SCOTUS divided over SSM

[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.

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!

Its an idiotic question,moron. That's why Im not answering it. I wont stoop to your level. I posted the requirements for recusal. Go read them. Or get an adult to help you.

Besides, one of us has a clown for an avatar. And it aint me.

 

[konradv]

Its an idiotic question,moron. That's why Im not answering it. I wont stoop to your level. I posted the requirements for recusal. Go read them. Or get an adult to help you. Besides, one of us has a clown for an avatar. And it aint me.

You're not answering because you can't. You just take you ball and go home like a little wimp. As for my avatar, how about when you had a real clown as an avatar, Rick Perry?

 

[The Rabbi]

Its an idiotic question,moron. That's why Im not answering it. I wont stoop to your level. I posted the requirements for recusal. Go read them. Or get an adult to help you. Besides, one of us has a clown for an avatar. And it aint me.

You're not answering because you can't. You just take you ball and go home like a little wimp. As for my avatar, how about when you had a real clown as an avatar, Rick Perry?

I can obviously answer teh question. A third grader could answer the question. You can't answer the question ,though.
WHy should a member of the NRA recuse himself in a case on gun rights?

 

[konradv]

I can obviously answer teh question. A third grader could answer the question. You can't answer the question ,though. WHy should a member of the NRA recuse himself in a case on gun rights?

Nothing obvious about it. If you can answer the question, do it. Don't punk out. I don't think they should recuse themselves in either case, but you haven't presented a single fact which would differentiate one situation from the other. Gun owners are just as committed to their guns as gays are to their sexual orientation. Why should one be recused and not the other?

 

[foggedinn]

States determine what is or isn't marriage, and who may or may not marry.
The full faith and credit clause will see it in every state. Too bad.

 

[The Rabbi]

I can obviously answer teh question. A third grader could answer the question. You can't answer the question ,though. WHy should a member of the NRA recuse himself in a case on gun rights?

Nothing obvious about it. If you can answer the question, do it. Don't punk out. I don't think they should recuse themselves in either case, but you haven't presented a single fact which would differentiate one situation from the other. Gun owners are just as committed to their guns as gays are to their sexual orientation. Why should one be recused and not the other?

The answer to your question is No.
So are you ready to admit that based on what I posted Kagan should recuse herself?

 

[The Rabbi]

States determine what is or isn't marriage, and who may or may not marry.
The full faith and credit clause will see it in every state. Too bad.

They brought up a good point. If the full faith and credit clause is invoked then the most liberal state will determine policy for every other state. Which is clearly contrary to the Constitution.

 

[konradv]

The answer to your question is No. So are you ready to admit that based on what I posted Kagan should recuse herself?

I didn't ask a "yes or no" question, shortbus. As usual, your arguments are getting very tiresome and boring. You apparently don't have the character to engage in an honest discussion.

 

[The Rabbi]

The answer to your question is No. So are you ready to admit that based on what I posted Kagan should recuse herself?

I didn't ask a "yes or no" question, shortbus. As usual, your arguments are getting very tiresome and boring. You apparently don't have the character to engage in an honest discussion.

You are just intent on doubling down on stupid, arent you, Sparky.
Here's your queston:

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

I answered No. That is a sufficent answer.
I am the only here with an honest discussion going.
So, based on what I posted from the US Code, should Kagan recuse herself? I have no confidence that you will actually answer. Because you are an ignorant stupid person unable to answer with any shred of honesty. You will deflect to some other meaningless garbage.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"SCOTUS divided over SSM"

The OP has a remarkable grasp of the obvious.

 

[The Rabbi]

"SCOTUS divided over SSM"

The OP has a remarkable grasp of the obvious.

Did that even mean anything?

 

[konradv]

Here's your queston:

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

I answered No. That is a sufficent answer.

It's NOT sufficient, because you haven't explained why recusal is indicated in one case, but not the other.

 

[candycorn]

It will go 6-3 in favor

maybe, then you and your brother jake snarkey can get married

but seriously RW, if you get the ruling you want, what exactly would prevent brothers from marrying? what exactly would prevent fathers and sons from marrying to avoid inheritence taxes?

the slippery slope is real, whether you realize it or not.

If father/son marriages is something you wish to legalize, do the legal ground work that gays have been doing for decades.

grow the fuck up,. its not something I want, its the next step in the destruction of our society in order to appease the 4% that prefer butt fucking to normal sex.

keep up the shit and you may join seabytch on my ignore list.

No great loss...not having you to conversate with.

How does it feel to have the world passing you by just a bit more every day?

Did you see his posts to me over a month back when he was going on about what a big dick he had and that's the only thing I really needed to turn me straight?

Comedy Gold!

I missed it....thankfully. Eventually with conservatives the argument always comes back around to physical abuse, subjugation or some other means of force. I hate playing the Nazi card but it should be said that the 3rd Reich was based on intimidation and brute force.

 

[NYcarbineer]

this is not about religion, its about biology and anatomy.

We are talking about lifestyle choices

Is your religion a choice?

And every morning, he wakes up and decides to go on being straight.

so you too are now saying that being gay is a choice, interesting.

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.

But several of your fellow gays and lesbians earlier said in this thread that homosexuality was a choice. So which is it?

What is celibacy?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

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

And on that note- what is the medical treatment for the disease you keep claiming homosexuals have?

there may not be one. but neither is there a treatment for other medical conditions. Mental illnesses are difficult to treat.

Is there an obligation to reproduce in any religious discipline?

 

[Syriusly]

After reading the oral arguments(which seems very wierd on its face)....I encourage everyone to read the entire oral arguments rather than the sound bites put forth by people on both sides of the issue. I may not agree with everything being said, but they are worth reading.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/14-556q1_7l48.pdf

 

[Syriusly]

The answer to your question is No. So are you ready to admit that based on what I posted Kagan should recuse herself?

I didn't ask a "yes or no" question, shortbus. As usual, your arguments are getting very tiresome and boring. You apparently don't have the character to engage in an honest discussion.

I am the only here with an honest discussion going..

LOL....

I have been down this road with you before- basically you can't comprehend anyone other than yourself having a correct point of view.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Yeah- that kind of bigotry has been dealt with by the courts before.

Should Thomas have to recuse himself on any issue regarding equal rights- because he is African American?
Should Scalia have to recuse himself on any issue regarding church and state- because he is Catholic?

The courts- and non-bigots have said no.

Yes- a black man can decide a case regarding civil rights. A homosexual can decide a case regarding gay marriage. A Christian can decide a case regarding church and state.

There is no requirement for a Supreme Court Justice to recuse him or himself- and Supreme Court Justices have chosen when to do so.

Kagan recused herself on cases that she had been involved with before. Thomas didn't recuse himself regarding cases that his wife had a tangential interest in.

And both cases were perfectly appropriate.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The answer to your question is No. So are you ready to admit that based on what I posted Kagan should recuse herself?

I didn't ask a "yes or no" question, shortbus. As usual, your arguments are getting very tiresome and boring. You apparently don't have the character to engage in an honest discussion.

You are just intent on doubling down on stupid, arent you, Sparky.
Here's your queston:

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

I answered No. That is a sufficent answer.
I am the only here with an honest discussion going.
So, based on what I posted from the US Code, should Kagan recuse herself? I have no confidence that you will actually answer. Because you are an ignorant stupid person unable to answer with any shred of honesty. You will deflect to some other meaningless garbage.

If the Supreme Court rules against same sex marriage, Rabbi will declare them the be-all end-all of American justice.

If the Supreme Court rules for same sex marriage, Rabbi will declare them unelected tyrants.

 

[bodecea]

"SCOTUS divided over SSM"

The OP has a remarkable grasp of the obvious.

Did that even mean anything?

Oh dear....and you don't, it would appear.