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

[Syriusly]

I have yet see you make any actual post defending children's rights.

You repeatedly want to deny children married parents- if their parents happen to be gay.

You mean on this page? ]

You mean where you post page after page about a report that has nothing to do with gay marriage- in order to deny the children of same gender couples married parents?

You post on this issue for one reason and one reason only- to foment discrimination against homosexuals.

You don't care about children and never have.

 

[Silhouette]

Only Thomas and Scalia objecting? I think this gives us an idea of how the vote is going to go when the case is heard by SCOTUS. With 37 states now granting licenses for gay marriage, the hand writings is on the wall. Gay marriage in the US is not going to be stopped and turned around in Alabama.

Only Thomas and Scalia having the balls to openly object. We can only guess what Roberts, Alito and Kennedy are thinking at this point in time, after the Prince's Trust study and Alabama setting its heels on states rights.. (unless, as it appears to the general public,...that you already seem to know how the Verdict will be...which is the point of this thread after all).

...oh and how they're also thinking after their colleagues openly spanked them of record the other day for their public display of bias towards one set of litigants in this case...

Page 8 (the left side on the green background) http://www.princes-trust.org.uk/pdf/Youth_Index_jan2011.pdf

In addition to indexing the happiness and wellbeing of young people, the report explores some significant demographic differences between young people. They include a comparison between those not in education employment or training with their peers...those without a positive role model of their gender in their lives (women without a positive female role model and men without a positive male role model) and their peers...those with fewer than five GCSEs graded A* to C (or equivalent) with their peers... Respondents are asked how happy and confident they are in different areas of their life. The responses are converted to a numerical scale, resulting in a number out of 100-- with 100 representing entirely happy or confident and zero being not at all happy or confident.

Page 10 (The bold largest heading above the material that followed it)

Young people without a role model of the same gender in their lives

The Daily Mail article from the Prince's Trust study... Teens without parent role model are 67 per cent less likely to get a job Daily Mail Online

Young men with no male role models in their lives and women without a mother figure struggle to keep their lives on track, a hard-hitting report warns today. The Prince’s Trust youth index, the largest survey of its kind, found that....67 per cent more likely to be unemployed than their counterparts. They are also significantly more likely to stay unemployed for longer than their peers, the report suggests....It found that young men with no male role model are 50 per cent more likely to abuse drugs and young females in the corresponding position are significantly more likely to drink to excess..

Young men with no male role model to look up to were twice as likely to turn or consider turning to crime as a result of being unemployed...The report, which was based on interviews with 2,170 16 to 25-year-olds...These young men are also three times more likely to feel down or depressed all of the time and significantly more likely to admit that they cannot remember the last time they felt proud...They are also significantly less likely to feel happy and confident than those with male role models, according to the figures....The Prince’s Trust report, which was carried out by YouGov, suggests young people without male role models are more than twice as likely to lack a sense of belonging.

 

[Skylar]

Only Thomas and Scalia objecting? I think this gives us an idea of how the vote is going to go when the case is heard by SCOTUS. With 37 states now granting licenses for gay marriage, the hand writings is on the wall. Gay marriage in the US is not going to be stopped and turned around in Alabama.

Only Thomas and Scalia having the balls to openly object. We can only guess what Roberts, Alito and Kennedy are thinking at this point in time, after the Prince's Trust study and Alabama setting its heels on states rights.. (unless, as it appears to the general public,...that you already seem to know how the Verdict will be...which is the point of this thread after all).

You do realize that you're literally making all that up. That the Prince Trust study makes zero mention of any kind of parenting. Nor is there the slightest evidence that anyone in any court has even seen the Prince Study, nor cares the slightest bit about it.

...oh and how they're also thinking after their colleagues openly spanked them of record the other day for their public display of bias towards one set of litigants in this case...

How *you're* thinking. This is all you citing yourself literally making up an elaborate story where you pretend to be Supreme Court Justices.

Why not just turn into the skid and go full batshit.....assuming that the entire Supreme Court is raptly following your every post on this board and have now utterly disregarded all precedent, all previous rulings and have decided to follow your beliefs.

I mean, its no less delusional than the story you've just made up.

Page 8 (the left side on the green background) http://www.princes-trust.org.uk/pdf/Youth_Index_jan2011.pdf

In addition to indexing the happiness and wellbeing of young people, the report explores some significant demographic differences between young people. They include a comparison between those not in education employment or training with their peers...those without a positive role model of their gender in their lives (women without a positive female role model and men without a positive male role model) and their peers...those with fewer than five GCSEs graded A* to C (or equivalent) with their peers... Respondents are asked how happy and confident they are in different areas of their life. The responses are converted to a numerical scale, resulting in a number out of 100-- with 100 representing entirely happy or confident and zero being not at all happy or confident.

Page 10 (The bold largest heading above the material that followed it)

And no where does it even mention same sex marriage, same sex parenting, or parenting of any kind.

That's you, citing yourself.

Worse, you've ignored about a dozen studies where the effects of same sex parenting on children are directly measured. With the overwhelming consensus of those studies being that the children are perfectly fine, with the same health as those raised in opposite sex families.

So nothing to back your claims. And overwhelming evidence contradicting you. That's irrationality squared.

 

[Syriusly]

Only Thomas and Scalia objecting? I think this gives us an idea of how the vote is going to go when the case is heard by SCOTUS. With 37 states now granting licenses for gay marriage, the hand writings is on the wall. Gay marriage in the US is not going to be stopped and turned around in Alabama.

Only Thomas and Scalia having the balls to openly object. We can only guess what Roberts, Alito and Kennedy are thinking at this point in time, after the Prince's Trust study and Alabama setting its heels on states rights..]

LOL.....you are delusional.

 

[Skylar]

Swim, they're just practicing their excuses for why they lost in June. What you're seeing is denial and self delusion...in slow motion. You can actually watch the echo chamber form its bullshit talking points. Its like watching Logical Fallacies give birth to Conspiracy Batshit's baby.

Yes, the majority in a democracy always gets their undies in a bunch when the power to self-govern is taken away and their last bastion of "impartial" justice (the US Surpreme Court) loads the scales heavy on one side of the litigants, against the clear-majority's Will, by a secret forced-attrition to their marriage laws concerning which lifestyles may marry and which may not (you know, for the good of the children in their state of which they are morally obligated to defend legally with their vote)...

Save for several small problems. First, the majority supports gay marriage. Second, the States have no power to violate constitutional guarantees. So no authority is being stripped from the States, as no such power to violate constitutional guarantees exists.

You're giving us a lovely preview of the hysteric, mascara smearing tantrums to come in June. We can watch you build your conspiracies from the ground floor, look at every single girder of delusion, watching you layer it with successive dollops of conspiracy batshit.

All in slow motion. Any psychologist looking to do a study on cognitive dissonance would find you a delight!

...all so that Court can throw its hands up later in a pre-choreographed show if "impotence" in the face of "all those gay people married now and their kids who will suffer immediate legal harm if we don't force this radical new change to marriage on all the states" (and the other types of marriage repugnant to the majority who in the name of "marriage equality" will force the states' children to be lab rats in their new social experiment also).

More accurately, you've simply been wrong. Your every interpretation of the court's take on state same sex marraige bans has been a joke. You've been lying to yourself for approaching 2 years. And only now have you finally come to the realization that all your inane pseudo-legal gibberish is utterly meaningless and will have no impact on the court's decision whatsoever.

The court made its position on the matter quite clear in Windsor. You simply weren't paying attention:

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 terms 'inevitable' and 'beyond mistaking'. Well, you found a way to make that mistake, didn't you? And only now are realizing how big a blunder you actually made. And instead of admitting your blunders, admitting that you haven't had the slightest clue what you were talking about....

........you invent all new pseudo-legal gibberish to sooth the cognitive dissonance between what you want reality to be, and what it actually is. There's no conspiracy, precious. You just don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Dana7360]

He's simply paraphrasing Justice Scalia:

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

We'll see around June.

Say it with me;

....."inevitable".

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.

Justices who officiated straight weddings. They should recuse themselves. It's the proper thing to do.

 

[Dana7360]

Say it with me;

....."inevitable".

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.

Then by some officiating straight weddings they've shown their bias and should recuse themselves.

 

[Skylar]

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.

Then by some officiating straight weddings they've shown their bias and should recuse themselves.

Scalia did that in 2007. Does that mean he has to recuse himself? After all, per the logic of OK, he demonstrated a bias toward traditional marriage.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Then by some officiating straight weddings they've shown their bias and should recuse themselves.

Scalia did that in 2007. Does that mean he has to recuse himself? After all, per the logic of OK, he demonstrated a bias toward traditional marriage.

Well that would be as logical as the people who say that a gay judge has to recuse himself from a 'gay marriage' case.....but not a straight judge......

 

[Flopper]

Only Thomas and Scalia objecting? I think this gives us an idea of how the vote is going to go when the case is heard by SCOTUS. With 37 states now granting licenses for gay marriage, the hand writings is on the wall. Gay marriage in the US is not going to be stopped and turned around in Alabama.

Only Thomas and Scalia having the balls to openly object. We can only guess what Roberts, Alito and Kennedy are thinking at this point in time, after the Prince's Trust study and Alabama setting its heels on states rights.. (unless, as it appears to the general public,...that you already seem to know how the Verdict will be...which is the point of this thread after all).

...oh and how they're also thinking after their colleagues openly spanked them of record the other day for their public display of bias towards one set of litigants in this case...

Page 8 (the left side on the green background) http://www.princes-trust.org.uk/pdf/Youth_Index_jan2011.pdf

In addition to indexing the happiness and wellbeing of young people, the report explores some significant demographic differences between young people. They include a comparison between those not in education employment or training with their peers...those without a positive role model of their gender in their lives (women without a positive female role model and men without a positive male role model) and their peers...those with fewer than five GCSEs graded A* to C (or equivalent) with their peers... Respondents are asked how happy and confident they are in different areas of their life. The responses are converted to a numerical scale, resulting in a number out of 100-- with 100 representing entirely happy or confident and zero being not at all happy or confident.

Page 10 (The bold largest heading above the material that followed it)

Young people without a role model of the same gender in their lives

The Daily Mail article from the Prince's Trust study... Teens without parent role model are 67 per cent less likely to get a job Daily Mail Online

Young men with no male role models in their lives and women without a mother figure struggle to keep their lives on track, a hard-hitting report warns today. The Prince’s Trust youth index, the largest survey of its kind, found that....67 per cent more likely to be unemployed than their counterparts. They are also significantly more likely to stay unemployed for longer than their peers, the report suggests....It found that young men with no male role model are 50 per cent more likely to abuse drugs and young females in the corresponding position are significantly more likely to drink to excess..

Young men with no male role model to look up to were twice as likely to turn or consider turning to crime as a result of being unemployed...The report, which was based on interviews with 2,170 16 to 25-year-olds...These young men are also three times more likely to feel down or depressed all of the time and significantly more likely to admit that they cannot remember the last time they felt proud...They are also significantly less likely to feel happy and confident than those with male role models, according to the figures....The Prince’s Trust report, which was carried out by YouGov, suggests young people without male role models are more than twice as likely to lack a sense of belonging.

Every divorced parent left with kids to raise on their own faces the problem of finding a role model for their kids. Usually the parent looks to other family members, grandparents, older siblings, aunts uncles, uncles, and close family friends to fulfill the role. This is exactly what happens with gay couples. Most gay couples with children are children from a previous marriage. This article is lot of nonsense.

 

[Skylar]

Just post that you hate gay Americans and leave it at that.

You'll at least be honest and will stop looking ridiculous.

Ah, if you could only make this debate about "people hating those poor (ubermilitant litigant-army of) gays"....instead of people standing up to defend children's natural rights to have states incentivize only a mother and father as adult role models: for their best formative shot at life.

Oh, you've railed against gays, calling them a cult for years. You've talked about the Bible and 'enternal flames of hell'. You're dripping with personal animus toward homosexuals.

And of course, you don't give a fiddler's **** about children. As your argument has nothing to do with them, with gay marriage being irrelevant. Gays and lesbians are already having kids, they're already adopting. Banning same sex marraige doesn't magically mean that these children have opposite sex parents. It only guarantees that the child will never have married parents.

Which the courts have already found harms children:

"...And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives.

DOMA also brings financial harm to children of same-sex couples. It raises the cost of health care for families by taxing health benefits provided by employers to their workers’ same-sex spouses. And it denies or reduces benefits allowed to families upon the loss of a spouse and parent, benefits that are an integral part of family security..."

Windsor v. US

So you know that your demand that we ban same sex marriages hurts children by the 10s of thousands. And you know that banning gay marriage doesn't mean that the children of gays and lesbians suddenly get opposite sex parents. It only guarantees all the harms the court recognized above.

And you don't care.

Don't bother trying to pretend you give a shit about kids. They're nothing but a horse for you to ride. The moment they don't serve your animus toward gays, you discard them like garbage.

 

[Skylar]

Only Thomas and Scalia objecting? I think this gives us an idea of how the vote is going to go when the case is heard by SCOTUS. With 37 states now granting licenses for gay marriage, the hand writings is on the wall. Gay marriage in the US is not going to be stopped and turned around in Alabama.

Only Thomas and Scalia having the balls to openly object. We can only guess what Roberts, Alito and Kennedy are thinking at this point in time, after the Prince's Trust study and Alabama setting its heels on states rights.. (unless, as it appears to the general public,...that you already seem to know how the Verdict will be...which is the point of this thread after all).

...oh and how they're also thinking after their colleagues openly spanked them of record the other day for their public display of bias towards one set of litigants in this case...

Page 8 (the left side on the green background) http://www.princes-trust.org.uk/pdf/Youth_Index_jan2011.pdf

In addition to indexing the happiness and wellbeing of young people, the report explores some significant demographic differences between young people. They include a comparison between those not in education employment or training with their peers...those without a positive role model of their gender in their lives (women without a positive female role model and men without a positive male role model) and their peers...those with fewer than five GCSEs graded A* to C (or equivalent) with their peers... Respondents are asked how happy and confident they are in different areas of their life. The responses are converted to a numerical scale, resulting in a number out of 100-- with 100 representing entirely happy or confident and zero being not at all happy or confident.

Page 10 (The bold largest heading above the material that followed it)

Young people without a role model of the same gender in their lives

The Daily Mail article from the Prince's Trust study... Teens without parent role model are 67 per cent less likely to get a job Daily Mail Online

Young men with no male role models in their lives and women without a mother figure struggle to keep their lives on track, a hard-hitting report warns today. The Prince’s Trust youth index, the largest survey of its kind, found that....67 per cent more likely to be unemployed than their counterparts. They are also significantly more likely to stay unemployed for longer than their peers, the report suggests....It found that young men with no male role model are 50 per cent more likely to abuse drugs and young females in the corresponding position are significantly more likely to drink to excess..

Young men with no male role model to look up to were twice as likely to turn or consider turning to crime as a result of being unemployed...The report, which was based on interviews with 2,170 16 to 25-year-olds...These young men are also three times more likely to feel down or depressed all of the time and significantly more likely to admit that they cannot remember the last time they felt proud...They are also significantly less likely to feel happy and confident than those with male role models, according to the figures....The Prince’s Trust report, which was carried out by YouGov, suggests young people without male role models are more than twice as likely to lack a sense of belonging.

Every divorced parent left with kids to raise on their own faces the problem of finding a role model for their kids. Usually the parent looks to other family members, grandparents, older siblings, aunts uncles, uncles, and close family friends to fulfill the role. This is exactly what happens with gay couples. Most gay couples with children are children from a previous marriage. This article is lot of nonsense.

Exactly. But Silo insists it can only be parents. Which the Prince Trust Study never states. And he assumes its an indictment of same sex parenting. Which the Prince Trust Study never mentions. It doesn't measure the effects of ANY kind of parenting.

All of which Silo knows. But really hopes we don't.

 

[Skylar]

Raise your hand if you are not queer. Yup, that's what I thought.

Yeah, because the only reason one would ever fight for basic civil rights is because you're gay.

Sigh......you really didn't think that through, did you?

 

[Judicial review]

Raise your hand if you are not queer. Yup, that's what I thought.

Yeah, because the only reason one would ever fight for basic civil rights is because you're gay.

Sigh......you really didn't think that through, did you?

It's ok you can admit it now.

 

[Dana7360]

We'll see around June.

Say it with me;

....."inevitable".

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.

Like justice Thomas recused himself during health care cases because his wife stood to make financial gains from its demise and was actively involved in tea party groups who opposed the law?

Oh wait, he didn't recuse himself. Never mind

Just like thomas recused himself in the 2000 election dispute because his wife was working for an organization that was gathering resumes for appointment positions for the bush boy's administration.

Oh wait, he didn't recuse himself on that one either. Never mind.

 

[SwimExpert]

Only Thomas and Scalia objecting? I think this gives us an idea of how the vote is going to go when the case is heard by SCOTUS.

No it doesn't. The SCOTUS denied the request to extend the stay. That is all. It says nothing about the merits of the case. It is strictly a decision on the merits on the the request to extend a stay. Alabama has an appeal on the merits of the case pending with the 11th Circuit. Whether the state is entitled to a stay of the district court's injunction is a legal matter entirely separate than the merits of the appeal.

 

[Silhouette]

Just like thomas recused himself in the 2000 election dispute because his wife was working for an organization that was gathering resumes for appointment positions for the bush boy's administration.

Oh wait, he didn't recuse himself on that one either. Never mind.

Well it could be that the Justices are growing increasingly aware of how important it is to national security and their job description to measure things fairly? Look what happened after Bush got in office. No doubt Thomas winces over that daily, especially when the wounded veterans ads air on his TV and he sees that ISIS has reclaimed that mess after Bush and pals destablized the region.

Maybe the Justices are "growing up"? How they are peceived as unbiased by the public is the very essence of their job description..

 

[Silhouette]

Only Thomas and Scalia objecting? I think this gives us an idea of how the vote is going to go when the case is heard by SCOTUS.

No it doesn't. The SCOTUS denied the request to extend the stay. That is all. It says nothing about the merits of the case. It is strictly a decision on the merits on the the request to extend a stay. Alabama has an appeal on the merits of the case pending with the 11th Circuit. Whether the state is entitled to a stay of the district court's injunction is a legal matter entirely separate than the merits of the appeal.

The stays have been pled on preserving the status quo and rights of states to self-govern on the question of gay marriage: citing Windsor.

And all other manner of serious and compelling concerns to the states affected by forced-attrition of their laws. The public has been watching this parade with a keen eye, seeing one good argument of theirs after another shot down by SCOTUS' majority.

In other words as Thomas said, the Court is telling the public "no matter what you plead on this case, we're going to find in favor of the LGBT cult".

 

[SwimExpert]

Only Thomas and Scalia objecting? I think this gives us an idea of how the vote is going to go when the case is heard by SCOTUS.

No it doesn't. The SCOTUS denied the request to extend the stay. That is all. It says nothing about the merits of the case. It is strictly a decision on the merits on the the request to extend a stay. Alabama has an appeal on the merits of the case pending with the 11th Circuit. Whether the state is entitled to a stay of the district court's injunction is a legal matter entirely separate than the merits of the appeal.

The stays have been pled on preserving the status quo and rights of states to self-govern on the question of gay marriage: citing Windsor.

And all other manner of serious and compelling concerns to the states affected by forced-attrition of their laws. The public has been watching this parade with a keen eye, seeing one good argument of theirs after another shot down by SCOTUS' majority.

In other words as Thomas said, the Court is telling the public "no matter what you plead on this case, we're going to find in favor of the LGBT cult".

The state also needs to show that it has a substantial likelihood of success in order to be entitled to an extended stay, and it cannot show that. There are very complex questions involved in this issue at this point, and recent jurisprudence has presented new precedents that are overriding. It is impossible to say that either party has a substantial likelihood of success. Because Alabama cannot demonstrate such a likelihood, it extending the stay was not warranted. Again, none of that in any way diminishes the merits of Alabama's appeal.

 

[Skylar]

Raise your hand if you are not queer. Yup, that's what I thought.

Yeah, because the only reason one would ever fight for basic civil rights is because you're gay.

Sigh......you really didn't think that through, did you?

It's ok you can admit it now.

Laughing.......when you have anything meaningful to contribute, feel free.