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

[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.

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..

I gave you a hypothetical equivalent of what Ginsburg and Kagan did. Scalia and Thomas wouldn't have to be part of Haliburton at all. They could just be "blessing" the breaking of ground for a segment of the pipeline in a state that allowed it legally just before a Hearing on the Pipeline. Hey, that segment was done legally in that state so that wouldn't be showing any bias toward the eventual Hearing on a federal mandate on the whole Pipeline...right?...according to your logic?

 

[Skylar]

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.

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..

I gave you a hypothetical equivalent of what Ginsburg and Kagan did.

Nope. Not even close. As there were no same sex marriage bans in Maryland or DC. So there's nothing for them to have a bias against. An equivilant analogy would be them engaging in an activity that Haliburton has no business with.

Scalia and Thomas wouldn't have to be part of Haliburton at all.

They'd be on the board. They'd be PART of Haliburton and for decades a piece. As they're not mere officiators of a marriage for a few minutes. They're 24 hour a day, 365 day a year, 40 year long participants in opposite sex marriges. If a few minutes officiating a wedding creates a bias, then 40 years of living one has create orders and orders and orders of magnitude more bias.

Thus, by your own batshyte, ham-handed, blithering 'logic', Scalia and Thomas MUST recuse themselves.

 

[Silhouette]

Again, if Thomas and Scalia were helping break ground for a segment of Keystone Pipeline IN A STATE THAT SAID IT WAS LEGAL AND OK, for a photo op just prior to their sitting on a case arguing whether or not there should be a federal mandate where ALL states have to allow segments on their lands (whether they want it or not), it would be grounds for their recusal.

I know you can see the comparison. You're just desperate not to.

 

[Skylar]

Again, if Thomas and Scalia were helping break ground for a segment of Keystone Pipeline IN A STATE THAT SAID IT WAS LEGAL AND OK, for a photo op just prior to their sitting on a case arguing whether or not there should be a federal mandate where ALL states have to allow segments on their lands (whether they want it or not), it would be grounds for their recusal.

In your analogy, Scalia and Thomas would be on the board of the company making the Keystone pipeline.....as back in marriage land, they're not merely officiating a ceremony for a few minutes, they're active participants in opposite sex marriages every minute of every day for 40 years or more.

Which by your own batshit standards would demonstrate orders of magnitude more 'bias' than merely officiating a marriage for a few minutes in a State where that marriage was perfectly legal.

I know you can see the comparison. You're just desperate not to. Per your own blithering standards, Scalia and Thomas must recuse themselves from any case involving marriage. As they have displayed an unquestioning bias for opposite sex marriage, having joined one.

Back in reality, neither being married nor officiating a marriage where both are legal demonstrates any bias. And your entire argument is blithering nonsense.

 

[Silhouette]

Again, if Thomas and Scalia were helping break ground for a segment of Keystone Pipeline IN A STATE THAT SAID IT WAS LEGAL AND OK, for a photo op just prior to their sitting on a case arguing whether or not there should be a federal mandate where ALL states have to allow segments on their lands (whether they want it or not), it would be grounds for their recusal.

In your analogy, Scalia and Thomas would be on the board of the company making the Keystone pipeline.....

How incredibly dishonest of you. You mean to assert that if a random person does a photo-op helping a company break ground on something that that instantly and inflexibly means that that person is a board member or a shareholder?

What incredible tripe you are peddling. Your credibility is now in the toilet. You know the analogy is spot-on. This was your extremely weak attempt to use sleight of hand to avoid that fact. Shame on you!

 

[Skylar]

How incredibly dishonest of you.

The word you're looking for is 'consistent'. As if officiating a ceremony for a few minutes creates a 'bias', then actively participating in such a union every minute of every day for 40 years demonstrates a bias orders of magnitude more severe.

And both Scalia and Thomas have entered into opposite sex marriages. By your batshit standards, they've demonstrated a profound, unmistakable and undeniable bias and must recuse themselves. They have no choice.

Back in reality, neither officiating nor entering into a legal marriage demonstrates any bias against same sex marriage bans. As no such bans existed in Maryland nor DC.

You can't have a bias against something that doesn't exist.

Your credibility is now in the toilet.

Says you, citing you. And as always, you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about. Rendering your 'condemnation' just more ignorant gibberish.

 

[Silhouette]

We were discussing how you would be arguing your side of this issue if it was about Scalia and Thomas posing AS NON-OWNERS, NON BOARD MEMBERS, NON-STOCKHOLDERS...JUST AS PRIVATE CITIZENS WITH NO FINANCIAL STAKE... with the president of Haliburton breaking ground on a section of the Keystone Pipeline in a state that had approved it there, months or weeks before a key case that might mandate all states to constuct sections of the pipeline whether they want it or not was to be Heard.

Remember? I'd love to chase a couple of strawmen with you, and I probably will. But I'd like you to answer how you would feel about recusal if Scalia and Thomas did that?

 

[Syriusly]

Remember? I'd love to chase a couple of strawmen with you, and I probably will. But I'd like you to answer how you would feel about recusal if Scalia and Thomas did that?

Why should any of us chase that strawman?

We have no obligation to chase every strawman you drag out of your closet.

 

[Skylar]

We were discussing how you would be arguing your side of this issue if it was about Scalia and Thomas posing AS NON-OWNERS, NON BOARD MEMBERS, NON-STOCKHOLDERS...JUST AS PRIVATE CITIZENS WITH NO FINANCIAL STAKE

Which wouldn't match your analogy as Scalia and Thomas are PARTICIPANTS in marriage. Not merely officiators fora few minutes. But have entered into the union themselves for decades.

Thus, in your analogy they would be PARTICIPANTS in the construction of the keystone pipeline. Not merely present for a photo op. '

By your own batshit standards of 'bias', Scalia and Thomas must recuse themselves. As they have a bias that is orders of magnitude more pronounced than what you are attempting to lay at the feet of Kagan or Ginsberg.

Back in reality, you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about. As neither officiating a legal ceremony nor participating in a legal marriage creates any bias against same sex marriage bans.

 

[Silhouette]

Well Skylar so far 57% of the voters here agree that this looks bad.

 

[Silhouette]

Again, if Thomas and Scalia were helping break ground for a segment of Keystone Pipeline IN A STATE THAT SAID IT WAS LEGAL AND OK, for a photo op just prior to their sitting on a case arguing whether or not there should be a federal mandate where ALL states have to allow segments on their lands (whether they want it or not), it would be grounds for their recusal.

Per your own blithering standards, Scalia and Thomas must recuse themselves from any case involving marriage. As they have displayed an unquestioning bias for opposite sex marriage, having joined one.

No, it's the redaction of the word forced-federally or not that is in question. Think: "marriage equality" here. The word marriage means union of man/woman. This was not challenged when Scalia and Thomas were married normally. The gay thing is the challenge to the word itself since gay "marriage" would deprive a boy of a father or a girl of a mother. This is a huge physical structural change to the word, brand new, untried over time, which uses children BTW as lab rats.

The burden is not upon society to prove the change so poised to harm children shouldn't happen. The burden is upon the challengers who want to subject children to this change...a change BTW that statistically none of THEM had to endure. This is brand new.

Gingsburg and Kagan (as feds) presiding over (blessing) a redaction of the word marriage before the fed has heard the Case is a brazen display of how those two particular powerful last-stop federally entities feel about the redaction....THEY BLESSED IT PUBLICLY ALREADY. So they must recuse themselves according to their own 2009 Finding.

The difference between hetero married Scalia and Thomas and Kagan & Ginsburg is that with the former, no proposed federal redaction of the word marriage was pending, the latter, that specific question of law was most obtusely-pending.

 

[Skylar]

Again, if Thomas and Scalia were helping break ground for a segment of Keystone Pipeline IN A STATE THAT SAID IT WAS LEGAL AND OK, for a photo op just prior to their sitting on a case arguing whether or not there should be a federal mandate where ALL states have to allow segments on their lands (whether they want it or not), it would be grounds for their recusal.

Per your own blithering standards, Scalia and Thomas must recuse themselves from any case involving marriage. As they have displayed an unquestioning bias for opposite sex marriage, having joined one.

No, it's the redaction of the word forced-federally or not that is in question.

Says you. Says the Supreme Court, these are the issues in question:

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?

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

You can 'reimagine' the questions before the court to be whatever you want. No one gives a shit. The courts are still going to answer the questions they've been asked. Not your imagination.

The word marriage means union of man/woman.

And in 37 of 50 States, its also one man and one man, and one woman and one woman. Including both Maryland and DC.

You can pretend otherwise. But like above..... really, who gives a shit what you pretend?

This was not challenged when Scalia and Thomas were married normally.

In Maryland and DC, same sex marraige is just marriage. It has no special designation, it has no special laws. Thus, the folks in the weddings officiated by Ginsberg and Kagan were normally married.

Simply destroying your silly argument. Sigh...again.

 

[Silhouette]

"Says you.."

Is that your amicus brief?

 

[Silhouette]

And in 37 of 50 States, its also one man and one man, and one woman and one woman. Including both Maryland and DC..

Windsor 2013 said 56 times in 26 pages of the Opinion that states get to say whether or not the word "marriage' can be redacted to mean a different new meaning aka "same-sex". Windsor concluded saying that only 11 states as of that writing, and DC had legal same-sex marriage. Lower courts are not allowed to strip states of sovereignty where that sovereignty on that specific question of law was just Upheld. ie: lower federal courts are not allowed to overturn SCOTUS and harm democratic rule. It is sedition.

Period. Kagan and Ginsburg both presided over and blessed the redacted word while the question of whether or not the fed should bless the redacted word was/is pending. Therefore, according to their own 2009 Finding, they must recuse themselves from the upcoming Hearing

 

[candycorn]

And in 37 of 50 States, its also one man and one man, and one woman and one woman. Including both Maryland and DC..

Windsor 2013 said 56 times in 26 pages of the Opinion that states get to say whether or not the word "marriage' can be redacted to mean a different new meaning aka "same-sex". Windsor concluded saying that only 11 states as of that writing, and DC had legal same-sex marriage. Lower courts are not allowed to strip states of sovereignty where that sovereignty on that specific question of law was just Upheld. ie: lower federal courts are not allowed to overturn SCOTUS and harm democratic rule. It is sedition.

Period. Kagan and Ginsburg both presided over and blessed the redacted word while the question of whether or not the fed should bless the redacted word was/is pending. Therefore, according to their own 2009 Finding, they must recuse themselves from the upcoming Hearing

It says nothing of the sort.

 

[Seawytch]

And in 37 of 50 States, its also one man and one man, and one woman and one woman. Including both Maryland and DC..

Windsor 2013 said 56 times in 26 pages of the Opinion that states get to say whether or not the word "marriage' can be redacted to mean a different new meaning aka "same-sex". Windsor concluded saying that only 11 states as of that writing, and DC had legal same-sex marriage. Lower courts are not allowed to strip states of sovereignty where that sovereignty on that specific question of law was just Upheld. ie: lower federal courts are not allowed to overturn SCOTUS and harm democratic rule. It is sedition.

Period. Kagan and Ginsburg both presided over and blessed the redacted word while the question of whether or not the fed should bless the redacted word was/is pending. Therefore, according to their own 2009 Finding, they must recuse themselves from the upcoming Hearing

It says nothing of the sort.

Leave Sil to her fantasies. I don't think she will realize the reality even when the SCOTUS rules in June. She'll continue to claim that the SCOTUS ruling doesn't really and truly mean that gays get to marry in all 50 states

 

[Silhouette]

Windsor 2013 said 56 times in 26 pages of the Opinion that states get to say whether or not the word "marriage' can be redacted to mean a different new meaning aka "same-sex". Windsor concluded saying that only 11 states as of that writing, and DC had legal same-sex marriage. Lower courts are not allowed to strip states of sovereignty where that sovereignty on that specific question of law was just Upheld. ie: lower federal courts are not allowed to overturn SCOTUS and harm democratic rule. It is sedition.

Period. Kagan and Ginsburg both presided over and blessed the redacted word while the question of whether or not the fed should bless the redacted word was/is pending. Therefore, according to their own 2009 Finding, they must recuse themselves from the upcoming Hearing

It says nothing of the sort.

Yes, it does and the 56 times with page references to the written Opinion can be read right here at USMB: Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout State Authority vs Federal US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Skylar]

And in 37 of 50 States, its also one man and one man, and one woman and one woman. Including both Maryland and DC..

Windsor 2013 said 56 times in 26 pages of the Opinion that states get to say whether or not the word "marriage' can be redacted to mean a different new meaning aka "same-sex".

The Windsor ruling places constitutional guarantees above state marriage laws. And every ruling that overturned state gay marriage bans was on the basis of the violation of those constitutional guarantees.

You can ignore constitutional guarantees. But they don't vanish just because they're inconvenient to your argument.

Windsor concluded saying that only 11 states as of that writing, and DC had legal same-sex marriage. Lower courts are not allowed to strip states of sovereignty where that sovereignty on that specific question of law was just Upheld. ie: lower federal courts are not allowed to overturn SCOTUS and harm democratic rule. It is sedition.

Ah, I see your blunder; you don't understand the Windsor ruling. And its your hapless misunderstanding that is fueling your melodrama. This portion of the Windsor ruling will help you understand your mistake:

Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States,” Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393.

As mentioned above, state marriage laws are subject to constitutional guarantees. And every ruling that overturned state gay marriage bans did so on the basis of the violation of those guarantees.

Making every such lower court ruling completely consistent with the Windsor ruling. Simply destroying your silly assertion that the Windsor court was 'overruled' by a lower court.

As is so often the case, you simply have no idea what you're talking about. Period.

 

[Silhouette]

Would you be OK with Scalia and Thomas posing in a photo op as regular citizens with no financial interest, in states where segments of the Pipeline were built legally, coming out in support of Haliburton building sections of the Keystone pipeline just months before a Hearing on mandated it federally was to be Heard? Yes or no?

 

[Skylar]

Would you be OK with Scalia and Thomas posing in a photo op as regular citizens with no financial interest, in states where segments of the Pipeline were built legally, coming out in support of Haliburton building sections of the Keystone pipeline just months before a Hearing on mandated it federally was to be Heard? Yes or no?

In your batshit analogy, Scalia and Thomas would be on Haliburton's board. Not merely present for a photo-op....but decades long PARTICIPANTS and immediate beneficiaries of the Keystone Pipeline.

As we're not talking about merely officiating a legal wedding for a few minutes, as Kagan and Ginsberg did. But being decades long PARTICIPANTS and immediate beneficiaries of opposite sex marriage for 40 years.

If officiating a wedding for a few minutes creates a 'bias', then obviously being a participant in a wedding for 40 years creates a bias orders and orders and orders of magnitude more severe.

Thus, by your own bat guano 'logic', Scalia and Thomas MUST recuse themselves.