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

[Skylar]

Oh, and your cockroach routine didn't go unnoticed. When you're called on your pseudo-legal bullshit on one topic.....you abandon it and skitter across the kitchen floor to another. When you're run off of that pile of rhetorical bullshit, you skitter back to your previously debunked claim.

If your claims had merit.....you wouldn't have to keep running.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

SILHOUETTE SAID:

“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.”

Nonsense.

This is actually a brazen display of your hatred of gay Americans and desperation knowing that you have no rational, legitimate reasons to deny gay Americans their civil rights.

 

[candycorn]

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?

Not sure...if there was a ruling against SUPREME COURT OF THE US JUSTICES posing in such photo ops, yes. If not, that would be an area of the law to be discovered.

I don't recall any angst about Scalia's kid working for Baker Botts when the high court was hearing the case of Bush V. Gore....Bush was represented by James Baker---a partner at Baker Botts.

 

[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?

Not sure...if there was a ruling against SUPREME COURT OF THE US JUSTICES posing in such photo ops, yes. If not, that would be an area of the law to be discovered.

I don't recall any angst about Scalia's kid working for Baker Botts when the high court was hearing the case of Bush V. Gore....Bush was represented by James Baker---a partner at Baker Botts.

Scalia should have recused. And past wrongs do not make future rights.

There IS a Ruling that doesn't ban photo ops but instead bans those ops conveying bias (I like how you tried to make it about photo ops and not an appearance or suspicion of bias).

Here are some excerpts from the 2009 Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co. case about when a judge should recuse him/herself. Argument of the Upheld premise?.. suspected bias = mandatory recusal:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/08-22.pdf
(page 3 attorney Ted Olsen for petitioners) "

Olsen: "A fair trial in a fair tribunal is a fundamental constitutional right. That means not only the absence of actual bias, but a guarantee against even the probability of an unfair tribunal."

Scalia: "Who says? Have we ever held that?"

Olsen: "You have said that in the Murchison case and in a number of cases, Your Honor....the language of the Murchison case specifically says so. The Court said in that case: "A fair trial in a fair tribunal is a basic requirement of due process. Fairness, of course, requires an absence of actual bias in the trial of cases, but our system of law has always endeavored to prevent even the probability of unfairness." ...(page 4 continues Olsen).."the Court has said that frequently, not only the probability of bias, the appearance of bias, the likelihood of bias, the inherent suspicion of bias. The Court has repeatedly said that in the context -- a series of contexts or cases...It's probable cause, Mr. Chief Justice (speaking to Roberts now). The Court frequently decides questions involving due process, equal protection, probable cause, speedy trial, on the basis not of mathematical certainty, but in this case where an objective observer (page 5 continuing) would come to the conclusion -- knowing all of the facts, would come to the conclusion that a judge or jurist would probably be biased against that individual or in favor of his opponent, that would be sufficient under the Due Process Clause, we submit.

Ginsburg: "Does it mean the same thing as likelihood of bias?"

Olsen: "The Court -- the Court, Justice Ginsburg, has used the changes interchangeably. We think the probably -- the "probable" standard is the one we would advance to this Court. But the -- but the seminal case, the Tumey case, said that even if there was a possibility -- any procedure where there would be a possible temptation for the judge not to hold the balance nice, clear, and true, would be the standard. But -- and the Aetna -- in the Aetna v. Lavoie case not very many years ago, the Court repeated that standard, and that standard has been repeated again and again.

 

[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?

Not sure...if there was a ruling against SUPREME COURT OF THE US JUSTICES posing in such photo ops, yes. If not, that would be an area of the law to be discovered.

I don't recall any angst about Scalia's kid working for Baker Botts when the high court was hearing the case of Bush V. Gore....Bush was represented by James Baker---a partner at Baker Botts.

Scalia should have recused. And past wrongs do not make future rights.

By the logic of your silly 'Haliburton' analogy, Scalia should be first in line to recuse himself from the issue of same sex marriage bans. As he's already demonstrated an overwhelming 'bias' by PARTICIPATING in a opposite sex marriage for more than 40 years.

If officiating a wedding for a few minutes demonstrates a recuse worthy bias, then surely PARTICIPATION in marriage for 40 years would be far, far more egregious.

Thus, by your batshit logic, Scalia and Thomas must recuse themselves immediately. And should have recused themselves from the Windsor decision.

 

[bodecea]

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?

Not sure...if there was a ruling against SUPREME COURT OF THE US JUSTICES posing in such photo ops, yes. If not, that would be an area of the law to be discovered.

I don't recall any angst about Scalia's kid working for Baker Botts when the high court was hearing the case of Bush V. Gore....Bush was represented by James Baker---a partner at Baker Botts.

Scalia should have recused. And past wrongs do not make future rights.

There IS a Ruling that doesn't ban photo ops but instead bans those ops conveying bias (I like how you tried to make it about photo ops and not an appearance or suspicion of bias).

Here are some excerpts from the 2009 Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co. case about when a judge should recuse him/herself. Argument of the Upheld premise?.. suspected bias = mandatory recusal:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/08-22.pdf
(page 3 attorney Ted Olsen for petitioners) "

Olsen: "A fair trial in a fair tribunal is a fundamental constitutional right. That means not only the absence of actual bias, but a guarantee against even the probability of an unfair tribunal."

Scalia: "Who says? Have we ever held that?"

Olsen: "You have said that in the Murchison case and in a number of cases, Your Honor....the language of the Murchison case specifically says so. The Court said in that case: "A fair trial in a fair tribunal is a basic requirement of due process. Fairness, of course, requires an absence of actual bias in the trial of cases, but our system of law has always endeavored to prevent even the probability of unfairness." ...(page 4 continues Olsen).."the Court has said that frequently, not only the probability of bias, the appearance of bias, the likelihood of bias, the inherent suspicion of bias. The Court has repeatedly said that in the context -- a series of contexts or cases...It's probable cause, Mr. Chief Justice (speaking to Roberts now). The Court frequently decides questions involving due process, equal protection, probable cause, speedy trial, on the basis not of mathematical certainty, but in this case where an objective observer (page 5 continuing) would come to the conclusion -- knowing all of the facts, would come to the conclusion that a judge or jurist would probably be biased against that individual or in favor of his opponent, that would be sufficient under the Due Process Clause, we submit.

Ginsburg: "Does it mean the same thing as likelihood of bias?"

Olsen: "The Court -- the Court, Justice Ginsburg, has used the changes interchangeably. We think the probably -- the "probable" standard is the one we would advance to this Court. But the -- but the seminal case, the Tumey case, said that even if there was a possibility -- any procedure where there would be a possible temptation for the judge not to hold the balance nice, clear, and true, would be the standard. But -- and the Aetna -- in the Aetna v. Lavoie case not very many years ago, the Court repeated that standard, and that standard has been repeated again and again.

Where were your complaints about Scalia back then. And by complaints I mean, where were your ongoing threads about it? Link please.

 

[Silhouette]

By the logic of your silly 'Haliburton' analogy, Scalia should be first in line to recuse himself from the issue of same sex marriage bans. As he's already demonstrated an overwhelming 'bias' by PARTICIPATING in a opposite sex marriage for more than 40 years.

So that's it? Your strategy is to repeat the same fallicy over and over to hope the artificial plant grows roots?

AGAIN for the zillionth time, Scalia was simply married. Marriage wasn't even on the table to be redacted yet. There would be no way in his mind that he could even conceive that the physical structure of the word would be under legal attack when he was married..

HOWEVER, Ginsburg and Kagan were PERFECTLY AWARE that the redaction of marriage was contested and pending to be Heard in their Court (pay attention, this is pivotal here) at the time they presided over and blessed the redaction of the word as federal entities. THEREFORE theirs was a wilfull and wanton display of bias in favor of federal blessing of the redaction to include homosexuals; and they were fully appraised of the impact that their actions would have upon the public's trust in the last stop of the American judical system...

AND THEREFORE, they must recuse themselves per their own 2009 Finding of awarding victory to Olsen's premise of "suspected or apparent bias" on behalf of a judicial officer.

 

[Skylar]

By the logic of your silly 'Haliburton' analogy, Scalia should be first in line to recuse himself from the issue of same sex marriage bans. As he's already demonstrated an overwhelming 'bias' by PARTICIPATING in a opposite sex marriage for more than 40 years.

So that's it? Your strategy is to repeat the same fallicy over and over to hope the artificial plant grows roots?

My strategy is to apply your 'logic' consistently. If officiating a wedding for a few minutes creates a recuse worthy 'bias', then surely participating in a marriage for 40 years creates a bias orders of magnitude more severe.

By your own 'logic', Scalia and Thomas must recuse themselves. Yet you don't apply your logic consistently. As you don't actually believe the bullshit you're peddling.

If even you are going to treat your 'logic' like garbage to be tossed on the midden heap, surely you can understand if we treat your claims the same way.

 

[Silhouette]

We SHOULD apply the logic consistently: agreed. ALL children should have a father & mother in any marriage in the US.

Worse than just a happenstance display of bias would be a brazen display of bias. If you read my last post, you will note the difference.. If ever two Justices should be recused on a case, Kagan and Ginsburg have easily fulfilled the textbook requirement... timing is everything as it turns out..

 

[Skylar]

We SHOULD apply the logic consistently: agreed. ALL children should have a father & mother in any marriage in the US.

So when faced with a comic inconsistency in the 'logic' of 'recusal' analogy.....you abandon it and start babbling about the structure of marriages?

Face it, your bat guano analogy mandates that Scalia and Thomas recuse themselves.

Worse than just a happenstance display of bias would be a brazen display of bias. If you read my last post, you will note the difference..

If officiating a ceremony for a few minutes is a 'brazen display of bias', then participating in a marriage for 40 years must be a half a dozen orders of magnitude more severe.....using your 'logic' anyway.

 

[Silhouette]

We SHOULD apply the logic consistently: agreed. ALL children should have a father & mother in any marriage in the US.

So when faced with a comic inconsistency in the 'logic' of 'recusal' analogy.....you abandon it and start babbling about the structure of marriages?

Face it, your bat guano analogy mandates that Scalia and Thomas recuse themselves.

Worse than just a happenstance display of bias would be a brazen display of bias. If you read my last post, you will note the difference..

If officiating a ceremony for a few minutes is a 'brazen display of bias', then participating in a marriage for 40 years must be a half a dozen orders of magnitude more severe.....using your 'logic' anyway.

Here is my "last post" for reference:


So that's it? Your strategy is to repeat the same fallicy over and over to hope the artificial plant grows roots?

AGAIN for the zillionth time, Scalia was simply married. Marriage wasn't even on the table to be redacted yet. There would be no way in his mind that he could even conceive that the physical structure of the word would be under legal attack when he was married..

HOWEVER, Ginsburg and Kagan were PERFECTLY AWARE that the redaction of marriage was contested and pending to be Heard in their Court (pay attention, this is pivotal here) at the time they presided over and blessed the redaction of the word as federal entities. THEREFORE theirs was a wilfull and wanton display of bias in favor of federal blessing of the redaction to include homosexuals; and they were fully appraised of the impact that their actions would have upon the public's trust in the last stop of the American judical system...

AND THEREFORE, they must recuse themselves per their own 2009 Finding of awarding victory to Olsen's premise of "suspected or apparent bias" on behalf of a judicial officer.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

ALL children should have a father & mother in any marriage in the US.

That is an idiotic assumption, and nothing like human history.

 

[Skylar]

We SHOULD apply the logic consistently: agreed. ALL children should have a father & mother in any marriage in the US.

So when faced with a comic inconsistency in the 'logic' of 'recusal' analogy.....you abandon it and start babbling about the structure of marriages?

Face it, your bat guano analogy mandates that Scalia and Thomas recuse themselves.

Worse than just a happenstance display of bias would be a brazen display of bias. If you read my last post, you will note the difference..

If officiating a ceremony for a few minutes is a 'brazen display of bias', then participating in a marriage for 40 years must be a half a dozen orders of magnitude more severe.....using your 'logic' anyway.

Here is my "last post" for reference:


So that's it? Your strategy is to repeat the same fallicy over and over to hope the artificial plant grows roots?

AGAIN for the zillionth time, Scalia was simply married. Marriage wasn't even on the table to be redacted yet. There would be no way in his mind that he could even conceive that the physical structure of the word would be under legal attack when he was married..

HOWEVER, Ginsburg and Kagan were PERFECTLY AWARE that the redaction of marriage was contested and pending to be Heard in their Court (pay attention, this is pivotal here) at the time they presided over and blessed the redaction of the word as federal entities. THEREFORE theirs was a wilfull and wanton display of bias in favor of federal blessing of the redaction to include homosexuals; and they were fully appraised of the impact that their actions would have upon the public's trust in the last stop of the American judical system...

AND THEREFORE, they must recuse themselves per their own 2009 Finding of awarding victory to Olsen's premise of "suspected or apparent bias" on behalf of a judicial officer.

And here's my reply, for reference:

My strategy is to apply your 'logic' consistently. If officiating a wedding for a few minutes creates a recuse worthy 'bias', then surely participating in a marriage for 40 years creates a bias orders of magnitude more severe.

By your own 'logic', Scalia and Thomas must recuse themselves. Yet you don't apply your logic consistently. As you don't actually believe the bullshit you're peddling.

If even you are going to treat your 'logic' like garbage to be tossed on the midden heap, surely you can understand if we treat your claims the same way.

 

[Silhouette]

The word marriage itself is under attack. It's structural-meaning is sought to be redacted. The burden is upon the would-be redactors, not the word itself. If someone was interested in redacting the word "molestation" to mean "beneficial sex between adults and children", the burden would be upon the group intent upon redacting the word "molestation". A judge in a stance opposing molestation, while molestation is and longstanding always had been illegal would not be biased, he would be law-abiding. In order to change something from illegal to legal, you cannot punish a judge for following the law.

Now if Scalia was marching in a protest of gay marriage (redacting the word "marriage") say six months ago with a T-shirt on that said "no fag marriage", then yeah, he'd have to recuse himself. Scalia did not, to my knowledge, perform or bless any normal marriage while this question was pending. He would know better than to display wanton bias like that. Kagan and Ginsburg did bless the redaction of marraige though as federal entities. It was improper and a brazen display of bias while the question of that redaction "as federally-blessed" is/was pending to be Heard in their Court. No Justice may display that level of bias and therefore they must at bare minimum recuse themselves.

 

[Skylar]

The word marriage itself is under attack. It's structural-meaning is sought to be redacted. The burden is upon the would-be redactors, not the word itself.

Says you, citing yourself. And you don't actually know anything about the law, actively ignoring constitutional guarantees. And its issues of constitutional guarantees that the court is addressing:

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?

These are the questions that the supreme court will answer. And they deal explicitly with rights. If the State wants to exclude gays and lesbians from marriage, they will need a very good reason, a valid state interest, and a legitimate legislative end.

The State will have to present all 3 in April. Or lose. And they can't present any.

 

[Skylar]

Now if Scalia was marching in a protest of gay marriage (redacting the word "marriage") with a T-shirt on that said "no fag marriage", then yeah, he'd have to recuse himself. Scalia did not, to my knowledge, perform or bless any normal marriage while this question was pending. He would know better than to display wanton bias like that. Kagan and Ginsburg did bless the redaction of marraige though as federal entities. It was improper and a brazen display of bias. No Justice may do so and therefore they must at bare minimum recuse themselves.

Scalia actively participated in a marriage for 40 years. If officiating a wedding ceremony for a few minutes establishes a 'brazen bias', then obviously participating in a marriage for 40 years demonstrates a bias orders of magnitude more severe.

Per your bat guano 'logic' anyway. When applied consistently, your analogy mandates that Scalia and Thomas recuse themselves completely and immediately.. And mandates they should have recused themselves from the Windsor decision.

Alas, back in reality....neither officiating a legal wedding nor participating in a legal marriage demonstrate any bias against same sex marriage bans. As there were none in either case.

 

[Syriusly]

We SHOULD apply the logic consistently: agreed. ALL children should have a father & mother in any marriage in the US...

Why shouldn't children being raised by a homosexual couple not have married parents?

 

[Skylar]

HOWEVER, Ginsburg and Kagan were PERFECTLY AWARE that the redaction of marriage was contested and pending to be Heard in their Court (pay attention, this is pivotal here) at the time they presided over and blessed the redaction of the word as federal entities.

Nope. Even hypothetically, you have no idea what you're talking about. The USSC didn't agree to hear a state gay marriage ban case until 2015. Kagan and Ginsberg officated marriages in 2014 and 2013 respectively.

(Pay attention, this is pivotal here) You're clueless.

You genuinely, sincerely, and every so truly have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Silhouette]

HOWEVER, Ginsburg and Kagan were PERFECTLY AWARE that the redaction of marriage was contested and pending to be Heard in their Court (pay attention, this is pivotal here) at the time they presided over and blessed the redaction of the word as federal entities.

Nope. Even hypothetically, you have no idea what you're talking about. The USSC didn't agree to hear a state gay marriage ban case until 2015. Kagan and Ginsberg officated marriages in 2014 and 2013 respectively.

Oh my golly how deceitful of you, again!

So Prop 8 and DOMA in 2013 were about what, a property dispute? Or were they about the legitimacy of the fed forcing a new redaction of marriage upon the sovereign states?


They knew exactly what they were doing and they flipped the middle finger to the public. You've seen the comments here and all over the web from gay advocates just like yourself: "This one's in the bag!" And why wouldn't they be thinking that with shadow-stay-refusals and Ginsburg & Kagan blessing the neo-redaction as federal entities openly and conspicously before the hearing?

 

[kaz]

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.

You should have had the option of picking that my faith in the courts has been long, long destroyed. I have zero respect for the SCOTUS and even less for Kagan, she is a despicable, bigoted biased judge from beginning to end.

However, I'll be honest with you. I don't see this as a major conflict. You can separate legal from personal. Kagan can't, but she doesn't on any other issue either. No, this isn't the one that blows the wheels off my cart