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

[The Rabbi]

If Thomas didn't have to sit out the ACA ruling, nobody will have to sit out this one.

Why should Thonas have had to sit out ACA? Other than he is a conservative and those people are held to higher standards.

His wife lobbied against it. There was clear financial gain to be made by Thomas and his wife if the law was scrapped.

Thomas is not his wife.
Try again.

And Kagan is not married to a woman. Try again.

Thats true, as far as anyone knows. It's also irreleant. She indicated her bias already, therefore cannot be impartial in proceedings.

 

[The Rabbi]

Kagan will take part in the ruling. Gay marriage will be legal across the countries. Conservatives will still *****.

Kagan will be impeached and removed. Gay marriage will go the way of the ERA. Conservatives will be drinking champaigne in the streets.

 

[Silhouette]

Two wrongs do not make a right. These two women must recuse themselves if they presided over a "gay wedding" while they had knowledge that such a question of law was currently contested and pending in the US circuit of appeals: their stop being the last and final word.

They themselves said so in 2009 (see the OP for details and link)

The article in the OP is about elected judges and bias due to campaign contributions. This has nothing to do with the Supremes.

Appointed judges fill elected judges' seats all the time. The Supremes were appointed. Furthermore, rules applying to judicial officers of the lower courts with respect to decorum and maintaining impartiality in the public's eye are tenfold applied to SCOTUS as the last stop in that chain.

You fail to recognize how important it is for a US Supreme Court Justice to appear impartial. It is vital to the security of the Union. People back in the old days as today do not like the perception of arbitrary tyranny ruling over them as their last chance for Justice. They tend to get rather uppity and rebellious. With forces outside the Union today doing every single thing they can to rattle and provoke our public into dissolving (divide and conquer), this straw will crack the camel's back.

They must recuse themselves. I was utterly shocked, dumbfounded, when I saw the articles in the OP. I had a thread going for quit some time about "shadow bias" but this is beyond the pale. This is a double middle fingered **** YOU to the Public if these two women sit on this case.

 

[WorldWatcher]

How does one adhering to the law by officiating over a gay wedding show bias?

Easy. When one is a US Supreme Court Justice who Upheld in 2009 that no judge may sit on a case yet to be Heard for which s/he has displayed clear bias. This rule applies most rigorously to a US Supreme Court Justice.

So then let me ask you this...If she had refused to officiate over that wedding....wouldn't that, too, show bias?

So that being said.....being asked to officiate it....regardless of her answer.....would put her in a position to show bias one way or the other.....am I correct?

The answer to the first quesiton is no. Not if her response was "Officiating would indicate bias on my part so I cant do it."

I see. I was not aware that she officiated it after she was a Supreme Court Justice.

To be frank...it was poor judgment on her part.

Why would it be poor judgement on her part?

SSCM was legal in Maryland and was passed by voter ballot initiative. The case before the SCOTUS has nothing to do with states that passed same sex marriage through state action. The cases before the court will have to do with states that BANNED SSCM, not states that approved them.


Do you see people asking that Justice Thomas be recused for performing Rush Limbaughs marriage?


>>>>

 

[JakeStarkey]

No one is going to be impeached and no one is going to be recused.

But you ODS idiots deserve all the laughter you get.

 

[bodecea]

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: .

Breaking?

You have been claiming this same crap for days now.

Justices decide for themselves when they should recuse themselves.

Weeks...they been going on for weeks.

If she has to recluse herself over performing a LEGAL gay marriage, all who performed a LEGAL hetero marriage has to recluse themselves too.

 

[AceRothstein]

Kagan will take part in the ruling. Gay marriage will be legal across the countries. Conservatives will still *****.

Kagan will be impeached and removed. Gay marriage will go the way of the ERA. Conservatives will be drinking champaigne in the streets.

Let's bet on it. I'll bet anything from leaving the board up to $10k.

 

[AceRothstein]

Two wrongs do not make a right. These two women must recuse themselves if they presided over a "gay wedding" while they had knowledge that such a question of law was currently contested and pending in the US circuit of appeals: their stop being the last and final word.

They themselves said so in 2009 (see the OP for details and link)

The article in the OP is about elected judges and bias due to campaign contributions. This has nothing to do with the Supremes.

Appointed judges fill elected judges' seats all the time. The Supremes were appointed. Furthermore, rules applying to judicial officers of the lower courts with respect to decorum and maintaining impartiality in the public's eye are tenfold applied to SCOTUS as the last stop in that chain.

You fail to recognize how important it is for a US Supreme Court Justice to appear impartial. It is vital to the security of the Union. People back in the old days as today do not like the perception of arbitrary tyranny ruling over them as their last chance for Justice. They tend to get rather uppity and rebellious. With forces outside the Union today doing every single thing they can to rattle and provoke our public into dissolving (divide and conquer), this straw will crack the camel's back.

They must recuse themselves. I was utterly shocked, dumbfounded, when I saw the articles in the OP. I had a thread going for quit some time about "shadow bias" but this is beyond the pale. This is a double middle fingered **** YOU to the Public if these two women sit on this case.

Yeah, when you keep twisting what the ruling was in the OP then I can see why you come up with this crazy response.

 

[Katzndogz]

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: .

Breaking?

You have been claiming this same crap for days now.

Justices decide for themselves when they should recuse themselves.

Weeks...they been going on for weeks.

If she has to recluse herself over performing a LEGAL gay marriage, all who performed a LEGAL hetero marriage has to recluse themselves too.

If the issue of hetero marriage was before the court all justices that performed such a marriage should recuse themselves.

 

[bodecea]

Fat Tony Scalia should be forced to recuse himself since he is openly homophobic and biased.

Scalia s Most Anti-Gay Comments - Business Insider

Why would he start reclusing himself now? He didn't before:

CNN.com - Scalia won t recuse himself from Cheney case - Mar 18 2004

 

[boilermaker55]

Look into Associate Justice Antonin Scalia and John G. Roberts, Jr., Chief Justice, and who they pal with.

I'm doubting that 2009 case will disqualify her, it's regarding donations. But there does seem to be a conflict of interest

 

[Syriusly]

Weeks: Justices Ginsburg And Kagan Officiated Over Same Sex Ceremonies Will Have To Recuse Themselves US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

OK, BOTH Ginsburg and Kagan must recuse themselves. I stand corrected. The recusal isn't a mere suggestion, they upheld it for all judges (most especially themselves) as recently as 2009. (I think my thread is better though since mine doesn't refer to "two Jewesses" in the OP.)

'isn't a mere suggestion'?

Clearly it is merely your suggestion.


http://wisconsinlawreview.org/wp-content/files/3-Virelli.pdf
1190 WISCONSIN LAW REVIEW

Finally, Justice Scalia implies that another important reason to disfavor
recusal at the Supreme Court is to deter people (especially the press)
from seeking to discredit seemingly unsympathetic Justices in hopes of
forcing them to recuse themselves.
51
He explains that “[t]he people
must have confidence in the integrity of the Justices, and that cannot
exist in a system that assumes them to be corruptible by the slightest
friendship or favor, and in an atmosphere where the press will be eager
to find foot-faults.

Interesting article- essentially it points out that unlike judges- Justices are not answerable to anyone other than themselves.

Oh and that they get told that they should recuse themselves quite regularly, and generally ignore those calls.

 

[Syriusly]

Supreme Court Justices generally do not officiate at weddings. That is not their job. The fact that she went out of her way to do so indicates a lack of impartiality. It doesnt help that she's also gay.
No, she will need to recuse.

Agreed.

And for those who think this isn't breaking, it is. Though the gay marriage performed by Kagan happened in 2014 late, according to the article, the news that the Court is taking up the gay marriage question in a couple weeks, coupled with this revelation, is breaking news. Combining the two is the "breaking" part..

That you think this is 'breaking news' just shows how far down the rabbit hole you have gone.

 

[Syriusly]

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: .

Breaking?

You have been claiming this same crap for days now.

Justices decide for themselves when they should recuse themselves.

yes, its a question of judicial ethics. Does Kagan have any?

No, she's a Soetoro nominated leftist hack.

LOL.....always good to hear from other wingnuts besides Silhouette.

 

[Silhouette]

LOL.....always good to hear from other wingnuts besides Silhouette.

To be clear, you are defining "wingnuts" as people who believe their US Supreme Court Justices should give a public appearance of lack of bias..

..this cult and its sychophant's overweening will pass the tipping point into tyranny upon the moment these two Justices appear on the gay marriage case in a couple of week's time.

Nazis in Germany around late 1930s also incrementally passed this tipping point.

Foolishness is not a quality of a US Supreme Court Justice. It was/is a public flaunting of lack of wisdom (I would actually call it calculated-arrogance), their presiding over gay marriages while the question hangs in the air.

Justices must be:

1. Competent in law.

2. Wise and

3. Unbiased

as basic qualifications for their job. They must also not break the law: including their own in 2009 (see OP)

 

[Silhouette]

That you think this is 'breaking news' just shows how far down the rabbit hole you have gone.

Are or are not the two stories' colliding occuring in just a few weeks? Kagan and Ginsburg presiding over gay weddings and the case-to-be-heard on same-sex marriage? Yes or no?

 

[Skylar]

If Thomas didn't have to sit out the ACA ruling, nobody will have to sit out this one.

Why should Thonas have had to sit out ACA? Other than he is a conservative and those people are held to higher standards.

His wife lobbied against it. There was clear financial gain to be made by Thomas and his wife if the law was scrapped.

Thomas is not his wife.
Try again.

And Kagan is not married to a woman. Try again.

Thats true, as far as anyone knows. It's also irreleant. She indicated her bias already, therefore cannot be impartial in proceedings.

How did she demonstrate a bias? Remember, there was no gay marriage ban in Maryland, the state legislature having voted it in.

There is no 'same sex marriage' in Maryland. There's only marriage.

And if officiating a marriage creates a bias, then wouldn't entering one create one? If so, then shouldn't any married justice recuse themselves?

 

[Syriusly]

LOL.....always good to hear from other wingnuts besides Silhouette.

To be clear, you are defining "wingnuts" as people )

Oh I have no definition for wingnuts but I spot them when I see them.

You are because you are delusional, demonstrated by your repeated claims that have no basis in reality.

Bondboy is a wing nut because he suffers from Obama Derangement Syndrome as evidenced by:
No, she's a Soetoro nominated leftist hack.

 

[Stephanie]

this should be left in the STATES.

Supreme court has no business in this

 

[Syriusly]

That you think this is 'breaking news' just shows how far down the rabbit hole you have gone.

Are or are not the two stories' colliding occuring in just a few weeks? Kagan and Ginsburg presiding over gay weddings and the case-to-be-heard on same-sex marriage? Yes or no?

Both topics you have been discussing in other threads for weeks.

Not breaking- not new.