Justices Ginsburg And Kagan Officiated Over Same Sex Ceremonies; Will Have To Recuse Themselves

[WorldWatcher]

They should recuse themselves. By the act of officiating a same sex marriage they have indicated a predisposition to uphold same sex marriage due to a personal opinion and not decide on the law before them.

Were the marriages they presided over legal whereever they did it?

Not only were they legal, they are not in jurisdictions which would have a case before the court - Maryland passed SSCM by voter ballot and DC by legislative action. In neither case was the Civil Marriage ceremony performed in a jurisdiction in which SSCM was overturned by a federal court.


>>>>

 

[AceRothstein]

The two Jewesses must do the right thing and recuse theirselves from the upcoming ruling. It's the ethical thing to do.


Supreme Court justices officiated at same-sex 8216 marriages 8217

Have any of the other 7 judges officiated over opposite sex marriages? Then they would have to recuse themselves too.

LOL! /thread

 

[Jarhead]

The two Jewesses must do the right thing and recuse theirselves from the upcoming ruling. It's the ethical thing to do.


Supreme Court justices officiated at same-sex 8216 marriages 8217

Have any of the other 7 judges officiated over opposite sex marriages? Then they would have to recuse themselves too.

One does not have to recuse themselves if they officiated over opposite sex marriage because the issue has nothing to do with opposite sex marriage.
Your premise is fundamentally flawed.

 

[Jarhead]

The two Jewesses must do the right thing and recuse theirselves from the upcoming ruling. It's the ethical thing to do.


Supreme Court justices officiated at same-sex 8216 marriages 8217

"Jewesses"

Says it all.

Are not Ginsburg and Kagan Jewish?

I figured you were.

why in the hell do you respond to that racist, bigoted asshole?

 

[Edgetho]

I didn't really care all that much about gays one way or the other until recently.

I've known plenty of them. Couple of my neighbors were gay and we were friends. Went to their house for dinner, talked, got along.... No problems.

I personally like gays for the most part. A lot of them are funny, smart, quick with a joke and personable.

Lesbians? Not so much. Most of them are mean and nasty bitches.

Which is funny...... Gay men MIGHT be born the way they are about 50% of the time. The other 50% -- It's a lifestyle choice.

A pregnant woman's body might not flow enough testerone to a fetus to turn it completely into a Male.

See, all fetuses start out female. ALL of them. To become a Male, the pregnant woman's body has to go through a process and sometimes it doesn't work quite right. So the Male is born not quite a Male.

Lesbians? Okay, sometimes (but not very often) the mother;s body screws up in a different way and starts to make a male baby but xcan't quite get there. This process is uncommon.

Lesbians are just nasty man-haters for the most part. And that's okay. Different strokes........

When it started to bother me is when Gays and Lesbians were offered Civil Unions with ALL the rights of a married couple but DEMANDED that they be allowed to 'marry' instead.

Why? What's the point?

Yeah, a lot of people get married with no intent of ever having children but we just have never bothered with asking those people whether they intended to have children or not. None of our goddamned business.

I guess we could have established a 'civil union' for older couples incapable of having children but -- Why?

Gays can NOT have children together. They should have accepted the Civil Unions we offered and been done with it.

But that's bot what their political masters, dimocrap scum wanted.

And it's going to cost them one of these days. Big time and in a big, really big way.

Mark my words.

Gays didn't have to make this political, but they went out of their way to do that and it's going to hurt them.

Wouldn't surprise me one bit to see the SCOTUS defer to the States on this matter.

 

[Jarhead]

They should recuse themselves. By the act of officiating a same sex marriage they have indicated a predisposition to uphold same sex marriage due to a personal opinion and not decide on the law before them.

I do not believe the supreme court is supposed to be comprised of those WITHOUT predispositions on anything.
The whole idea is for them to read the law as they see it...based on their ideology..and thus why we have conservative and liberal justices......

 

[JakeStarkey]

Edgethou, shut up and study the diagram, then realize it is over for you freaks.

 

[Jarhead]

Edgethou, shut up and study the diagram, then realize it is over for you freaks.

View attachment 36086

I bet if you checked what the baby boomers were back when they were still living off of their parents, the ratio would be the same.
As people age and realize that they have to pay taxes, they tend to mature and realize they don't like to have their hard earned money taken away from them.
But please....continue with your childish pictures and graphs.

 

[Edgetho]

Edgethou, shut up and study the diagram, then realize it is over for you freaks.

View attachment 36086

Do you not remember just a few Months ago, dirtbag?

Remember the ASS-KICKING of historical proportions you scumbags got?

You ain't seen nothing yet.

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

Edgethou, shut up and study the diagram, then realize it is over for you freaks.

View attachment 36086

Yet Republicans control both the House and Senate! How did that happen?

 

[WorldWatcher]

When it started to bother me is when Gays and Lesbians were offered Civil Unions with ALL the rights of a married couple but DEMANDED that they be allowed to 'marry' instead.

Gays and Lesbians were NEVER offered Civil Unions with ALL the rights of Civil Marriage because the 1134 Federal rights, responsibilities and benefits are contingent on Civil Marriage - Civil Unions do not matter.

Secondly, how can Civil Unions have been offered when States were passing State Constitutional Amendments like this one from where I live in Virginia:

"Section 15-A. Marriage.

That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions. This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage."​

Social Authoritarians were the ones that slammed the door on Civil Unions a decade ago when they barred them also.

Back then full Civil Unions (State and Federal) would have been a good intermediate step, would have probably lasted a generation or two and everyone would have still referred to them as "married" and "spouses" anyway. But it would have made some authoritarians "feel" better while the world moved on. Then quietly the two would have been merged back together in 20-40 years.


>>>>

 

[Edgetho]

Here's a primer for you dimocrap scumbags...... As soon as you're through hugging your obama blow-up and crying, read this

Among midterm winners many historic firsts - CNN.com

You're done, dirtbags. Done like over-cooked biscuits. Finished. Kaput. Fini.

You think Hitlery can rally women? You're even dumber than I thought.

That walking Advertisement for Vagisil is NOT a sympathetic figure.

Nobody likes her, not even other dimocraps.

You're done, dirtbags

 

[Skylar]

The two Jewesses must do the right thing and recuse theirselves from the upcoming ruling. It's the ethical thing to do.


Supreme Court justices officiated at same-sex 8216 marriages 8217

Have any of the other 7 judges officiated over opposite sex marriages? Then they would have to recuse themselves too.

One does not have to recuse themselves if they officiated over opposite sex marriage because the issue has nothing to do with opposite sex marriage.
Your premise is fundamentally flawed.

Wouldn't it demonstrate an obvious bias toward 'traditional' marriage? If not, why not?

 

[Skylar]

The liberal indoctrination of our youths is working well. They are morally ruining our country and the ethical foundation it was created.

But.....but we were just told that millenials were breaking conservative 'big time'. Are you telling us that whoever said that didn't know what the hell they were talking about?

 

[Jarhead]

The two Jewesses must do the right thing and recuse theirselves from the upcoming ruling. It's the ethical thing to do.


Supreme Court justices officiated at same-sex 8216 marriages 8217

Have any of the other 7 judges officiated over opposite sex marriages? Then they would have to recuse themselves too.

One does not have to recuse themselves if they officiated over opposite sex marriage because the issue has nothing to do with opposite sex marriage.
Your premise is fundamentally flawed.

Wouldn't it demonstrate an obvious bias toward 'traditional' marriage? If not, why not?

Why does one have to be biased toward traditional marriage just because they officiated over a traditional marriage? What is to say they would not ALSO marry a gay couple?
Now, if the issue were about traditional marriages, I would have the same argument.....if one supports traditional marriage, they should recluse themselves for they have already demonstrated support for it.
Now, don't get me wrong...I do not believe the two justices should recluse themselves....they should not. Just because they officiated a gay marriage does not mean their opinion is not legit.
All I was doing was showing Bodeca that her premise was flawed. I believe the fact that we have different ideologies on the bench is a good thing...and I would want their opinion involved in the final decision.

 

[bodecea]

The two Jewesses must do the right thing and recuse theirselves from the upcoming ruling. It's the ethical thing to do.


Supreme Court justices officiated at same-sex 8216 marriages 8217

Have any of the other 7 judges officiated over opposite sex marriages? Then they would have to recuse themselves too.

One does not have to recuse themselves if they officiated over opposite sex marriage because the issue has nothing to do with opposite sex marriage.
Your premise is fundamentally flawed.

Yes it does....the issue is if opposite sex marriage is the only legal version. So....it's all about marriage, both kinds. Nice try tho.

 

[Skylar]

Why does one have to be biased toward traditional marriage just because they officiated over a traditional marriage?

Why does one have to be biased toward gay marriage just because they officiated a gay marriage? Yet that's the logic of the OP.

If the logic is invalid, as you seem to be implying it is.....then this entire thread is moot.

 

[Jarhead]

The liberal indoctrination of our youths is working well. They are morally ruining our country and the ethical foundation it was created.

But.....but we were just told that millenials were breaking conservative 'big time'. Are you telling us that whoever said that didn't know what the hell they were talking about?

Most people find their conservative ideology as they age...when they are on their own and realizing that the government interferes way too much.
Millenials are not breaking conservatism any more than baby boomers broke conservatism when they were younger.

 

[Skylar]

The two Jewesses must do the right thing and recuse theirselves from the upcoming ruling. It's the ethical thing to do.


Supreme Court justices officiated at same-sex 8216 marriages 8217

Have any of the other 7 judges officiated over opposite sex marriages? Then they would have to recuse themselves too.

One does not have to recuse themselves if they officiated over opposite sex marriage because the issue has nothing to do with opposite sex marriage.
Your premise is fundamentally flawed.

Yes it does....the issue is if opposite sex marriage is the only legal version. So....it's all about marriage, both kinds. Nice try tho.

In Maryland and DC, marriage only comes in one flavor: marriage.

That includes both gays and straights.

 

[Edgetho]

When it started to bother me is when Gays and Lesbians were offered Civil Unions with ALL the rights of a married couple but DEMANDED that they be allowed to 'marry' instead.

Gays and Lesbians were NEVER offered Civil Unions with ALL the rights of Civil Marriage because the 1134 Federal rights, responsibilities and benefits are contingent on Civil Marriage - Civil Unions do not matter.

Secondly, how can Civil Unions have been offered when States were passing State Constitutional Amendments like this one from where I live in Virginia:

"Section 15-A. Marriage.

That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions. This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage."​

Social Authoritarians were the ones that slammed the door on Civil Unions a decade ago when they barred them also.

Back then full Civil Unions (State and Federal) would have been a good intermediate step, would have probably lasted a generation or two and everyone would have still referred to them as "married" and "spouses" anyway. But it would have made some authoritarians "feel" better while the world moved on. Then quietly the two would have been merged back together in 20-40 years.


>>>>

You can not possibly understand how much this topic bores me. I just don't care.

The only thing I care about is the fact that dimocraps are using it for political purposes...... Like they do everything.

You are under the mistaken impression that Gay Marriage has no effects on anyone other than those bound by the marriage.

That is just plain stupidly wrong.

This is it and I'm done here, but....

Marriage is an institution of The State. NOT of Religion...... The State. I'm right about this and if you don't care to study it, I'm not going to bother to explain it to you. Marriage is a LEGAL entity, not a religious one.

The State promotes marriage for its own ends, not for personal or religious ends.

For instance....

Gay marriage in Europe, where it has been extensively practiced for decades, is known to have lowered the dignity and prestige of the institution of marriage. It's not even debatable.

And in Europe, the people there aren't reproducing enough to replace their own population. Which is one reason the pols are allowing the importation of culturally opposite ragheads. Which, I doubt that you follow the news, but they're having a bit of a problem with that right now.

I remember not too long ago when a newly engaged young lady would run around showing everybody she met her new engaement ring.

I remember the Happy Couple's wedding day being the most important day of their lives.

Now that's all going to be diminished.

You don't think so?

Then you're part of the problem.

When this Country, and maybe even civilization itself, implode and you wonder why?

Look in the mirror