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

[PaintMyHouse]

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.

Give a rest Sil. It ain't gonna happen, and you are going to lose. All of their minds were made up long ago. The hearing is just to dot the i's and cross the t's, and everybody knows, even the attorneys presenting.

 

[Silhouette]

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

Why? Because you agree with this or don't agree with it:

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.

 

[Skylar]

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.

Two huge problems with your analysis. First, you've hallucinated your 'questions of law'. What you posted isn't what the courts are answering in June. This is:

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?

You're just making up your own 'questions of law'. Which is irrelevant. Period.

Second, no question of law being answered by the USSC in June about same sex marriage will have any relevance to Maryland or DC....as both CHOSE to include same sex marriage. Which the Windsor v. US ruling has already found to be completely constitutional and within the authority of the State to do.

So both your hallucinated 'questions of law' and the actual questions of law are pristinely irrelevant to Maryland or DC. You can't have a conflict of interest....when there is no conflict.

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.

Of course it does. As a State choosing to allow same sex marriage is already constitutional authorized. Its precedent, established in Windsor v. US in 2013. There is no legal question that Maryland and DC can vote in same sex marriage.

Thus, there is no contested issue in play in either state/district. You can't demonstrate a bias against same sex marriage bans....where there are no same sex marriage bans.

Try again. This time with a little less hallucination.

 

[Silhouette]

Here's me: "This thread is about two Justices blessing the redaction of the word "marriage" (as federal entities whose decisions bind all 50 states, those with legal gay marriage and the majority who do not want to redact it to include homosexual) while the redaction itself is hotly contested and pending before their court yet to be heard...and therefore they must recuse themselves as of their own 2009 Finding".

Here's Skylar: "I'm going to talk about how gay marriage was already made legal in the states where Ginsburg and Kagan blessed the redacted word as federal entities, you know, instead of that it was an overt display of bias on the fed blessing the redacted word that will ultimately bind all 50 states, most of whom do not want it."

 

[Skylar]

Here's me: "This thread is about two Justices blessing the redaction of the word "marriage" (as federal entities whose decisions bind all 50 states, those with legal gay marriage and the majority who do not want to redact it to include homosexual) while the redaction itself is hotly contested and pending before their court yet to be heard...and therefore they must recuse themselves as of their own 2009 Finding".

You've never read the 2009 ruling. It dealt with ELECTED judges ruling on cases involving those who gave them campaign contributions. Neither Kagan nor Ginsberg are elected. Neither received campaign contributions.

Making your citation of the 2009 ruling another comic blunder and act of useless irrelevance.

As for the bizarre claim that Kagan and Ginsberg 'blessed the redaction of the word 'marriage'', you again have no idea what you're talking about. Neither Kagan nor Ginsberg changed the laws in Maryland or DC. The legislatures of Maryland and DC did. The Windsor ruling made it ridiculously clear that a State could recognized same sex unions. Thus, both Maryland and DC had full authority to vote as they did.

Its impossible for Kagan or Ginsberg to demonstrate a bias against same sex marriage bans.....when there were no same sex marriage bans.

Killing your silly argument yet again. You really don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Silhouette]

Presiding as a federal Supreme Court Justice blessing one side of a contested question of law before that Hearing is held, where the de facto result could be federal-enforcement against all 50 states on that one side of the argument is grounds for recusal. It would be the same as if they presided over 13 year olds being married in New Hampshire legally while the contested question of "should 13 year olds be allowed to marry in all 50 states" was pending to be Heard.

Elected judges are the only ones who have to abide by not being biased as to the 2009 Ruling? What happens when an elected judge vacates a post before their term is up? Oh, that's right, another one is APPOINTED to fill their place until the next election. Guess what? The Supremes are appointed too.

NO JUDGE is exempt from the 2009 Finding. Not even the Supremes..

 

[Skylar]

Elected judges are the only ones who have to abide by not being biased as to the 2009 Ruling?

Again, read the ruling. It was made on the extraordinary circumstances of that case. There are none of the circumstances that existed in that case that exist in the one. There's no election. There's no campaign contributions. There's no benefit to Kagan nor Ginsberg in officiating marriages. While the judge in the 2009 case immediately benefited from the campaign contributions.

You've simply never read the case. And of course have no idea what you're talking about.

What happens when an elected judge vacates a post before their term is up? Oh, that's right, another one is APPOINTED to fill their place until the next election. Guess what? The Supremes are appointed too.

There's not the slightest mention of 'appointment' in the 2009 case. You've never read it. And now you're making up an imaginary version of it to support a patently stupid argument that you can't possibly support.

There are no same sex marriage bans in Maryland or DC....the locations of the marriages officiated by Kagan and Ginsberg. Its impossible to demonstrate a bias against same sex marriage bans....when there are no same sex marriage bans.

You can't get around that.

 

[Silhouette]

Again, read the ruling. It was made on the extraordinary circumstances of that case. There are none of the circumstances that existed in that case that exist in the one. There's no election. There's no campaign contributions. There's no benefit to Kagan nor Ginsberg in officiating marriages. While the judge in the 2009 case immediately benefited from the campaign contributions.

You've simply never read the case. And of course have no idea what you're talking about.

Financial benefit doesn't have to be derived in order for Ted Olsen's premise that any "reasonable suspicion" of bias may not be present in any judge hearing any case.

I read the case, the oral arguments and provided a link. I even posted the opening premise debate and how based on that premise (see the previous paragraph), no showing of any obvious bias is acceptable.

The case is about redacting marriage and forcing that redaction up on the 50 states against their Will. That's the kernel of the entire case and where it will land if a certain side wins it. So they, as federal entities, presiding over the redacted form of the word that is constested, being federal entities with the judial power to force compliance from all 50 states, with or without legal gay marraige, is a display of both bias AND hubris.

By their own 2009 Premise-Finding, they have to recuse themselves or there is a miscarriage of justice in our Highest Court. The public's perception of the last stop of the appeals train is equal to the cohesion and stability our society has. If the public perceives that the last stop on that train is loaded against them, that's where anarchy and rebellion is born. Very fertile ground for rebellion.

 

[Skylar]

Again, read the ruling. It was made on the extraordinary circumstances of that case. There are none of the circumstances that existed in that case that exist in the one. There's no election. There's no campaign contributions. There's no benefit to Kagan nor Ginsberg in officiating marriages. While the judge in the 2009 case immediately benefited from the campaign contributions.

You've simply never read the case. And of course have no idea what you're talking about.

Financial benefit doesn't have to be derived in order for Ted Olsen's premise that any "reasonable suspicion" of bias may not be present in any judge hearing any case.

The term 'reasonable suspicion' doesn't appear anywhere in the case you claim to be citing. You're literally making this shit up as you go along.

The court specifically cited the extraordinary circimstances of this case, where the Supreme Court ruled that elected judges must step aside from cases when large campaign contributions from interested parties create the appearance of bias.

The court repeatedly and specifically cited the massive campaign contributions made for the judge who ruled on the case.

To provide some perspective, Blankenship's $3 million in contributions were more than the total amount spent by all other Benjamin supporters and three times the amount spent by Benjamin's own committee. Id., at 288a. Caperton contends that Blankenship spent $1 million more than the total amount spent by the campaign committees of both candidates combined.

And the court explicitly cited conflicts resulting from financial incentives as being central to the case:

The inquiry centers on the contribution's relative size in comparison to the total amount of money contributed to the campaign, the total amount spent in the election, and the apparent effect such contribution had on the outcome of the election.

Applying this principle, we conclude that Blankenship's campaign efforts had a significant and disproportionate influence in placing Justice Benjamin on the case. Blankenship contributed some $3 million to unseat the incumbent and replace him with Benjamin.

None of these factors exist with Kagan and Ginsberg. They aren't elected. They received no benefit from their actions. They didn't receive a penny. They aren't elected.

There is no aspect of Caperton that applies here. Your theory is even hypothetically impossible.

I read the case, the oral arguments and provided a link. I even posted the opening premise debate and how based on that premise (see the previous paragraph), no showing of any obvious bias is acceptable.

You provided a link. You didn't read shit. As you keep making up quotes that don't exist, while ignoring those that do. As you've done yet again in your latest post.

Worse, your argument is nonsense. There's no 'obvious bias' in officiating a wedding when there is no legal controversy and all issues around that wedding are settled precedent.

Windsor put every issue related to the matter to bed. Windsor found that States had authority to include same sex marriage in their marriage law. And that such inclusion was completely constitutional. And both Maryland and DC voted in same sex marriage.

Done.

Every possible issue related to the weddings that Kagan and Ginsberg are settled case law. The only 'bias' that they showed was to precedent. There's no unresolved legal issues related to the weddings they officiated. Nor is it even possible to demonstrate a bias against same sex marriage bans in Maryland or DC...

......as there are no same sex marriage bans. You can't demonstrate a bias against something that doesn't exist.

Ending your entire argument.

 

[Silhouette]

Being elected or appointed doesn't matter when it comes to a judge being impartial!!

Idiot! And you KNOW that. Do you think that lying is going to make this terrible issue go away? If a sitting judge in a county Anywhere USA quits or dies before the next election cycle, guess what? A replacement is APPOINTED. Does that mean the appointee can be as biased as he likes?

Wow, you are really reaching now.

 

[Silhouette]

Again, read the ruling. It was made on the extraordinary circumstances of that case. There are none of the circumstances that existed in that case that exist in the one. There's no election. There's no campaign contributions. There's no benefit to Kagan nor Ginsberg in officiating marriages. While the judge in the 2009 case immediately benefited from the campaign contributions.

You've simply never read the case. And of course have no idea what you're talking about.

Financial benefit doesn't have to be derived in order for Ted Olsen's premise that any "reasonable suspicion" of bias may not be present in any judge hearing any case.

I read the case, the oral arguments and provided a link. I even posted the opening premise debate and how based on that premise (see the previous paragraph), no showing of any obvious bias is acceptable.

The case is about redacting marriage and forcing that redaction up on the 50 states against their Will. That's the kernel of the entire case and where it will land if a certain side wins it. So they, as federal entities, presiding over the redacted form of the word that is constested, being federal entities with the judial power to force compliance from all 50 states, with or without legal gay marraige, is a display of both bias AND hubris; even arrogance.

By their own 2009 Premise-Finding, they have to recuse themselves or there is a miscarriage of justice in our Highest Court. The public's perception of the last stop of the appeals train is equal to the cohesion and stability our society has. If the public perceives that the last stop on that train is loaded against them, that's where anarchy and rebellion is born. Very fertile ground for rebellion.

And like I said last page also, to your ABSURD assertion that somehow appointed judges don't have to follow the 2009 Finding and remain unbiased (really? That's all you got?), any judge can die or quit and then another has to be appointed. You were trying to argue that somehow those judges don't have to appear unbiased! Do you have ANY understanding of how the American legal system works? Really? A biased judge is OK? In what parallel universe?

Justices have to abide by the same rules they set for all judges. And this case is no different.

 

[Skylar]

Again, read the ruling. It was made on the extraordinary circumstances of that case. There are none of the circumstances that existed in that case that exist in the one. There's no election. There's no campaign contributions. There's no benefit to Kagan nor Ginsberg in officiating marriages. While the judge in the 2009 case immediately benefited from the campaign contributions.

You've simply never read the case. And of course have no idea what you're talking about.

Financial benefit doesn't have to be derived in order for Ted Olsen's premise that any "reasonable suspicion" of bias may not be present in any judge hearing any case.

For the third time: "reasonable suspicion" is never even mentioned in the ruling. You're making shit up. Don't bother. I've read the ruling and I know when I'm talking to someone who hasn't.

None of the factors that existed in the Caperton case exist here. There is no benefit to Kagan or Ginsberg. There is no financial incentive. There's no elections. There's no contributions. There are no contributors.

Not a single facet that made up the 'extraordinary situation' in the Caperton case exist here. You simply don't know what you're talking about.

I read the case, the oral arguments and provided a link. I even posted the opening premise debate and how based on that premise (see the previous paragraph), no showing of any obvious bias is acceptable.

You've never read it. How do I know? Because you keep citing 'quotes' that don't exist in the ruling. You keep ignoring the ruling itself. Something a person who has read the Caperton ruling would never do.

The case is about redacting marriage and forcing that redaction up on the 50 states against their Will.

Maryland and DC voted same sex marriage in. Killing your entire argument.

There are no unsettled legal issues surrounding any same sex marriage in Maryland or DC. All legal issues surrounding it were firmly settled in Windsor v. US in 2013. Windsor already found that its perfectly constitutional for a State to vote in same sex marriage. DC and Maryland did so. Thus, the only 'bias' that Ginsberg and Kagan showed was toward the Windsor decision and existing precedent.

Which is exactly what they're supposed to do.

You're imagining a 'bias' fantasy as a way of soothing the cognitive dissonance in your own head between reality.....and all the batshit nonsense you've been making up about the USSC. They don't match. So you're inventing a conspiracy to explain why nothing you predicted turned out to be true. I have a much simpler explanation for you:

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

 

[Silhouette]

There are no unsettled legal issues surrounding any same sex marriage in Maryland or DC. All legal issues surrounding it were firmly settled in Windsor v. US in 2013. Windsor already found that its perfectly constitutional for a State to vote in same sex marriage. DC and Maryland did so. Thus, the only 'bias' that Ginsberg and Kagan showed was toward the Windsor decision and existing precedent..

What Windsor Found, 56 times, was that states get to decide on marriage in general, until/unless such time that gays prove the burden that their behaviors are somehow Constitutionally dominant to states' rights to self-govern on the question.

Whether or not "marriage equality" is legal in Maryland or DC isn't the point. The point is that one set of litigants squaring off this month are irate that the fed is Hearing pleadings where the redaction of marriage may be a federal mandate across all 50 states. For THE PEOPLE who decide that, to preside over/bless (as the federal entities who could force the redacted form) the redacted form, legal or not where they did that, and who HAVE THE POWER TO FORCE ALL STATES TO ABIDE BY THAT REDACTION AGAINST THEIR WILL is an abuse of justice. It is arrogantly exhibiting wanton bias.

The case on redaction by force by the fed is YET TO BE HEARD. Therefore, they have to recuse themselves.

 

[Skylar]

What Windsor Found, 56 times, was that states get to decide on marriage in general, until/unless such time that gays prove the burden that their behaviors are somehow Constitutionally dominant to states' rights to self-govern on the question.

Exactly. And both Maryland and DC voted in same sex marriage. Something the Windsor court found that they had the authority to do.

56 times, according to you.

Thus, there's no unsettled legal issues surrounding same sex marriage in Maryland or DC. As the Windsor decision resolved them all in 2013.

Whether or not "marriage equality" is legal in Maryland or DC isn't the point.

It is for any marriage performed in Maryland and DC. As you can't show a bias against same sex marriage bans where no same sex marriage bans exist.

And none do in Maryland or DC.

 

[Silhouette]

But presiding as federal entities "blessing" the redacted proposal is sending a message to the Public "the fed blesses gay marriage"....before the hearing on whether or not the fed should bless gay marriage...regardless of which state this happened in...

 

[excalibur]

In the case of Kagan, we have an unbelievable display of overt bias in addition to the shadow-bias the entire Court is displaying to the public: Justices Indicate Shadow-Bias Gay Marriage Question Erodes Last Bastion of Impariality Page 40 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This is behavior unbecoming on an unsettled question of law for a US Supreme Court Justice. I just stumbled upon this today:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Justice Elena Kagan has officiated for the first time at a same-sex wedding, a Maryland ceremony for her former law clerk and his husband.
Kagan presided on Sunday over the wedding of former clerk Mitchell Reich and Patrick Pearsall in the Washington suburb of Chevy Chase, Maryland. Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan Performs Her First Same-Sex Wedding

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Monday that elected judges must step aside from cases when large campaign contributions from interested parties create the appearance of bias...Voting 5-4 in a case from West Virginia, the high court said that a judge who remained involved in a lawsuit — one filed against a company helmed by a generous supporter of the justice's campaign — deprived the other side of the constitutional right to a fair trial.Court Judges must avoid appearance of bias - politics - Supreme Court NBC News

By the Court's 2009 Finding, Kagan must recuse herself from sitting on the upcoming Hearing on gay marriage.

The ruling was over elected judges, so it applies only there.

 

[Silhouette]

The ruling was over elected judges, so it applies only there.

Nope, sorry. All elected judicial seats are subject to appointment if vacated in between elections.

Insane that you would deduce that an appointed judge was above the law. Just insane.

 

[mdk]

The ruling was over elected judges, so it applies only there.

Nope, sorry. All elected judicial seats are subject to appointment if vacated in between elections.

Insane that you would deduce that an appointed judge was above the law. Just insane.

Justices of the Supreme Court are neither elected or accept campaign contributions which was the entire crux of the case you're trying to foolishly apply to Kagan and Ginsberg. Your imagination is running wild again Sil.

 

[Silhouette]

The ruling was over elected judges, so it applies only there.

Nope, sorry. All elected judicial seats are subject to appointment if vacated in between elections.

Insane that you would deduce that an appointed judge was above the law. Just insane.

Justices of the Supreme Court are neither elected or accept campaign contributions which was the entire crux of the case you're trying to foolishly apply to Kagan and Ginsberg. Your imagination is running wild again Sil.

Nope, the campaign-contribution angle was extraneous to the premise that was Upheld, which said that any bias at all displayed by any judge anywhere, anytime is unacceptable.. From there Ted Olsen argued that campaign contributions could foster bias. But he could've equally argued with equal success on that premise that close blood relation, or bad prior business relations or any other reasonable suspicion of bias between judge and party to a case would create conditions for recusal.

Nice try though. Kagan and Ginsburg have to recuse themselves. A "reasonable suspicion of bias" in this case would be that it is about whether or not the fed should preside over states on the question of gay marriage; and then presiding as a federal entity at the end of the line responsible for justice, presiding over a gay marriage in (doesn't matter which one) a state, while the matter is pending and yet to be heard.

All that they could claim at this point is that they didn't know this particular question of law was approaching, or likely to approach their docket in the near future. That's all they have at this point. Which of course is a lie because they peformed gay marriages right in the heat of the debate as federal appeals were making their way Upward. Which then has crossed from malfaesance directly into arrogance. IMHO both of them so doing, and so timed are now exposed to impeachment as well. It was and is pure arrogance.

That's why I brought up the hypothetical and didactic example of Scalia doing a photo op for breaking ground on the Keystone Pipeline right as a case is pending to decide whether the fed should mandate a right of way for the Keystone Pipeline through all states whether or not they want it. Even though the photo op was done in a state that had approved the easement, it would send a message of clear bias to those states arguing that they didn't want the Pipeline coming through. You would scream bloody murder about Scalia if he pulled such a stunt.

 

[mdk]

The ruling was over elected judges, so it applies only there.

Nope, sorry. All elected judicial seats are subject to appointment if vacated in between elections.

Insane that you would deduce that an appointed judge was above the law. Just insane.

Justices of the Supreme Court are neither elected or accept campaign contributions which was the entire crux of the case you're trying to foolishly apply to Kagan and Ginsberg. Your imagination is running wild again Sil.

Nope, the campaign-contribution angle was extraneous to the premise that was Upheld, which said that any bias at all displayed by any judge anywhere, anytime is unacceptable.. From there Ted Olsen argued that campaign contributions could foster bias. But he could've equally argued with equal success on that premise that close blood relation, or bad prior business relations or any other reasonable suspicion of bias between judge and party to a case would create conditions for recusal.

Nice try though. Kagan and Ginsburg have to recuse themselves. A "reasonable suspicion of bias" in this case would be that it is about whether or not the fed should preside over states on the question of gay marriage; and then presiding as a federal entity at the end of the line responsible for justice, presiding over a gay marriage in (doesn't matter which one) a state, while the matter is pending and yet to be heard.

All that they could claim at this point is that they didn't know this particular question of law was approaching, or likely to approach their docket in the near future. That's all they have at this point. Which of course is a lie because they peformed gay marriages right in the heat of the debate as federal appeals were making their way Upward. Which then has crossed from malfaesance directly into arrogance. IMHO both of them so doing, and so timed are now exposed to impeachment as well. It was and is pure arrogance.

That's why I brought up the hypothetical and didactic example of Scalia doing a photo op for breaking ground on the Keystone Pipeline right as a case is pending to decide whether the fed should mandate a right of way for the Keystone Pipeline through all states whether or not they want it. Even though the photo op was done in a state that had approved the easement, it would send a message of clear bias to those states arguing that they didn't want the Pipeline coming through. You would scream bloody murder about Scalia if he pulled such a stunt.

You clearly do not know what you are talking about but that is plain for all to see. Gay marriage is legal in DC and Maryland, which is where these weddings occurred and the courts ruling come June will have no effect on either of them. So much for your claims of bias. Your imagination isn't a compelling legal argument for these two Justices to recuse themselves from hearing the case in the next couples weeks. Maybe if you stomp your feet some more it may sway some people to your position but I doubt it. Good luck.