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

[kaz]

If Thomas didn't have to sit out the ACA ruling, nobody will have to sit out this one.

Why should Thonas have had to sit out ACA? Other than he is a conservative and those people are held to higher standards.

Thomas gets medical care, so he's biased. Democrats are not biased on any issue, we can trust them. You don't see the difference?

 

[Silhouette]

...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

Your reaction is different from others. Read back a bit and notice the poll results too.

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?

 

[Syriusly]

Your reaction is different from others. Read back a bit and notice the poll results too.

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

 

[kaz]

To be frank...it was poor judgment on her part.

Why, when did Frank say that?

Why was it poor judgment? Why should she not go to gay weddings if she thinks gays should get government marriage just because she's on the Supreme Court?

 

[Silhouette]

Why was it poor judgment? Why should she not go to gay weddings if she thinks gays should get government marriage just because she's on the Supreme Court?

Poor judgment according to Olsen's (winning) premise in 2009 Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co.
Here:

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.

 

[kaz]

Why was it poor judgment? Why should she not go to gay weddings if she thinks gays should get government marriage just because she's on the Supreme Court?

Poor judgment according to Olsen's (winning) premise in 2009 Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co.

That case involved a financial conflict of interest in campaign contributions. Was Kagan paid to go to gay weddings? She had no benefit before or after the wedding, she just went.

Should justices during Brown v. the Board of Education who had black friends have recused themselves? OK, lte's say they are out. Well, if they have white friends they are biased for the Board of Education, let's throw them out too.

Simply going to a gay wedding isn't inherent bias, it's completely different than ruling on someone who funded your campaign and presumably will do that again

 

[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.

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?

The Supreme Court never ruled on Prop 8. They allowed a lower court ruling to stand. And Windsor never even *mentioned* state same sex marriage bans. Let alone ruled on them.

Worse, both the Windsor ruling and the Supreme Court's refusal to hear the Prop 8 case came BEFORE either Ginsberg or Kagan officiated any wedding. While your narrative ignorantly asserted the cases were to be heard by the court AFTER Ginsberg and Kagan officiated weddings.

So once again, your entire narrative is blithering nonsense.

You're trying to attribute causation when you can't even get SEQUENCE right. And offering us an inconsistent and wildly irrational standard of 'brazen bias'. If officiating a wedding for a few minutes creates a 'braze bias', then clearly being a participant in a marriage for 40 years creates a bias orders of magnitude more severe.

By your own batshit standards, Scalia and Thomas must recuse themselves.

 

[Skylar]

Why was it poor judgment? Why should she not go to gay weddings if she thinks gays should get government marriage just because she's on the Supreme Court?

Poor judgment according to Olsen's (winning) premise in 2009 Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co.

Caperton was about an elected judge who was taking campaign contributions. Which you know, but always intentionally omit any mention of. Neither Kagan nor Ginsberg were elected. Neither take campaign contributions, as they have their offices for life.

Instantly killing your entire argument.

But it still gets worse for you. The standards that the court applied in the Capterton case were miles away from your hair trigger variant of 'suspicion of bias' standards.

"Our decision today addresses an extraordinary situation where the Constitution requires recusal.....

".....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."

Officiating a wedding isn't an 'extraordinary situation', especially when the wedding was completely legal under state law. And the standard applied by the court was a serious risk of ACTUAL bias. Using objective and reasonable perceptions.

You're perception is neither objective nor reasonable. But wildly hysterical, subjective, and uselessly inconsistent. And there is no serious risk of actual bias in this case.

Rendering your personal opinion moot yet again.

 

[Silhouette]

That case involved a financial conflict of interest in campaign contributions. Was Kagan paid to go to gay weddings? She had no benefit before or after the wedding, she just went.

Oh, you missed that I said the PREMISE was winning, not the specific instance in the case.. That one was about campaign funding. Do you suppose there are other incidents of suspected or apparent bias that wouldn't apply?

Yeah, no, me neither.

 

[kaz]

That case involved a financial conflict of interest in campaign contributions. Was Kagan paid to go to gay weddings? She had no benefit before or after the wedding, she just went.

Oh, you missed that I said the PREMISE was winning, not the specific instance in the case.. That one was about campaign funding. Do you suppose there are other incidents of suspected or apparent bias that wouldn't apply?

Yeah, no, me neither.

Should Justices and Congressmen have stayed away from blacks in the 50s and 60s to avoid an appearance of bias towards blacks?

If she got no ongoing benefit from going to the gay wedding, how is it a conflict of interest or an appearance of bias?

Should judges who state they are pro-defense recuse themselves from military cases?

 

[Skylar]

That case involved a financial conflict of interest in campaign contributions. Was Kagan paid to go to gay weddings? She had no benefit before or after the wedding, she just went.

Oh, you missed that I said the PREMISE was winning, not the specific instance in the case..

While the court ruled in the Caperton case explicitly because of the specific and 'extraordinary' instances of that case:

"Our decision today addresses an extraordinary situation where the Constitution requires recusal.....

".....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."

And officiating a legal marriage isn't an 'extraordinary situation'. It happens thousands of times a day.

Also, as Kaz has pointed out (and yes, I'm aware of the irony of quoting Kaz....but he's right on this one), there's no lasting benefit to Kagan. She gets nothing for officiating the wedding. Where as the judge in the Caperton case got huge campaign contributions.

That one was about campaign funding. Do you suppose there are other incidents of suspected or apparent bias that wouldn't apply?

That's not the standard the courts applied in the Caperton case. Instead, it was the 'serious risk of actual bias—based on objective and reasonable perceptions'.

Which simply don't exist with either Kagan nor Ginsberg. As both weddings were completely legal based on the laws of the State or District they were in.You can't demonstrate a bias against same sex marriage bans....

......when there are no same sex marriage bans. Try again.

 

[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."..

..That's not the standard the courts applied in the Caperton case. Instead, it was the 'serious risk of actual bias—based on objective and reasonable perceptions'.

OK, let's look at the significant part of the quote as to the premise:

"We conclude that there is a serious risk of actual bias—based on objective and reasonable perceptions.."

They Found a "serious risk of actual bias" based on Olsen's premise's description of what an objective/reasonable person would think.

Kagan and Ginsburg presided as federal entities over a neo-redacted form of the millenial-long definition of marriage WHILE THEY KNEW FOR A FACT THE QUESTION OF WHETHER OR NOT THE FED SHOULD PRESIDE OVER THAT NEO-REDACTION AS IMPOSED UPON THE 50 STATES WAS PENDING.

They were expressing publicly, their literal federal blessing over that redaction of the word "marriage" BEFORE the Hearing on the federally-forced redaction of the word had happened. And they knew full well, from Windsor & Prop 8 2013 that this is/was a hotly contested area of public debate and a pending legal question.

THEREFORE they must recuse themselves from this case.

Read the premise below and the quote from the conclusion above. There is no "objective" person on the face of the earth that would conclude anything but that after they'd see Ginsburg or Kagan perform a "gay wedding" (as federal entities even in a state where it made it legal itself) those two Justices believed that the fed should "bless" gay marraige. None. Not one person in the world would conclude anything but that.

Here's Olsen's argument again...

Olsen's (winning) premise in 2009 Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co.
Here:
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.

******

Scalia or Thomas etc. who were married normally, at the time would have no way of knowing or even guessing in their wildest imagination that the word itself would come under attack in such a way that the proposed neo-redaction would be a situation asked to be forced federally upon the states. So their marraige was innocent and in no way impedes their ability to consider the proposed neo-redaction for application by force federally.

Ginsburg and Kagan knew full well that the question was and is up in the air. And that, friends, makes all the difference when they chose to preside as federal entities conspicuously-blessing the neo-redaction of the word "marriage". It was beyond improper. I'd say it was impeachable. But at rock bottom minimum it is recusable. It fits like a glove the 2009 Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co standard they themselves set.

The public's trust of the Judicial is at stake here. So this is no minimal or laughing matter..

the fact that children (who cannot vote) will be placed without their own consent as an neo-institituion in homes absent a father for boys or a mother for girls as a federal mandate upon the conclusion of this quesiton of law, to affect the core of society itself into unknown numbers of generations...BY JUST 5 PEOPLE 2 OF WHICH HARBOR OBVIOUS BIAS, makes this situation tenfold-urgent and compelling.

 

[Skylar]

".....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."..

..That's not the standard the courts applied in the Caperton case. Instead, it was the 'serious risk of actual bias—based on objective and reasonable perceptions'.

OK, let's look at the significant part of the quote as to the premise:

"We conclude that there is a serious risk of actual bias—based on objective and reasonable perceptions.."

They Found a "serious risk of actual bias" based on Olsen's premise's description of what an objective/reasonable person would think.

Exactly. As Olsen received massive campaign contributions from the party he was adjudicating. He has a lasting benefit from their sizable contribution. And it based on these extrarodinary circumstances that the USSC indicated that unconstitutional bias was demonstrated.

Officiating a legal marriage isn't an extraordinary circumstance. It happens thousands of times a day. And neither Kagan nor Ginsberg received anything for officiating. There's no lasting benefit to them.

No tenet that existed in the Caperton case exist with Ginsberg and Kagan. No election. No campaign contribution. No benefit for either Ginsberg nor Kagan.

Robbing you of any 'objective and reasonable perception'. Only wildly irrational and hopelessly subjective perception. Which obligates no one to do anything.

Kagan and Ginsburg presided as federal entities over a neo-redacted form of the millenial-long definition of marriage WHILE THEY KNEW FOR A FACT THE QUESTION OF WHETHER OR NOT THE FED SHOULD PRESIDE OVER THAT NEO-REDACTION AS IMPOSED UPON THE 50 STATES WAS PENDING.

They presided over weddings that had been deemed legal by the State of Maryland and the District of Columbia respectively.

You've been arguing for weeks that the Windsor ruling said the states get to define marriage. But suddenly when the State of Maryland defines marriage as including same sex couples, you insist that there is no authority. And that they 'redacted' marriage.

You're literally contradicting your own interpretation of the Windsor ruling. As the Windsor ruling found explicitly that state sanctioned same sex marriage was not only constitutional, but a denial of recognition of that marriage by the Federal government was a 5th amendment violation.

Kagan and Ginsbergs actions were perfectly in line with the Windsor ruling. You're not.

They were expressing publicly, their literal federal blessing over that redaction of the word "marriage" BEFORE the Hearing on the federally-forced redaction of the word had happened.

Wrong. Laughable, comically wrong.

The Windsor ruling came in June of 2013. Ginsberg officiated the wedding at the end of August of 2013. 3 months later. Do you get 'before' and 'after'? Well, let me give you another example of your blunder: Kagan officated a wedding in September of 2014. AFTER the Windsor ruling.

Please note the word 'after'. You simply don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Silhouette]

A majority of the respondents to the poll as of this post seem to feel that I do know what I'm talking about. Refer to my last post.

 

[Skylar]

A majority of the respondents to the poll as of this post seem to feel that I do know what I'm talking about. Refer to my last post.

If polling defines reasonable, then might I direct you to this poll on gay marriage:

Same-Sex Marriage Support Reaches New High at 55%

Americans' support for the law recognizing same-sex marriages as legally valid has increased yet again, now at 55%. Marriage equality advocates have had a string of legal successes over the past year, most recently this week in Pennsylvania and Oregon where federal judges struck down bans on gay marriage.

Same-Sex Marriage Support Reaches New High at 55

So by your own logic, gay marriage is reasonable? If not, why not?

 

[mdk]

A majority of the respondents to the poll as of this post seem to feel that I do know what I'm talking about. Refer to my last post.

The fact you complain about polling sample sizes and than cite this poll with its whopping 29 participants just goes to show how comically hypocritical you've become.

At least you have a built-in excuse when June comes around. lol

 

[Skylar]

A majority of the respondents to the poll as of this post seem to feel that I do know what I'm talking about. Refer to my last post.

The fact you complain about polling sample sizes and than cite this poll with its whopping 29 participants just goes to show how comically hypocritical you've become.

At least you have a built-in excuse when June comes around. lol

Oh my. How did I miss that one?

So much for Silo's claim of 'sample size'. Though in Silo's defense, its got to same loads of money on toilet paper. As Sil can just wipe his ass with his own standards.

 

[AceRothstein]

A majority of the respondents to the poll as of this post seem to feel that I do know what I'm talking about. Refer to my last post.

An internet poll on a message board that is overwhelmingly conservative. LOL

 

[Silhouette]

Post #492.

Discuss.

 

[Skylar]

Post #492.

Discuss.

Debunked and torn asunder by better reason, better logic and better sources in post #493.

Discuss.