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

[JakeStarkey]

Keys is drinking earlier and earlier each.

The above is as wack statement as he has ever made.

TK handed Keys' rhetorical ass to him last night and he is still reeling from the ass beating he took.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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.

So, an in-house Leftist states unapologetically that the SCOTUS is not bound by any sense of ethics.

Now... Reader, do you see why the Left lives and dies, Neither on the Legislature, nor the Executive, but the Judiciary, which the idiot in question comes to celebrate because it lacks any formal rules regarding moral principles that govern a person's or group's behavior.

There's a clue in there for ya...

 

[JakeStarkey]

Those are you words, Keys, no one else.

SCOTUS is co-equal with the other two branches.

Read your Constitution.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The states cannot “rightfully deny” same-sex couples access to marriage...

Marriage is the joining of One Man and One Wo-Man.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

You are not one, "to reason objectively" and your conclusion that, "she MUST recuse herself" supports the allegation that you are not able, willing or honest enough to point out the obvious, and blatant association, of Scalia and Thomas with the Brothers Koch.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Marriage is the joining of One Man and One Wo-Man.

In your understanding of Christian doctrine, yes, but such is not binding on others.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

So, an in-house Leftist states unapologetically that the SCOTUS is not bound by any sense of ethics.

Now... Reader, do you see why the Left lives and dies, Neither on the Legislature, nor the Executive, but the Judiciary, which the idiot in question comes to celebrate because it lacks any formal rules regarding moral principles that govern a person's or group's behavior.

There's a clue in there for ya...

You're such a fucking asshole I don't know why you're allowed to post. Liars should be put on the bench whenever they fail to pass the test of honesty.

I did not say they have no sense of ethics; they are, however, not bound to a code of ethics, as is every other judge and justice appointed or elected to the inferior courts in the United States.

Why are Scalia and Thomas excused from recusal by hacks like you, every year they attend the Koch Brothers Palm Springs Party, closed to the press, for Conservatives?

Why can Scalia rule on Gun Control Issues when he goes hunting with Dick Cheney?

Why can Thomas rule on the PPACA?

Meme Alleges Clarence Thomas s Wife Got 1.5M From Healthcare Act Foes - US News

Groundswell Ginni Thomas And Continued Conflicts Of Interest For Justice Clarence Thomas Blog Media Matters for America

 

[Skylar]

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?

Once again, for the cheap seats and the desperately, willfully ignorant:

There is NO legal controversy or unanswered legal question of the State's authority to include same sex unions within the legal definition of marriage. Windsor settled this definitively and unambiguously. Thus, there was no legal conflict with any 'unanswered' legal question created by Kagan nor Ginsberg for officiating a legal wedding in Maryland or DC respectively.

The only thing they 'blessed' were the findings of the Windsor decision.

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...

Obvious nonsense. There's nothing contested about a State's authority to include same sex couples in marriage. Zero, nada, zilch. Windsor v. US settled that in 2013. And it wasn't until AFTER the issue was settled case law that Kagan and Ginsberg officated legal weddings in Maryland and DC respectively.

Killing your argument yet again.

"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".

That's you citing yourself. Not Kagan or Ginsberg. And you citing you has no legal relevance nor obligates anyone to do anything.

What else have you got?

 

[Skylar]

The states cannot “rightfully deny” same-sex couples access to marriage...

Marriage is the joining of One Man and One Wo-Man.

And in 37 of 50 states, it also includes one man and one man. And one woman and one woman.

You diagree. Um....so what? Your personal agreement has no relevance to the validity of the marriages of any other person.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Q. Is keys stupid, obnoxious or disgusting?

A. All of the above.

 

[Silhouette]

Those are you words, Keys, no one else.

SCOTUS is co-equal with the other two branches.

Read your Constitution.

Except unlike the other two branches of government, SCOTUS cannot exhibit an overt affiliation or bias. They are the paramount of the unbiased and neutral federal employees. Anything less (Ginsburg and Kagan on this question) is absolutely unacceptable. It erodes the public's faith in the justice system. And a public with no faith in justice is a public on the brink..

 

[JakeStarkey]

SCOTUS can certainly demonstrate "an overt affiliation or bias" based on Constitutional clarity. The 14th is about equal treatment. Your ilk have not been able to bring forth an actual compelling interest to prohibit marriage equality. Your continued evasions and misdirections and outright lies have failed to erode our citizenry's faith in the American judicial system and SCOTUS.

The American public, therefore, will wholeheartedly, with a fanatical minority in opposition, and openly embrace national marriage equality this June.

 

[Skylar]

SCOTUS can certainly demonstrate "an overt affiliation or bias" based on Constitutional clarity. The 14th is about equal treatment. Your ilk have not been able to bring forth an actual compelling interest to prohibit marriage equality. Your continued evasions and misdirections and outright lies have failed to erode our citizenry's faith in the American judicial system and SCOTUS.

Its been an interesting tactic of conservatives of late. Very...caustic and short term thinking. They can't get the votes they want? Try to erode confidence in the election. Still can't get the votes you want? Try to erode confidence in democracy. Judiciary protecting rights you don't think should be protected? Try and erode confidence in the judiciary.

Its shocking how closely the rhetoric of some conservatives resembles Soviet era Politburo anti-american propaganda.

 

[Skylar]

Q. Is keys stupid, obnoxious or disgusting?

A. All of the above

Keyes is a one trick pony. His argument boils down to the same silly fallacy of logic, each time, every time: Appeal to Authority.

The only thing that changes is who or what Keyes claims to be speaking for. Sometimes its 'nature', sometimes 'god', sometimes 'science', sometimes 'the dictionary'. And each times is just Keyes quoting Keyes, desperately trying to convince us that whatever bullshit he makes up must be objective truth.

And failing miserably each time.

 

[Silhouette]

SCOTUS can certainly demonstrate "an overt affiliation or bias" based on Constitutional clarity. The 14th is about equal treatment. Your ilk have not been able to bring forth an actual compelling interest to prohibit marriage equality. Your continued evasions and misdirections and outright lies have failed to erode our citizenry's faith in the American judicial system and SCOTUS.

The American public, therefore, will wholeheartedly, with a fanatical minority in opposition, and openly embrace national marriage equality this June.

And nowhere in the Constitution is it written that a minority behavioral group (that doesn't even clearly understand itself...Anne Heche...) repugnant to the majority seeking to torpedo the physical structure of the word "marriage" has a "right" to force that federally upon the states where motherless daughters and fatherless sons have to become an institution there without the permission of the governed.

"Equal treatment"? You mean like the blind being able to get a drivers license, or homosexuals play-acting mom and dad to kids?

Both are very dangerous propositions to the priveleges they seek to turn into "rights".

I assume you don't believe that children can be married, or brother/sister, mother/son, father/daughter, polygamists etc.? So then we agree....SOME people cannot access marriage. It's up to the majority then to determine who can and who cannot. That's how laws are made regarding privelege.

Ginsburg and Kagan can't bless the redacted word as federal entities before the Hearing on whether or not the fed should bless the redacted word has happened. But since they did, arrogantly, they have to recuse themselves. When they did the offending acts, they knew and had in the front of their mind that that hotly debated question of law was pending. It was nothing less than a message, a shot across the bow to the US public: "get ready, this is how we are going to vote"...

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil has no respect for the Constitution or the natural rights of human beings. SCOTUS, the overwhelming number of courts, some legislatures, and the growing majority of Americans, particularly those under 45, do.

Sil's false argumentation will not prevent marriage equality from becoming national in June.

 

[Silhouette]

Sil has no respect for the Constitution or the natural rights of human beings. SCOTUS, the overwhelming number of courts, some legislatures, and the growing majority of Americans, particularly those under 45, do.

Sil's false argumentation will not prevent marriage equality from becoming national in June.

I guess you don't consider children human beings. Because I very much do believe they have a natural right to a father and mother in marriage.

Anything to say about the Justices flaunting their federal blessing over the redacted word "marriage" before that Hearing of a federal mandate on the redaction of marriage has come to pass?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Your "save the children" argument has been exploded several times. You have never cared about heteros exploiting children at a larger per capita average and a far greater number annually.

Stop yer whining.

 

[Silhouette]

Your "save the children" argument has been exploded several times. You have never cared about heteros exploiting children at a larger per capita average and a far greater number annually.

Stop yer whining.

What does child exploitation have to do with their natural right to a mother and father? Other than the cult of LGBT exploiting children as lab rats in their brand new social experiment where sons won't have fathers and daughters won't have mothers..."as married"?

Any thoughts on what Ginsburg or Kagan did? Might want to check the title of the thread here Jakey.

 

[JakeStarkey]

What 'natural right' to a mother and father? Once again, you ignore the single parent families that lack one or the other.

No cult of LGBT exists, but a Cult of Sil does, full of innuendos and fabrications while short of evidence and proof.

What is wrong with you?