Justices Indicate Shadow-Bias: Gay Marriage Question Erodes Last Bastion of Impariality?

[g5000]

No, read what Thomas and Scalia wrote. The status quo after Windsor was that states get to define marriage.

You should take your own advice and read what Thomas wrote. Windsor left that question OPEN.

 

[nodoginnafight]

We will. SCOTUS tipped their hand yesterday.
Gonna happen.

You're not quite grasping the focus of this thread. Yes, if you want to debate gay marriage you can all day long on any of the number of other threads on them. And of course it's fair game here too, to a degree. . But this thread is about how the Court "tipping it's hand" is illegal use of federal procedure.

Nope. A stay is granted when there is a plausible chance that the plaintiff requesting the stay will win in court. There is no such plausible chance in the case of Alabama's gay marriage ban. Ergo, there is no stay.

That's the way the law works and is supposed to work.

EXACTLY

 

[Syriusly]

We will. SCOTUS tipped their hand yesterday.
Gonna happen.

. But this thread is about how the Court "tipping it's hand" is illegal use of federal procedure. Thomas & Scalia at least read their job application during their interview..

Neither Thomas or Scalia mentioned anything about 'illegal use'.

I think it is telling that the majority disagree with Thomas and Scalia, and frankly I am rather surprised that the majority didn't issue a stay.

Do I think that this will 'undermine' the Supreme Court's authority? Not really- certainly not to the extent that their involvement in the Gore/Bush election did.

 

[Silhouette]

I hope all the judges fuck each other in their asses.

You might need to flush out you geriatric homoeroticism a bit before submitting it to literotica, but it's certainly a nice start.

Your Freudian slip of saying 'flush out' instead of 'flesh out' is a classic.

But to flush it out would require the assistance of the American Psychological Association. And they've been taken over in whole by the LGBT cult.

Here's how they would analyze his issues today when pre-1970s they relied on actual data, preferring numbers and observable trends over words:

Consensual Qualitative Research: A Practical Resource for Investigating Social Science Phenomena
Edited by Clara E. Hill, PhD Consensual Qualitative Research A Practical Resource for Investigating Social Science Phenomena
"
This lively and practical text presents a fresh and comprehensive approach to conducting consensual qualitative research (CQR). CQR is an inductive method that is characterized by open-ended interview questions, small samples, a reliance on words over numbers, the importance of context, an integration of multiple viewpoints, and consensus of the research team. It is especially well-suited to research that requires rich descriptions of inner experiences, attitudes, and convictions.

Written to help researchers navigate their way through qualitative techniques and methodology, leading expert Clara E. Hill and her associates provide readers with step-by-step practical guidance during each stage of the research process. Readers learn about adaptive ways of designing studies; collecting, coding, and analyzing data; and reporting findings.

Key aspects of the researcher's craft are addressed, such as establishing the research team, recruiting and interviewing participants, adhering to ethical standards, raising cultural awareness, auditing within case analyses and cross analyses, and writing up the study.
Intended as a user-friendly manual for graduate-level research courses and beyond, the text will be a valuable resource for both budding and experienced qualitative researchers for many years to come.
Examine or adopt this book for teaching a course "


Guess who part of the "research team" is that you need consensus on (auditing) before you present your conclusions? That would be the APA itself who chooses to, or not, fund your research in the first place. You either play along with "the facts as the APA has decided they are" or you perish as a researcher..

This is what happens when a cult takes over science. That and transgender drugging of children.

 

[Syriusly]

You're not quite grasping the focus of this thread. Yes, if you want to debate gay marriage you can all day long on any of the number of other threads on them. And of course it's fair game here too, to a degree. . But this thread is about how the Court "tipping it's hand" is illegal use of federal procedure.

Nope. A stay is granted when there is a plausible chance that the plaintiff requesting the stay will win in court. There is no such plausible chance in the case of Alabama's gay marriage ban. Ergo, there is no stay.

That's the way the law works and is supposed to work.

Plus, the Prince's Trust survey has not passed by the ears of the Justices; and yet it's out there. There is a more compelling argument for preserving the status quo than not.

The Prince's Trust survey will not be raised by either side, and the Supreme Court will never, ever, even consider it- as it is not germane to the issue.

Nobody is stupid enough to try to bring that study to the Supreme Court- no one would want to look that stupid.

 

[Syriusly]

I hope all the judges fuck each other in their asses.

You might need to flush out you geriatric homoeroticism a bit before submitting it to literotica, but it's certainly a nice start.

Your Freudian slip of saying 'flush out' instead of 'flesh out' is a classic.

But to flush it out would require the assistance of the American Psychological Association. And they've been taken over in whole by the LGBT cult."

And with that you lose the thread......

So much for your whining that this thread is about the crediblity of the Supreme Court.

 

[g5000]

But to flush it out would require the assistance of the American Psychological Association. And they've been taken over in whole by the LGBT cult.

 

[g5000]

Silhouette would have TH3 GAYZ locked up in sanitariums. Or concentration camps.

 

[OKTexas]

It's a done deal Sil. Give it up. The US is leaving you in the past, where you belong.

You seem to be assuming facts not yet in evidence. But hey, we expect nothing less from you.

Dude, it's over, wake up. They couldn't be more obvious. Your attitude is simply childish. Case after case they've let it go. If you can't read what's written on the wall when it's that clear no one can help you. That horn in the distance is a train, so get off the damn tracks. You don't have to wait until it hits you just to be sure.

Well if it's over before they hear arguments then every one of them should be impeached and the States should tell them to fuck off.

 

[Skylar]

..Those rogue Justices better keep a very sharp eye on the next election cycle..The separation and limitations of powers in our country are the ONLY thing that sets us apart from a dictatorship.

No matter what your position on gay marriage becoming a federal mandate instead of the lifestyle being weighed by the separate states as appropriate to be parents of the most important people in marriage (children), you should be concerned about the fact that our last chance at impartial American justice is deciding cases before they are heard..

Have we not been telling you for quite a while that the old superstitious days were going away?

Having a problem with the US Supreme Court indicating to the public that it has made a shadow-Decision without public airing or input has nothing to do with superstition. It's the highest perversion of that federal Office which his held more stringently than any other court to an appearance of impartiality.

Silo...its no mystery. Scalia told us exactly what was going to happen....TWO fucking years ago:

In my opinion, however, the view that this Court will take of state prohibition of same-sex marriage is indicated beyond mistaking by today’s opinion. As I have said, the real rationale of today’s opinion, whatever disappearing trail of its legalistic argle-bargle one chooses to follow, is that DOMA is motivated by “ ‘bare . . . desire to harm’ ” couples in same-sex marriages. Supra, at 18. How easy it is, indeed how inevitable, to reach the same conclusion with regard to state laws denying same-sex couples marital status.

Justice Scalia in dissent of Windsor v. US

Note the words 'inevitable' and 'beyond mistaking'.

This isn't some 'great mystery' that has been suddenly revealed. Its just you finally clueing in to the fact that you've been laughably, comically wrong about the USSC's take on same sex marriage bans.

Welcome to the party. We've known you didn't have the slightest clue what you were talking about for years too.

 

[OKTexas]

Only one thing that is inevitable, death. If it lives death will overtake it.

Laughing....so you know better than Justice Scalia, huh? Good luck with that.

Two justices should recuse themselves because they have officiated same sex marriages, if they do the proper thing, I'm not sure you will like the resulting 4-3 decision.

What would the conflict of interest be?

Doc your not that dense, by officiating same sex marriages they have demonstrated a bias toward the subject. Even an appearance of bias is enough to justify them recusing themselves but we all know the bias is real.

Nonsense. Both instances of officiating were in States or Districts that had chosen to allow same sex marriage through action of the legislature. Not States that had had their marriage laws overruled by the federal judiciary. Making even the possibility of a conflict of interest impossible.

They didn't officiate a 'same sex marriage' in either instance. They officiated a marriage. As the laws under which they officiated makes no distinction.

Semantics, the last bastion of a loser.

 

[Skylar]

It's a done deal Sil. Give it up. The US is leaving you in the past, where you belong.

You seem to be assuming facts not yet in evidence. But hey, we expect nothing less from you.

Dude, it's over, wake up. They couldn't be more obvious. Your attitude is simply childish. Case after case they've let it go. If you can't read what's written on the wall when it's that clear no one can help you. That horn in the distance is a train, so get off the damn tracks. You don't have to wait until it hits you just to be sure.

Well if it's over before they hear arguments then every one of them should be impeached and the States should tell them to fuck off.

Stays aren't granted just because you ask. They're granted because there's a plausible chance you'll win. The Justices are required to assess the plausibility of the plaintiff's case winning when determining if a stay is to be granted.

And they've determined that there is no plausible chance of gay marriage bans in Alabama standing.

 

[Silhouette]

The Prince's Trust survey will not be raised by either side, and the Supreme Court will never, ever, even consider it- as it is not germane to the issue.

Nobody is stupid enough to try to bring that study to the Supreme Court- no one would want to look that stupid.

You seem to know a lot about what the US Supreme Court would or wouldn't do. That's the problem indicated in the OP of this thread.

You think a Supreme Court that has indicated its sympathy for the plight of children in this question would ignore the largest study in the world of how a child being raised without a representative of his/her own gender in their daily lives (50% of kids in gay marriage, 0% of kids in hetero marriage) affects them deeply and problematically?

I beg to differ. The lack of the same gender is the lack of the same gender. The study just addressed that and didn't wade into "gay marriage" territory. It didn't have to. It's a matter of simple logical deduction.

And like I said before, single parents are better than gays in the Prince's Trust conclusion. At least single hetero parents are often still dating...still looking to make that child's gender matter in the adult world. In a gay home the gut-wrenching daily "lesson" is YOUR GENDER NEVER MATTERS.

I think the Supremes might bend an ear to the largest study in the world on the point in question before them...

 

[OKTexas]

Two justices should recuse themselves because they have officiated same sex marriages, if they do the proper thing, I'm not sure you will like the resulting 4-3 decision.

Then the justices who have officiated opposite sex marriages should recuse themselves, too.

That's not part of the dispute, is it?

 

[Skylar]

Laughing....so you know better than Justice Scalia, huh? Good luck with that.

Two justices should recuse themselves because they have officiated same sex marriages, if they do the proper thing, I'm not sure you will like the resulting 4-3 decision.

What would the conflict of interest be?

Doc your not that dense, by officiating same sex marriages they have demonstrated a bias toward the subject. Even an appearance of bias is enough to justify them recusing themselves but we all know the bias is real.

Nonsense. Both instances of officiating were in States or Districts that had chosen to allow same sex marriage through action of the legislature. Not States that had had their marriage laws overruled by the federal judiciary. Making even the possibility of a conflict of interest impossible.

They didn't officiate a 'same sex marriage' in either instance. They officiated a marriage. As the laws under which they officiated makes no distinction.

Semantics, the last bastion of a loser.

Laughing.....I'm the one dancing a jig and eagerly anticipating the June ruling. You're the one pouting and telling us why the court should be impeached. I think you're projecting how you're feeling right now.

And again, same sex marriage was recognized in Maryland and DC by legislative action. The reps of that State voted it in. Kagan and Ginsberg performed weddings in Maryland and DC. How does it create a conflict of interest to officiate a wedding in a state that has passed a law allowing same sex marriage?

Its just marriage in those two states. It would create no more a conflict of interest as marrying a straight couple.

 

[g5000]

Two justices should recuse themselves because they have officiated same sex marriages, if they do the proper thing, I'm not sure you will like the resulting 4-3 decision.

Then the justices who have officiated opposite sex marriages should recuse themselves, too.

That's not part of the dispute, is it?

Were the marriages performed by these justices legal?

 

[g5000]

If a Supreme Court justice had performed and interracial marriage before ruling on Loving v. Virginia, should they have recused themselves if that marriage ceremony had been performed in a state where interracial marriages were legal?

Nope.

If a judge is asked to perform a legal marriage, they cannot refuse, even if they don't believe in interracial or gay marriage, or they are violating their oath of office.

 

[OKTexas]

Two justices should recuse themselves because they have officiated same sex marriages, if they do the proper thing, I'm not sure you will like the resulting 4-3 decision.

What would the conflict of interest be?

Doc your not that dense, by officiating same sex marriages they have demonstrated a bias toward the subject. Even an appearance of bias is enough to justify them recusing themselves but we all know the bias is real.

Nonsense. Both instances of officiating were in States or Districts that had chosen to allow same sex marriage through action of the legislature. Not States that had had their marriage laws overruled by the federal judiciary. Making even the possibility of a conflict of interest impossible.

They didn't officiate a 'same sex marriage' in either instance. They officiated a marriage. As the laws under which they officiated makes no distinction.

Semantics, the last bastion of a loser.

Laughing.....I'm the one dancing a jig and eagerly anticipating the June ruling. You're the one pouting and telling us why the court should be impeached. I think you're projecting how you're feeling right now.

And again, same sex marriage was recognized in Maryland and DC by legislative action. The reps of that State voted it in. Kagan and Ginsberg performed weddings in Maryland and DC. How does it create a conflict of interest to officiate a wedding in a state that has passed a law allowing same sex marriage?

Its just marriage in those two states. It would create no more a conflict of interest as marrying a straight couple.

They knew there would most likely be a case before them on the subject and they took sides anyway, that shows bias.

 

[OKTexas]

Two justices should recuse themselves because they have officiated same sex marriages, if they do the proper thing, I'm not sure you will like the resulting 4-3 decision.

Then the justices who have officiated opposite sex marriages should recuse themselves, too.

That's not part of the dispute, is it?

Were the marriages performed by these justices legal?

See post #58.

 

[Skylar]

The Prince's Trust survey will not be raised by either side, and the Supreme Court will never, ever, even consider it- as it is not germane to the issue.

Nobody is stupid enough to try to bring that study to the Supreme Court- no one would want to look that stupid.

You seem to know a lot about what the US Supreme Court would or wouldn't do. That's the problem indicated in the OP of this thread.

Scalia has some pretty telling insights.

In my opinion, however, the view that this Court will take of state prohibition of same-sex marriage is indicated beyond mistaking by today’s opinion. As I have said, the real rationale of today’s opinion, whatever disappearing trail of its legalistic argle-bargle one chooses to follow, is that DOMA is motivated by “ ‘bare . . . desire to harm’ ” couples in same-sex marriages. Supra, at 18. How easy it is, indeed how inevitable, to reach the same conclusion with regard to state laws denying same-sex couples marital status.

Justice Scalia in dissent of Windsor v. US

You may believe you know more than Scalia on the court's take on state same sex marriage bans. But you don't. You're clueless.

You think a Supreme Court that has indicated its sympathy for the plight of children in this question would ignore the largest study in the world of how a child being raised without a representative of his/her own gender in their daily lives (50% of kids in gay marriage, 0% of kids in hetero marriage) affects them deeply and problematically?

Who says that a child would be raised without a representative of his or her own gender in a same sex lead family? Remember, the Prince Trust Study doesn't say a 'same sex role model' It says a GOOD same sex role model. And it doesn't say indicate where such a good role model can be found.

It could be a parent. Or a sibling. Or aunt or uncle. Or a friend. Or a teacher. Or clergy. Or a scout leader. Or a mentor. Or a coworker. Or a grand parent. Or a coach. Or any of a myriad of other sources.

You baselessly assume it can only be parents. The Prince Trust study never says this. You do. And you're nobody.

I beg to differ. The lack of the same gender is the lack of the same gender. The study just addressed that and didn't wade into "gay marriage" territory. It didn't have to. It's a matter of simple logical deduction.

No it isn't. Its a matter of desperate, willful ignorance. As there have been more than a dozen studies that address the health of children of same sex couples. And the overwhelming consensus is that the kids are fine, being as healthy as children of opposite sex couples.

You ignore every single one of these studies that show children of same sex parents are fine. From any source. Using any methodology. From any country. From any university. Using any sample size.

No court ever would. Nor would any rational person.