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

[Jarhead]

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.

If you look at my earlier posts, I said the same thing as you. However, when I heard that she did it late 2014, I considered it poor judgement seeing as the case was going to be presented to them within months.

Optics is important. We the people have little to go by other than optics. Our politicians spin, our media cherry pic....but when it comes to law interpretation and constitutionality, we like to believe our legal leaders (SCOTUS) is unbiased...and whereas performing the wedding does not show bias, there is great reason for one against gay marriage to think otherwise.

I wish our politicians and legal leaders took into consideration optics...how we believe we see them.

Whatever. I know I would have stayed away from it.

 

[Meathead]

The last time I'd seen such an ugly woman was Helen Thomas, white House reporter. Ugh!

I should amend that to include Trayvon Martin's girl friend.

 

[mdk]

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.

If you look at my earlier posts, I said the same thing as you. However, when I heard that she did it late 2014, I considered it poor judgement seeing as the case was going to be presented to them within months.

Optics is important. We the people have little to go by other than optics. Our politicians spin, our media cherry pic....but when it comes to law interpretation and constitutionality, we like to believe our legal leaders (SCOTUS) is unbiased...and whereas performing the wedding does not show bias, there is great reason for one against gay marriage to think otherwise.

I wish our politicians and legal leaders took into consideration optics...how we believe we see them.

Whatever. I know I would have stayed away from it.

I more than likely wouldn't have done so myself but she did and it was prefectly legal for her to officiate a wedding for a same sex couple in a jurisdiction where no such ban exsisted. This instance isn't a compelling enough reason for her to recuse herself from hearing this case.

 

[J.E.D]

The last time I'd seen such an ugly woman was Helen Thomas, white House reporter. Ugh!

So, you've been asked once already - where's your pic?

 

[bodecea]

The last time I'd seen such an ugly woman was Helen Thomas, white House reporter. Ugh!

So, you've been asked once already - where's your pic?

You can just imagine.............................

 

[Jarhead]

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.

If you look at my earlier posts, I said the same thing as you. However, when I heard that she did it late 2014, I considered it poor judgement seeing as the case was going to be presented to them within months.

Optics is important. We the people have little to go by other than optics. Our politicians spin, our media cherry pic....but when it comes to law interpretation and constitutionality, we like to believe our legal leaders (SCOTUS) is unbiased...and whereas performing the wedding does not show bias, there is great reason for one against gay marriage to think otherwise.

I wish our politicians and legal leaders took into consideration optics...how we believe we see them.

Whatever. I know I would have stayed away from it.

I more than likely wouldn't have done so myself but she did and it was prefectly legal for her to officiate a wedding for a same sex couple in a jurisdiction where no such ban exsisted. This instance isn't a compelling enough reason for her to recuse herself from hearing this case.

I agree....I just feel it was poor judgment.....a quality that one prefers not to see in a...well...judge.

I go back to optics. It is not what she did wrong...she did nothing wrong......it is how it can be perceived. And regardless of what some people say, I believe a leader needs to worry about how his/her followers perceive them.

 

[Meathead]

The last time I'd seen such an ugly woman was Helen Thomas, white House reporter. Ugh!

So, you've been asked once already - where's your pic?

If you think my pic will make Kagan or Trayvon's main squeeze look any better, you'd be disappointed. I've never seen anyone who could do that except for this 300lbs black woman I saw in Charleston, SC in the 1980s. She still gives me nightmares.

 

[Plasmaball]

this should be left in the STATES.

Supreme court has no business in this

great you said something stupid, again....Can you for once actually attempt to learn something you hag.

 

[J.E.D]

The last time I'd seen such an ugly woman was Helen Thomas, white House reporter. Ugh!

So, you've been asked once already - where's your pic?

You can just imagine.............................

I'm trying not to. I don't want to throw up in my mouth

 

[J.E.D]

The last time I'd seen such an ugly woman was Helen Thomas, white House reporter. Ugh!

So, you've been asked once already - where's your pic?

If you think my pic will make Kagan or Trayvon's main squeeze look any better, you'd be disappointed. I've never seen anyone who could do that except for this 300lbs black woman I saw in Charleston, SC in the 1980s. She still gives me nightmares.

Naah I just want to see how good looking you are. From your posts about the looks of others, I assume you're God's gift to women

 

[Meathead]

The last time I'd seen such an ugly woman was Helen Thomas, white House reporter. Ugh!

So, you've been asked once already - where's your pic?

If you think my pic will make Kagan or Trayvon's main squeeze look any better, you'd be disappointed. I've never seen anyone who could do that except for this 300lbs black woman I saw in Charleston, SC in the 1980s. She still gives me nightmares.

Naah I just want to see how good looking you are. From your posts about the looks of others, I assume you're God's gift to women

Yes, but Republican women. I am not a dyke nor a girly boy.

 

[J.E.D]

The last time I'd seen such an ugly woman was Helen Thomas, white House reporter. Ugh!

So, you've been asked once already - where's your pic?

If you think my pic will make Kagan or Trayvon's main squeeze look any better, you'd be disappointed. I've never seen anyone who could do that except for this 300lbs black woman I saw in Charleston, SC in the 1980s. She still gives me nightmares.

Naah I just want to see how good looking you are. From your posts about the looks of others, I assume you're God's gift to women

Yes, but Republican women. I am not a dyke nor a girly boy.

So, you look like shit. Got it

 

[Silhouette]

Ah a "let's get the thread disappeared flame war". Pretty compelling topic eh guys and gals?

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 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.


****************

And so the premise was set to determine that if a judge gave the appearance of bias even, in this case it was campaign contributions, that that judge should have recused himself.

The conclusion of the Court of this case:

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..."Just as no man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, similar fears of bias can arise when — without the consent of the other parties — a man chooses the judge in his own cause," Court Judges must avoid appearance of bias - politics - Supreme Court NBC News

The men and women invested heavily in getting gay marriage mandated across the 50 states federally instead of seeking permission of the governed for this new social experiment, feel/felt confident to invite Justices during the pendency of the question to preside at their same-sex weddings...and so Justice Ginsburg and then Justice Kagan actually did!

Thus giving the appearance of bias on behalf of the Court as a whole towards the litigants pushing for federal gay marriage. ").."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....where an objective observer....... 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.."

 

[Skylar]

Ah a "let's get the thread disappeared flame war". Pretty compelling topic eh guys and gals?

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 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.


****************

And so the premise was set to determine that if a judge gave the appearance of bias even, in this case it was campaign contributions, that that judge should have recused himself.

The conclusion of the Court of this case:

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..."Just as no man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, similar fears of bias can arise when — without the consent of the other parties — a man chooses the judge in his own cause," Court Judges must avoid appearance of bias - politics - Supreme Court NBC News

The men and women invested heavily in getting gay marriage mandated across the 50 states federally instead of seeking permission of the governed for this new social experiment, feel/felt confident to invite Justices during the pendency of the question to preside at their same-sex weddings...and so Justice Ginsburg and then Justice Kagan actually did!

Thus giving the appearance of bias on behalf of the Court as a whole towards the litigants pushing for federal gay marriage. ").."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....where an objective observer....... 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.."

And what bias did Ginsberg or Kagan demonstrate by officiating same sex weddings.....when both Maryland and DC had already voted in same sex marriage?

I've asked you a dozen times how you can demonstrate a bias against same sex marriage bans.....when there are no same sex marriage ans in the states/districts where they officiated the weddings?

And you have no answer. Feel free to join the conversation if you ever do.

 

[Silhouette]

And what bias did Ginsberg or Kagan demonstrate by officiating same sex weddings....?.

.."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....where an objective observer....... 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.." ~ Ted Olsen, renowned Constitutional attorney.

 

[Skylar]

And what bias did Ginsberg or Kagan demonstrate by officiating same sex weddings....?.

.."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....where an objective observer....... 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.." ~ Ted Olsen, renowned Constitutional attorney.

And what bias have they demonstrated by officiating a gay wedding?

So far you seem to be arguing that they must recuse themselves because you FEEL they have a bias. One you can't even describe.

Oh, and Ted Olsen supports same sex marriage. So undoubtedly, you'll ignore him too.

 

[Silhouette]

And what bias have they demonstrated by officiating a gay wedding? .

So on top of reinventing new meaning for the word "marriage" you're now trying to insert some ?? new meaning for the word "bias"? you are REAAAAAACCHING bro.

 

[WorldWatcher]

And what bias did Ginsberg or Kagan demonstrate by officiating same sex weddings....?.

.."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....where an objective observer....... 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.." ~ Ted Olsen, renowned Constitutional attorney.

Sil quoting Ted Olsen and attributing to him the status of "renowned Constitutional attorney".

LOL

I wonder if Sil knows that Mr. Olsen is the one that argued against the Prop 8 case before the SCOTUS in support of the position that Prop 8 was unconstitutional.

LOL


>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

I wonder if Sil knows that Mr. Olsen is the one that argued against the Prop 8 case before the SCOTUS in support of the position that Prop 8 was unconstitutional.

Paul Clement and Olsen were both on the same side of the fence on that one. One covert, one overt. Are you saying that your strawman justifies what Kagan and Ginsburg did?

 

[bodecea]

The last time I'd seen such an ugly woman was Helen Thomas, white House reporter. Ugh!

So, you've been asked once already - where's your pic?

If you think my pic will make Kagan or Trayvon's main squeeze look any better, you'd be disappointed. I've never seen anyone who could do that except for this 300lbs black woman I saw in Charleston, SC in the 1980s. She still gives me nightmares.

Naah I just want to see how good looking you are. From your posts about the looks of others, I assume you're God's gift to women

Yes, but Republican women. I am not a dyke nor a girly boy.

Why did you feel the need to say that?