SCOTUS divided over SSM

[g5000]

if they rule against you will you STFU and accept that ruling?

I bet you won't if it goes the other way.

 

[g5000]

amazing, isn't it? they think the judges that they know are supportive of equality should recuse, but a justice whose wife worked for a company affected by a major ruling didn't have to.

their dishonesty and hypocrisy is beyond belief.

Amazing, right? Judges who have already shown obvious bias need to recuse.
Judges who have shown no obvious bias dont.
That's how real life works, "counselor."

so you think Scalia should recuse himself?

If there's any on the Court with an obvious bias, it's Scalia, for sure.

Is a lesbian who has performed gay weddings not biaed? does she not have a conflict of interest? are you as dumb as you seem to be?

See my post with the US code quoted. Kagan must recuse herself.

Nope. You are an idiot.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Yes, but using that logic, every justice that has officiated at a hetero wedding should do the same, n'est ce pas?

amazing, isn't it? they think the judges that they know are supportive of equality should recuse, but a justice whose wife worked for a company affected by a major ruling didn't have to.

their dishonesty and hypocrisy is beyond belief.

Amazing, right? Judges who have already shown obvious bias need to recuse.
Judges who have shown no obvious bias dont.
That's how real life works, "counselor."

so you think Scalia should recuse himself?

If there's any on the Court with an obvious bias, it's Scalia, for sure.

Is a lesbian who has performed gay weddings not biaed? does she not have a conflict of interest? are you as dumb as you seem to be?

Please show us where Kagan has announced that she is a lesbian, and what difference should that make?

 

[The Rabbi]

Amazing, right? Judges who have already shown obvious bias need to recuse.
Judges who have shown no obvious bias dont.
That's how real life works, "counselor."

so you think Scalia should recuse himself?

If there's any on the Court with an obvious bias, it's Scalia, for sure.

Is a lesbian who has performed gay weddings not biaed? does she not have a conflict of interest? are you as dumb as you seem to be?

See my post with the US code quoted. Kagan must recuse herself.

Nope. You are an idiot.

Ironic coming from you. Do you think the US Code does not apply here?

 

[Syriusly]

For the umpteenth time, who will provide the "benefits" to Luke who wants to leave everything to, and care for, his fishing buddy Steve....but has no interest in marrying him...and certainly no desire to fuck him in the ass? Do we need him to be allowed to enter into a civil contract that gives him the same rights as gay and straight married couples? Or will the tolerant fags insist they be married so as not to expose the real reason behind their insistence that the only way the can get benefits is to co-opt the sacrament of marriage.

For the umpteenth time, who will provide 'benefits to Amy who wants to leave everything to and care for her fishing buddy Steve, but has not interest in marrying him and certainly no desire to fuck him in the ass?

Oh wait- if Amy does want the benefits- she can just marry Steve, whether she wants to fuck him in the ass or not.

What I- a heterosexual who believes in equality believes- is that Amy and Steve and Luke and Steve should both have exactly the same rights to marry each other, exactly the same rights as my wife and I enjoy.

If you don't want to enter into a life long partnership with someone by marrying them, then don't do so. But those who are willing to make that commitment should be able to do so, without any regard to whether Amy or Steve or Beth or Bill want to engage in ass-fuckery.

So you're going to force Amy to marry Steve just because she likes him and want to provide for him...but does not want to marry him? Not fair.

If you want to ride the roller coaster, you have to get on the roller coaster.

No you do not get to ride the roller coaster, if you are not willing to ride the roller coaster.

For the umpteenth time, who will provide the "benefits" to Luke who wants to leave everything to, and care for, his fishing buddy Steve....but has no interest in marrying him...and certainly no desire to fuck him in the ass? Do we need him to be allowed to enter into a civil contract that gives him the same rights as gay and straight married couples? Or will the tolerant fags insist they be married so as not to expose the real reason behind their insistence that the only way the can get benefits is to co-opt the sacrament of marriage.

For the umpteenth time, who will provide 'benefits to Amy who wants to leave everything to and care for her fishing buddy Steve, but has not interest in marrying him and certainly no desire to fuck him in the ass?

Oh wait- if Amy does want the benefits- she can just marry Steve, whether she wants to fuck him in the ass or not.

What I- a heterosexual who believes in equality believes- is that Amy and Steve and Luke and Steve should both have exactly the same rights to marry each other, exactly the same rights as my wife and I enjoy.

If you don't want to enter into a life long partnership with someone by marrying them, then don't do so. But those who are willing to make that commitment should be able to do so, without any regard to whether Amy or Steve or Beth or Bill want to engage in ass-fuckery.

So you're going to force Amy to marry Steve just because she likes him and want to provide for him...but does not want to marry him? Not fair.

If you want to ride the roller coaster, you have to get on the roller coaster.

No you do not get to ride the roller coaster, if you are not willing to ride the roller coaster.

What if the merry go round provides me the same things the roller coaster provides you...why ask the government to force me to ride the roller coaster?

No one is.

But if you want to ride the government owned roller coaster, you have to get onto it.

 

[Syriusly]

Yes, but using that logic, every justice that has officiated at a hetero wedding should do the same, n'est ce pas?

amazing, isn't it? they think the judges that they know are supportive of equality should recuse, but a justice whose wife worked for a company affected by a major ruling didn't have to.

their dishonesty and hypocrisy is beyond belief.

Amazing, right? Judges who have already shown obvious bias need to recuse.
Judges who have shown no obvious bias dont.
That's how real life works, "counselor."

so you think Scalia should recuse himself?

If there's any on the Court with an obvious bias, it's Scalia, for sure.

Is a lesbian who has performed gay weddings not biaed? does she not have a conflict of interest? are you as dumb as you seem to be?

by that reasoning any straight person who has performed straight weddings would be biased......

 

[Stephanie]

If being straight is a choice, it would stand to reason that being gay is also. So.....when did you choose to be straight?

Being straight is not a choice, its a biological and anatomical reality. Homosexuality is an abnormal mental condition that causes sexual attraction to the same sex.

So you are saying that homosexuality is not a choice then?

we are not talking about what I think, I have been pointing out the inconsistency of the gay agenda arguments, first its a genetic condition, then its a birth condition, then its a choice, then its not a choice.

you guys are all over the place on this depending on how the arguments flow.l.

I am not- my position is pretty straight forward- really its immaterial.
Completely irrelevant whether someone's sexual orientation is a choice or something that is innate.

Why do you think it is relevant- and why do you think that justifies discrimination?

When did I ever say that discrimination was justified? answer: never

Being opposed to calling a gay union a marriage is not discrimination. The word marriage does not define discrimination.

If this was really about rights, equality, and discrimination, you would be fine with civil unions for gays that would provide all of the "cash and prizes" that you claim go to married couples.

but thats not what this is about. Its only about the word marriage. you want the govt to mandate that society as a whole accept homosexuality as normal and use of the word marriage somehow makes you think you can change the minds of a majority of human beings.

until you admit your true agenda, this will never be over.

BINGO!!!!
The majority of the people has figured this out. They might post these lopsided polls crowing how everyone is on their side. but they lie just like they do about everything else

 

[Syriusly]

Amazing, right? Judges who have already shown obvious bias need to recuse. Judges who have shown no obvious bias dont. That's how real life works, "counselor."

so you think Scalia should recuse himself?

I don't think any judge needs to recuse themselves from any case in which they weren't personally involved. If there's s problem, that needs to dealt with at confirmation, like when Bork invoked a mythical "original intent" doctrine, when simple logic tells you the entire Constitutional Convention couldn't possibly have had the same intent.

It would be nice if every now and then you did some research before shooting off your stupid mouth on here.
Here's the US Code:
(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. (b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances:
(1) Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;

And who decides when that applies when it comes to the Supreme Court?

Why the Justice involved of course.

I could claim, as I did, that Justice Scalia has shown cause to reasonably question his impartiality in this case, but no one but Scalia can decide whether or not he should actually recuse himself.

 

[bodecea]

We do...we biologically are drawn to the same gender....straights are biologically drawn to the opposite gender. See? Not really all that hard.

There is no such thing as being biologically drawn to the same gender. The biological imperitive isn't to have sex. It is to mate. The biology is to preservation of the species.

The biology in gays is deformed. It's warped. But it's the same biology.

Then why can human females enjoy sex even when they're not ovulating?

Human females do not go into season as other animals do. They can mate at any time. Although women in close proximity to one another will ovulate at the same time.

Women aren't a separate species and still have a biological urge to mate. And an urge to mate with a particular kind of man.

Not all of us, Toots.

Right, and you are here to tell us that its normal for a human female to have the urge to mate with another human female?

Yes, it's called being a lesbian. Our sexual attractions are to the same gender.

Geez, just accept that you have an illness and seek treatment.

Actually, there's more to those hating others different than themselves out of fear of the unknown being more mentally ill.

 

[Syriusly]

amazing, isn't it? they think the judges that they know are supportive of equality should recuse, but a justice whose wife worked for a company affected by a major ruling didn't have to.

their dishonesty and hypocrisy is beyond belief.

Amazing, right? Judges who have already shown obvious bias need to recuse.
Judges who have shown no obvious bias dont.
That's how real life works, "counselor."

so you think Scalia should recuse himself?

If there's any on the Court with an obvious bias, it's Scalia, for sure.

Is a lesbian who has performed gay weddings not biaed? does she not have a conflict of interest? are you as dumb as you seem to be?

See my post with the US code quoted. Kagan must recuse herself.

The U.S code says no such thing.

(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

You think she should recuse herself- but that standard is entirely subjective- and just as Thomas did not recuse himself when some questioned his impartiality- there is no requirement for any Justice to recuse him or herself because you say so.

 

[bodecea]

Yes, but using that logic, every justice that has officiated at a hetero wedding should do the same, n'est ce pas?

amazing, isn't it? they think the judges that they know are supportive of equality should recuse, but a justice whose wife worked for a company affected by a major ruling didn't have to.

their dishonesty and hypocrisy is beyond belief.

Amazing, right? Judges who have already shown obvious bias need to recuse.
Judges who have shown no obvious bias dont.
That's how real life works, "counselor."

so you think Scalia should recuse himself?

If there's any on the Court with an obvious bias, it's Scalia, for sure.

Is a lesbian who has performed gay weddings not biaed? does she not have a conflict of interest? are you as dumb as you seem to be?

Not what?

 

[konradv]

It would be nice if every now and then you did some research before shooting off your stupid mouth on here. Here's the US Code: a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. (b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances: (1) Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;

Then you're being stupid, since you haven't shown bias or prejudice, just alleged it. If you want to be that strict in this case, you'd have to recuse half the court in nearly every case. NEXT!

 

[The Rabbi]

It would be nice if every now and then you did some research before shooting off your stupid mouth on here. Here's the US Code: a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. (b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances: (1) Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;

Then you're being stupid, since you haven't shown bias or prejudice, just alleged it. If you want to be that strict in this case, you'd have to recuse half the court in nearly every case. NEXT!

LOL! I shiow your opinion is just that-your opinion. So you deflect to the next topic. Kagan has shown obvious bias and being a lesbian that should make her recuse herself automatically.

 

[konradv]

LOL! I shiow your opinion is just that-your opinion. So you deflect to the next topic. Kagan has shown obvious bias and being a lesbian that should make her recuse herself automatically.

So, any justice that's an NRA member should recuse themselves from gun control cases?!?!

 

[g5000]

LOL! I shiow your opinion is just that-your opinion. So you deflect to the next topic. Kagan has shown obvious bias and being a lesbian that should make her recuse herself automatically.

So, any justice that's an NRA member should recuse themselves from gun control cases?!?!

Any Justice that is heterosexual should recuse themselves from this case, too.

 

[The Rabbi]

LOL! I shiow your opinion is just that-your opinion. So you deflect to the next topic. Kagan has shown obvious bias and being a lesbian that should make her recuse herself automatically.

So, any justice that's an NRA member should recuse themselves from gun control cases?!?!

You are a fool, arent you?

 

[The Rabbi]

LOL! I shiow your opinion is just that-your opinion. So you deflect to the next topic. Kagan has shown obvious bias and being a lesbian that should make her recuse herself automatically.

So, any justice that's an NRA member should recuse themselves from gun control cases?!?!

Any Justice that is heterosexual should recuse themselves from this case, too.

How many heterosexuals support gay marriage?
How many homosexuals oppose gay marriage?
This stuff isnt hard. If you have more than 2 functioning brain cells.

 

[konradv]

So, any justice that's an NRA member should recuse themselves from gun control cases?!?!

You are a fool, arent you?

Not as big a fool as one that can't answer a simple question, FOOL!

 

[The Rabbi]

So, any justice that's an NRA member should recuse themselves from gun control cases?!?!

You are a fool, arent you?

Not as big a fool as one that can't answer a simple question, FOOL!

It's a clown question,bro.

 

[konradv]

It's a clown question,bro.

Should be right up your alley then. Why can't you answer it? It's always the same. You get the short end of an argument and start calling names. PUT UP OR SHUT UP!