Masterpiece Cake Baker Civil Rights Lawsuit vs Ginsburg's Obergefell.

[mdk]

She said she thinks America is ready for gay marriage. Big deal.

It kind of is considering she is supposed to be ruling on the legality of it. Suppose the issue was the Constitutionality of
Trump's wall and Samuel Alito said months prior to that he thought America wanted that wall.
I doubt you'd be quite so sanguine.

The funny thing about Massey is that if reheard it would be likely scrapped. I guess I’ll just have to life with you thinking I am wrong. Oh, well.

That already happened before this issue came up.

No, it really isn't a big deal. You're pretending she settled the case beforehand to confirm your own biases. Like Scalia, she is allowed to share her opinion.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

You would have a point if she pronounced the case settled long before heard. She didn’t and she isn't required to recuse to herself. You don’t like that, but so what?

Don't give up your day job yet in favor of being an internet lawyer. Ginsburg's statement was a clear affirmation for gay marriage and indicates she was clearly in favor of the issue before ever ruling on the case.
Of course we all know her history as an ACLU council and her love of other nation's Constitutions when compared to the US so her statement shocked no one. What is shocking is how she didn't even make a pretense of moderating her view if for no other reason than just to maintain the appearance of impartiality and not influence other Justices.

And you've already given your views on Caperton v Massey and been found to be decidedly wrong so I'm not terribly surprised you are just claiming victory well before the race has been run.

 

[JoeMoma]

Yup, gay marriage is certainly doomed this time. You have dozens of threads finding a legal case and claiming *this is one* to make your wish come true. You don’t have any standing.

Gay marriage aside how do you feel about the apparent bias of Ruth Bader Ginsburg?
That doesn't seem problematic to you?
She's welcome to her own prejudices and biases, but how can someone rule on a matter they have already stated a preference for?

Yes, mdk conveniently skipped over the generic fact that Ginsburg is required to recuse herself in ANY case that she openly declared bias on to the press weeks before its Hearing.

And if she doesn't recuse herself?

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

No, it really isn't a big deal. You're pretending she settled the case beforehand to confirm your own biases. Like Scalia, she is allowed to share her opinion.

I'd say it was Ginsburg who was confirming her own biases. And if you think it's proper and customary for Supreme Court Justices to comment on upcoming cases before the court in any manner, let alone one that already indicates a judge's mind is made up before even hearing the case, then you are sadly ignorant and just confirming your own prejudices.
Sharing your opinion on a matter before the court is not proper and can create problems after the fact, legally speaking.

Your post doesn't make me angry but it is sad to see someone turning facts and procedures on their heads in order to
"win" the day.

 

[mdk]

You would have a point if she pronounced the case settled long before heard. She didn’t and she isn't required to recuse to herself. You don’t like that, but so what?

Don't give up your day job yet in favor of being an internet lawyer. Ginsburg's statement was a clear affirmation for gay marriage and indicates she was clearly in favor of the issue before ever ruling on the case.
Of course we all know her history as an ACLU council and her love of other nation's Constitutions when compared to the US so her statement shocked no one. What is shocking is how she didn't even make a pretense of moderating her view if for no other reason than just to maintain the appearance of impartiality and not influence other Justices.

And you've already given your views on Caperton v Massey and been found to be decidedly wrong so I'm not terribly surprised you are just claiming victory well before the race has been run.

Justice Ginsberg isn’t required to recuse herself for daring to share a view you disagree with.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Justice Ginsberg isn’t required to recuse herself for daring to share a view you disagree with.

Straw man bullshit. My opinion of her views, which I've known for years, is beside the point.
And she's hardly "daring" to talk about America's acceptance of gay marriage because of what I think about it. Grow the fuck up!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

This thread illustrates the importance of the Constitution and its case law, to safeguard the people from the fear, ignorance, bigotry, and hate common to most on the right.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

This thread illustrates the importance of the Constitution and its case law, to safeguard the people from the fear, ignorance, bigotry, and hate common to most on the right.

Clever what you've done...taking all of your malicious snakelike qualities and pretending that people on the right are just like you.

 

[Silhouette]

And if she doesn't recuse herself?

The Ruling was arrived at illegally & States have standing to disobey it. And it is imminently susceptible to being overturned.

Don’t laugh, the essence of Windsor 2013, that it’s states who determine who may marry, was overturned in 2 short years by Obergefell.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

I totally support gay marriage. Expanding freedom is a good thing.

I also support the notion that a person should not be forced to write words that act to sanction something with which they disagree, because I do not believe in limiting their freedom.

Seems to me that the sensible middle ground would be to require a baker to sell a preexisting cake to a gay couple just as they would a straight, but they should not be forced to create new ones offering sentiments that run against their beliefs.

 

[Skylar]

Ginsburg announced to the nation in media weeks in advance of the Obergefell Hearing that she felt despite how so many states were opposed that gay marriage was something that America is ready for. That's announcing pure, distilled bias, with the intent to thwart the will of the People using her judicial seat.

Public Accommodation activists will fall back on Obergefell. Obergefell was an illegal Hearing. How is this going to work out? Ruth Bader Ginsburg: America is ready for gay marriage

Caperton v A.T. Massey Coal, a USSC 2009 decision that Ginsburg herself signed off on, says that ANY judge who is reasonably suspected of bias MUST recuse themselves from a case. That's a HUGE problem for the viability of the Obergefell Ruling.
​

*********************
Months after winning a Supreme Court case over his refusal to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple, Colorado baker Jack Phillips is setting up for another legal showdown.

Phillips, ordered by the state Civil Rights Commission into mediation with a trans customer of his Masterpiece Cakeshop for whom he had refused to bake a cake, sued Colorado officials in federal court on Tuesday, claiming they violated his rights to freedom of speech and religion.

“Colorado has renewed its war against him by embarking on another attempt to prosecute him,” the lawsuit alleges.

The lawsuit cites Phillips’ narrow Supreme Court victory in June that said the state Civil Rights Commission displayed anti-religious attitudes toward the baker, violating his rights, in a case involving his refusal to bake a cake for a same-sex couple. Masterpiece Cakeshop Owner Sues Colorado After Refusing To Bake Trans Woman's Cake | HuffPost

**************

One of the many flaws in Obergefell is that it turned just some deviant addictive behaviors (but not others that the majority also find repugnant) into a special class. The list of potentials is incomplete and giving those potentials a complete pass in mention was highly negligent in Obergefell.

And, so, because behaviors, just some but not others, were alluded to be a protected class of people, we find ourselves at a showdown between deviant sex behaviors and the religious people and others of basic moral fortitude opposed, at odds over whether the public has to actually recognize them (what they DO, not what they are) as "protected behaviors" essentially. If they are protected behaviors, the Colorado baker will probably have to bake that cake. But if the Court finds that behaviors, ideals and rituals cannot be foisted on others without their moral consent, then the baker may win.

Very recently a tranny guy wanted the same baker to make him a "transition celebration" cake. The baker again refused on principle. This will wind up in the same case probably. The baker who refused to make a gay wedding cake has now turned away a trans woman

​

This shit again? SIl......why this rhetorical masterbation? You know the actual caselaw doesn't support any of your silly pseudo-legal nonsense. Caperton v A.T. Massey Coal was about a judge that had received 3 million in campaign help from a defendant in a case the judge oversaw. The judge had a personal stake in the outcome of the case, having received 3000 times the individual campaign contribution limit in support from the defendant.

Ginsberg received no campaign contributions from anyone in the Obergefell case. She didn't benefit in any way from the outcome. She had no personal stake. Nixing any credible comparison.

All of which you know. You merely ignore the parts of the Capterton ruling that don't work for your pseudo-legal gibberish. Then laughably insist that the Supreme Court is bound to your 'creative edits'.

No, Sil....they're not.

 

[Skylar]

And if she doesn't recuse herself?

The Ruling was arrived at illegally & States have standing to disobey it. And it is imminently susceptible to being overturned.

No, Sil. It wasn't. You ignoring the circumstances of the Caperton decision doesn't make Obergefell 'illegal'. It just makes you willfully ignorant.

Don’t laugh, the essence of Windsor 2013, that it’s states who determine who may marry, was overturned in 2 short years by Obergefell.

Oh, I'll laugh.

Because I've seen the same pointless pseudo-legal gibberish from you before. And your argument breaks in the exact same place it always had: the Windsor ruling. The actual Windsor decision made it clear that subject to constitutional guarantees, the States determine who could marry. (Bold Added for emphasis)

"The States’ interest in defining and regulating the marital relation, subject to constitutional guarantees, stems from the understanding that marriage is more than a routine classification for purposes of certain statutory benefits."

Windsor V. US

United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. ___ (2013)

You merely ignore that portion of the ruling, and then insist that because you ignored it, that it doesn't apply.

Alas, exactly like Caperton, your willful ignorance doesn't magically change the ruling. Windsor so clearly telegraphed Obergefell that Scalia in his dissent lamented about how the court would use the logic laid down in Windsor to overturn State same sex marriage bans. Scalia went into paragraphs of detail on the legal reasoning of the Windsor ruling would do this.

(bold added for emphasis)

"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."

Scalia in dissent, Windsor v. US

'Beyond Mistaking'. 'Inevitable'.

Scalia wasn't subtle at all with how obviously Windsor telegraphed what was coming next.

WIth Kennedy, the same man that wrote the Windsor Decision writing Obergefell. Its not Kennedy that was confused on his own legal reasoning. Its not Scalia that was confused about what Windsor said.

Its just you who are confused.

And you already know all of this, Sil. You just really hope we don't. As always, your argument rely on an ignorant audience. As the passages you conveniently 'edit' from the rulings don't disappear just because you ignore them.

 

[Asclepias]

Except for the whole fact she isn’t required to recuse herself. No one is bound by your silly interpretation of Massey.

Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co. - Wikipedia.
"Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868 (2009),[1] is a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires a judge to recuse himself not only when actual bias has been demonstrated or when the judge has an economic interest in the outcome of the case, but also when "extreme facts" create a "probability of bias."

Ummm...someone else shares that "silly interpretation". Someone is in the clear wrong here and it seems to be you
AND Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Do you have enough clout to impeach her? If not stop whining.

 

[JoeB131]

Yes, mdk conveniently skipped over the generic fact that Ginsburg is required to recuse herself in ANY case that she openly declared bias on to the press weeks before its Hearing.

She's not required to do anything of the sort.

Look, guy, you need to see someone about your latent homosexuality.

 

[Silhouette]

Yes, mdk conveniently skipped over the generic fact that Ginsburg is required to recuse herself in ANY case that she openly declared bias on to the press weeks before its Hearing.

She's not required to do anything of the sort.

Look, guy, you need to see someone about your latent homosexuality.

Classic of you Sparky. You don’t have a substantive rebuttal to facts clearly supporting Obergefell as an illegal Ruling via Ginsburg’s mandate to have recused herself. So you fall back to ad hominem like all your buddies do when defeated in debate.

 

[JoeB131]

Classic of you Sparky. You don’t have a substantive rebuttal to facts clearly supporting Obergefell as an illegal Ruling via Ginsburg’s mandate to have recused herself. So you fall back to ad hominem like all your buddies do when defeated in debate.

There's no debate here. It's been scientifically proven that severe homophobes are in fact latent homosexuals.

Study: Homophobia is Often a Sign of Latent Homosexuality | Revel & Riot

The way you are carrying on, you are one step left of the homophobic preacher who got caught with a rent-boy and a pile of crystal meth.

 

[Silhouette]

Classic of you Sparky. You don’t have a substantive rebuttal to facts clearly supporting Obergefell as an illegal Ruling via Ginsburg’s mandate to have recused herself. So you fall back to ad hominem like all your buddies do when defeated in debate.

There's no debate here. It's been scientifically proven that severe homophobes are in fact latent homosexuals.

Study: Homophobia is Often a Sign of Latent Homosexuality | Revel & Riot

The way you are carrying on, you are one step left of the homophobic preacher who got caught with a rent-boy and a pile of crystal meth.

It’s also been proven in Caperton v AT Massey Coal (USSC 2009) that any judge who can reasonably be suspected of bias must recuse themselves.

...like Ginsburg was required to in Obergefell...when you’re ready to rejoin the debate...

 

[JoeB131]

It’s also been proven in Caperton v AT Massey Coal (USSC 2009) that any judge who can reasonably be suspected of bias must recuse themselves.

...like Ginsburg was required to in Obergefell...when you’re ready to rejoin the debate...

Other people pointed out to you that Capeton required a FINANCIAL interest, not just an opinion.

Again, it's been proven that severely homophobic men are in fact latent homosexuals.. This was proven when they strapped sensors onto their dicks and showed them gay pornos..

 

[Silhouette]

Other people pointed out to you that Capeton required a FINANCIAL interest, not just an opinion.

You mean other sock puppets Sparky?

No. Caperton was not merely about financial interest. In its language it threw a much wider blanket. And kindergarten logic demands that bias is bias & that Caperton was about bias. It was not a narrow ruling. It was expansive & Ginsburg herself supported that expanse.

 

[Silhouette]

Sparky? You go back to sleep or something?