomas attend the Koch Brothers annual soiree in Palm Springs raises more concerns than a "blessing", whatever that has to do with law or justice.

The fact that the wife of Thomas is an avoid arch conservative and a leader on issues which have and will come before the court seems unseemly; the fact that Scalia and Cheney are long time pals and that Alito, Thomas, Scalia and possibly Roberts are members of the Federalist Society should concern all Americans.

But go on with your effort to attack the two new members of the court for their conflict of blessings, and dismiss out of hand actual conflicts which exist among the four firm conservative votes. A normal course for all hypocrites and conservatives.

 

[Skylar]

The point of this thread is that Kagan and Ginsburg knew the pending question of law in this instance is "should the fed bless the radical redaction of the physical structure of the word "marriage" to include fatherless or motherless "marriages".

There is no pending question of whether a State can vote in same sex marriage. Which both Maryland and DC did. Simply destroying your silly argument.

As you can't demonstrate a bias against same sex marriage bans......where no same sex marriage bans exist.

 

[Skylar]

That isn't the question pending before the court. The two actual questions pending before the court have been posted for you on countless occasions and by numerous posters.
It is clear you are just making shit up as you go along now. At least you'll have a little built-in excuse as to why your foolishness is likely to lose come June.

Bingo. What we're witnessing are the lies that Sil tells himself for why he's going to lose in June.

Reality has nothing to do with it. As he's literally made up his own supreme court, his own laws, his own questions before the court.

Frankly, we don't even need to be here for this.

 

[Silhouette]

You are arguing the "two wrongs make a right" angle. Good luck.

The point of this thread is that Kagan and Ginsburg knew the pending question of law in this instance is "should the fed bless the radical redaction of the physical structure of the word "marriage" to include fatherless or motherless "marriages". And so knowing and so pending and so yet to be Heard, on this radical departure that really just dissolves the public's understanting of the word "marriage" altogether and that deprives sons of fathers and daughters of mothers as an institution, Justices Kagan and Ginsburg did wilfully and knowingly as federal entities, preside over (blessed) the radical redaction of the word marriage. So doing, they left no doubt whatsoever in anyone's mind how they will cast their vote by June. There will be zero deliberation on their behalf. The Court might as well issue the Decision 5 minutes after the Hearing for all they care.

And that is the problem. The public must never be certain how a Justice will cast their vote. Using past transgressions of other Justices in this way does not excuse a new trend in the present or future.

Wow, a spinning rant - many words, but sadly the spin just can't turn. Many unions between same sex couples include natural born children of one or both of the partners, and a child adopted is in the eyes of the law, and in the eyes of all non bigots, is the child of the family.

The fact that Scalia and Thomas attend the Koch Brothers annual soiree in Palm Springs raises more concerns than a "blessing", whatever that has to do with law or justice. ....

The equivalent would be Scalia not merely using a gun hunting, it would be him selling a gun to a felon in a photo op. The specific question of law there being "gun control" not "if anyone at all can own and use a hunting rifle".

Ginsburg and Kagan weren't just merely private gay married themselves in a state where it was legal. They CONSPICIOUSLY presided over and blessed as federal entities, the redacted form of the word "marriage", while the specific question of law "should the fed preside over and bless the redacted word "marriage" was/is pending to be heard.

 

[mdk]

You are arguing the "two wrongs make a right" angle. Good luck.

The point of this thread is that Kagan and Ginsburg knew the pending question of law in this instance is "should the fed bless the radical redaction of the physical structure of the word "marriage" to include fatherless or motherless "marriages". And so knowing and so pending and so yet to be Heard, on this radical departure that really just dissolves the public's understanting of the word "marriage" altogether and that deprives sons of fathers and daughters of mothers as an institution, Justices Kagan and Ginsburg did wilfully and knowingly as federal entities, preside over (blessed) the radical redaction of the word marriage. So doing, they left no doubt whatsoever in anyone's mind how they will cast their vote by June. There will be zero deliberation on their behalf. The Court might as well issue the Decision 5 minutes after the Hearing for all they care.

And that is the problem. The public must never be certain how a Justice will cast their vote. Using past transgressions of other Justices in this way does not excuse a new trend in the present or future.

Wow, a spinning rant - many words, but sadly the spin just can't turn. Many unions between same sex couples include natural born children of one or both of the partners, and a child adopted is in the eyes of the law, and in the eyes of all non bigots, is the child of the family.

The fact that Scalia and Thomas attend the Koch Brothers annual soiree in Palm Springs raises more concerns than a "blessing", whatever that has to do with law or justice. ....

The equivalent would be Scalia not merely using a gun hunting, it would be him selling a gun to a felon in a photo op. The specific question of law there being "gun control" not "if anyone at all can own and use a hunting rifle".

Ginsburg and Kagan weren't just merely private gay married themselves in a state where it was legal. They CONSPICIOUSLY presided over and blessed as federal entities, the redacted form of the word "marriage", while the specific question of law "should the fed preside over and bless the redacted word "marriage" was/is pending to be heard.

Spamming the same shit every other post doesn't make it any more factual.

That is not the question pending before the court. That is a question you've pulled out of your ass.

 

[Skylar]

The point of this thread is that Kagan and Ginsburg knew the pending question of law in this instance is "should the fed bless the radical redaction of the physical structure of the word "marriage" to include fatherless or motherless "marriages".

Again, for the 5th time.....there is NO pending legal issue on whether States can vote in same sex marriage. Windsor v. US explicitly found that States could do this. Maryland and DC voted in same sex marriage. And it was Maryland DC respectively where Kagan and Ginsberg officiated weddings.

There was zero legal controversy, as there was no unresolved legal question involved. And you can't have a bias against same sex marriage bans....when there were no same sex marraige bans in either State/District.

Your 'logic' just doesn't work.

Ginsburg and Kagan weren't just merely private gay married themselves in a state where it was legal. They CONSPICIOUSLY presided over and blessed as federal entities, the redacted form of the word "marriage", while the specific question of law "should the fed preside over and bless the redacted word "marriage" was/is pending to be heard.

They performed weddings where those weddings were fully legal, and had been voted in as valid. Which is completely consistent with the Windsor ruling that found that States could vote in same sex marriage.

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

 

[Silhouette]

The point of this thread is that Kagan and Ginsburg knew the pending question of law in this instance is "should the fed bless the radical redaction of the physical structure of the word "marriage" to include fatherless or motherless "marriages".

Again, for the 5th time.....there is NO pending legal issue on whether States can vote in same sex marriage. Windsor v. US explicitly found that States could do this. Maryland and DC voted in same sex marriage. And it was Maryland DC respectively where Kagan and Ginsberg officiated weddings.

There was zero legal controversy, as there was no unresolved legal question involved. And you can't have a bias against same sex marriage bans....when there were no same sex marraige bans in either State/District.
You simply don't know what you're talking about.

Windsor found that states have the ultimate authority on marriage. That such a profound upheaval of the word "marriage" was best left up to the deliberations of the discreet communities. There was no Finding other than that. The conclusion was that if a state says "such and such is marriage" then the fed had to abide by it.

The exact question of law pending before the Court is whether or not states that have retained the common understanding of the word "marriage" may still be allowed to do so. The proposed redaction where sons would not have fathers and daughters would not have mothers as institutionalized "marriage" as mandated federally is precisely what will be argued and Decided by June this year.

 

[Skylar]

The point of this thread is that Kagan and Ginsburg knew the pending question of law in this instance is "should the fed bless the radical redaction of the physical structure of the word "marriage" to include fatherless or motherless "marriages".

Again, for the 5th time.....there is NO pending legal issue on whether States can vote in same sex marriage. Windsor v. US explicitly found that States could do this. Maryland and DC voted in same sex marriage. And it was Maryland DC respectively where Kagan and Ginsberg officiated weddings.

There was zero legal controversy, as there was no unresolved legal question involved. And you can't have a bias against same sex marriage bans....when there were no same sex marraige bans in either State/District.
You simply don't know what you're talking about.

Windsor found that states have the ultimate authority on marriage. That such a profound upheaval of the word "marriage" was best left up to the deliberations of the discreet communities. There was no Finding other than that.

Then by your own admission, there is no legal contreversy in Maryland and DC voting in same sex marriage.

Eliminating even the possibility of bias against same sex marriage bans, as there were no bans to display a bias against.

Glad we settled that.

The conclusion was that if a state says "such and such is marriage" then the fed had to abide by it.

Nope.. Their conclusion was that State marriage laws that include same sex marriage trump federal marriage laws that don't.

Which you awkwardly try to morph into 'the feds'. Which doesn't work. As the federal judiciary is part of 'the feds'. And the Windsor court explicitly found that State marriage laws were subject to constitutional guarantees. Even citing a case where the USSC overturned State marriage laws because of the violation of constitutional guarantees (Loving v. Virginia).

You almost always ignore constitutional guarantees. Which is odd given that every federal ruling overturning state same sex marriage bans is on the basis of the violation of those constitutional guarantees.

The exact question of law pending before the Court is whether or not states that have retained the common understanding of the word "marriage" may still be allowed to do so.

More bizarre hallucinations. The exact question of law before the court is defined here by the court in its granting a writ of cert;

Obergefell v. Hodges SCOTUSblog[/url]

I have no idea why you keep making up your version of the question before the court. Its not like your hallucinations magically change the actual issues before the court. And its not like we're going to let your bullshit pass without correcting you.

 

[Skylar]

Here's a question for Sil: how will the court's ruling in June in Obergefell v. Hodges affect Maryland or DC in any way?

If they affirm gay marriage or if they affirm gay marriage bans.......what, if anything will change in Maryland or DC?

 

[Silhouette]

Here's a question for Sil: how will the court's ruling in June in Obergefell v. Hodges affect Maryland or DC in any way?

If they affirm gay marriage or if they affirm gay marriage bans.......what, if anything will change in Maryland or DC?

It's how the ruling will affect the 30-something states that have chosen not to redact marriage to institutionalize fatherless sons and motherless daughters. Of course.

The redaction is the contested issue: whether it should be state-chosen or federally-forced. Two Justices presided over (blessed) the redacted version before the question of law was settled. That is an over and arrogant display of bias against the other 30-something states. The must step down on this question.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

A 5-2 loss is no different than a 7-2 loss Sil, either way you still lose.

 

[Silhouette]

A 5-2 loss is no different than a 7-2 loss Sil, either way you still lose.

The fact that you are confident that fatherless sons and motherless daughters will be a federally-forced institution upon unwilling states to the new social experiment is exactly what I'm talking about in this thread. It is your certainty that would require any Justice to step down that would be so predictable on such a controversial question of law in your favor.

 

[Skylar]

It's how the ruling will affect the 30-something states that have chosen not to redact marriage to institutionalize fatherless sons and motherless daughters. Of course.

So there will be no change. Which is exactly my point. Neither Kagan nor Ginsberg officiated a wedding in any of the '30 something states' you were mentioning. They did so in Maryland DC respectively. Both of which had voted same sex marriage in.

Something that Windsor recognized either Maryland or DC had the power to do. So there's nothing forced. There is absolutely no legal controversy on whether or not a State can VOTE in same sex marriage. Nor will any ruling in June on the issue of same sex marriage have any effect in Maryland or DC.

Killing your entire argument. Twice.

The redaction is the contested issue: whether it should be state-chosen or federally-forced. Two Justices presided over (blessed) the redacted version before the question of law was settled.

There is no contested issue on whether or not it can be chosen. Windsor already settled that. Maryland and DC chose it. Thus, there is no contested issue.

That is an over and arrogant display of bias against the other 30-something states. The must step down on this question.

Laughing.....there's nothing arrogant about officiating a friend's wedding. You're desperate, just slapping on random pejoratives now. There is no legal controversy nor issue in question regarding a State choosing to include same sex marriage.

And you know it.

 

[Silhouette]

Neither Kagan nor Ginsberg officiated a wedding in any of the '30 something states' you were mentioning.

The question of law pending before the Court, boiled to its essence is undeniably, "Should the fed mandate the neo-redaction of the word "marriage" to include fatherless sons and motherless daughters to states that are unwilling to do so"? That is the question of law. Period.

So, with that question of law pending, two Justices presided over (blessed) the redaction of the word "marriage". It doesn't matter that they did it in a state that itself legalized that redaction. The point is that they were not acting as a member of that state. They were acting as Supreme Federal Entities at that blessing. And everyone knows that all 50 states must abide by a Supreme Federal Entity's blessing, not just the few that agree with it.

THEREFORE, Kagan and Ginsburg must recuse themselves from this question of law.

 

[AceRothstein]

I LOL every time this thread makes it back up to the first page.