Nope. Gay marriage is legal in both Maryland and DC by legislative act. Show us the law was violated by performing a marriage in Maryland and DC. You'll find there is none.
So much for your claim that it was 'illegal'. You're just making up excuses for why the June ruling is against you.
Again, it's the 2009 Finding of Caperton v A.T. Massey Coal Co. The Court said that it is improper for a judge to demonstrate bias and then not recuse himself or herself. Even if the bias is in a very gray area the Court agreed was "an appearance" or "inherent suspicion". A US Supreme Court Justice must not flaunt bias at all, EVER. That is their job description . It is so because they are the last stop in the justice train. As such the public perception of justice in this country, indeed the glue that holds this nation together, makes it tenfold mandatory for a US Supreme Court Justice not to display even an atom of bias.
A US Supreme Court Justice, therefore, as representative of the federal cohesion and public trust in a fair and utterly unbiased Hearing on gay marriage, broke that good faith and trust of the public when she(s) presided over a gay wedding...even in a state that had it legally enacted, the few that do...
It was the act of the fed looming over and approving of a gay marriage in a state (approved there or not) which was the overt message to the public "we two Justices believe the fed should preside over states on the topic of gay marriage...we want the fed to loom over states in this way."
That meets the standard of suspicion of bias or appearance of bias. Period. Therefore, according to Kagan and Ginsburg's own Finding in 2009, they must recuse themselves from sitting on the gay marriage case. And if they don't, they could technically be impeached for breaking the law.
Here it is again, the legal discussion..
Olsen's premise in 2009 Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co. Did you forget it already? If the public has a suspicion of bias they should recuse. The issue at hand is whether or not the fed should preside over states on deciding gay marriage. Ginsburg and Kagan as supreme federal entities, presided over/blessed gay marriages in DC and Maryland. Regardless of those states passing gay marriage for themselves (today's legal standard), the act of a federal Supreme Justice presiding over gay marriage in a state is symbolic of their bias and where they are showing the world the Court is looming towards.
That is enough to promote a public suspicion of bias; that there will be no fair voice. Not one person on the planet thereafter doubts exactly and already how each of these two Justices will cast their vote. (you know, BEFORE arguments are heard) And too, as a whole, the Court's silence on this problem is also telling. At least Thomas and Scalia spoke out about refusing the Alabama stay and rebuked their colleagues. But on this they are silent. You'd think at least Kennedy would have stern words for these two. Nada. So really then, the public sees these things:
1. The Court has already made up its mind to overturn Windsor's interim law by denying stays before an actual Hearing allowing it to overturn itself. The states feel dominated, silenced in the debate (about a lifestyle, remember, not a race),
forced into something their majority doesn't want making up kids' formative environment (that's why any state rejects gay marriage BTW)
2. The Court gives its implied blessing of an extraordinary biased public display of the Court's Decision on the question of law. The two gay marriages performed by the federal authorities in the states is the big "HINT HINT", elbow jab to the public.
Here (again) for the legal definition/winning premise on bias of a judicial officer (ANY judicial officer)
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/08-22.pdf
(page 3 attorney Ted Olsen for petitioners) "
Olsen: "A fair trial in a fair tribunal is a fundamental constitutional right. That means not only the absence of actual bias, but a guarantee against even the probability of an unfair tribunal."
Scalia: "Who says? Have we ever held that?"
Olsen: "You have said that in the Murchison case and in a number of cases, Your Honor....the language of the Murchison case specifically says so. The Court said in that case: "A fair trial in a fair tribunal is a basic requirement of due process. Fairness, of course, requires an absence of actual bias in the trial of cases, but our system of law has always endeavored to prevent even the probability of unfairness." ...(page 4 continues Olsen).."
the Court has said that frequently, not only the probability of bias, the appearance of bias, the likelihood of bias, the inherent suspicion of bias. The Court has repeatedly said that in the context -- a series of contexts or cases...It's probable cause, Mr. Chief Justice (speaking to Roberts now). The Court frequently decides questions involving due process, equal protection, probable cause, speedy trial, on the basis not of mathematical certainty, but in this case
where an objective observer (page 5 continuing) would come to the conclusion -- knowing all of the facts, would come to the conclusion that a judge or jurist would probably be biased against that individual or in favor of his opponent, that would be sufficient under the Due Process Clause, we submit.
Ginsburg:
"Does it mean the same thing as likelihood of bias?"
Olsen: "The Court --
the Court, Justice Ginsburg, has used the changes interchangeably. We think the probably -- the "probable" standard is the one we would advance to this Court. But the -- but
the seminal case, the Tumey case, said that even if there was a possibility -- any procedure where there would be a possible temptation for the judge not to hold the balance nice, clear, and true, would be the standard. But -- and the Aetna --
in the Aetna v. Lavoie case not very many years ago, the Court repeated that standard, and that standard has been repeated again and again.
all elected judges can be replaced by appointment if the seat is suddenly vacated...
