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

[Silhouette]

The 2009 case was in regard to elected judges and campaign contributions. Neither Kagan nor Ginsberg were elected. Neither take campaign contributions. Destroying your argument yet again.

Again, Silo....your claims are irrelevant even hypothetically.

Apparently you are blind or can't read. So here's my answer to those points...AGAIN...

Any prior ruling that has bearing upon law in general is not limited in such a specific way. It is ABSOLUTELY ABSURD to assert that SCOTUS found that a judge should recuse themselves ONLY if the appearance of bias or suspicion of bias surrounded ONLY campaign contributions. The conclusion from that absurd rendering would mean that if apparent or reasonably suspected bias existed for any other reason, a party to a case would not have a right that that judge recuse himself. Bias is bias is bias is bias. No judge may have it or exhibit it.

Your EQUALLY ABSURD conclusion that the 2009 Finding only applies to just some judges is the more laughable of the two inane renderings.. Oh sure. We have different rules of protection of due process depending I suppose on what day of the week a judge was elected too?..oh...and a freeforall for any judge appointed to his/her position. Because, you know, appointed judges are subject to completely different rules of dispensing justice.. Anything goes!

 

[Skylar]

[
1. Are you suggesting that non-elected judges like ones that are appointed to fill vacant seats all over the country are exempt from the 2009 Finding that appearance or suspicion of bias must mandate recusal? Seriously? You're saying that some judges are above that law?

The USSC rules that judges can't rule on cases involving big donors.

"We conclude that there is a serious risk of actual bias — based on objective and reasonable perceptions — when a person with a personal stake in a particular case had a significant and disproportionate influence in placing the judge on the case by raising funds or directing the judge's election campaign when the case was pending or imminent."

None of those factors exist with Kagan and Ginsberg related to gay marriage.

As usual, you paraphrase a ruling yuou didn't understand. And then drew batshit conclusions that the ruling never utters based on whatever is convenient to your argument. Just like your blunders with Windsor....where you completely misread the ruling, and nonsensically ignored the entire concept of constitutional guarantees.

2. The WINNING PREMISE of the 2009 case that just happened to apply to campaign contributions as a source of bias(among a sea of potential sources that could be cited, like family relations or a personal vendetta or an expressed political crusade etc. etc.) was the mere appearance or suspicion of bias from an objective onlooker.

Nope. The specific circumstances of that case was the winning premise:

"On these extreme facts the probability of actual bias rises to an unconstitutional level.

As usual, you have no idea what you're talking about.

3. Nobody on earth would doubt after seeing Ginsburg or Kagan preside as a federal entity blessing the redaction of the world "marriage" that they would do anything but vote for the fed presiding over the mandating of the redaction in that same form they presided over/blessed publicly.

Kagan and Ginsberg didn't vote for same sex marriage in Maryland or DC. The legislatures/city councils of Maryland and DC did.

Its impossible to demonstrate a bias against same sex marriage bans in Maryland or DC, as there are no same sex marriage bans in either Maryland or DC. You can't have a bias against something that doesn't exist.

Try again.

 

[Skylar]

Apparently you are blind or can't read. So here's my answer to those points...AGAIN...

Any prior ruling that has bearing upon law in general is not limited in such a specific way. It is ABSOLUTELY ABSURD to assert that SCOTUS found that a judge should recuse themselves ONLY if the appearance of bias or suspicion of bias surrounded ONLY campaign contributions.

You clearly haven't read the actual ruling. Let me educate you on your latest pseudo-legal blunder:

"The inquiry centers on the contribution's relative size in comparison to the total amount of money contributed to the campaign, the total amount spent in the election, and the apparent effect such contribution had on the outcome of the election."

And reviewing those facts specifically, the court came to this conclusion:

"We conclude that there is a serious risk of actual bias — based on objective and reasonable perceptions — when a person with a personal stake in a particular case had a significant and disproportionate influence in placing the judge on the case by raising funds or directing the judge's election campaign when the case was pending or imminent."

None of those factors exist with Kagan and Ginsberg in gay marriage. They've received no campaign contributions, they aren't elected, there's no indication of influence by anyone other than their own judgment. And gay marriage is legal in both Maryland and DC. Making a demonstration against same sex marraige bans an impossibility.....

...as there are no same sex marriage bans in Maryland or DC.

Its absurd to claim a bias against something that doesn't exist. You simply don't know what you're talking about

 

[Silhouette]

"We conclude that there is a serious risk of actual bias — based on objective and reasonable perceptions — when a person with a personal stake in a particular case had a significant and disproportionate influence in placing the judge on the case by raising funds or directing the judge's election campaign when the case was pending or imminent."

Yes, BASED ON OBJECTIVE AND REASONABLE PERCEPTIONS..!

Read:

1. The issue before the Court next month is whether or not the fed will preside over (bless) the forced-redaction to the word "marriage" to the states who do not want it redacted.

2. The 2009 Finding was that no judge (I'm not going to debate your absurd claim that Justices aren't judges or that some judges don't have to abide by SCOTUS findings applying to judges re: due process depending on whether or not they were elected or appointed) may exhibit the appearance of or suspicion of bias.

3. Kagan and Ginsburg, both as decorum-bound federal entities who embody the Supreme Form of Justice in this country and the last car in the justice-train on the tracks, presided over and blessed the redaction of the word marriage in states where it was redacted legally by permission of the governed (Windsor 2013).

4. The APPEARANCE of #3. is that both Ginsburg and Kagan displayed to the world that they blessed the redaction...AS FEDERAL ENTITIES WHO ARE THE ONLY ONES CAPABLE OF FORCING THAT REDACTION. Not just as private citizens doing a gay wedding in a state that approved it legally.

6. GET IT YET?????????? There most certainly is a cause for recusal. There is apparent bias and any reasonable person on earth has now, no doubts whatsoever how those two Justices will vote after the Hearing THAT HASN'T HAPPENED YET.

 

[Skylar]

Yes, BASED ON REASONABLE OBJECTIONS..!

Read:

1. The issue before the Court next month is whether or not the fed will preside over (bless) the forced-redaction to the word "marriage" to the states who do not want it redacted.

Nope. These are the actual questions the court is addressing:

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.)

As Maryland and DC had already voted to recognize same sex marriage, neither question is relevant to either State. Making your 'bias' claim an impossibility. And your imaginary 'question before the court' claim yet another spasm of useless imagination on your part.

The 2009 Finding was that no judge (I'm not going to debate your absurd claim that Justices aren't judges or that some judges don't have to abide by SCOTUS findings applying to judges re: due process depending on whether or not they were elected or appointed) may exhibit the appearance of or suspicion of bias.

The ruling was based on the facts of that case.

We conclude that there is a serious risk of actual bias — based on objective and reasonable perceptions — when a person with a personal stake in a particular case had a significant and disproportionate influence in placing the judge on the case by raising funds or directing the judge's election campaign when the case was pending or imminent."

None of those factors apply to Kagan nor Ginsberg. There is no 'significant and disproportionate influence' placed on either judge. There are no campaign contributions. And there was no election. Hell, there wasn't even a same sex marriage ban in either Maryland nor DC, making a demonstration of bias against biassame sex marriage bans an impossibility.

As you can't have a bias against something that *doesn't exist*.

All of which destroys your argument. As none of the extreme facts that lead the justices to a determination of bias exist in Caperton actually exist with Kagan nor Ginsberg in regard to the case in June. And it were the extreme facts in the Caperton case that was the basis of the ruling of the USSC:

On these extreme facts the probability of actual bias rises to an unconstitutional level."

Ignore as you will. But your willful ignorance doesn't change legal precedent. Or the irrelevance of your accusations.

 

[Syriusly]

Silhouette is already winding up for her inevitable melt down

Expect her fantasies to get wierder and more detached (hard to to imagine) from reality as the date gets closer.

Meanwhile- Supreme Court justices decide for themselves whether to recuse themselves. I don't see any justice recusing him or herself from this decision.

 

[Skylar]

Silhouette is already winding up for her inevitable melt down

Yup. Silo actually argued, straight faced, that the 'constitutional guarantees' that the court's were referrring to in Windsor was the state's authority to define marriage.

Even though the court cited Loving v. Virginia as an example of state marriage laws being subject to constitutional guarantees. A case where the federal judiciary OVERTURNED state marriage laws.

A literal opposite of what Silo claims the court 'really meant'.

 

[hazlnut]

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: Justices Indicate Shadow-Bias Gay Marriage Question Erodes Last Bastion of Impariality Page 40 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This is behavior unbecoming on an unsettled question of law for a US Supreme Court Justice. I just stumbled upon this today:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Justice Elena Kagan has officiated for the first time at a same-sex wedding, a Maryland ceremony for her former law clerk and his husband.
Kagan presided on Sunday over the wedding of former clerk Mitchell Reich and Patrick Pearsall in the Washington suburb of Chevy Chase, Maryland. Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan Performs Her First Same-Sex Wedding

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Monday that elected judges must step aside from cases when large campaign contributions from interested parties create the appearance of bias...Voting 5-4 in a case from West Virginia, the high court said that a judge who remained involved in a lawsuit — one filed against a company helmed by a generous supporter of the justice's campaign — deprived the other side of the constitutional right to a fair trial.Court Judges must avoid appearance of bias - politics - Supreme Court NBC News

By the Court's 2009 Finding, Kagan must recuse herself from sitting on the upcoming Hearing on gay marriage.

How many cases with Black or race issues has Thomas sat out?


Or Scalia, the Catholic, on abortion cases?

 

[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: Justices Indicate Shadow-Bias Gay Marriage Question Erodes Last Bastion of Impariality Page 40 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This is behavior unbecoming on an unsettled question of law for a US Supreme Court Justice. I just stumbled upon this today:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Justice Elena Kagan has officiated for the first time at a same-sex wedding, a Maryland ceremony for her former law clerk and his husband.
Kagan presided on Sunday over the wedding of former clerk Mitchell Reich and Patrick Pearsall in the Washington suburb of Chevy Chase, Maryland. Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan Performs Her First Same-Sex Wedding

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Monday that elected judges must step aside from cases when large campaign contributions from interested parties create the appearance of bias...Voting 5-4 in a case from West Virginia, the high court said that a judge who remained involved in a lawsuit — one filed against a company helmed by a generous supporter of the justice's campaign — deprived the other side of the constitutional right to a fair trial.Court Judges must avoid appearance of bias - politics - Supreme Court NBC News

By the Court's 2009 Finding, Kagan must recuse herself from sitting on the upcoming Hearing on gay marriage.

How many cases with Black or race issues has Thomas sat out?


Or Scalia, the Catholic, on abortion cases?

We have seen examples that give us a pretty clear idea of when Justices will recuse themselves.

Kagan recused herself from cases that were related to her work as solicitor general

Kagan, 50, has recused herself from 25 of the 51 cases the court has accepted so far this term, all as a result of her 14-month tenure as solicitor general, the government's chief legal representative in the Supreme Court and the nation's lower appellate courts.


The recusals are one measure of how integral the "SG" is to the court's workings. Much of the court's caseload comes from challenges to federal statutes or government policies that the solicitor general must defend. The court also often asks for the government's view on whether a case is ripe for review.


Kagan is recusing herself from cases in which she had a role in drafting a brief for the Supreme Court, or when she was actively involved in a case in the lower courts. She took herself out of such deliberations when President Obama nominated her last May, so the pace of her recusals should slow as the court over the next few months completes the work of filling the term's docket.

Other examples:

In 1973, then-Associate Justice Rehnquist wrote a lengthy in-chambers opinion declining to recuse himself in Laird v. Tatum, a case challenging the validity of certain arrests, even though Rehnquist had previously served as a White House lawyer and opined that the arrest program was valid.[2] In 2004, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote an opinion declining to recuse himself in a case to which Vice President Dick Cheney was a party in his official capacity, despite the contention of several environmental groups that Scalia's participation created an appearance of impropriety because Scalia had recently participated in a widely publicized hunting trip with the Vice President.[3] The same year, however, Scalia recused himself without explanation in Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, a First Amendment case challenging inclusion of the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, after giving a public speech in which Scalia stated his view that Newdow's claims were meritless.

Scalia's decision on when and when not to recuse himself is probably the most relevant:

• He didn't recuse himself in a case involving VP Dick Cheney- even though there was some 'appearance of impropriety'
• He did recuse himself when he had actually stated that the basis of a claim before the court was meritless.

Finally of course- in all of these- it is the Justice his or herself that decides when to recuse him or herself.

 

[Seawytch]

Gays and their straight allies need to thank folks like Sil. Some people are made less anti gay by reading posts like hers.

 

[Seawytch]

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: Justices Indicate Shadow-Bias Gay Marriage Question Erodes Last Bastion of Impariality Page 40 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This is behavior unbecoming on an unsettled question of law for a US Supreme Court Justice. I just stumbled upon this today:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Justice Elena Kagan has officiated for the first time at a same-sex wedding, a Maryland ceremony for her former law clerk and his husband.
Kagan presided on Sunday over the wedding of former clerk Mitchell Reich and Patrick Pearsall in the Washington suburb of Chevy Chase, Maryland. Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan Performs Her First Same-Sex Wedding

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Monday that elected judges must step aside from cases when large campaign contributions from interested parties create the appearance of bias...Voting 5-4 in a case from West Virginia, the high court said that a judge who remained involved in a lawsuit — one filed against a company helmed by a generous supporter of the justice's campaign — deprived the other side of the constitutional right to a fair trial.Court Judges must avoid appearance of bias - politics - Supreme Court NBC News

By the Court's 2009 Finding, Kagan must recuse herself from sitting on the upcoming Hearing on gay marriage.

How many cases with Black or race issues has Thomas sat out?


Or Scalia, the Catholic, on abortion cases?

How about all the Abrahamic religions barred from all marriage equality cases.

 

[mdk]

Gays and their straight allies need to thank folks like Sil. Some people are made less anti gay by reading posts like hers.

I've said quite often that Sil has done a great deal helping along marriage equality with all her drama and misrepresentations. The gay community should send roses to her in June.

 

[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: Justices Indicate Shadow-Bias Gay Marriage Question Erodes Last Bastion of Impariality Page 40 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This is behavior unbecoming on an unsettled question of law for a US Supreme Court Justice. I just stumbled upon this today:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Justice Elena Kagan has officiated for the first time at a same-sex wedding, a Maryland ceremony for her former law clerk and his husband.
Kagan presided on Sunday over the wedding of former clerk Mitchell Reich and Patrick Pearsall in the Washington suburb of Chevy Chase, Maryland. Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan Performs Her First Same-Sex Wedding

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Monday that elected judges must step aside from cases when large campaign contributions from interested parties create the appearance of bias...Voting 5-4 in a case from West Virginia, the high court said that a judge who remained involved in a lawsuit — one filed against a company helmed by a generous supporter of the justice's campaign — deprived the other side of the constitutional right to a fair trial.Court Judges must avoid appearance of bias - politics - Supreme Court NBC News

By the Court's 2009 Finding, Kagan must recuse herself from sitting on the upcoming Hearing on gay marriage.

How many cases with Black or race issues has Thomas sat out?


Or Scalia, the Catholic, on abortion cases?

Or Scalia and Thomas on issues of marriage. After all, wouldn't their having entered into a 'traditional marriage' demonstrate an undeniable bias for them by the batshit standards of bias being made up by Sil.

If officiating a wedding is 'bias', then being part of the wedding has to be an order of magnitude worse.

 

[emilynghiem]

Duh, wake up, America.
Everyone has their beliefs about this. Hello?

The only way to be fair is to have consensus decisions on a local level
that affect those parties. And the base global policies on what everyone agrees on.
If not, then bump down to the next closest local level where people agree and keep it there.
If people can agree how to write and implement laws, then bump those agreements up on a broader level of law.

 

[Skylar]

Duh, wake up, America.
Everyone has their beliefs about this. Hello?

But not all beliefs are equally valid.

If a man believes he should be able to have sex with you whenever he wants. And you don't want to sleep with him at all, should be expected to 'comprimise' by allowing him to have sex with you against your will only 3 times a week?

If belief alone is the currency of comprimise, then it would benefit folks to have the most outrageous, most unreasonable beliefs possible. As it would force the most concessions out of opposing party. Where if reasonable and rational standards were the currency of comprimise, then moderate and balanced positions would be the most likely to be used.

The only way to be fair is to have consensus decisions on a local level

I disagree. You shouldn't have to sacrifice your rights because someone disagrees with you having them. Its not 'fair' to grant someone else that kind of power over you simply because they have a belief. That belief needs to be tempered with some connection to reality, reason, and rationality.

 

[emilynghiem]

Duh, wake up, America.
Everyone has their beliefs about this. Hello?

But not all beliefs are equally valid.

If a man believes he should be able to have sex with you whenever he wants. And you don't want to sleep with him at all, should be expected to 'comprimise' by allowing him to have sex with you against your will only 3 times a week?

No, duh, because my beliefs are valid and I say no.
When you go down that road of counting whose beliefs are valid or not,
this opens the door for other people to invalidate YOUR beliefs.

I go by CONSENSUS maybe you missed my other 12 million messages about CONSENSUS
being the way to settle issues where people will not compromise their beliefs for govt. And shouldn't.

The only way to be fair is to have consensus decisions on a local level

I disagree. You shouldn't have to sacrifice your rights because someone disagrees with you having them. Its not 'fair' to grant someone else that kind of power over you simply because they have a belief. That belief needs to be tempered with some connection to reality, reason, and rationality.

WHAT? What do you think CONSENSUS means? It means you DON'T compromise.
Because you don't consent to give your rights up to others and neither do they!
That's the whole point! Double duh?
Are we on the same page yet?

 

[Silhouette]

Or Scalia and Thomas on issues of marriage. After all, wouldn't their having entered into a 'traditional marriage' demonstrate an undeniable bias for them by the batshit standards of bias being made up by Sil.

If officiating a wedding is 'bias', then being part of the wedding has to be an order of magnitude worse.

No, because they never presided over or were married heteros while a question of redacting the definition of marriage itself was pending to be Heard. Kagan and Ginsburg BOTH (as federal entities) presided over a neo-redaction of the word "marriage" while the question of whether or not the fed should bless/mandate that redaction upon the 50 states is/was pending.

Like I said, it would be the same as if Thomas and Scalia, with a Keystone Pipeline case pending, doing photo ops with the president of Haliburton, breaking ground with shovels and smiling at the camera. It is absolutely a brazen public display of bias. It is a "fuck you public". No judge must ever do anything of the sort, not even close.

 

[Skylar]

No, because they never presided over or were married heteros while a question of redacting the definition of marriage itself was pending to be Heard.

They ARE married. Per your standards, they are clearly demonstrating a bias against same sex marriage and for opposite sex marriage. As 0 of 9 justices are part of a same sex marriage. While 8 of 9 are part of an opposite sex marriage.

By your own batshit standards of hysteric overreaction, if merely officiating a wedding creates a bias, then being married themselves creates something orders of magnitude more profound.

Like I said, it would be the same as if Thomas and Scalia, with a Keystone Pipeline case pending, doing photo ops with the president of Haliburton, breaking ground with shovels and smiling at the camera.

Following your analogy and batshit reasoning its far worse for Thomas and Scalia, who are both part of an opposite sex union. Thus, doused in your batshit, its not just a photo op with Haliburton. They'd be PART of Haliburton, and would have been part of Haliburton for 40 years. They'd be sitting on Haliburton's board.

And yet you'd be cool with them ruling on a case involving Haliburton? C'mon, Sil. Per your own reasoning, Scalia and Thomas have to recuse themselves.

But predictably, you won't apply your own standards consistently.

 

[Skylar]

I go by CONSENSUS maybe you missed my other 12 million messages about CONSENSUS
being the way to settle issues where people will not compromise their beliefs for govt. And shouldn't.

And we disagree on gay marriage. There is no consensus. So what then?

 

[Syriusly]

I go by CONSENSUS maybe you missed my other 12 million messages about CONSENSUS
being the way to settle issues where people will not compromise their beliefs for govt. And shouldn't.

And we disagree on gay marriage. There is no consensus. So what then?

If Alabama had waited for a 'consensus' before allowing mixed race couples to marry- mixed race couples would still not be able to legally marry in Alabama.

It wasn't until the year 2000 that Alabama actually even legalized mixed race marriage- still a sizable portion of the population is opposed.

Frankly, waiting for a 'consensus' would have doomed the entire civil rights movement.