Justices Indicate Shadow-Bias: Gay Marriage Question Erodes Last Bastion of Impariality?

[Syriusly]

That wouldn't be it at all mdk. If the Justices had operated properly, upholding interim law..

There is no 'interim law'

Again- entirely your fiction.

 

[mdk]

That wouldn't be it at all mdk. If the Justices had operated properly, upholding interim law while the question was pending, PARTICULARLY upon the moment they knew there was a split in the lower courts (last Fall when the 6th upheld Windsor/states' rights to ratify or not ratify gay marriage), there would be no move or reason for impeachment even if the Court ruled in favor of federally forcing gay marriage upon the states.

What we are dealing with here isn't the specific question of law, it is how the Court is mishandling justice at a fundamental level to favor one side of litigants while the Hearing on the merits is pending...

lol. What interim law would that be?

 

[Syriusly]

That wouldn't be it at all mdk. If the Justices had operated properly, upholding interim law while the question was pending, PARTICULARLY upon the moment they knew there was a split in the lower courts (last Fall when the 6th upheld Windsor/states' rights to ratify or not ratify gay marriage), there would be no move or reason for impeachment even if the Court ruled in favor of federally forcing gay marriage upon the states.

What we are dealing with here isn't the specific question of law, it is how the Court is mishandling justice at a fundamental level to favor one side of litigants while the Hearing on the merits is pending...

lol. What interim law would that be?

the one in her head.

 

[Silhouette]

That wouldn't be it at all mdk. If the Justices had operated properly, upholding interim law..

There is no 'interim law'

Again- entirely your fiction.

Ahh..another one-liner from Syriusly the spam queen. And with no substance in rebuttal! Shocker..

If there is no interim law then E. Windsor needs to return that money she won because she won it precisely because the Court found that since New York ratified a certain type of marriage, the fed was powerless to deny legitimacy to that state-defined marriage. There are 56 firm and solid Affirmations of states' power to define marriage for themselves in Windsor's Opinion. There is but one vague and undecided musing that gay marriage "may be" but certainly not for sure is a federally protected right. Therefore, in interim laws weighs in 56 to not even 1 in favor of a state-defined concept of marriage.

The refusal of stays in the interim is the Court's active attempt to erode state laws and load the dice in favor of their ultimate excuse for bias "well there are so many people "gay married" by now that we just can't deny protecting it federally"....which is a situation the Court itself manufactured.

If any statement of such is in the Opinion that follows what is sure to be a mere formality, a mere kangaroo court, some Justices need to be impeached.

 

[Skylar]

That wouldn't be it at all mdk. If the Justices had operated properly, upholding interim law..

There is no 'interim law'

Again- entirely your fiction.

Ahh..another one-liner from Syriusly the spam queen. And with no substance in rebuttal! Shocker..

If there is no interim law then E. Windsor needs to return that money she won because she won it precisely because the Court found that since New York ratified a certain type of marriage, the fed was powerless to deny legitimacy to that state-defined marriage. There are 56 firm and solid Affirmations of states' power to define marriage for themselves in Windsor's Opinion.

The part you ignore, that you always ignore.....is constitutional guarantees. The Windsor decision NEVER found that state marriage laws can trump constitutional guarantees. Quite the opposite. The Windsor decision found that state marriage laws are subject to constitutional guarantees.

Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States,” Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393.

Windsor v. US

You pretend no such constitutional guarantees exist. And then laughably insist that because you ignore them, the federal judiciary must as well.

Um, no. They don't. The federal judiciary in virtually every case on state gay marriage bans has found that these bans violate constitutional guarantees. And every ruling overturning gay marriage bans have been done so on the basis of the violation of constitutional guarantees.

All of which you know. But really hope we don't.

 

[Silhouette]

If you actually read my post Skylar, you'd notice that I talked about the one time in Windsor the Court briefly mentioned (alluded to really, never directly tied together) that maybe, possibly, but not for sure yet, gay-marriage might be Constitutionally-protected. Which of course is absurd since no behavior has as yet ever been Constitutionally protected..

vs

...the 56 times in 26 pages of the Opinion where the Court screamed from a megaphone from the rooftops that the experimental "marriage" known as "same-sex marriage" was absolutely up to the states.

Read my last post again.

There is no question about the interim law and the weight the Court itself gave the states on this precise question in Windsor. The Court's subsequent conspiracy with lower Courts to pre-emptively defy it's own latest Finding on that question of law, and actively thereby erode state laws in order to load the dice (pack in illegal gay marriages) so it can later proclaim in full hubris and bias "see, we HAD to federally-mandate gay marriage in order to protect all those kids caught up in it now" is ASTONISHING.

It's grounds for impeachment. If I see any wording in any Opinion that avers a federal-mandate for gay marriage on the grounds that "there are so many now married/it's so popular (in spite of the fact that it isn't and states keep voting it down, hence the LGBT militant push for federal-protection) that we HAD to mandate it", I'm going to puke. That will be the death of our third branch of government at that point. IMHO, the denial of stays means that body is already at the funeral home being prepared for burial.

 

[mdk]

That wouldn't be it at all mdk. If the Justices had operated properly, upholding interim law..

There is no 'interim law'

Again- entirely your fiction.

Ahh..another one-liner from Syriusly the spam queen. And with no substance in rebuttal! Shocker..

If there is no interim law then E. Windsor needs to return that money she won because she won it precisely because the Court found that since New York ratified a certain type of marriage, the fed was powerless to deny legitimacy to that state-defined marriage. There are 56 firm and solid Affirmations of states' power to define marriage for themselves in Windsor's Opinion. There is but one vague and undecided musing that gay marriage "may be" but certainly not for sure is a federally protected right. Therefore, in interim laws weighs in 56 to not even 1 in favor of a state-defined concept of marriage.

The refusal of stays in the interim is the Court's active attempt to erode state laws and load the dice in favor of their ultimate excuse for bias "well there are so many people "gay married" by now that we just can't deny protecting it federally"....which is a situation the Court itself manufactured.

If any statement of such is in the Opinion that follows what is sure to be a mere formality, a mere kangaroo court, some Justices need to be impeached.

You accusing anyone of spamming is as rich as Croesus.

Yes, the Windsor decision does mention 56 times that marriage is in fact defined by the state. The part that you consistently ignore is the fact that they are still subject to certain constitutional guarantees. You can choose to ignore this fact, like you always when a fact that is inconvenient to your narrative, but I can assure you that rest of us are under no obligation to do so. .

 

[Syriusly]

If you actually read my post Skylar, you'd notice that I talked about the one time in Windsor the Court briefly mentioned (alluded to really, never directly tied together) that maybe, possibly, but not for sure yet, gay-marriage might be Constitutionally-protected. Which of course is absurd since no behavior has as yet ever been Constitutionally protected...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[1]

Seriously, sometime you should read the Constitution.

 

[Syriusly]

That wouldn't be it at all mdk. If the Justices had operated properly, upholding interim law..

There is no 'interim law'

Again- entirely your fiction.

Ahh..another one-liner from Syriusly the spam queen. And with no substance in rebuttal! Shocker..

If there is no intthen E. Windsor needs to return that money she won because she won it precisely .

there is no interim law. The Windsor decision is final All of this is entirely your fiction, your fantasy, created in your mind and does not exist in the real world.

 

[Silhouette]

Oh, the spam club is back...must be some points I just raised that you hate.. OK, you know how this goes...

 

[Silhouette]

These points were just spammed off the last page.

If you actually read my post Skylar, and Syriusly-spammer, you'd notice that I talked about the one time in Windsor the Court briefly mentioned (alluded to really, never directly tied together) that maybe, possibly, but not for sure yet, gay-marriage might be Constitutionally-protected. Which of course is absurd since no behavior has as yet ever been Constitutionally protected..

vs

...the 56 times in 26 pages of the Opinion where the Court screamed from a megaphone from the rooftops that the experimental "marriage" known as "same-sex marriage" was absolutely up to the states.

Read my last post again.

There is no question about the interim law and the weight the Court itself gave the states on this precise question in Windsor. The Court's subsequent conspiracy with lower Courts to pre-emptively defy it's own latest Finding on that question of law, and actively thereby erode state laws in order to load the dice (pack in illegal gay marriages) so it can later proclaim in full hubris and bias "see, we HAD to federally-mandate gay marriage in order to protect all those kids caught up in it now" is ASTONISHING.

It's grounds for impeachment. If I see any wording in any Opinion that avers a federal-mandate for gay marriage on the grounds that "there are so many now married/it's so popular (in spite of the fact that it isn't and states keep voting it down, hence the LGBT militant push for federal-protection) that we HAD to mandate it", I'm going to puke. That will be the death of our third branch of government at that point. IMHO, the denial of stays means that body is already at the funeral home being prepared for burial.

 

[Skylar]

If you actually read my post Skylar, you'd notice that I talked about the one time in Windsor the Court briefly mentioned (alluded to really, never directly tied together) that maybe, possibly, but not for sure yet, gay-marriage might be Constitutionally-protected.

The Windsor court didn't rule that gay marriage was protected from state gay marriage bans. Or rule that state gay marriage bans were constitutional. So any conclusion you draw in either regard has nothing to do with Windsor. But your imagination.

...the 56 times in 26 pages of the Opinion where the Court screamed from a megaphone from the rooftops that the experimental "marriage" known as "same-sex marriage" was absolutely up to the states.

It says 56 times that Federal Marriage Law is trumped by State marriage law. It says ZERO times that State marriage law trumps constitutional rights. The Windsor court finds that State marriage laws were subject to constitutional guarantees.

Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States,” Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393.

Windsor v. US

And once again, exactly as you've done almost every time you discuss the Windsor ruling, you ignore constitutional guarantees. And then laughably insist that because you ignore these guarantees, that the federal judiciary must as well.

Nope.

Every ruling by the federal judiciary that has overturned state gay marriage bans has been on the basis of the violation of constitutional guarantees. Which the Windsor decision explicitly finds state marriage laws are subject to.

You lose again. Get ready for June, Silo. We both know what's coming.

Which of course is absurd since no behavior has as yet ever been Constitutionally protected..

Speech is a behavior. Assembly is a behavior. Religion practices are a behavior. All are protected. You genuinely don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about. Seriously.

 

[mdk]

These points were just spammed off the last page.

If you actually read my post Skylar, and Syriusly-spammer, you'd notice that I talked about the one time in Windsor the Court briefly mentioned (alluded to really, never directly tied together) that maybe, possibly, but not for sure yet, gay-marriage might be Constitutionally-protected. Which of course is absurd since no behavior has as yet ever been Constitutionally protected..

vs

...the 56 times in 26 pages of the Opinion where the Court screamed from a megaphone from the rooftops that the experimental "marriage" known as "same-sex marriage" was absolutely up to the states.

Read my last post again.

There is no question about the interim law and the weight the Court itself gave the states on this precise question in Windsor. The Court's subsequent conspiracy with lower Courts to pre-emptively defy it's own latest Finding on that question of law, and actively thereby erode state laws in order to load the dice (pack in illegal gay marriages) so it can later proclaim in full hubris and bias "see, we HAD to federally-mandate gay marriage in order to protect all those kids caught up in it now" is ASTONISHING.

It's grounds for impeachment. If I see any wording in any Opinion that avers a federal-mandate for gay marriage on the grounds that "there are so many now married/it's so popular (in spite of the fact that it isn't and states keep voting it down, hence the LGBT militant push for federal-protection) that we HAD to mandate it", I'm going to puke. That will be the death of our third branch of government at that point. IMHO, the denial of stays means that body is already at the funeral home being prepared for burial.

Of course there is no question about the interim law. It would to exist in the first place for there to ever to a question.

 

[Skylar]

Do you finally get the order of authority laid out in the Windsor ruling?

1. Constitutional Guarantees.

2. State marriage laws.

3. Federal marriage laws.

You keep ignoring the most authoritative and protected source: constitutional guarantees. The federal judiciary isn't.

 

[Silhouette]

In the case of Kagan, we have an unbelievable display of overt bias. 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.

 

[Skylar]

In the case of Kagan, we have an unbelievable display of overt bias. This is behavior unbecoming on an unsettled question of law for a US Supreme Court Justice. I just stumbled upon this today:

Gay marriage was voted in as legal in Maryland.

So how could Kagan's actions demonstrate a bias against the constitutionality of a state same sex marriage bans....when no state same sex marriage ban existed where she conducted the wedding?

You really didn't think this through, did you?

By the Court's 2009 Finding, Kagan must recuse herself from sitting on the upcoming Hearing.

No more so than Scalia, who officiated a straight wedding in 2006. In a state where straight weddings were as legal and recognized as same sex weddings are in Maryland.

 

[Skylar]

Oh, and is your change of topic to this debunked Kagan narrative and away from the Windsor ruling your way of telling us that you recognize the hierarchy of authority outlined in the Windsor ruling:

1) Constitutional Guarantees.

2) State marriage laws.

3) Federal marriage laws.

And every single federal court ruling overturning same sex marriage bans have been done on the basis of the violation of those exact constitutional guarantees.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Your spam, Sil, on points you keep bringing back after being competently refuted are noted and reported.

 

[Silhouette]

The points about Kagan (and apparently Ginsburg too) presiding over a gay wedding while a Hearing is pending on the merits about gay marriage being legitimized federally is not spam.

 

[Skylar]

The points about Kagan (and apparently Ginsburg too) presiding over a gay wedding while a Hearing is pending on the merits about gay marriage being legitimized federally is not spam.

The point is you just switched topics. Awkwardly. Remember this order, Silo.....as its fundamental in your misundertanding of the Windsor ruling:

1. Constitutional Guarantees

2. State marriage laws.

3. Federal marriage laws.

You can ignore the top dog in this hierarchy, awkwardly try to avoid the topic, pretend that constitutional guarantees don't exist. But its not like the courts are obligated to ignore constitutional guarantees just because you close your eyes.