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

[Skylar]

subject to constitutional guarantees.

Which have not been found yet for gay marriage, but HAVE been found for states to allow or not allow it..until SCOTUS tells us ON THE MERITS differently.

One-liner allusions to possibility in the future doesn't have the same weight as say page 19 of the Windsor Decision.

Nope. Not even close. If any federal court finds that gay marriage bans violate constitutional guarantees, then they can overturn such bans and be perfectly consistent with the Windsor ruling. As constitutional guarantees trump state powers, as the Windsor court makes comically clear.

Its not the entire federal judiciary and the SCOTUS misunderstood the 'real meaning' of the Windsor ruling in allow gay marriage in 37 of 50 States.

You're just clueless.

 

[OKTexas]

They knew there would most likely be a case before them on the subject and they took sides anyway, that shows bias.

How does it show they 'took sides'? The court already found that the States have the authority to allow same sex marriage in the Windsor ruling. So that's precedent.

Maryland and DC did exactly that. And voted it in. There is no same sex marriage ban in either Maryland or DC. How then does performing a wedding show any bias for or against same sex marriage bans.....when there was no ban in either Maryland or DC?

Its just a wedding in that State and District. No different than a straight couple getting married.

Are you OK, you seem to be repeating yourself. If your argument is States have the right to decide they why do some courts say otherwise, going against that precedent?

You won't answer my question. What possible bias against same sex marriage bans are created by performing a wedding when there are no bans prohibing it? Remember, Maryland and DC both voted in same sex marriage.

You have no answer.

If your argument is States have the right to decide they why do some courts say otherwise, going against that precedent?

I'm saying that the Windsor decision found that States have the authority to extend same sex marriage. The Windsor decision doesn't even mention same sex marriage bans.

DC and Maryland both voted in same sex marriage. So what does performing any kind of wedding in either place have to do with same sex marriage bans.....when no such bans exist in Maryland or DC?

Again, you can't say.

It wouldn't make a damn bit of difference if they routinely officiated hetro weddings as well, but they don't do they. Hence demonstrated bias.

Nonsense. There can be no bias against same sex wedding bans......as there is no such ban in either Maryland or DC where the weddings were performed. Both states legislatively included same sex marriages into their definition of weddings.

Thus, there's no possible conflict of interest. And no plausible reason for anyone to recuse themselves.

Nice dodge, now how about you answer the question, have they officiated heterosexual weddings or not?

 

[Skylar]

How does it show they 'took sides'? The court already found that the States have the authority to allow same sex marriage in the Windsor ruling. So that's precedent.

Maryland and DC did exactly that. And voted it in. There is no same sex marriage ban in either Maryland or DC. How then does performing a wedding show any bias for or against same sex marriage bans.....when there was no ban in either Maryland or DC?

Its just a wedding in that State and District. No different than a straight couple getting married.

Are you OK, you seem to be repeating yourself. If your argument is States have the right to decide they why do some courts say otherwise, going against that precedent?

You won't answer my question. What possible bias against same sex marriage bans are created by performing a wedding when there are no bans prohibing it? Remember, Maryland and DC both voted in same sex marriage.

You have no answer.

If your argument is States have the right to decide they why do some courts say otherwise, going against that precedent?

I'm saying that the Windsor decision found that States have the authority to extend same sex marriage. The Windsor decision doesn't even mention same sex marriage bans.

DC and Maryland both voted in same sex marriage. So what does performing any kind of wedding in either place have to do with same sex marriage bans.....when no such bans exist in Maryland or DC?

Again, you can't say.

It wouldn't make a damn bit of difference if they routinely officiated hetro weddings as well, but they don't do they. Hence demonstrated bias.

Nonsense. There can be no bias against same sex wedding bans......as there is no such ban in either Maryland or DC where the weddings were performed. Both states legislatively included same sex marriages into their definition of weddings.

Thus, there's no possible conflict of interest. And no plausible reason for anyone to recuse themselves.

Nice dodge, now how about you answer the question, have they officiated heterosexual weddings or not?

Its not relevant. There is no 'same sex' marriage and 'heterosexual' marriage in either Maryland or DC. There is only marriage. Performing a wedding in a State where the wedding is completely legal doesn't establish any bias for or against same sex marriage bans. As no such bans exist in either location.

So not only is there no conflict of interest present, there's no conflict of interest possible from those circumstances.

 

[Silhouette]

But there most definitely IS a conflict of interest where children are involved in "parenting" that guarantees the absence of their same gender as a role model 50% of the time. The Prince's Trust survey says this is significantly damaging to a child's self esteem.

And how gay marriage differs from single parents in the Prince's Trust study is this: at least single heteros are out trying to date the same gender as the child missing a father (or mother). So the child is seeing "my gender still matters at least, mom/dad is trying to bring it/me into the arena of importance."

In a gay relationship, any child caught up in it who finds themeself the "odd gender out" sees a daily reminder that in his "parents" eyes, his gender will never matter in an adult world modeled before him. He learns he is expendable, non-essential...

 

[Syriusly]

But there most definitely IS a conflict of interest where children are involved in "parenting" t..

Only in your mind- and you are delusional.

 

[Skylar]

But there most definitely IS a conflict of interest where children are involved in "parenting" that guarantees the absence of their same gender as a role model 50% of the time. The Prince's Trust survey says this is significantly damaging to a child's self esteem.

Nope. The Prince Trust study says no such thing. It doesn't measure the effects of any kind of parenting. You're just making shit up again.

And how gay marriage differs from single parents in the Prince's Trust study is this: at least single heteros are out trying to date the same gender as the child missing a father (or mother).

The Prince Trust Study says no such thing. You're just making shit up again. The Prince Trust study didn't measure parenting, nor even mention same sex parenting. It didn't even cite same sex role models. But GOOD same sex role models. A point you keep omitting. Nor did it indicate where these good rolemodels were to be found.

You insist its only parents. The Prince Trust study says no such thing. It could be parents. Or friends. Or siblings. Or aunts and uncles. Or grand parents. Or clergy. Or scout leaders. Or mentors. Or coworkers. Or coaches. Or a myriad of different sources. You ignore it all.

No rational person ever would.

In a gay relationship, any child caught up in it who finds themeself the "odd gender out" sees a daily reminder that in his "parents" eyes, his gender will never matter in an adult world modeled before him. He learns he is expendable, non-essential...

Says you pretending your a child raised by gay parents. And you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

Back in reality, more than a dozen studies have been conducted on the children of same sex parents and the overwhelming consensus is that these children are fine. You simply ignore any study from any source, using any methodology, any sampling size, from any organiation, any university, any country, any expert that contradicts you in any way.

No rational person would ever do this. And no court will.

 

[OKTexas]

Are you OK, you seem to be repeating yourself. If your argument is States have the right to decide they why do some courts say otherwise, going against that precedent?

You won't answer my question. What possible bias against same sex marriage bans are created by performing a wedding when there are no bans prohibing it? Remember, Maryland and DC both voted in same sex marriage.

You have no answer.

If your argument is States have the right to decide they why do some courts say otherwise, going against that precedent?

I'm saying that the Windsor decision found that States have the authority to extend same sex marriage. The Windsor decision doesn't even mention same sex marriage bans.

DC and Maryland both voted in same sex marriage. So what does performing any kind of wedding in either place have to do with same sex marriage bans.....when no such bans exist in Maryland or DC?

Again, you can't say.

It wouldn't make a damn bit of difference if they routinely officiated hetro weddings as well, but they don't do they. Hence demonstrated bias.

Nonsense. There can be no bias against same sex wedding bans......as there is no such ban in either Maryland or DC where the weddings were performed. Both states legislatively included same sex marriages into their definition of weddings.

Thus, there's no possible conflict of interest. And no plausible reason for anyone to recuse themselves.

Nice dodge, now how about you answer the question, have they officiated heterosexual weddings or not?

Its not relevant. There is no 'same sex' marriage and 'heterosexual' marriage in either Maryland or DC. There is only marriage. Performing a wedding in a State where the wedding is completely legal doesn't establish any bias for or against same sex marriage bans. As no such bans exist in either location.

So not only is there no conflict of interest present, there's no conflict of interest possible from those circumstances.

Why don't you be honest and just say you don't have a clue what the answer is? I guess ignorance is truly bliss.

 

[Skylar]

You won't answer my question. What possible bias against same sex marriage bans are created by performing a wedding when there are no bans prohibing it? Remember, Maryland and DC both voted in same sex marriage.

You have no answer.

I'm saying that the Windsor decision found that States have the authority to extend same sex marriage. The Windsor decision doesn't even mention same sex marriage bans.

DC and Maryland both voted in same sex marriage. So what does performing any kind of wedding in either place have to do with same sex marriage bans.....when no such bans exist in Maryland or DC?

Again, you can't say.

It wouldn't make a damn bit of difference if they routinely officiated hetro weddings as well, but they don't do they. Hence demonstrated bias.

Nonsense. There can be no bias against same sex wedding bans......as there is no such ban in either Maryland or DC where the weddings were performed. Both states legislatively included same sex marriages into their definition of weddings.

Thus, there's no possible conflict of interest. And no plausible reason for anyone to recuse themselves.

Nice dodge, now how about you answer the question, have they officiated heterosexual weddings or not?

Its not relevant. There is no 'same sex' marriage and 'heterosexual' marriage in either Maryland or DC. There is only marriage. Performing a wedding in a State where the wedding is completely legal doesn't establish any bias for or against same sex marriage bans. As no such bans exist in either location.

So not only is there no conflict of interest present, there's no conflict of interest possible from those circumstances.

Why don't you be honest and just say you don't have a clue what the answer is? I guess ignorance is truly bliss.

Its irrelevant. Scalia has officiated weddings and its of no more consequence than Kagan or Ginsberg doing the same. There's no possible conflict of interest, as performing the wedding didn't establish any bias for or against gay marriage bans. All the weddings officiated by Scalia, Kagan and Ginsberg were authorized by the laws of the States or Districts in which they were performed.

A bias against bans isn't possible....where there are no such bans.

 

[OKTexas]

It wouldn't make a damn bit of difference if they routinely officiated hetro weddings as well, but they don't do they. Hence demonstrated bias.

Nonsense. There can be no bias against same sex wedding bans......as there is no such ban in either Maryland or DC where the weddings were performed. Both states legislatively included same sex marriages into their definition of weddings.

Thus, there's no possible conflict of interest. And no plausible reason for anyone to recuse themselves.

Nice dodge, now how about you answer the question, have they officiated heterosexual weddings or not?

Its not relevant. There is no 'same sex' marriage and 'heterosexual' marriage in either Maryland or DC. There is only marriage. Performing a wedding in a State where the wedding is completely legal doesn't establish any bias for or against same sex marriage bans. As no such bans exist in either location.

So not only is there no conflict of interest present, there's no conflict of interest possible from those circumstances.

Why don't you be honest and just say you don't have a clue what the answer is? I guess ignorance is truly bliss.

Its irrelevant. Scalia has officiated weddings and its of no more consequence than Kagan or Ginsberg doing the same. There's no possible conflict of interest, as performing the wedding didn't establish any bias for or against gay marriage bans. All the weddings officiated by Scalia, Kagan and Ginsberg were authorized by the laws of the States or Districts in which they were performed.

A bias against bans isn't possible....where there are no such bans.

You're repeating yourself again, bong bong bong bong bong bo...................................

 

[Skylar]

Nonsense. There can be no bias against same sex wedding bans......as there is no such ban in either Maryland or DC where the weddings were performed. Both states legislatively included same sex marriages into their definition of weddings.

Thus, there's no possible conflict of interest. And no plausible reason for anyone to recuse themselves.

Nice dodge, now how about you answer the question, have they officiated heterosexual weddings or not?

Its not relevant. There is no 'same sex' marriage and 'heterosexual' marriage in either Maryland or DC. There is only marriage. Performing a wedding in a State where the wedding is completely legal doesn't establish any bias for or against same sex marriage bans. As no such bans exist in either location.

So not only is there no conflict of interest present, there's no conflict of interest possible from those circumstances.

Why don't you be honest and just say you don't have a clue what the answer is? I guess ignorance is truly bliss.

Its irrelevant. Scalia has officiated weddings and its of no more consequence than Kagan or Ginsberg doing the same. There's no possible conflict of interest, as performing the wedding didn't establish any bias for or against gay marriage bans. All the weddings officiated by Scalia, Kagan and Ginsberg were authorized by the laws of the States or Districts in which they were performed.

A bias against bans isn't possible....where there are no such bans.

You're repeating yourself again, bong bong bong bong bong bo...................................

I tend to stop at the places where your argument breaks. Like.....the impossibility of a bias against bans where there are no bans. And the irrelevance of the numbers of weddings performed when the weddings were permitted by the laws of the States or District.

Shrugs....so much for your imaginary 'bias'.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

He's simply paraphrasing Justice Scalia:

Note the words 'inevitable' and 'beyond mistaking'.

We'll see around June.

Say it with me;

....."inevitable".

Only one thing that is inevitable, death. If it lives death will overtake it.

Laughing....so you know better than Justice Scalia, huh? Good luck with that.

Two justices should recuse themselves because they have officiated same sex marriages, if they do the proper thing, I'm not sure you will like the resulting 4-3 decision.

Just post that you hate gay Americans and leave it at that.

You'll at least be honest and will stop looking ridiculous.

 

[SwimExpert]

I know that it's not really most people's style around here to be educated and informed. But just in case, here is a link to the district court's decision granting summary judgement. And to review the timeline:

-Case was held in district court.
-Alabama gay marriage ban ruled unconstitutional by Granade.
-Granade issues 14 temporary stay to allow for appeal.
-11th Circuit puts appeal on hold, pending SCOTUS upcoming ruling on similar cases
-11th Circuit denies request to extend stay.
-Granade denies request to lift stay early, in light of Circuit court's denial.
-Supreme Court declines to consider appeal of 11th Circuit's denial of stay extension.

As for the Circuit court's refusal to extend the stay.

The denial of the stay from the Eleventh Circuit was widely expected. In December, the court rejected a similar request from Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi to stay a decision in favor of marriage equality in Florida. That set up the path for same-sex marriage to come to the state Jan. 6.

Alabama still has another avenue to stop same-sex marriage from taking place in the state as the litigation proceeds on appeal: The U.S. Supreme Court. Strange can file another stay request with U.S. Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, who can decide the matter himself or refer the matter to the entire court.

But such a request would likely be met with the same response the Eleventh Circuit delivered. When Bondi sought a stay on Florida same-sex marriage from Thomas in December, the justice referred the matter to the full bench, which denied her request. The Supreme Court has also refused stay decisions in favor of same-sex marriage in states like Kansas, South Carolina, Alaska and Idaho.

Eleventh Circuit won t halt Alabama same-sex marriages

So enough with the bullshit about bias.

 

[Skylar]

I know that it's not really most people's style around here to be educated and informed. But just in case, here is a link to the district court's decision granting summary judgement. And to review the timeline:

-Case was held in district court.
-Alabama gay marriage ban ruled unconstitutional by Granade.
-Granade issues 14 temporary stay to allow for appeal.
-11th Circuit puts appeal on hold, pending SCOTUS upcoming ruling on similar cases
-11th Circuit denies request to extend stay.
-Granade denies request to lift stay early, in light of Circuit court's denial.
-Supreme Court declines to consider appeal of 11th Circuit's denial of stay extension.

As for the Circuit court's refusal to extend the stay.

The denial of the stay from the Eleventh Circuit was widely expected. In December, the court rejected a similar request from Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi to stay a decision in favor of marriage equality in Florida. That set up the path for same-sex marriage to come to the state Jan. 6.

Alabama still has another avenue to stop same-sex marriage from taking place in the state as the litigation proceeds on appeal: The U.S. Supreme Court. Strange can file another stay request with U.S. Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, who can decide the matter himself or refer the matter to the entire court.

But such a request would likely be met with the same response the Eleventh Circuit delivered. When Bondi sought a stay on Florida same-sex marriage from Thomas in December, the justice referred the matter to the full bench, which denied her request. The Supreme Court has also refused stay decisions in favor of same-sex marriage in states like Kansas, South Carolina, Alaska and Idaho.

Eleventh Circuit won t halt Alabama same-sex marriages

So enough with the bullshit about bias.

Swim, they're just practicing their excuses for why they lost in June. What you're seeing is denial and self delusion...in slow motion. You can actually watch the echo chamber form its bullshit talking points. Its like watching Logical Fallacies give birth to Conspiracy Batshit's baby.

 

[Silhouette]

Swim, they're just practicing their excuses for why they lost in June. What you're seeing is denial and self delusion...in slow motion. You can actually watch the echo chamber form its bullshit talking points. Its like watching Logical Fallacies give birth to Conspiracy Batshit's baby.

Yes, the majority in a democracy always gets their undies in a bunch when the power to self-govern is taken away and their last bastion of "impartial" justice (the US Surpreme Court) loads the scales heavy on one side of the litigants, against the clear-majority's Will, by a secret forced-attrition to their marriage laws concerning which lifestyles may marry and which may not (you know, for the good of the children in their state of which they are morally obligated to defend legally with their vote)...

...all so that Court can throw its hands up later in a pre-choreographed show if "impotence" in the face of "all those gay people married now and their kids who will suffer immediate legal harm if we don't force this radical new change to marriage on all the states" (and the other types of marriage repugnant to the majority who in the name of "marriage equality" will force the states' children to be lab rats in their new social experiment also).

Yes, the supermajorities within the various states that voted to protect the most important people in marriage (children) to have the longstanding and best formative environment (mother/father) in marriage always get snitty when democracy is crushed by the superpowerful litigant army who now quite obviously and brazenly pre-celebrates their "victory" of "impartial justice" owning even the members of the majority of the US Supreme Court.

The Hearing will be but a mere formality of a "done deal". Silly US majority, how could they conceive they would have a voice in this discussion

It's almost like certain Justices on the Court used Windsor as a lube to make it seem like the states could govern their own discreet fates, only to egg on the activist lower circuit judges and then deny stays one by one; even when they knew they were appropriate to keep harm to democratic rule in states from happening. With that crack of trust open from the public, these "certain Justices" kept hammering at (denying stays to preserve) standing laws in states, forcing the wedge of attrition to later come back and say "we simply cannot stem the tide! We have to force all the states to accept what is ...*drum roll* "inevitable".

The Nazis wrecked careers and forced people to accept what they believed was "inevitable" too, just like the super-powerful litigant army known as LGBT today.

 

[Silhouette]

Just post that you hate gay Americans and leave it at that.

You'll at least be honest and will stop looking ridiculous.

Ah, if you could only make this debate about "people hating those poor (ubermilitant litigant-army of) gays"....instead of people standing up to defend children's natural rights to have states incentivize only a mother and father as adult role models: for their best formative shot at life.

 

[Syriusly]

Swim, they're just practicing their excuses for why they lost in June. What you're seeing is denial and self delusion...in slow motion. You can actually watch the echo chamber form its bullshit talking points. Its like watching Logical Fallacies give birth to Conspiracy Batshit's baby.

Yes, the majority in a democracy always gets their undies in a bunch when the power to self-govern is taken away.

Oh we survived when the Supreme Court told America that mixed race marriage bans were unconstitutional.

I suspect we will survive when the Supreme Court tells America that same gender marriage bans are unconstitutional.

 

[Syriusly]

Just post that you hate gay Americans and leave it at that.

You'll at least be honest and will stop looking ridiculous.

Ah, if you could only make this debate about "people hating those poor (ubermilitant litigant-army of) gays"....instead of people standing up to defend children's natural rights to have states incentivize only a mother and father as adult role models: for their best formative shot at life.

I have yet see you make any actual post defending children's rights.

You repeatedly want to deny children married parents- if their parents happen to be gay.

 

[Silhouette]

I have yet see you make any actual post defending children's rights.

You repeatedly want to deny children married parents- if their parents happen to be gay.

You mean on this page? What about the pages upon pages where I posted this? (you know, the pages you spammed out of existence to make this information go away)

Page 8 (the left side on the green background) http://www.princes-trust.org.uk/pdf/Youth_Index_jan2011.pdf

In addition to indexing the happiness and wellbeing of young people, the report explores some significant demographic differences between young people. They include a comparison between those not in education employment or training with their peers...those without a positive role model of their gender in their lives (women without a positive female role model and men without a positive male role model) and their peers...those with fewer than five GCSEs graded A* to C (or equivalent) with their peers... Respondents are asked how happy and confident they are in different areas of their life. The responses are converted to a numerical scale, resulting in a number out of 100-- with 100 representing entirely happy or confident and zero being not at all happy or confident.

Page 10 (The bold largest heading above the material that followed it)

Young people without a role model of the same gender in their lives

The Daily Mail article from the Prince's Trust study... Teens without parent role model are 67 per cent less likely to get a job Daily Mail Online

Young men with no male role models in their lives and women without a mother figure struggle to keep their lives on track, a hard-hitting report warns today. The Prince’s Trust youth index, the largest survey of its kind, found that....67 per cent more likely to be unemployed than their counterparts. They are also significantly more likely to stay unemployed for longer than their peers, the report suggests....It found that young men with no male role model are 50 per cent more likely to abuse drugs and young females in the corresponding position are significantly more likely to drink to excess..

Young men with no male role model to look up to were twice as likely to turn or consider turning to crime as a result of being unemployed...The report, which was based on interviews with 2,170 16 to 25-year-olds...These young men are also three times more likely to feel down or depressed all of the time and significantly more likely to admit that they cannot remember the last time they felt proud...They are also significantly less likely to feel happy and confident than those with male role models, according to the figures....The Prince’s Trust report, which was carried out by YouGov, suggests young people without male role models are more than twice as likely to lack a sense of belonging.

 

[Flopper]

Justices Thomas and Scalia author a scathing dissent to the denial of a stay in Alabama.

Here's the link to Thomas' words, with Scalia getting his back. https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1658000/thomasdissent.pdf

You know, his/their logic is flawless. The Court has no business deciding the merits of a case without hearing it first. And the last opinion the Court gave the public on the question of who gets to decide on gay marraige was reiterated 56 times in Windsor "the states do, now and always since the founding of the country"...

The real, and I feel impeachable danger that these rogue Justices are stepping our country into is that the nation will get the idea that there really isn't justice. That there really isn't a system of laws and protocols that will protect the Union that they can rely on. If the Justices get to hold what is essentially a shadow kangaroo court on the question of gay marriage, what topic will they do so on next?

LGBTs shouldn't be celebrating this dangerous precedent. Because if Congress does impeach any Justice so engaged illegally and irreverently for the position they hold as the last bastion of appeal to IMPARTIAL justice, they may be replaced by the next GOP administration/Congress by a panel of conservative Justices who then might find that a reversal of undue process is in order..

This is dangerous territory the Court is treading on. And Thomas' & Scalia's anger is well founded...

..yet another Federal District Judge casts aside state laws without making any effort to preserve the status quo pending the Court’s resolution of a constitutional question it left open in United States v. Windsor, 570 U. S. ___ (2013) (slip op., at 25–26). This acquiescence may well be seen as a signal of the Court’s intended resolution of that question. This is not the proper way to discharge our Article III responsibilities...Today’s decision represents yet another example of this Court’s increasingly cavalier attitude toward the States.... In this case, the Court refuses even to grant a temporary stay when it will resolve the issue at hand in several months....I respectfully dissent from the denial of this application. I would have shown the people of Alabama the respect they deserve and preserved the status quo while the Court resolves this important constitutional question.

That bit in bold is grounds for impeachment. Those rogue Justices better keep a very sharp eye on the next election cycle..The separation and limitations of powers in our country are the ONLY thing that sets us apart from a dictatorship.

No matter what your position on gay marriage becoming a federal mandate instead of the lifestyle being weighed by the separate states as appropriate to be parents of the most important people in marriage (children), you should be concerned about the fact that our last chance at impartial American justice is deciding cases before they are heard..

Only Thomas and Scalia objecting? I think this gives us an idea of how the vote is going to go when the case is heard by SCOTUS. With 37 states now granting licenses for gay marriage, the hand writings is on the wall. Gay marriage in the US is not going to be stopped and turned around in Alabama.

 

[Judicial review]

Raise your hand if you are not queer. Yup, that's what I thought.