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

Would Kagan sitting on the 2015 gay-marriage Hearing in SCOTUS destroy your faith in Justice?

  • Yes, absolutely. A US Supreme Court Justice must obey the 2009 Finding to recuse themself.

    Votes: 18 56.3%
  • No, it's OK to preside over a gay wedding and then sit on a case objectively about gay weddings.

    Votes: 14 43.8%

  • Total voters
    32
The anti-gay marriage folks see the writing on the wall so isn't that shocking to see these hysterical excuses are already starting to tickle in.

Oh, Sil knows what's coming. And we're going to be witness to a spectacular meltdown with a 3 month opening act. All the babble about 'tyranny' and 'nazis' is just him warming up.

And we didn't even have to buy any tickets to the show.
 
If Ginsburg knew that same-sex marriage were going to come before the court she should have recused herself from performing the marriage in question.

Why? There is no 'same sex marriage' in DC. There's just marriage.

How then could her performing a wedding demonstrate a bias against same sex marriage bans....when there was no same sex marriage ban?
 

OK, BOTH Ginsburg and Kagan must recuse themselves. I stand corrected. The recusal isn't a mere suggestion, they upheld it for all judges (most especially themselves) as recently as 2009. (I think my thread is better though since mine doesn't refer to "two Jewesses" in the OP.)

'isn't a mere suggestion'?

Clearly it is merely your suggestion.


http://wisconsinlawreview.org/wp-content/files/3-Virelli.pdf
1190 WISCONSIN LAW REVIEW

Finally, Justice Scalia implies that another important reason to disfavor
recusal at the Supreme Court is to deter people (especially the press)
from seeking to discredit seemingly unsympathetic Justices in hopes of
forcing them to recuse themselves.
51
He explains that “[t]he people
must have confidence in the integrity of the Justices, and that cannot
exist in a system that assumes them to be corruptible by the slightest
friendship or favor, and in an atmosphere where the press will be eager
to find foot-faults.

Interesting article- essentially it points out that unlike judges- Justices are not answerable to anyone other than themselves.

Oh and that they get told that they should recuse themselves quite regularly, and generally ignore those calls.
Oh snap /thread
 
You know you can't win this arguement on its merits so now the tactic is trying gin up outrage and claim they she should recuse herself from the case. It isn't going to happen.
You cannot deny it was poor judgment on the part of Kagan to officiate over a gay wedding with the knowledge that, as a member of the supreme court, she needs to demonstrate a lack of bias to the issue at hand....and she was well aware that gay marriage was an issue she will be faced with as a member of the supreme court.

She did not have to officiate over the wedding. She opted to.

When you accept a nomination to the supreme court, you are well aware of the limitations it will put on your life.

Very poor judgment and all it did was cast a shadow on the situation.
 
If Ginsburg knew that same-sex marriage were going to come before the court she should have recused herself from performing the marriage in question.


The question before the court will be can states ban same-sex civil marriage.

Justice Ginsburg performed a SSCM in D.C. which had no ban on SSCM and specifically had legislatively passed SSCM so that it was legal.

Performing a SSCM in a location where it was legal has nothing to do with a legal question of can states ban them.


>>>>
 
silhouette said:
this cult and its sychophant's overweening will pass the tipping point into tyranny upon the moment these two Justices appear on the gay marriage case in a couple of week's time.

But it didn't pass its tipping point when Thomas failed to recuse himself during the ACA cases. Only when gay marriage is involved. And I'm sure you would see it that way if it looked like gay marriage proponents were going to lose this one.:rolleyes:

Naa you don't have an agenda. You're just concerned about the integrity of the Court:rolleyes:
 
You know you can't win this arguement on its merits so now the tactic is trying gin up outrage and claim they she should recuse herself from the case. It isn't going to happen.
You cannot deny it was poor judgment on the part of Kagan to officiate over a gay wedding with the knowledge that, as a member of the supreme court, she needs to demonstrate a lack of bias to the issue at hand....and she was well aware that gay marriage was an issue she will be faced with as a member of the supreme court.

She did not have to officiate over the wedding. She opted to.

When you accept a nomination to the supreme court, you are well aware of the limitations it will put on your life.

Very poor judgment and all it did was cast a shadow on the situation.

Oh, I can deny it b/c I don't believe it was poor judgement. She officiated a ceremony in a jurisdiction where no such ban existed. If she had done so in state where there was a ban I would agree that she should recuse herself. The only reason the OP wants her to recuse herself is b/c she don't think Kagan is going to vote the way she wants.
 
silhouette said:
this cult and its sychophant's overweening will pass the tipping point into tyranny upon the moment these two Justices appear on the gay marriage case in a couple of week's time.

But it didn't pass its tipping point when Thomas failed to recuse himself during the ACA cases. Only when gay marriage is involved. And I'm sure you would see it that way if it looked like gay marriage proponents were going to lose this one.:rolleyes:

Naa you don't have an agenda. You're just concerned about the integrity of the Court:rolleyes:
and the left did not have a agenda while defending the IRS. They always saw it as a reputable, clean agency.
 
The last time I'd seen such an ugly woman was Helen Thomas, white House reporter. Ugh!
 

Forum List

Back
Top