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

[Silhouette]

Post #492. Discuss.

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

OK, will discuss...

I don't think so...Read it again:

".....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]

Post #492. Discuss.

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

OK, will discuss...

I don't think so...Read it again:

".....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.

That's not 'discussing'. That's just repeating verbatim the same argument I shredded in post #493.

Watch, I'll shred it again:

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."

Keep running, Sil. I've got you, and you know I've got you. Which is why you switched from debating the points to simply repeating posts verbatim.

 

[Silhouette]

The question here is the redaction of the physical structure of the definition of marriage and whether or not that should be federally imposed upon the 50 states without their consent. Hold that in your mind as I proceed...

Ginsburg and Kagan, while this question is pending and hotly contested, (presumably also participating in denial of stays without explanation on those merits) quite recently presided as federal entities blessing the proposed redaction of the physical structure of the definition of marriage.

They personified the fed blessing the redaction. And they did so BEFORE the hearing on that precise question of law. And they did so knowing the issue was contended and had yet to be settled.

It was a collosal FAIL on their part. So, according to their own Finding in 2009, where any objective person would not doubt for a moment before the Hearing how either of those two will vote on the fed blessing the redaction of marraige, those two must recuse themselves or risk fracturing the Union that exists because of the public's trust in an impartial US Supreme Court. If they sit on this case, it will be like a torpedo directly into the heart of the waning morale of our democratic nation.

 

[WorldWatcher]

They personified the fed blessing the redaction. And they did so BEFORE the hearing on that precise question of law. And they did so knowing the issue was contended and had yet to be settled.

Are you saying there is a question before the court that the People Maryland's Ballot initiative where they voted in support of Same-sex Civil Marriage is a question before the court?

Are you saying there is a question before the court that the legislative body in the District of Columbia where they voted in support of Same-sex Civil Marriage is a question before the court?



Here I thought the question before the court was the power of the State to say "no", something that didn't apply in either of those jurisdictions.


>>>>

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

SILHOUETTE SAID:

“The question here is the redaction of the physical structure of the definition of marriage and whether or not that should be federally imposed upon the 50 states without their consent.”

No, it is not – this is ridiculous, ignorant idiocy.

The issue before the Supreme Court has nothing to do with 'Federal imposition,' whatever that's supposed to be.

The primary issue before the Court is whether state measures seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law can pass Constitutional muster: are these measures rationally based, is there objective, documented evidence in support, and do they pursue a proper legislative end.

Should the Court decide in favor of same-sex couples, marriage will not be 'changed'; indeed, no one is seeking to 'change' or 'redefine' marriage or the marriage laws of any state, as same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts, where the states seeking to deny gay Americans access to marriage law violate the 14th Amendment's Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses.

 

[Silhouette]

Are you saying there is a question before the court that the People Maryland's Ballot initiative where they voted in support of Same-sex Civil Marriage is a question before the court?

>>>>

I'm saying that even if Ginsburg and Kagan (as federal entities) presided over gay marraiges MADE LEGAL IN MARYLAND by the process that is proper, their doing so expressed a "federal blessing" over the redacted word of marriage to include same-sex as mother/father etc. See the redaction? It's weird and many object to it. It is hotly contested; and is so for the sake of children: boys without actual fathers, girls without actual mothers...

So, even though the brand new experiment of gay marraige was approved of by the governed in Maryland, the act of a federal entity "blessing" that redaction sent a message to the public: "These two federal Justices, the last stop in the justice-train in the US, are blessing the redaction of the word.....months before the Hearing on whether or not the fed should bless the redacted word".

Let me repeat: the question pending before the court is whether or not the fed should bless the redacted version of the word "marriage" over all 50 states.

Recusal is mandatory.

 

[Silhouette]

SILHOUETTE SAID:
The issue before the Supreme Court has nothing to do with 'Federal imposition,' whatever that's supposed to be.

The primary issue before the Court is whether state measures seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law can pass Constitutional muster: are these measures rationally based, is there objective, documented evidence in support, and do they pursue a proper legislative end.
.

And if states rightfully deny same-gendered people from trying to play "mom and dad" to kids, what then? Oh, that's right. The practical outcome of the case will be that the fed will step in and force any state so resisting to come to heel and allow the new experimental marriages to go forward (all of them for they must in the name of marriage equality. Not just your pet homosexual marriage favorite).

Boiled down in the bottom of the pan, the de facto outcome is that the fed will force gay marriage upon the states that are unwilling to undergo this type of new experiment with their future's children.

ie: a federal mandate for gay marriage.

But you already knew that and were being dishonest saying you didn't.

Kagan and Ginsburg already acted as feds blessing the redacted neo-marriage definition that is still experimental and contested across all the other states they preside over as the final word... And they did so while the redaction was/is contested and pending in their Court yet to be Heard.

Recusal time..

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

If Scalia and Thomas can sit in on matters that benefit the Brother's Koch, as they have and voted in their favor, no justice must ever take their self off the bench.

 

[Skylar]

The question here is the redaction of the physical structure of the definition of marriage and whether or not that should be federally imposed upon the 50 states without their consent. Hold that in your mind as I proceed...

I'll stick with the ACTUAL questions that the USSC are answering rather than whatever you make up.

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?

You can make up whatever you want. You can imagine whatever you desire. You can rage, lament, invent and hallucinate to your heart's content.

The above two questions still remain the questions the court is answering. Not your imagination. Hold that in your mind as you proceed.

Ginsburg and Kagan, while this question is pending and hotly contested, (presumably also participating in denial of stays without explanation on those merits) quite recently presided as federal entities blessing the proposed redaction of the physical structure of the definition of marriage.

You seemed confused. The question of whether a state could vote in gay marriage wasn't pending nor was it hotly contested. This was already decided in Windsor, where the court found that a State most definitely COULD vote in same sex marriage. And that such recognition was so authoritative and valid, that it trumped federal marriage laws.

And both Maryland and DC had voted in same sex marriage. Which is where Kagan and Ginsberg officiated weddings respectively. Ending your entire argument. As there is nothing regarding gay marriage being contested in EITHER state. You can't demonstrate a bias against same sex marriage bans when there are no same marriage bans.

Kagan and Ginsberg's actions were completely consistent with the Windsor decision. Your position isn't.

They personified the fed blessing the redaction.

Nope. They personified the court's recognition in the Windsor decision that a state could vote in same sex marriage. And that such marriages were valid and constitutionally protected. Exactly as Maryland and DC did.

Read the Windsor decision. It explicitly recognizes the validity of states voting in same sex marriage. Simply destroying your entire argument.

 

[Skylar]

So, according to their own Finding in 2009, where any objective person would not doubt for a moment before the Hearing how either of those two will vote on the fed blessing the redaction of marraige, those two must recuse themselves or risk fracturing the Union that exists because of the public's trust in an impartial US Supreme Court. If they sit on this case, it will be like a torpedo directly into the heart of the waning morale of our democratic nation.

Nope. Not even close.

Maryland and DC had already voted in Same Sex Marriage. Kagan and Ginsberg did nothing more than 'bless' the findings of the Windsor decision: that a state could vote in same sex marriage. And that such marriages were authoritative, valid, and trumped federal marriage law.

With Maryland and DC being perfectly consistent with the findings of the Windsor decision.

Thus, Kagan and Ginsberg showed 'bias' toward the precedent of the Windsor decision. Which is exactly what they're supposed to.

You can't have it both ways. You can't argue that the Windsor decision recognizes the authority of the States over marriage 56 times in the Windsor decision.....and then argue against the States having the authority over marriage if they allow same sex marriage.

 

[Skylar]

SILHOUETTE SAID:
The issue before the Supreme Court has nothing to do with 'Federal imposition,' whatever that's supposed to be.

The primary issue before the Court is whether state measures seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law can pass Constitutional muster: are these measures rationally based, is there objective, documented evidence in support, and do they pursue a proper legislative end.
.

And if states rightfully deny same-gendered people from trying to play "mom and dad" to kids, what then?

Neither Maryland nor DC did. That's the part that breaks your argument. Per your own argument, the States have the authority to define marriage. Well, the States of Maryland and District of Columbia did. And allowed same sex marriage.

And there is absolutely no legal controversy over whether or not Maryland and DC have the authority to recognize same sex marriage. Windsor setttled that entirely. Thus, the 'pending legal issues' you've imagined don't exist. Windsor resolved them all as far as a state recognizing same sex marriage was concerned.

How then could Kagan and Ginsberg demonstrate a bias against same sex marriage bans.....when there were no same sex marriage bans?

Even hypothetically, your entire argument is a logical impossibility. You can't demonstrate a bias against something that doesn't exist.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Are you saying there is a question before the court that the People Maryland's Ballot initiative where they voted in support of Same-sex Civil Marriage is a question before the court?

>>>>

I'm saying that even if Ginsburg and Kagan (as federal entities) presided over gay marraiges MADE LEGAL IN MARYLAND by the process that is proper, their doing so expressed a "federal blessing" over the redacted word of marriage to include same-sex as mother/father etc. See the redaction? It's weird and many object to it. It is hotly contested; and is so for the sake of children: boys without actual fathers, girls without actual mothers...

So, even though the brand new experiment of gay marraige was approved of by the governed in Maryland, the act of a federal entity "blessing" that redaction sent a message to the public: "These two federal Justices, the last stop in the justice-train in the US, are blessing the redaction of the word.....months before the Hearing on whether or not the fed should bless the redacted word".

Let me repeat: the question pending before the court is whether or not the fed should bless the redacted version of the word "marriage" over all 50 states.

Recusal is mandatory.

By what authority? The Supreme Court is by choice the only court not to have a Code of Ethics. The Congress cannot order a justice, nor can the President or the Chief Justice order a Justice, to recuse them self.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Are you saying there is a question before the court that the People Maryland's Ballot initiative where they voted in support of Same-sex Civil Marriage is a question before the court?

>>>>

I'm saying that even if Ginsburg and Kagan (as federal entities) presided over gay marraiges MADE LEGAL IN MARYLAND by the process that is proper, their doing so expressed a "federal blessing" over the redacted word of marriage to include same-sex as mother/father etc. See the redaction? It's weird and many object to it. It is hotly contested; and is so for the sake of children: boys without actual fathers, girls without actual mothers...

So, even though the brand new experiment of gay marraige was approved of by the governed in Maryland, the act of a federal entity "blessing" that redaction sent a message to the public: "These two federal Justices, the last stop in the justice-train in the US, are blessing the redaction of the word.....months before the Hearing on whether or not the fed should bless the redacted word".

Let me repeat: the question pending before the court is whether or not the fed should bless the redacted version of the word "marriage" over all 50 states.

Recusal is mandatory.

By what authority? The Supreme Court is by choice the only court not to have a Code of Ethics. The Congress cannot order a justice, nor can the President or the Chief Justice order a Justice, to recuse them self.

Well, it looks as if "Recusal is mandatory" is a lie.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

SILHOUETTE SAID:
The issue before the Supreme Court has nothing to do with 'Federal imposition,' whatever that's supposed to be.

The primary issue before the Court is whether state measures seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law can pass Constitutional muster: are these measures rationally based, is there objective, documented evidence in support, and do they pursue a proper legislative end.
.

And if states rightfully deny same-gendered people from trying to play "mom and dad" to kids, what then? Oh, that's right. The practical outcome of the case will be that the fed will step in and force any state so resisting to come to heel and allow the new experimental marriages to go forward (all of them for they must in the name of marriage equality. Not just your pet homosexual marriage favorite).

Boiled down in the bottom of the pan, the de facto outcome is that the fed will force gay marriage upon the states that are unwilling to undergo this type of new experiment with their future's children.

ie: a federal mandate for gay marriage.

But you already knew that and were being dishonest saying you didn't.

Kagan and Ginsburg already acted as feds blessing the redacted neo-marriage definition that is still experimental and contested across all the other states they preside over as the final word... And they did so while the redaction was/is contested and pending in their Court yet to be Heard.

Recusal time..

The states cannot “rightfully deny” same-sex couples access to marriage law because there is no objective, documented evidence in support of the notion that children who have same-sex parents are 'disadvantaged,' whether those parents are married or unmarried - where such an 'argument' cannot be used to justify denying same-sex couples their right to equal protection of the law.

 

[Silhouette]

Are you saying there is a question before the court that the People Maryland's Ballot initiative where they voted in support of Same-sex Civil Marriage is a question before the court?

>>>>

I'm saying that even if Ginsburg and Kagan (as federal entities) presided over gay marraiges MADE LEGAL IN MARYLAND by the process that is proper, their doing so expressed a "federal blessing" over the redacted word of marriage to include same-sex as mother/father etc. See the redaction? It's weird and many object to it. It is hotly contested; and is so for the sake of children: boys without actual fathers, girls without actual mothers...

So, even though the brand new experiment of gay marraige was approved of by the governed in Maryland, the act of a federal entity "blessing" that redaction sent a message to the public: "These two federal Justices, the last stop in the justice-train in the US, are blessing the redaction of the word.....months before the Hearing on whether or not the fed should bless the redacted word".

Let me repeat: the question pending before the court is whether or not the fed should bless the redacted version of the word "marriage" over all 50 states.

Recusal is mandatory.

By what authority? The Supreme Court is by choice the only court not to have a Code of Ethics. The Congress cannot order a justice, nor can the President or the Chief Justice order a Justice, to recuse them self.

Oh, they have a code of ethics all right. That code of ethics is distilled thusly:

First, the idea that no American citizen is above the law.

Second, that in 2009 they said judges of court may not display any bias an objective observer could see plainly.

Third, they are judges of a court.

Fourth their behavior is more important, more impeachable than any other office because they in a way, due to gridlock in Congress and impotence in the Executive Office have the most greased-skids on totalitarian and unexplained power. They can just rule without even saying why; as is the case when they kept denying stays to preserve sovereign law in the interim in this question of law; even though they just avered 56 times in Windsor that the fed has to listen to states on this quesiton of law..

When Ginsburg or Kagan performed that federal blessing on the proposed radical redaction to the word "marriage" (because it then would institutionalize sons without fathers and daughters without mothers..hugely detrimental to children...and society by extension over time), they were behaving like Queens of Court. "Peasant, don't bother arguing your case to me, my mind is already made up!"...Their arrogance is palatable, acute, visible and unapologetic. The question of the proposed-redaction as mandated/blessed federally still hung in the air and was pending at the time! And still is! And they knew that!!!!

By the very description of the Office they hold, they must recuse themselves or be impeachable. This has overstepped into tyranny.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Let me repeat: the question pending before the court is whether or not the fed should bless the redacted version of the word "marriage" over all 50 states.

The Federal government already recognizes legal Civil Marriages of same-sex couples no matter what state they reside in (i.e. all 50 states) - so no, that is not the question before the court.

Recusal is mandatory.

Nope, it's not since the Civil Marriages were performed in Maryland and D.C., where SSCM was legal based on legislative action by those entities.


>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

Nope, they are called "civil unions" for a reason. Because they are not marriage. Marriage has a perk that allowes adoption of children in the various states by people cohabitating together. Most states require that cohabitating adults be married in order to adopt.

The key difference is the children. States want the incentive program called 'marriage' to urge an environment with a mother and a father. I know you all want access to those kids really really badly. That's what separates though "whatever" (you call them gay civil unions) from a legitmate state-recognized union.

It's all about the kids. Boys need fathers. Girls need mothers. And the state recognizes how vital this is.

Don't have much to say about Queen Ginsburg and Empress Kagan do you?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Nope, they are called "civil unions" for a reason. Because they are not marriage. Marriage has a perk that allowes adoption of children in the various states by people cohabitating together. Most states require that cohabitating adults be married in order to adopt.

The key difference is the children. States want the incentive program called 'marriage' to urge an environment with a mother and a father. I know you all want access to those kids really really badly. That's what separates though "whatever" (you call them gay civil unions) from a legitmate state-recognized union.

It's all about the kids. Boys need fathers. Girls need mothers. And the state recognizes how vital this is.

Don't have much to say about Queen Ginsburg and Empress Kagan do you?

You didn't quote anyone so it can be confusing.

If you are responding to my post, then you are wrong. Just as one example, the people of Maine voted to approve SSCM at the ballot. There is no question that the approved Civil Marriage, different-sex and same-sex couples can get a Civil Marriage in Maine, then move to any state in the union and the Federal government continues to recognize that Civil Marriage.

So the statement "The Federal government already recognizes legal Civil Marriages of same-sex couples no matter what state they reside in (i.e. all 50 states) - so no, that is not the question before the court." was true.



>>>>

 

[Wry Catcher]

Are you saying there is a question before the court that the People Maryland's Ballot initiative where they voted in support of Same-sex Civil Marriage is a question before the court?

>>>>

I'm saying that even if Ginsburg and Kagan (as federal entities) presided over gay marraiges MADE LEGAL IN MARYLAND by the process that is proper, their doing so expressed a "federal blessing" over the redacted word of marriage to include same-sex as mother/father etc. See the redaction? It's weird and many object to it. It is hotly contested; and is so for the sake of children: boys without actual fathers, girls without actual mothers...

So, even though the brand new experiment of gay marraige was approved of by the governed in Maryland, the act of a federal entity "blessing" that redaction sent a message to the public: "These two federal Justices, the last stop in the justice-train in the US, are blessing the redaction of the word.....months before the Hearing on whether or not the fed should bless the redacted word".

Let me repeat: the question pending before the court is whether or not the fed should bless the redacted version of the word "marriage" over all 50 states.

Recusal is mandatory.

By what authority? The Supreme Court is by choice the only court not to have a Code of Ethics. The Congress cannot order a justice, nor can the President or the Chief Justice order a Justice, to recuse them self.

Oh, they have a code of ethics all right. That code of ethics is distilled thusly:

First, the idea that no American citizen is above the law.

Second, that in 2009 they said judges of court may not display any bias an objective observer could see plainly.

Third, they are judges of a court.

Fourth their behavior is more important, more impeachable than any other office because they in a way, due to gridlock in Congress and impotence in the Executive Office have the most greased-skids on totalitarian and unexplained power. They can just rule without even saying why; as is the case when they kept denying stays to preserve sovereign law in the interim in this question of law; even though they just avered 56 times in Windsor that the fed has to listen to states on this quesiton of law..

When Ginsburg or Kagan performed that federal blessing on the proposed radical redaction to the word "marriage" (because it then would institutionalize sons without fathers and daughters without mothers..hugely detrimental to children...and society by extension over time), they were behaving like Queens of Court. "Peasant, don't bother arguing your case to me, my mind is already made up!"...Their arrogance is palatable, acute, visible and unapologetic. The question of the proposed-redaction as mandated/blessed federally still hung in the air and was pending at the time! And still is! And they knew that!!!!

By the very description of the Office they hold, they must recuse themselves or be impeachable. This has overstepped into tyranny.

Nice rant. The Supreme Court does not have a code of ethics. But, a justice can be impeached and one actually was; however, Samuel Chase was acquitted by the Senate.

If either of the women you seem to despise were to be impeached by the highly partisan and crazy members of the majority in the H. of Rep. the political theater would create even a greater - if possible - schism then currently exits. Oh, and BTW the Vice President of the United States would preside - his name is Joe Biden.

BTW2, why do you opppose equal rights for all American Citizens? Are you a commie?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Recusal requires honor. Kagan is a homosexual, Leftist; ergo a Relativist... thus she has no kinship with honor and such is her circumstances that she has no means to even contemplate the meaning of the word.

So, while she MUST recuse herself, she lacks the means to reason objectively, thus she will not.