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

[Silhouette]

I would agree that attending the wedding would not be the same as officiating and I am disappointed that Kagan did not think this was improper. Don't think for a minute that the gay lobby isn't saying that we got her in the bag for our side and that this will really stick it to all those homophobes.

It goes further than that. There is no person on earth who would doubt how Kagan or Ginsburg (they both officiated at gay weddings/the dismantling of the structural meaning of the word marriage as presided over by the fed) will cast their vote at the Hearing coming up in April.

Blithering nonsense. The Windsor court explicitly found the NY state definition of marriage that included same sex couples as constitutionally valid....As both Maryland and DC voted same sex marriage in in the same fashion as NY state did.

And HOW did Windsor 2013 find that the woman's marriage was valid? Because a STATE SAID SO. In fact, the Court used its 56 times it avered that STATES have a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to define marriage in defiance of the fed in order to strike down part of DOMA (a fed looming over the states) and award her the money.

Then on the eve of a question of law where one side seeks a federal mandate to dismantle the physical structure of the millenial-old word "marriage" (ironically and in duplicity) and the other side wishes the states their Constitutionally-supported right to preserve it if they like, two Justices (federal entities) show up looming over states that have dismantled the word.

Gee, I wonder how those two Justices are going to vote on the question of "dismantled by federal mandate or not"? And the truth is that nobody wonders how those two Justices will vote as a result. Which is why they are mandated to recuse themselves according to their own finding in 2009: 2009 Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co where the premise was successfully argued and upheld that even the appearance of bias or suspicion of bias meets the standard where a judge must recuse themself.

It's the law. Nobody is above the law.

 

[Skylar]

And HOW did Windsor 2013 find that the woman's marriage was valid? Because a STATE SAID SO. In fact, the Court used its 56 times it avered that STATES have a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to define marriage in defiance of the fed in order to strike down part of DOMA (a fed looming over the states) and award her the money.

Then you just conceded your entire 'dismantling of the structural meaning of the word marriage' argument by admitting that the USSC recognized state defined same sex marriage as legally valid and fully legitimate.

Thank you.

Then on the eve of a question of law where one side seeks a federal mandate to dismantle the physical structure of the millenial-old word "marriage" (ironically and in duplicity) and the other side wishes the states their Constitutionally-supported right to preserve it if they like, two Justices (federal entities) show up looming over states that have dismantled the word.

The question of whether a state could define marriage as including same sex marriage was decided in Windsor v. US in 2013. So the 'bias' you're referring to is to precedent and settled case law.

Justices SHOULD show bias to precedent. Its the entire basis for stare decisis.

Laughing....is stare decisis now against the law? Or do you just not have a fucking clue what you're talking about?

Which is why they are mandated to recuse themselves according to their own finding in 2009: 2009 Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co where the premise was successfully argued and upheld that even the appearance of bias or suspicion of bias meets the standard where a judge must recuse themself.

It's the law. Nobody is above the law.

Two problems;

1) the 'bias' you're referring to is to precedent. Which is what a justice is supposed to do. Look up 'stare decisis' and tell me what it means.

2) The case you cited was about elected judges and bias created by campaign contributions. Neither of which apply to Kagan.

So in practice and in theory....you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. But at least your'e consistently clueless.

 

[Shrimpbox]

Supreme Court Justices generally do not officiate at weddings. That is not their job. The fact that she went out of her way to do so indicates a lack of impartiality. It doesnt help that she's also gay.
No, she will need to recuse.

Agreed.

And for those who think this isn't breaking, it is. Though the gay marriage performed by Kagan happened in 2014 late, according to the article, the news that the Court is taking up the gay marriage question in a couple weeks, coupled with this revelation, is breaking news. Combining the two is the "breaking" part..

But what if she refused to officiate over it.
Then what?

I would agree that attending the wedding would not be the same as officiating and I am disappointed that Kagan did not think this was improper.

Why would it be improper? Maryland and DC had already voted same sex marriage in. It creates no more of a bias for same sex marriage than being married traditionally does against same sex marriage.

As there's a word for both traditional marriage and same sex marriage in maryland and DC:

"Marriage"

Saying it doesn't make it so.

 

[Syriusly]

I would agree that attending the wedding would not be the same as officiating and I am disappointed that Kagan did not think this was improper. Don't think for a minute that the gay lobby isn't saying that we got her in the bag for our side and that this will really stick it to all those homophobes.

It would be, therefore, illegal for Kagan or Ginsburg to preside over that question of law by their own Finding in 2009..

Nope- just in your fevered imagination.

 

[Syriusly]

Your obsession with gay marriage is getting really fucking weird. You should go see a doctor, you might have dementia.

I seek to protect children from the brand new social experiment. It is my position that children do not make good lab rats...

I have yet to see you provide any argument about how preventing gay marriage protects any children.

Gay people have children- if they are married they are married gay people with children.

How does preventing gay marriage protect any children- ever?

 

[Syriusly]

Supreme Court Justices generally do not officiate at weddings. That is not their job. The fact that she went out of her way to do so indicates a lack of impartiality. It doesnt help that she's also gay.
No, she will need to recuse.

Agreed.

And for those who think this isn't breaking, it is. Though the gay marriage performed by Kagan happened in 2014 late, according to the article, the news that the Court is taking up the gay marriage question in a couple weeks, coupled with this revelation, is breaking news. Combining the two is the "breaking" part..

But what if she refused to officiate over it.
Then what?

I would agree that attending the wedding would not be the same as officiating and I am disappointed that Kagan did not think this was improper.

Why would it be improper? Maryland and DC had already voted same sex marriage in. It creates no more of a bias for same sex marriage than being married traditionally does against same sex marriage.

As there's a word for both traditional marriage and same sex marriage in maryland and DC:

"Marriage"

Saying it doesn't make it so.

If you go to get a marriage license in Maryland or DC it just says 'Marriage' there is no seperate box for "Gay Marriage' or "Traditional marriage'

 

[Syriusly]

Oops, you managed introduce a strawman, didn't you?

Are upset that someone may have introduced a strawman other than you?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

No matter how the SC rules, gays will still be able to marry in America.

But that's not good enough for you Nazis.

The Nazi's didn't support gay marriage. Their view was much closer to yours.

I support same sex marriage.

The Nazis controlled every facet of life, including who can marry and who can have an abortion. Their view was much closer to yours.

See what I did there?

And how does a gay couple getting married 'control your life'? Or effect you in any way?

Is your marriage somehow less valid because someone else is allowed to marry?

And the Nazi hatred of gays was well established. Putting their positions much closer to yours than mine.

The Nazi hatred of Jews and Christians was well established, putting their position much closer to yours than mine.

I don't hate any Jew or Christian. I just don't exempt them from any law they disagree with.

And you never did answer: how does a gay couple getting married 'control your life'? Or effect you in any way?

I never claimed they did. Are you confusing me with someone else?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Supreme Court Justices generally do not officiate at weddings. That is not their job. The fact that she went out of her way to do so indicates a lack of impartiality. It doesnt help that she's also gay.
No, she will need to recuse.

Agreed.

And for those who think this isn't breaking, it is. Though the gay marriage performed by Kagan happened in 2014 late, according to the article, the news that the Court is taking up the gay marriage question in a couple weeks, coupled with this revelation, is breaking news. Combining the two is the "breaking" part..

But what if she refused to officiate over it.
Then what?

I would agree that attending the wedding would not be the same as officiating and I am disappointed that Kagan did not think this was improper.

Why would it be improper? Maryland and DC had already voted same sex marriage in. It creates no more of a bias for same sex marriage than being married traditionally does against same sex marriage.

As there's a word for both traditional marriage and same sex marriage in maryland and DC:

"Marriage"

Saying it doesn't make it so.

Actually it does.

Marriage is the union of two consenting adult partners who are not related, same- or opposite-sex.

 

[Skylar]

The Nazi's didn't support gay marriage. Their view was much closer to yours.

I support same sex marriage.

The Nazis controlled every facet of life, including who can marry and who can have an abortion. Their view was much closer to yours.

See what I did there?

And how does a gay couple getting married 'control your life'? Or effect you in any way?

Is your marriage somehow less valid because someone else is allowed to marry?

And the Nazi hatred of gays was well established. Putting their positions much closer to yours than mine.

The Nazi hatred of Jews and Christians was well established, putting their position much closer to yours than mine.

I don't hate any Jew or Christian. I just don't exempt them from any law they disagree with.

And you never did answer: how does a gay couple getting married 'control your life'? Or effect you in any way?

I never claimed they did. Are you confusing me with someone else?

Then your batshit 'nazi' analogy just went poof yet again.

 

[Skylar]

Supreme Court Justices generally do not officiate at weddings. That is not their job. The fact that she went out of her way to do so indicates a lack of impartiality. It doesnt help that she's also gay.
No, she will need to recuse.

Agreed.

And for those who think this isn't breaking, it is. Though the gay marriage performed by Kagan happened in 2014 late, according to the article, the news that the Court is taking up the gay marriage question in a couple weeks, coupled with this revelation, is breaking news. Combining the two is the "breaking" part..

But what if she refused to officiate over it.
Then what?

I would agree that attending the wedding would not be the same as officiating and I am disappointed that Kagan did not think this was improper.

Why would it be improper? Maryland and DC had already voted same sex marriage in. It creates no more of a bias for same sex marriage than being married traditionally does against same sex marriage.

As there's a word for both traditional marriage and same sex marriage in maryland and DC:

"Marriage"

Saying it doesn't make it so.

The law in Maryland and DC make it so. I'm just telling you about it. Don't take my word for it. Look up the law yourself. You'll find that marriage in both Maryland and DC includes both opposite sex and same sex couples.

And its all just called 'marriage'.

Ignoring reality doesn't change reality. Remember that Shrimp.

 

[The Rabbi]

Agreed.

And for those who think this isn't breaking, it is. Though the gay marriage performed by Kagan happened in 2014 late, according to the article, the news that the Court is taking up the gay marriage question in a couple weeks, coupled with this revelation, is breaking news. Combining the two is the "breaking" part..

But what if she refused to officiate over it.
Then what?

I would agree that attending the wedding would not be the same as officiating and I am disappointed that Kagan did not think this was improper.

Why would it be improper? Maryland and DC had already voted same sex marriage in. It creates no more of a bias for same sex marriage than being married traditionally does against same sex marriage.

As there's a word for both traditional marriage and same sex marriage in maryland and DC:

"Marriage"

Saying it doesn't make it so.

Actually it does.

Marriage is the union of two consenting adult partners who are not related, same- or opposite-sex.

Marriage is the union of two or more partners whether they consent or not, whatever sex, and whatever species they might be.
See how that works?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Justices SHOULD show bias to precedent. Its the entire basis for stare decisis.

Wrong. And only a Leftist could get this so wrong.

Justices should show bias to the Constitution.

 

[Silhouette]

Justices SHOULD show bias to precedent. Its the entire basis for stare decisis.

Wrong. And only a Leftist could get this so wrong.

Justices should show bias to the Constitution.

There is no precedent at SCOTUS level that forces states to dismantle the structural meaning of the word marriage. The display/approval of such a bias is wrong and as of SCOTUS' 2009 Finding, Ginsburg and Kagan must recuse themselves. No objective or even subjective person on the face of the earth (evidenced by LGBTs here laughing about how with Ginsburg and Kagan their arguments are "in the bag") will assert that Kagan or Ginsburg would vote to preserve the definition of marriage or to allow states to preserve their definition of marriage without the fed interfering/looming/presiding.

 

[Skylar]

Justices SHOULD show bias to precedent. Its the entire basis for stare decisis.

Wrong. And only a Leftist could get this so wrong.

Justices should show bias to the Constitution.

So the entire concept of Stare Decisis is both wrong....and 'leftist'?

LMAO....holy shit, dude. Really?

 

[Skylar]

Justices SHOULD show bias to precedent. Its the entire basis for stare decisis.

Wrong. And only a Leftist could get this so wrong.

Justices should show bias to the Constitution.

There is no precedent at SCOTUS level that forces states to dismantle the structural meaning of the word marriage.

Blithering nonsense. The Windsor decision recognized the that State including same sex couples in marriage as legitimate, constitutional, and superseding Federal marriage law. It was the entire basis of the ruling. You know, your '56 times' in the Windsor ruling?

Simply destroying all of your 'structural meaning of the word marriage' bullshit. You have no idea what you're talking about.

You're so far down the conspiracy rabbit hole you insist Windsor authorized same sex marriage bans....despite the Windsor ruling never even mentioning same sex marriage bans once. And yet you bizarrely insist that the Windsor court didn't recognize state defined same sex marriage, despite mentioning it repeatedly and basing the entire Windsor ruling around it.

Shrugs.....you're in denial.

The display/approval of such a bias is wrong and as of SCOTUS' 2009 Finding, Ginsburg and Kagan must recuse themselves.

Nope.

1) As its impossible to demonstrate a bias against same sex marriage bans by officiating a same sex marriage in Maryland or DC when there were no same sex marriage bans in either Maryland or DC.

2) The 2009 ruling was in reference to ELECTED judges receiving campaign contributions. Neither Kagan nor Ginsburg were elected. Neither accept campaign contributions. Making your latest round of nonsense even hypothetically irrelevant.

You're simply building up your excuses for why the June ruling is going to go against you. Trying to convince yourself that its the entire federal judiciary that must be wrong....

....instead of just you.

 

[kiwiman127]

Using some of the logic on display here, Scalia and Thomas should have recused themselves from Citizens United considering their relationship and regular guest of the Koch brothers, right?
I remember a thread suggesting this and our little friends who want Kagan to recuse herself, defended Scalia and Thomas, correctly citing the fact the Supreme Court judges are not bound the Judicial Code of Conduct.
But all of a sudden it's different. Isn't the hypocrisy in action?
Any of you geniuses want to answer the question?

 

[Skylar]

Using some of the logic on display here, Scalia and Thomas should have recused themselves from Citizens United considering their relationship and regular guest of the Koch brothers, right?
I remember a thread suggesting this and our little friends who want Kagan to recuse herself, defended Scalia and Thomas, correctly citing the fact the Supreme Court judges are not bound the Judicial Code of Conduct.
But all of a sudden it's different. Isn't the hypocrisy in action?
Any of you geniuses want to answer the question?

Oh, using the logic of the OP, Scalia and Thomas should recuse themselves because they've demonstrated a bias for traditional marriage by getting traditionally married.

Alas, the 'logic' of the OP is blithering idiocy.

 

[candycorn]

No way she recuses herself.

 

[mudwhistle]

Fat Tony Scalia should be forced to recuse himself since he is openly homophobic and biased.

Scalia s Most Anti-Gay Comments - Business Insider

Being Homophobic and being against gay marriage aren't the same.
Homophobic - Irrational hatred of homosexuality