Skylar
Diamond Member
- Jul 5, 2014
- 51,535
- 15,132
- 2,180
Obergefell wasn't a legal decision.
Yawning......of course it was.
Two of the Justices sitting on it openly and publicly displayed bias in favor of one of the litigants months in advance of the Hearing. Capteron v Massey Coal (2009 USSC) concluded that no judge or juror may display bias towards one side of the litigants and still sit on the hearing of their trial.
Ginsberg and Kagan displayed bias toward Windsor, which affirmed that an individual State can decide to extend same sex marriage protections to its citizens. Displaying bias to precedent is what a judge is *supposed* to do. Its the entire basis of stare decisis.
Caperton v Massey was a case about an elected judge that received campaign contributions from someone whose case he adjudicated. Neither Ginsberg nor Kagan were elected. Neither received any 'campaign contributions' or any other benefit from any party to the Obergefell decision. Nixing your latest round of pseudo-legal gibberish yet again.
Even an amoeba would suspect bias in such a judge. And so, Obergefell was a mistrial. It is no more legal or enforceable than if I sat on its Hearing in the woods with a bunch of my friends in a kangaroo court.
Obergefell wasn't even a trial. Making a 'mistrial' utterly impossible. You're just plucking legal terms out of the air because they sound official without the slightest understanding of anything you're discussing.
And you trying to sound 'lawyerish' doesn't have magically turn your imagination into law. Which might explain why your every legal prediction has been wrong. Every single legal prediction, every single time.
Your record of failure is perfect.