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

[Syriusly]

There is no mandatory recusal standard for the supreme court.

In 2009 the SCOTUS found that any judge who exhibits an "appearance of bias" or where an objective person would harbor a "suspicion of bias" in judge, then that judge must recuse themself.

Supreme Court Justices, who are judges, are not above their own law.

At least you are no longer arguing the obvious: that Kagan and Ginsburg exhibited bias on the fed looming over states having to redact the word "marriage"..

Kagan and Ginsburge displayed bias by doing what?

Legally marrying someone- just like other justice have done?

Supreme Court justices decide for themselves whether to recuse themselves.

 

[Silhouette]

They displayed bias because the question pending before the Court is whether or not the word "marriage" should be dismantled by a federal mandate, forcing the states to comply. Before that hearing, it was wholly in appropriate and in fact a flagrant display of public bias by having a Justice (the fed) looming over the dismantling of the word "marriage" in a state...whether it was legal in that particular state or not.

The point being that all 50 states will have to fall to their knees in obedience to the fed to dismantle marriage in their boundaries if this looming becomes official.

All judges anywhere, anytime, including the US Supreme Court judges must obey the 2009 Finding and recuse themselves upon apparent bias or upon even when an objective person can see a suspicion of bias. Clearly the act of presiding over the dismantling of the word "marriage" at a state by a federal agent before the arguments are Heard as to whether this will be a federal mandate, is a display of bias and therefore, mandates Kagan and Ginsburg recus themselves. Not one person on earth doubts thereafter how Kagan or Ginsburg will vote on a federal mandate for dismantling the word "marriage" from man/woman only.

 

[Syriusly]

They displayed bias because the question pending before the Court is whethr or not the word "marriage" should be dismantled by a federal mandate, forcing the states to comply.

Since the marriages that they performed were legal marriages according to state law, then clearly those ceremonies have nothing to do with the question of whether it is unconsitutional for states to forbid same gender marriages.

 

[Silhouette]

The question of law is whether or not the fed should force states to redact their common understanding of the word "marriage". For a fed to loom over any cermony legal or not in a singular state where that definition has been redacted is a display of federal blessings upon the redaction.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The question of law is whether or not the fed should force states to redact their common understanding of the word "marriage". For a fed to loom over any cermony legal or not in a singular state where that definition has been redacted is a display of federal blessings upon the redaction.

Maryland - passed by ballot.

D.C. - Passed by legislative action.



In neither case was a Civil Marriage performed in a jurisdiction where Same-sex Civil Marriage was "redacted" by Federal court.



>>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

you missed the "whether or not" part.

 

[WorldWatcher]

you missed the "whether or not" part.

Not I didn't. The question has no bearing on the valid Civil Marriages performed by the Justices because in both cased the jurisdictions had chosen without federal intervention to all Same-sex Civil Marriage.

There is no question that States and other jurisdictions (D.C. and Territories) can voluntarily allows SSCM. There was no impropriety since those jurisdictions were not impacted by any upcoming ruling.


>>>>

 

[Syriusly]

The question of law is whether or not the fed should force states to redact their common understanding of the word "marriage". .

That is not the 'question of law'.

Once again the questions the Supreme Court will be asking instead of Silhouette's fantasy question:

the justices ordered that the parties to the cases address two questions in their legal briefs:

• whether the Constitution requires states to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples,
• and whether states must recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states where they are legal.

 

[Silhouette]

you missed the "whether or not" part.

Not I didn't. The question has no bearing on the valid Civil Marriages performed by the Justices because in both cased the jurisdictions had chosen without federal intervention to all Same-sex Civil Marriage.

There is no question that States and other jurisdictions (D.C. and Territories) can voluntarily allows SSCM. There was no impropriety since those jurisdictions were not impacted by any upcoming ruling.


>>>>

What the states chose to or not do isn't in question here. What is in question and pending still to be heard is whether or not the fed should mandate the redaction of the word "marriage" and not allow states the say. Presiding "in blessing" over these new and strange redactions to "marriage" as a federal authority is the public exhibition of bias on behalf of Justices Kagan and Ginsburg over whether or not the fed should give blessings/mandate the redaction of the word "marriage".

 

[WorldWatcher]

you missed the "whether or not" part.

Not I didn't. The question has no bearing on the valid Civil Marriages performed by the Justices because in both cased the jurisdictions had chosen without federal intervention to all Same-sex Civil Marriage.

There is no question that States and other jurisdictions (D.C. and Territories) can voluntarily allows SSCM. There was no impropriety since those jurisdictions were not impacted by any upcoming ruling.


>>>>

What the states chose to or not do isn't in question here. What is in question and pending still to be heard is whether or not the fed should mandate the redaction of the word "marriage" and not allow states the say. Presiding "in blessing" over these new and strange redactions to "marriage" as a federal authority is the public exhibition of bias on behalf of Justices Kagan and Ginsburg over whether or not the fed should give blessings/mandate the redaction of the word "marriage".

There is no question that the jurisdictions can say "Yes", which is what happened in both locations (Maryland and D.C.).


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

>

BTW - "redacted"

Do you think you learned a new word?


>>>>

 

[mdk]

you missed the "whether or not" part.

Not I didn't. The question has no bearing on the valid Civil Marriages performed by the Justices because in both cased the jurisdictions had chosen without federal intervention to all Same-sex Civil Marriage.

There is no question that States and other jurisdictions (D.C. and Territories) can voluntarily allows SSCM. There was no impropriety since those jurisdictions were not impacted by any upcoming ruling.


>>>>

What the states chose to or not do isn't in question here. What is in question and pending still to be heard is whether or not the fed should mandate the redaction of the word "marriage" and not allow states the say. Presiding "in blessing" over these new and strange redactions to "marriage" as a federal authority is the public exhibition of bias on behalf of Justices Kagan and Ginsburg over whether or not the fed should give blessings/mandate the redaction of the word "marriage".

What the hell is this gibberish supposed to mean?

The bias you claim only exists in your head. These justices are not going to recuse themselves over something you've made up.

 

[Skylar]

They displayed bias because the question pending before the Court is whether or not the word "marriage" should be dismantled by a federal mandate, forcing the states to comply.

That's not the question before the court. This is:

The cases are consolidated and the petitions for writs of certiorari are granted limited to the following questions: 1) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex? 2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?

(ORDER LIST: 574 U.S.)
FRIDAY, JANUARY 16, 2015

http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/011615zr_f2q3.pdf

Remember, SIl...and this point is fundamental: You don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about. You're literally hallucinating your entire argument.

Before that hearing, it was wholly in appropriate and in fact a flagrant display of public bias by having a Justice (the fed) looming over the dismantling of the word "marriage" in a state...whether it was legal in that particular state or not.

A bias for what? You keep using the word, but you can't even describe the bias you're accusing the justices of. Please remember that the questions before the court that you insisted they displayed a 'bias of'.....don't exist. You made them up.

So back in reality, what bias are you speaking of? And if you can't even *describe* it, then surely you can't expect the justices to recuse themselves over it.

 

[Skylar]

There is no mandatory recusal standard for the supreme court.

In 2009 the SCOTUS found that any judge who exhibits an "appearance of bias" or where an objective person would harbor a "suspicion of bias" in judge, then that judge must recuse themself.

Th 2009 case you're citing was for ELECTED judges who were taking campaign contributions. Neither Kagan nor Ginsberg were elected. Neither Kagan nor Ginsberg take campaign contributions.

Your claims are meaningless gibberish that are even hypothetically irrelevant.

At least you are no longer arguing the obvious: that Kagan and Ginsburg exhibited bias on the fed looming over states having to redact the word "marriage"..

What bias? Remember, Maryland and DC had already voted in same sex marriage. So you know what they call a same sex marriage in Maryland and DC?

"Marriage"

How then could Kagan or Ginsberg display a bias against same sex marriage bans.....when there were no same sex marriage bans? You can't display a bias against something that doesn't exist.

 

[Skylar]

you missed the "whether or not" part.

You missed the 'that's the question being asked of the court' and 'you don't know what the fuck you're talking about' parts.

 

[candycorn]

There is no mandatory recusal standard for the supreme court.

In 2009 the SCOTUS found that any judge who exhibits an "appearance of bias" or where an objective person would harbor a "suspicion of bias" in judge, then that judge must recuse themself.

Supreme Court Justices, who are judges, are not above their own law.

At least you are no longer arguing the obvious: that Kagan and Ginsburg exhibited bias on the fed looming over states having to redact the word "marriage"..

Really, what else did that "ruling" say....

You're leaving out key information....is it because you're simply ignorant or is it because you know it destroys your argument.

Gay marriage will be ratified by the courts and will be legal in all 50 states; likely by the year 2020. Get used to it. But take heart, you can always go back to hating blacks, women, the short, etc... and whomever else the GOP is targeting next week.

 

[JoeB131]

In the case of Kagan, we have an unbelievable display of overt bias in addition to the shadow-bias the entire Court is displaying to the public: .

Breaking?

You have been claiming this same crap for days now.

Justices decide for themselves when they should recuse themselves.

One only imagines the meltdown Sil is going to have when SCOTUS strikes down the last gay marriage bans in the few states that still have them.

 

[Syriusly]

In the case of Kagan, we have an unbelievable display of overt bias in addition to the shadow-bias the entire Court is displaying to the public: .

Breaking?

You have been claiming this same crap for days now.

Justices decide for themselves when they should recuse themselves.

One only imagines the meltdown Sil is going to have when SCOTUS strikes down the last gay marriage bans in the few states that still have them.

We should all get our bets in now as to what fantasy Silhouette will flame out on when the Supreme Court rules, if the ruling finds the lower court decisions correct.

My bet is that Silhouette will proclaim that "Gays blackmailed the Supreme Court Justices"

 

[Skylar]

In the case of Kagan, we have an unbelievable display of overt bias in addition to the shadow-bias the entire Court is displaying to the public: .

Breaking?

You have been claiming this same crap for days now.

Justices decide for themselves when they should recuse themselves.

One only imagines the meltdown Sil is going to have when SCOTUS strikes down the last gay marriage bans in the few states that still have them.

Sil is already ramping up for it. We have a fascinating opportunity to watch an elaborate self delusion being constructed in slow motion. With Sil making up fantasies, one at a time, for why the June ruling is invalid.

That it overturns Windsor.....which never even mentioned same sex marriage bans.

That Kagan and Ginsberg were biased.....despite neither Maryland nor DC having gay marriage bans.

That the refusal to grant a stay for Alabama demonstrates a 'shadow bias'....despite the USSC denying a stay for *every* state with gay marriage bans.

SIl is now building up a fantasy about how the USSC can't make the decision, or we should ignore them if they do. You'll see Sil absolutely lose his shit come June. Expect words like 'Coup' and 'Tyranny' and 'Sedition' and 'revolution' with the occasional reference to nuclear meltdowns and possibly zombies.

 

[Syriusly]

In the case of Kagan, we have an unbelievable display of overt bias in addition to the shadow-bias the entire Court is displaying to the public: .

Breaking?

You have been claiming this same crap for days now.

Justices decide for themselves when they should recuse themselves.

One only imagines the meltdown Sil is going to have when SCOTUS strikes down the last gay marriage bans in the few states that still have them.

We should all get our bets in now as to what fantasy Silhouette will flame out on when the Supreme Court rules, if the ruling finds the lower court decisions correct.

My bet is that Silhouette will proclaim that "Gays blackmailed the Supreme Court Justices"

In the case of Kagan, we have an unbelievable display of overt bias in addition to the shadow-bias the entire Court is displaying to the public: .

Breaking?

You have been claiming this same crap for days now.

Justices decide for themselves when they should recuse themselves.

One only imagines the meltdown Sil is going to have when SCOTUS strikes down the last gay marriage bans in the few states that still have them.

Sil is already ramping up for it. We have a fascinating opportunity to watch an elaborate self delusion being constructed in slow motion. With Sil making up fantasies, one at a time, for why the June ruling is invalid.

That it overturns Windsor.....which never even mentioned same sex marriage bans.

That Kagan and Ginsberg were biased.....despite neither Maryland nor DC having gay marriage bans.

That the refusal to grant a stay for Alabama demonstrates a 'shadow bias'....despite the USSC denying a stay for *every* state with gay marriage bans.

SIl is now building up a fantasy about how the USSC can't make the decision, or we should ignore them if they do. You'll see Sil absolutely lose his shit come June. Expect words like 'Coup' and 'Tyranny' and 'Sedition' and 'revolution' with the occasional reference to nuclear meltdowns and possibly zombies.

You forgot about wolves raising children.......