Four Supreme Court Justices Summarize How June's Gay-Marriage Decision Was Improper/Illegal

[paddymurphy]

You're confusing sex with marriage. They aren't the same thing.

No, faghadist can't have sex because of natural physical incomparability, sex is part of the natural pro-creative process, you don't have to be married to engage in that. All the faghadist have is sodomy.

There you go with that made up word again....did you ever post that pic of what you said was at the Supreme Court? The Ten Commandments? And which version was it?

I'll be nice and post one, there's more but I'll leave you to find them.

View attachment 52980

Note the second figure from the right, is Moses carrying the tablets. You tell me which version it is. There's even a nicer version on a stone pillar at the NY supreme court.

they're historical pieces dummy. tradition and history of laws throughout mankind ... they do not signify the courts doling out laws from Moses' time/

Really, then why are they being ordered removed by courts?

They are not being ordered removed when they are historical. The asshole Chief Judge in Alabama installed his Ten Commandments a couple of years ago.

 

[Silhouette]

The Kentucky Clerk case has been decided. The Supreme Court denied her review. The other lawsuit she filed, against the Governor, will go nowhere. As for the Oregon case, the precedent is well established. They will lose.

You mean the precedent of PA laws or the 1st Amendment? Which one came first and which one is in the Constitution in plain and clear language?

Not so fast muchacho..

Don't forget, Kagan and Ginsburg are impeachable for presiding over gay weddings while the question of "should the fed preside over states on gay weddings" was pending before their Court. Massey Coal 2009, of which Ginsburg for sure voted in favor of, states that no judge whatsoever may display any form of overt bias or they must recuse themselves.

Without their two "Ayes", June's decision would've been reversed. This isn't a thing to take lightly either. The Supreme Court holds back anarchy in our country. And the reason this is so is because people know it is their last chance at justice. When the People perceive that their last tribunal at justice is nothing but a farce of bias and politics, that's when all hell breaks loose. And people opposed to having gay marriage forced on their good Christian state are not ambivalent about it. In private circles there is outrage; especially given the treatment of Kim Davis, being sent to jail for refusing to assimilate into the new cult, forced upon them by their overtly-biased Supreme Court. This is a situation bubbling under the surface of a society already pushed to the breaking point by a damaged economy, increasing poverty and "stress crimes" happening everywhere. What the Five on the Court did was beyond reckless. It was treason.

Ginsburg and Kagan must be impeached and a new Hearing held with children having representation and argument at it. Also, we'd need to have representation from catholic adoption agencies or other Christian adoption outfits.

Your assured statement of "they will lose" in defiance of the protections of the 1st Amendment for the bakers and the Clerk is the bold italics to the points I just made. Becuase undoubtedly most of the public believes exactly as you do "they will lose". And not from a legal standpoint, because the 1st Amendment vs PA laws outside of Hobby Lobby hasn't been tested yet...and in spite of that win they now know their Court is also contradictory and overreaching (adding marriage as a new "right" to the US Constitution from the Judicial branch...a right not able to be disenfranchised to ANY consenting adults...in any combination)...it's because they perceive and see the obtuse and nauseating bias on the topic of "all things gay"...they've seen the public witch hunts of anyone opposed...and they now recognized their Supreme Court as just an arm of a new rainbow-gestapo whose sole function is to rubber stamp the agenda without any mind cleared of bias.

Yes "they will lose" sums up all the problems with June's decision and why it must be overturned and revisited. Kennedy, Breyer, Sotomayor, Ginsburg and Kagan all need to sit down and give some thought to their haste and bias and what it's doing to this country. Just the same as Roberts, Alito, Thomas and Scalia & Kennedy need to sit down and think about what Citizen's United has done leaving a back door for foreigners to become super-citizens who directly affect the outcome of our elections..

The twin decisions of Citizen's United and June's Gay Marriage Decision are direct assaults upon the integrity of the United States of America. And it could be said mathematically anyway, that Justice Kennedy is responsible for both.....you know...since everyone can already accurately predict ahead of time just exactly how Alito, Scalia, Roberts and Thomas will vote and how Breyer, Sotomayor, Ginsburg and Kagan will vote...

 

[paddymurphy]

Elections have consequences. Presidential actions have consequences.

If Bush had not invaded Iraq and turned his presidency into a disaster, he might very well have held onto enough favorability to avoid the landslide defeat in 2006,

and might have provided enough coattails to get a Republican elected president in 2008.

A GOP president could have put an anti-gay rights judge on the court instead of Obama's Sotomayor and Kagan.

Don't forget, Kagan and Ginsburg are impeachable for presiding over gay weddings while the question of "should the fed preside over states on gay weddings" was pending before their Court. Massey Coal 2009, of which Ginsburg for sure voted in favor of, states that no judge whatsoever may display any form of overt bias or they must recuse themselves.

Without their two "Ayes", June's decision would've been reversed. This isn't a thing to take lightly either. The Supreme Court holds back anarchy in our country. And the reason this is so is because people know it is their last chance at justice. When the People perceive that their last tribunal at justice is nothing but a farce of bias and politics, that's when all hell breaks loose. And people opposed to having gay marriage forced on their good Christian state are not ambivalent about it. In private circles there is outrage; especially given the treatment of Kim Davis, being sent to jail for refusing to assimilate into the new cult, forced upon them by their overtly-biased Supreme Court. This is a situation bubbling under the surface of a society already pushed to the breaking point by a damaged economy, increasing poverty and "stress crimes" happening everywhere. What the Five on the Court did was beyond reckless. It was treason.

Ginsburg and Kagan must be impeached and a new Hearing held with children having representation and argument at it. Also, we'd need to have representation from catholic adoption agencies or other Christian adoption outfits.

You are funny.

 

[Silhouette]

You are funny.

And you are inducted into a cult mindset. I'd rather be funny, thanks...

 

[paddymurphy]

The Kentucky Clerk case has been decided. The Supreme Court denied her review. The other lawsuit she filed, against the Governor, will go nowhere. As for the Oregon case, the precedent is well established. They will lose.

Not so fast muchacho..

Don't forget, Kagan and Ginsburg are impeachable for presiding over gay weddings while the question of "should the fed preside over states on gay weddings" was pending before their Court. Massey Coal 2009, of which Ginsburg for sure voted in favor of, states that no judge whatsoever may display any form of overt bias or they must recuse themselves.

Without their two "Ayes", June's decision would've been reversed. This isn't a thing to take lightly either. The Supreme Court holds back anarchy in our country. And the reason this is so is because people know it is their last chance at justice. When the People perceive that their last tribunal at justice is nothing but a farce of bias and politics, that's when all hell breaks loose. And people opposed to having gay marriage forced on their good Christian state are not ambivalent about it. In private circles there is outrage; especially given the treatment of Kim Davis, being sent to jail for refusing to assimilate into the new cult, forced upon them by their overtly-biased Supreme Court. This is a situation bubbling under the surface of a society already pushed to the breaking point by a damaged economy, increasing poverty and "stress crimes" happening everywhere. What the Five on the Court did was beyond reckless. It was treason.

Ginsburg and Kagan must be impeached and a new Hearing held with children having representation and argument at it. Also, we'd need to have representation from catholic adoption agencies or other Christian adoption outfits.

Your assured statement of "they will lose" in defiance of the protections of the 1st Amendment for the bakers and the Clerk is the bold italics to the points I just made. Becuase undoubtedly most of the public believes exactly as you do "they will lose". And not from a legal standpoint, because the 1st Amendment vs PA laws outside of Hobby Lobby hasn't been tested yet...and in spite of that win they now know their Court is also contradictory and overreaching (adding marriage as a new "right" to the US Constitution from the Judicial branch)...it's because they perceive and see the obtuse and nauseating bias on the topic of "all things gay"...they've seen the public witch hunts of anyone opposed...and they now recognized their Supreme Court as just an arm of a new rainbow-gestapo whose sole function is to rubber stamp the agenda without any mind cleared of bias.

Yes "they will lose" sums up all the problems with June's decision and why it must be overturned and revisited.

The First Amendment and religious activities that violate law has been decided. In Unemployment Division v. Smith, that flaming Liberal Scalia wrote for the majority than any law of general application is not violate of the first amendment even if it requires that they do something they claim conflicts with their religious belief. Scalia wrote:

Our decisions reveal that the latter reading is the correct one. We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs 310 U.S. 586, 594-595 (1940):

"Conscientious scruples have not, in the course of the long struggle for religious toleration, relieved the individual from obedience to a general law not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs. The mere possession of religious convictions which contradict the relevant concerns of a political society does not relieve the citizen from the discharge of political responsibilities."(Footnote omitted.)

We first had occasion to assert that principle in Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1879), where we rejected the claim that criminal laws against polygamy could not be constitutionally applied to those whose religion commanded the practice. "Laws," we said,

"are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. . . . Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself." Id. at 166-167.

Subsequent decisions have consistently held that the right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a
valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes)."

Was Scalia right or wrong in this case? As for Hobby Lobby, it has no application because it was decided on the basis of the federal religious rights restoration act which only applies to federal statutes or regulations. The Smith case remains binding precedent and, unless Scalia is going to change his mind, will result in any challenge to the Oregon law being dismissed.

 

[paddymurphy]

You are funny.

And you are inducted into a cult mindset. I'd rather be funny, thanks...

Not funny " ha ha"; funny "batshit crazy".

 

[bodecea]

Elections have consequences. Presidential actions have consequences.

If Bush had not invaded Iraq and turned his presidency into a disaster, he might very well have held onto enough favorability to avoid the landslide defeat in 2006,

and might have provided enough coattails to get a Republican elected president in 2008.

A GOP president could have put an anti-gay rights judge on the court instead of Obama's Sotomayor and Kagan.

Don't forget, Kagan and Ginsburg are impeachable for presiding over gay weddings while the question of "should the fed preside over states on gay weddings" was pending before their Court. Massey Coal 2009, of which Ginsburg for sure voted in favor of, states that no judge whatsoever may display any form of overt bias or they must recuse themselves.

Without their two "Ayes", June's decision would've been reversed. This isn't a thing to take lightly either. The Supreme Court holds back anarchy in our country. And the reason this is so is because people know it is their last chance at justice. When the People perceive that their last tribunal at justice is nothing but a farce of bias and politics, that's when all hell breaks loose. And people opposed to having gay marriage forced on their good Christian state are not ambivalent about it. In private circles there is outrage; especially given the treatment of Kim Davis, being sent to jail for refusing to assimilate into the new cult, forced upon them by their overtly-biased Supreme Court. This is a situation bubbling under the surface of a society already pushed to the breaking point by a damaged economy, increasing poverty and "stress crimes" happening everywhere. What the Five on the Court did was beyond reckless. It was treason.

Ginsburg and Kagan must be impeached and a new Hearing held with children having representation and argument at it. Also, we'd need to have representation from catholic adoption agencies or other Christian adoption outfits.

Good luck with that, considering what they did was totally legal and in states that were NOT part of the lawsuits in front of their Court. What it DOES show is that you can't distinguish.

 

[bodecea]

You are funny.

And you are inducted into a cult mindset. I'd rather be funny, thanks...

I do enjoy you continuing to be wrong, wrong, wrong.

 

[OKTexas]

They both participate in same sex weddings with the knowledge they would likely be hearing a case on it. That demonstrates a bias, and even the perception of bias should cause a judge to recuse themselves. No one can say they were neutral on the subject.

So Scalia and Thomas, who have shown extreme anti gay bias in the past would also have had to recuse themselves. The ruling would have been the same.

Really, what did they do that had any bearing on a pending case? Would you wish to recuse anyone who was in a traditional marriage?

What did Sotomayor or Ginsberg do that had any bearing on the case?

You know, they officiated SSM's knowing a case was working its way to the court, they demonstrated a clear bias favoring SSM. The fact that they did it were it was legal is irrelevant to the demonstrated or perceived bias.

Scalia and Thomas both demonstrated a clear bias as well. If you wanted Sotomayor and Ginsburg recused, then you'd also have to have Scalia and Thomas recused. Gays would have still won.

Why's that, because they are married to women or they officiated the kind of weddings that have been occurring for thousands of years? Really?

 

[OKTexas]

So...what version is it? Are you sure it's not Hammurabi? And what's with all the pagans?

Great Figures Gaze Upon the Court

From Hammurabi to Moses to John Marshall, the stone sculptures commemorate written law as a force for stability in human affairs. The larger-than-life artworks, designed by architectural sculptor Adolph A. Weinman as the courthouse was being built in the early 1930s, convey the idea that, while the law begins with individuals, its principles never die.

Supreme Court Freize

So..Moses was one of many...ok. Again, which version of the Ten Commandments can be read on these scultures?

You tell me, I can't read it. BTW, what's a "sculture"? Proof read much?

Exactly. And thanks for the head's up on the misspelling...yes, I missed it.

You should consider hiring him as your secretary.

Or turning on the spell check on her browser. I'd be in deep trouble without mine.

 

[OKTexas]

By officiating same sex marriages they clearly showed a bias in favor of it, it doesn't matter if they were in States where it was legal. At that time there were what 2 States and DC that had adopted SSM voluntarily.

It matters very much if it was in states that WERE NOT PART of the lawsuits in front of the Court. That is the key right there.

No, by officiating SSMs they endorsed the concept before hearing any arguments on it, that is demonstrated bias.

Whether they personally thought that gay marriage was acceptable or not has nothing to do with recusal. The four in the minority made clear their disapproval of gay marriage before they were asked to rule on the case. You have no clue what governs a judge's recusal decision.

Well I guess the whole court should have recused themselves. If everyone had already formed an opinion or conducted themselves in a manner that demonstrated bias as you say.

They formed opinions on gay marriage. They did not form opinions on the legal question before them. Judges are allowed to have personal views. A judge can be personally opposed to gay marriage or abortion and still render a decision on those issues as a matter of law. That is what you do not understand about the ethical obligations of judges.

If judges only made decisions based on black letter law and the Constitution, a majority ruling would be the exception, not the rule.

 

[OKTexas]

No, by officiating SSMs they endorsed the concept before hearing any arguments on it, that is demonstrated bias

Ginsburg and Kagan officiated SSMs in Maryland and D.C. Neither of the two questions before the court would have affected the law enacted in those locations, utterly destroying your false claims of bias.

You keep telling yourself that. LMAO

It is true, you fucking moron. The Supreme Court cases they decided had no affect at all on states that adopted same sex marriage. If that is not true, explain how is it not or shut the fuck up.

I love it when you regressivecrats lose it. GOOOOOOOOD JOB!

When you idiots repeat the same tired lies, what do you expect?

You mean like you've been doing?

 

[Silhouette]

You are funny.

And you are inducted into a cult mindset. I'd rather be funny, thanks...

I do enjoy you continuing to be wrong, wrong, wrong.

That's the problem...everyone agrees with you. Nobody in this country believes for a moment that gay-anything will lose in court to either the majority, to states or to Christianity. That indicates an assault on our system of justice has been complete and has undermined the public's faith in all levels of courts clear to the Top. No society may remain intact when a populace perceives there is no true justice for them.

Remember, who one chooses to have sex with is not "a race of people"...when a certain sexual kink organizes as a forceful legal machine....it's a cult. 1987's Gay Manifesto Then & Now. How Much of it Rings True Today? | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[OKTexas]

Doesn't matter, the average supporter was never given the information that same sex marriage had any other implications other than allowing gays to marry. Clearly it does.

Save that none of your 'implications' have every played out. I think the word you're looking for is 'assumption'.

And one perfectly contradicted by history. As nothing you've claimed must happen....has happened. Not a single state has legalized polygamy. Not a single state has legalized incest. Nor incest marriage.

Your record of failure is perfect.

12 years ago I could have made the same claim. I guess your argument fails as it has no merit.

We've had same sex marriage for a decade. Yet nothing you predicted actually happened.

Your 'implications' are merely your own personal baseless assumptions. And have a perfect record of contradiction by actual history.

In Maryland and iowa, incest is only between opposite sex partners and/ or vaginal penetration. Do males even have vagina's.

If you have an argument to make in favor of legalizing incest, make it.

I'm not making it for you.

You imply that marriage requires sex. Cite a single statute that requires such.

I've neither said nor implied any such thing. If you believe I have, quote me.

You can't. You're merely trolling. And I treat trolls with what they deserve: by trolling them right back. I call it 'uber-trolling'.

See how that works?

NY State blesses ‘incest' marriage between uncle, niece

Read the article. They had no blood relationship.

Then he wasn't really her uncle.

 

[paddymurphy]

So Scalia and Thomas, who have shown extreme anti gay bias in the past would also have had to recuse themselves. The ruling would have been the same.

Really, what did they do that had any bearing on a pending case? Would you wish to recuse anyone who was in a traditional marriage?

What did Sotomayor or Ginsberg do that had any bearing on the case?

You know, they officiated SSM's knowing a case was working its way to the court, they demonstrated a clear bias favoring SSM. The fact that they did it were it was legal is irrelevant to the demonstrated or perceived bias.

Scalia and Thomas both demonstrated a clear bias as well. If you wanted Sotomayor and Ginsburg recused, then you'd also have to have Scalia and Thomas recused. Gays would have still won.

Why's that, because they are married to women or they officiated the kind of weddings that have been occurring for thousands of years? Really?

No, because both are members of an organization that has lobbied against gay marriage, attending weekly meetings of said organization. And Thomas' wife is a paid lobbyist for far right groups that opposed gay marriage. Or Scalia's public comments before the gay marriage cases?

In responding to the brave Princeton student, Duncan Hosie, who asked about his comparison of homosexuality to bestiality, Scalia was characteristically unrepentant. “If we cannot have moral feelings against homosexuality, can we have it against murder?” Scalia said, according to the Los Angeles Times. “Can we have it against other things? I don’t apologize for the things I raise.” (MSNBC did an extended segment on the flap, featuring Hosie and Georgetown University law professor Jonathan Turley.)

It’s safe to say that Scalia, an avowed Catholic, is not likely to receive huzzahs at his local Gay Pride march. But does his apparent approval of “the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct” mean that he should not be part of the court that decides the constitutionality of gay marriage?"

The answer to the question about recusal is no, he should not. Nor should Kagan or Ginsburg.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The Kentucky Clerk case has been decided. The Supreme Court denied her review. The other lawsuit she filed, against the Governor, will go nowhere. As for the Oregon case, the precedent is well established. They will lose.

That isn't quite true. They didn't deny review, they denied a stay.

There was a preliminary injunction issued by the District court didn't stay the implementation of the injunction, the lack of stay was appealed to the Circuit Court and they declined to issue one, the lack of stay was then appealed to the SCOTUS and the SCOTUS refused to step in an issue a stay.

The full case is still going to go to a hearing to determine if there will be a permanent injunction and that decision can still be appealed to the Circuit Court and then on to the SCOTUS.

The case is not over yet and therefore the SCOTUS has not denied a review of an appeal on the merits.


>>>>

 

[OKTexas]

They both participate in same sex weddings with the knowledge they would likely be hearing a case on it. That demonstrates a bias, and even the perception of bias should cause a judge to recuse themselves. No one can say they were neutral on the subject.

So Scalia and Thomas, who have shown extreme anti gay bias in the past would also have had to recuse themselves. The ruling would have been the same.

Really, what did they do that had any bearing on a pending case? Would you wish to recuse anyone who was in a traditional marriage?

What did Sotomayor or Ginsberg do that had any bearing on the case?

You know, they officiated SSM's knowing a case was working its way to the court, they demonstrated a clear bias favoring SSM. The fact that they did it were it was legal is irrelevant to the demonstrated or perceived bias.

They officiated over same sex marriages in a jurisdiction where they were legal. The outcome of the Obergefell case would not have affected marriage rights in DC at all. Should Thomas and Scalia have recused given their very statements against gay marriage in the past?

What for, defending an institution that's been around for thousands of years? That's not bias, it's common sense.

 

[paddymurphy]

Save that none of your 'implications' have every played out. I think the word you're looking for is 'assumption'.

And one perfectly contradicted by history. As nothing you've claimed must happen....has happened. Not a single state has legalized polygamy. Not a single state has legalized incest. Nor incest marriage.

Your record of failure is perfect.

12 years ago I could have made the same claim. I guess your argument fails as it has no merit.

We've had same sex marriage for a decade. Yet nothing you predicted actually happened.

Your 'implications' are merely your own personal baseless assumptions. And have a perfect record of contradiction by actual history.

In Maryland and iowa, incest is only between opposite sex partners and/ or vaginal penetration. Do males even have vagina's.

If you have an argument to make in favor of legalizing incest, make it.

I'm not making it for you.

You imply that marriage requires sex. Cite a single statute that requires such.

I've neither said nor implied any such thing. If you believe I have, quote me.

You can't. You're merely trolling. And I treat trolls with what they deserve: by trolling them right back. I call it 'uber-trolling'.

See how that works?

NY State blesses ‘incest' marriage between uncle, niece

Read the article. They had no blood relationship.

Then he wasn't really her uncle.

Yes, he was. I am uncle to my wife's sister's two sons. I have no blood relationship with them. This is not really that hard to understand.

 

[Dana7360]

From this link: http://www.nationaljournal.com/s/25...nst-supreme-courts-huge-gay-marriage-decision

Chief Justice John Roberts
Roberts’s argument centered around the need to preserve states’ rights rather than follow the turn of public opinion. In ruling in favor of gay marriage, he said, “Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law.”

Justice Antonin Scalia
According to Scalia, the majority ruling represents a “judicial Putsch.”
Scalia wrote that while he has no personal opinions on whether the law should allow same-sex marriage, he feels very strongly that it is not the place of the Supreme Court to decide.
“Until the courts put a stop to it, public debate over same-sex marriage displayed American democracy at its best,” Scalia wrote. “But the Court ends this debate, in an opinion lacking even a thin veneer of law.”

Justice Clarence Thomas
Thomas, echoing a grievance expressed by many conservative politicians, also lamented that the Supreme Court’s decision is enshrining a definition of marriage into the Constitution in a way that puts it “beyond the reach of the normal democratic process for the entire nation.”

Justice Samuel Alito
Alito also reaffirmed his position that there is no way to confirm what the outcome of gay marriage may be on the institution of traditional marriage, and therefore the Court is and should not be in a position to take on the topic...“At present, no one—including social scientists, philosophers, and historians—can predict with any certainty what the long-term ramifications of widespread acceptance of same-sex marriage will be. And judges are certainly not equipped to make such an assessment,” Alito wrote. Alito said that traditional marriage has existed between a man and woman for one key reason: children.

And as to that last point by Justice Alito: Should Kids Have Had Representation at the Marriage-Contract Revision Hearing? | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Now, I'm not a super powerful lawyer but it seems to me there may be simple contract case law that says if a contract is up for radical revision, the parties who are tacitly signed on to that contract, like children or the states that look after them as future citizens, must have representation at the revision-table.

Not only did that not happen for children and the states' interest in protecting them and their own fiscal future directly impacted by what happens to them growing up, but when adult children raised in gay homes submitted amicus briefs to that revision tribunal, the tribunal (The Fascist-Five) flatly ignored their pleas that they longed for both a mother and father in their home; and that longing damaged them.

Not one word that I know of in June's Opinion addressed these contract parties' concerns. Nor were there attorneys present at the hearing as guardians ad litem for childrens' voices at the table. The most important parties to the marriage contract were systematically barred from the table discussing its radical revision. Not only would contract case law come into play here, but also federal child endangerment statutes. Neglecting to allow a child's voice to cry out in protest is still neglect.

Thomas writes further:

“In our society, marriage is not simply a governmental institution; it is a religious institution as well,” Thomas wrote. “Today’s decision might change the former, but it cannot change the latter. It appears all but inevitable that the two will come into conflict, particularly as individuals and churches are confronted with demands to participate in and endorse civil marriages between same-sex couples.”

And what do you know? Several cases are on their way back to the Court in less than 6 months time on that precise loggerhead of Law. The crap will really hit the fan when Chuck & Dave go to suing a catholic adoption agency for refusing to adopt little boys to them.

Keep whining.

It does absolutely no good.

It doesn't matter what you or those 4 judges think.

Marriage equality is here and it's here to stay.

You don't have to like it. You don't have to agree with it. You DO have to accept it.

No move onto whining about something else that's inconsequential. This is a dead issue.

 

[OKTexas]

Really, what did they do that had any bearing on a pending case? Would you wish to recuse anyone who was in a traditional marriage?

What did Sotomayor or Ginsberg do that had any bearing on the case?

You know, they officiated SSM's knowing a case was working its way to the court, they demonstrated a clear bias favoring SSM. The fact that they did it were it was legal is irrelevant to the demonstrated or perceived bias.

Scalia and Thomas both demonstrated a clear bias as well. If you wanted Sotomayor and Ginsburg recused, then you'd also have to have Scalia and Thomas recused. Gays would have still won.

Why's that, because they are married to women or they officiated the kind of weddings that have been occurring for thousands of years? Really?

No, because both are members of an organization that has lobbied against gay marriage, attending weekly meetings of said organization. And Thomas' wife is a paid lobbyist for far right groups that opposed gay marriage. Or Scalia's public comments before the gay marriage cases?

In responding to the brave Princeton student, Duncan Hosie, who asked about his comparison of homosexuality to bestiality, Scalia was characteristically unrepentant. “If we cannot have moral feelings against homosexuality, can we have it against murder?” Scalia said, according to the Los Angeles Times. “Can we have it against other things? I don’t apologize for the things I raise.” (MSNBC did an extended segment on the flap, featuring Hosie and Georgetown University law professor Jonathan Turley.)

It’s safe to say that Scalia, an avowed Catholic, is not likely to receive huzzahs at his local Gay Pride march. But does his apparent approval of “the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct” mean that he should not be part of the court that decides the constitutionality of gay marriage?"

The answer to the question about recusal is no, he should not. Nor should Kagan or Ginsburg.

The only thing I've seen posted was on Thomas wife, it said nothing about him being a member.