Breaking: Justice Kagan Must Recuse Herself From Upcoming Gay Marriage Hearing

[Silhouette]

There is no mandate for recusal that applies to Supreme Court Justices.

Supreme Court Justices decide whether to recuse themselves.

Since there is no appearance of bias why would any of the justices recuse themselves on such an important case?

There is triple the mandate for all other lower court judges to recuse that applies to a US Supreme Court Justice by virtue of the fact that the public sees that court at the end of the line. A Justice of the US Supreme Court must not preside over a gay marriage at a state level because it tells the US public, whose cohesion literally depends on its perception of completely objective Justices, that they cannot trust the objectivity of those Justices on the question of "should the fed loom over/force approval of states of gay marriage" WHICH IS STILL A PENDING QUESTION OF LAW.

 

[Dana7360]

If a judge or justice owned a gun, would they be forced to recuse themselves from gun rights cases? If they were religious or wrote a blog, would they have to step aside for First Amendment cases? What's the cut off point for judges not appearing to be biased?

If Kagan has to recuse herself because she performed a gay wedding then all justices who performed a heterosexual wedding must recuse themselves.

Using the OP's twisted logic, any justice who has performed a heterosexual wedding is biased for heterosexual weddings and can never rule independent of that bias.

 

[Syriusly]

There is no mandate for recusal that applies to Supreme Court Justices.

Supreme Court Justices decide whether to recuse themselves.

Since there is no appearance of bias why would any of the justices recuse themselves on such an important case?

There is triple the mandate for all other lower court judges to recuse that applies to a US Supreme Court Justice by virtue of the fact that the public sees that court at the end of the line. A Justice of the US Supreme Court must not preside over a gay marriage at a state level

Says you.

Like I said- Supreme Court Justices decide for themselves if they should recuse themselves.

I don't expect any justice to recuse themselves from this case- but if one does- then one does.

 

[Dana7360]

A woman that ugly has to be gay or asexual.

I usually just scroll right by your posts but the one above was the last on the page so I saw it when I had to click the NEXT button for the next page.

For your information Ruth Ginsberg was married. She married her husband in 1954 and was with him until he died in 2010.

She had two children with her husband.

A person doesn't look the same throughout their life. Just because you don't like what she looks like now doesn't mean that you're any authority on beauty or a long lasting relationship.

There's a reason why I scroll right by your posts. Your post above is a very good example.

People who judge others by the way they look are shallow and full of self importance.

 

[Uncensored2008]

If a judge or justice owned a gun, would they be forced to recuse themselves from gun rights cases? If they were religious or wrote a blog, would they have to step aside for First Amendment cases? What's the cut off point for judges not appearing to be biased?

Apples and monkey turds.

If a justice belonged to the NRA they would be forced to recuse themselves on litigation involving the NRA.

 

[Syriusly]

If a judge or justice owned a gun, would they be forced to recuse themselves from gun rights cases? If they were religious or wrote a blog, would they have to step aside for First Amendment cases? What's the cut off point for judges not appearing to be biased?

Apples and monkey turds.

If a justice belonged to the NRA they would be forced to recuse themselves on litigation involving the NRA.

If a justice owned a gun, would he be forced to recuse himself from any gun case?

 

[Silhouette]

If a judge or justice owned a gun, would they be forced to recuse themselves from gun rights cases? If they were religious or wrote a blog, would they have to step aside for First Amendment cases? What's the cut off point for judges not appearing to be biased?

If Kagan has to recuse herself because she performed a gay wedding then all justices who performed a heterosexual wedding must recuse themselves.

Using the OP's twisted logic, any justice who has performed a heterosexual wedding is biased for heterosexual weddings and can never rule independent of that bias.

Heterosexual/monogamous is marriage. The rewriting/redefining of marriage as a federal mandate is at question here. Those Justices presiding over that rewriting was their vote cast in that direction. The challenge is to the meaning of the word which has not come before recent times. If any Justice performed a marriage before that time, s/he would have no idea whatsoever that the word itself would be sought to be undone by a federal (their) mandate.

No, these two performed gay weddings when they were controversial and an argument about the dismantling of the word "marriage" as a federal mandate was pending. They were saying by their actions "we agree the fed should participate in the dismantling of the word".

There is a chasm of legal difference in decorum. The word itself was never questioned before.

 

[Uncensored2008]

If a justice owned a gun, would he be forced to recuse himself from any gun case?

You can't compare apples and monkey turds. we already went through this.

 

[Meathead]

A woman that ugly has to be gay or asexual.

I usually just scroll right by your posts but the one above was the last on the page so I saw it when I had to click the NEXT button for the next page.

For your information Ruth Ginsberg was married. She married her husband in 1954 and was with him until he died in 2010.

She had two children with her husband.

A person doesn't look the same throughout their life. Just because you don't like what she looks like now doesn't mean that you're any authority on beauty or a long lasting relationship.

There's a reason why I scroll right by your posts. Your post above is a very good example.

People who judge others by the way they look are shallow and full of self importance.

Of course were talking about Kagan. The title of the thread might have clued you in.

 

[Syriusly]

If a justice owned a gun, would he be forced to recuse himself from any gun case?

You can't compare apples and monkey turds. we already went through this.

Okay- good- then this whole thread is irrelevant.

 

[Skylar]

If a judge or justice owned a gun, would they be forced to recuse themselves from gun rights cases? If they were religious or wrote a blog, would they have to step aside for First Amendment cases? What's the cut off point for judges not appearing to be biased?

Apples and monkey turds.

If a justice belonged to the NRA they would be forced to recuse themselves on litigation involving the NRA.

If a justice owned a gun, would he be forced to recuse himself from any gun case?

By that logic, wouldn't a justice who had ENTERED into a traditional marriage be demonstrating a bias against same sex marriage? I mean, if officiating a wedding demonstrates a bias, then entering into one certainly has to.

 

[Skylar]

Heterosexual/monogamous is marriage.

Marriage is whatever we say it is. We invented it.

The rewriting/redefining of marriage as a federal mandate is at question here.

No, it isn't. Whether state marriage law violates constitutional guarantees is the question here. As every challenge to gay marriage bans being heard by the court is on the basis of the violation of constitutional guarantees. Not 'federal mandates to redefine' anything.

You simply don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Silhouette]

Using the OP's twisted logic, any justice who has performed a heterosexual wedding is biased for heterosexual weddings and can never rule independent of that bias.

Again, your "legal logic" fails, and here's why...

Heterosexual/monogamous is marriage. The rewriting/redefining of marriage as a federal mandate is at question here. Those Justices presiding over that rewriting was their vote cast in that direction. The challenge is to the meaning of the word which has not come before recent times. If any Justice performed a marriage before that time, s/he would have no idea whatsoever that the word itself would be sought to be undone by a federal (their) mandate.

No, these two performed gay weddings when they (the revision of the fundamental meaning of the word "marriage") were controversial and an argument about the dismantling of the word "marriage" as a federal mandate was pending. They were saying by their actions "we agree the fed should participate in the dismantling of the word".

There is a chasm of legal difference in decorum. The word itself was never questioned before.

 

[Skylar]

Using the OP's twisted logic, any justice who has performed a heterosexual wedding is biased for heterosexual weddings and can never rule independent of that bias.

Again, your "legal logic" fails, and here's why...

That's not my quote, but I'll shred your 'logic' anyway.

Heterosexual/monogamous is marriage.

Marriage is our invention. It is what we say it is. And in 37 of 50 States, it includes same sex couples.

The rewriting/redefining of marriage as a federal mandate is at question here.

Nope. The question is whether state marriage definitions violate constitutional guarantees. As every challenge to state same sex marriage bans are on the basis of the violation of such constitutional guarantees.

You don't know what you're talking about.

Those Justices presiding over that rewriting was their vote cast in that direction.

Nope. It was the legislatures of Maryland and the City Council of DC that decided that same sex marriage was legal. Not the federal government. Thus, presiding over those weddings can't demonstrate any bias against same sex marriage bans...

.....as there was no same sex marriage ban. Even hypothetically, your logic is garbage.

 

[SwimExpert]

There is no mandate for recusal that applies to Supreme Court Justices.

Supreme Court Justices decide whether to recuse themselves.

Since there is no appearance of bias why would any of the justices recuse themselves on such an important case?

There is triple the mandate for all other lower court judges to recuse that applies to a US Supreme Court Justice by virtue of the fact that the public sees that court at the end of the line. A Justice of the US Supreme Court must not preside over a gay marriage at a state level because it tells the US public, whose cohesion literally depends on its perception of completely objective Justices, that they cannot trust the objectivity of those Justices on the question of "should the fed loom over/force approval of states of gay marriage" WHICH IS STILL A PENDING QUESTION OF LAW.

You are making this up. You are making up bullshit. You're not even misinformed, you're outright delusional. If Picard declared himself a Democrat, you would actually see five lights.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

There is no mandate for recusal that applies to Supreme Court Justices.

Supreme Court Justices decide whether to recuse themselves.

Since there is no appearance of bias why would any of the justices recuse themselves on such an important case?

There is triple the mandate for all other lower court judges to recuse that applies to a US Supreme Court Justice by virtue of the fact that the public sees that court at the end of the line. A Justice of the US Supreme Court must not preside over a gay marriage at a state level because it tells the US public, whose cohesion literally depends on its perception of completely objective Justices, that they cannot trust the objectivity of those Justices on the question of "should the fed loom over/force approval of states of gay marriage" WHICH IS STILL A PENDING QUESTION OF LAW.

Well said... just absolutely SPOT ON!

 

[Silhouette]

There is no mandate for recusal that applies to Supreme Court Justices.

Supreme Court Justices decide whether to recuse themselves.

Since there is no appearance of bias why would any of the justices recuse themselves on such an important case?

There is triple the mandate for all other lower court judges to recuse that applies to a US Supreme Court Justice by virtue of the fact that the public sees that court at the end of the line. A Justice of the US Supreme Court must not preside over a gay marriage at a state level because it tells the US public, whose cohesion literally depends on its perception of completely objective Justices, that they cannot trust the objectivity of those Justices on the question of "should the fed loom over/force approval of states of gay marriage" WHICH IS STILL A PENDING QUESTION OF LAW.

Well said... just absolutely SPOT ON!

Why thank you!

 

[Skylar]

There is no mandate for recusal that applies to Supreme Court Justices.

Supreme Court Justices decide whether to recuse themselves.

Since there is no appearance of bias why would any of the justices recuse themselves on such an important case?

There is triple the mandate for all other lower court judges to recuse that applies to a US Supreme Court Justice by virtue of the fact that the public sees that court at the end of the line. A Justice of the US Supreme Court must not preside over a gay marriage at a state level because it tells the US public, whose cohesion literally depends on its perception of completely objective Justices, that they cannot trust the objectivity of those Justices on the question of "should the fed loom over/force approval of states of gay marriage" WHICH IS STILL A PENDING QUESTION OF LAW.

You are making this up. You are making up bullshit. You're not even misinformed, you're outright delusional. If Picard declared himself a Democrat, you would actually see five lights.

Sil is quite literally just making shit up. What you're witnessing is the dawning realization that the June ruling isn't going to go Sil's way. That creates a lot of emotional and mental pressure, classically called 'cognitive dissonance'. Its the uncomfortable sensation of one's perception of reality not matching actual reality. And Sil is scrambling for a way of relieving it.

So rather than admit that all of his predictions were meaningless gibberish based on meaningless pseudo-legal babble.......he is making up elaborate conspiracies backed by absolutely nothing. As self deception and self delusion are more comfortable than admitting that Silo's claims were wrong.

And we get to watch the elaborate delusions constructed, piece by piece and in slow motion, from now until June.

 

[Skylar]

There is triple the mandate for all other lower court judges to recuse that applies to a US Supreme Court Justice by virtue of the fact that the public sees that court at the end of the line.

And what bias are you claiming was demonstrated? I've asked you at least a dozen times. And yet you have no answer.

Its irrational to insist that justice be recused for having a bias you can't even describe. Let alone factually establish exists.

And of course, the case you cited was in regard to ELECTED judges and the campaign contributions they receive. The USSC justices aren't elected. And they don't accept campaign contributions. Rendering the case you cited utterly irrelevant.

A Justice of the US Supreme Court must not preside over a gay marriage at a state level because it tells the US public, whose cohesion literally depends on its perception of completely objective Justices, that they cannot trust the objectivity of those Justices on the question of "should the fed loom over/force approval of states of gay marriage" WHICH IS STILL A PENDING QUESTION OF LAW.

How? Remember, both Maryland and DC had already voted same sex marriage in. So how could the justices demonstrate a bias against state same sex marriage bans.....

....when there were no state same sex marriage bans?

Once again, you can't say. As there is no answer.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Sil is quite literally just making shit up. What you're witnessing is the dawning realization that the June ruling isn't going to go Sil's way. That creates a lot of emotional and mental pressure, classically called 'cognitive dissonance'. Its the uncomfortable sensation of one's perception of reality not matching actual reality. And Sil is scrambling for a way of relieving it.

So rather than admit that all of his predictions were meaningless gibberish based on meaningless pseudo-legal babble.......he is making up elaborate conspiracies backed by absolutely nothing. As self deception and self delusion are more comfortable than admitting that Silo's claims were wrong.

And we get to watch the elaborate delusions constructed, piece by piece and in slow motion, from now until June.

The court currently has 5 Constitutionalists and 4 who oppose the Constitution. Unless the makeup of the court changes, it is unlikely that the decision will go the way your party wants and that the Constitution will be upheld.