The Rule of Four + A Governor or AG = Fatherless/Motherless Marriages Reheard?

[Silhouette]

Inspired from post #905 here: Judge declines to marry same sex on religious grounds Page 91 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Exactly. Not only is Sil's claim invalid, its a physical impossibility. As its quite impossible to demonstrate a bias against same sex marriage bans that don't exist.
And no such ban existed in either Maryland nor DC....

One set of litigants wanted the question to be reserved to the states to...wait for it...*drum roll*.... say yes OR NO to fatherless/motherless (gay) marriages. Having Kagan and Ginsburg AS EMBODIMENTS OF THE FEDERAL BODY SET TO DETERMINE THAT RIGHT TO SAY NO THAT WAS PENDING AT THE TIME THEY PERFORMED THE GAY MARRIAGES did display arrogantly as that embodiment, that their pitch was "approval of gay marriage as a fed say-so".

Ginsburg even did interviews where she said "its time has come...etc etc.". On television aired at prime time viewers. Which of course was tantamount to her announcing "look folks, I'm voting to deny states the right to say "No" to gay marriage, so stick that in your pipe and smoke it awhile"...you know, BEFORE the Hearing took place.

Which of course means that Caperton v Massey Coal 2009 applies. Caperton's successful premise, supported by the conclusion which would apply to ANY case involving suspected or in this case arrogantly-flaunted bias, was that no judge may ever show any bias that a reasonable person would suspect would disfavor an impartial hearing, to their demise. These two women pitching hard for the hard left just simply announced with their words and actions "we are going to deny states the right to say "No" to gay marriage and that's that."

Kagan and Ginsburg's gooses are cooked. As I suggested before, they should be given the option to withdraw their votes from this June's Opinion, the case should be reheard...or...they face real actual impeachment proceedings when the GOP takes over a whopping majority in 2017 in Congress.

In fact, the "Rule of Four" might save the day on this one too. If a person caught up in this "just some favorite deviant sex behaviors of the Court's left Justices" "fatherless/motherless" marriage debacle decided to appeal a case they had stemming from it right back up to the court, they could cite the Caperton v Massey Coal case and win an appeal I'd think to have their case heard. The four more typically conservative Justices could vote to take the case up and that would be that. It would be on for all to view and then Ginsburg and Kagan would have to explain to the country how it is that a Justice can flaunt arrogant bias and still sit on a case, in pure violation of the spirit and letter of Caperton v Massey Coal 2009.

The question is then, who has standing to challenged Ginsburg and Kagan? I would say it is any citizen who feels their civil right to self-govern as a state (perhaps an AG or a Governor...Perry? You listening?) could sue to recuse and rehear th case based on suppression of rights guaranteed to states and to individual citizens under the US Constitution to have Kagan and Ginsburg recuse themselves, and the case reheard?

 

[Skylar]

Having Kagan and Ginsburg AS EMBODIMENTS OF THE FEDERAL BODY SET TO DETERMINE THAT RIGHT TO SAY NO THAT WAS PENDING AT THE TIME THEY PERFORMED THE GAY MARRIAGES did display arrogantly as that embodiment, that their pitch was "approval of gay marriage".

They performed gay marriages in states where same sex marriage had already been voted in. You know gay marriage in Maryland?

Marriage.

The Windsor decision had already affirmed that the States have the authority to authorize same sex marriage. Maryland and DC exercised that right. And Kagan and Ginsberg performed marriages that the States had authorized. Exactly as the WIndsor decision had authorized them to do.

The only 'bias' that Ginsberg and Kagan showed....was toward precedent. Which is exactly a judge is supposed to do. And is the entire basis of Stare Decisis.

 

[Silhouette]

The standard set in Caperton v Massey Coal was no display of bias at all may be had. None. Not one iota that showed bias. On any matter, not just campaign contributions. The question in Caperton at its essence wasn't "campaign contributions". It was "bias", "clear bias". And as federal entities blessing gay marriage while the question of "can states say no to it?" was pending, no matter where they blessed them or what the status was there at the time, was a clear "head's up" to Citizens everywhere that these two women would deny anyone the right to define marriage in such a way that said "no" to their blessing of it.

 

[Skylar]

The standard set in Caperton v Massey Coal was no display of bias at all may be had. None. Not one iota that showed bias. On any matter, not just campaign contributions. The question in Caperton at its essence wasn't "campaign contributions". It was "bias", "clear bias". And as federal entities blessing gay marriage while the question of "can states say no to it?" was pending, no matter where they blessed them or what the status was there at the time, was a clear "head's up" to Citizens everywhere that these two women would deny anyone the right to define marriage in such a way that said "no" to their blessing of it.

Capterton was about an elected judge who had received massive campaign contributions from someone he was ajudicating a case for. With the court citing the extraordinary donation and the extreme circumstances of that case as establishing the bias.

Neither Kagan nor Ginsberg were elected. Neither received campaign contributions from any litigant in Obergefell. Nor did they receive any benefit from the Obergefell ruling or from the marriages they performed in Maryland or DC respectively.

All of which you already know. Worse, there was no same sex marriage ban in Maryland or DC. Its physically impossible to demonstrate a bias against same sex marriage bans that don't exist.

You're in the bargaining phase of loss. You're scrambling for some deal that will make your loss go away. You imagine an amendment that isn't happening. You imagine that Obergefell will be reheard. You imagine that USSC justices will be impeached.

None of that is happening. There is no deal. There is no bargain. You just lost.

And you'll get over it.

 

[Silhouette]

No, Caperton's essence "no show of bias ever" by a judge or jury or tribunal is what any lawyer would extract in arguing a new case. That essence is what the conclusion of "just campaign contributions in this instance" relied upon. The premise opening arguments established that THE RULE was that no judge may exhibit bias...from that RULE they drew the conclusions in the specific instance about campaign contributions. But THE RULE applies 100% across the board. Unless now you'd like to argue that in American Justice, cases of biased judges are wholly acceptable. I'd like to see that case law if you don't mind?

 

[Skylar]

No, Caperton's essence "no show of bias ever" by a judge or jury or tribunal is what any lawyer would extract in arguing a new case. That essence is what the conclusion of "just campaign contributions in this instance" relied upon. The premise opening arguments established that THE RULE was that no judge may exhibit bias...from that RULE they drew the conclusions in the specific instance about campaign contributions. But THE RULE applies 100% across the board. Unless now you'd like to argue that in American Justice, cases of biased judges are wholly acceptable. I'd like to see that case law if you don't mind?

Capterton was about the extraordinary campaign contributions and the extreme circumstances of that case. None of the criteria of 'bias' used in Caperton can possibly apply to Kagan or Ginsberg. Nor was there any same sex marriage ban to demonstrate a bias against. As Maryland and DC had already voted in same sex marriage.

Your argument is a physical impossibility.

Instead, Windsor v. US had already authorized the States to recognize same sex marriage. Which Maryland and DC did. What Kagan and Ginsberg did was show deference to State power in authorizing same sex unions. With their 'bias' being toward existing precedent. Specifically, the Windsor decision.

Bias for precedent is what a judge is supposed to do. Nullifying your silly argument yet again.

 

[Syriusly]

Inspired from post #905 here: Judge declines to marry same sex on religious grounds Page 91 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Exactly. Not only is Sil's claim invalid, its a physical impossibility. As its quite impossible to demonstrate a bias against same sex marriage bans that don't exist.
And no such ban existed in either Maryland nor DC....

One set of litigants wanted the question to be reserved to the states to...wait for it...*drum roll*.... say yes OR NO to fatherless/motherless (gay) marriages. Having Kagan and Ginsburg AS EMBODIMENTS OF THE FEDERAL BODY SET TO DETERMINE THAT RIGHT TO SAY NO THAT WAS PENDING AT THE TIME THEY PERFORMED THE GAY MARRIAGES did display arrogantly as that embodiment, that their pitch was "approval of gay marriage as a fed say-so".

Ginsburg even did interviews where she said "its time has come...etc etc.". On television aired at prime time viewers. Which of course was tantamount to her announcing "look folks, I'm voting to deny states the right to say "No" to gay marriage, so stick that in your pipe and smoke it awhile"...you know, BEFORE the Hearing took place.

Which of course means that Caperton v Massey Coal 2009 applies. Caperton's successful premise, supported by the conclusion which would apply to ANY case involving suspected or in this case arrogantly-flaunted bias, was that no judge may ever show any bias that a reasonable person would suspect would disfavor an impartial hearing, to their demise. These two women pitching hard for the hard left just simply announced with their words and actions "we are going to deny states the right to say "No" to gay marriage and that's that."

Kagan and Ginsburg's gooses are cooked. As I suggested before, they should be given the option to withdraw their votes from this June's Opinion, the case should be reheard...or...they face real actual impeachment proceedings when the GOP takes over a whopping majority in 2017 in Congress.

In fact, the "Rule of Four" might save the day on this one too. If a person caught up in this "just some favorite deviant sex behaviors of the Court's left Justices" "fatherless/motherless" marriage debacle decided to appeal a case they had stemming from it right back up to the court, they could cite the Caperton v Massey Coal case and win an appeal I'd think to have their case heard. The four more typically conservative Justices could vote to take the case up and that would be that. It would be on for all to view and then Ginsburg and Kagan would have to explain to the country how it is that a Justice can flaunt arrogant bias and still sit on a case, in pure violation of the spirit and letter of Caperton v Massey Coal 2009.

The question is then, who has standing to challenged Ginsburg and Kagan? I would say it is any citizen who feels their civil right to self-govern as a state (perhaps an AG or a Governor...Perry? You listening?) could sue to recuse and rehear th case based on suppression of rights guaranteed to states and to individual citizens under the US Constitution to have Kagan and Ginsburg recuse themselves, and the case reheard?

What the hell is your crazy ass "Rule of Four"?

This thread is even more irrational than your usual irrational anti-gay spiels.

 

[Skylar]

Inspired from post #905 here: Judge declines to marry same sex on religious grounds Page 91 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Exactly. Not only is Sil's claim invalid, its a physical impossibility. As its quite impossible to demonstrate a bias against same sex marriage bans that don't exist.
And no such ban existed in either Maryland nor DC....

One set of litigants wanted the question to be reserved to the states to...wait for it...*drum roll*.... say yes OR NO to fatherless/motherless (gay) marriages. Having Kagan and Ginsburg AS EMBODIMENTS OF THE FEDERAL BODY SET TO DETERMINE THAT RIGHT TO SAY NO THAT WAS PENDING AT THE TIME THEY PERFORMED THE GAY MARRIAGES did display arrogantly as that embodiment, that their pitch was "approval of gay marriage as a fed say-so".

Ginsburg even did interviews where she said "its time has come...etc etc.". On television aired at prime time viewers. Which of course was tantamount to her announcing "look folks, I'm voting to deny states the right to say "No" to gay marriage, so stick that in your pipe and smoke it awhile"...you know, BEFORE the Hearing took place.

Which of course means that Caperton v Massey Coal 2009 applies. Caperton's successful premise, supported by the conclusion which would apply to ANY case involving suspected or in this case arrogantly-flaunted bias, was that no judge may ever show any bias that a reasonable person would suspect would disfavor an impartial hearing, to their demise. These two women pitching hard for the hard left just simply announced with their words and actions "we are going to deny states the right to say "No" to gay marriage and that's that."

Kagan and Ginsburg's gooses are cooked. As I suggested before, they should be given the option to withdraw their votes from this June's Opinion, the case should be reheard...or...they face real actual impeachment proceedings when the GOP takes over a whopping majority in 2017 in Congress.

In fact, the "Rule of Four" might save the day on this one too. If a person caught up in this "just some favorite deviant sex behaviors of the Court's left Justices" "fatherless/motherless" marriage debacle decided to appeal a case they had stemming from it right back up to the court, they could cite the Caperton v Massey Coal case and win an appeal I'd think to have their case heard. The four more typically conservative Justices could vote to take the case up and that would be that. It would be on for all to view and then Ginsburg and Kagan would have to explain to the country how it is that a Justice can flaunt arrogant bias and still sit on a case, in pure violation of the spirit and letter of Caperton v Massey Coal 2009.

The question is then, who has standing to challenged Ginsburg and Kagan? I would say it is any citizen who feels their civil right to self-govern as a state (perhaps an AG or a Governor...Perry? You listening?) could sue to recuse and rehear th case based on suppression of rights guaranteed to states and to individual citizens under the US Constitution to have Kagan and Ginsburg recuse themselves, and the case reheard?

What the hell is your crazy ass "Rule of Four"?

This thread is even more irrational than your usual irrational anti-gay spiels.

if pseudo-legal gibberish were Lincoln Logs, Sil could have built a treated wood Taj Mahal by now.

 

[Syriusly]

Silhouette seems to be implying that there could be some kind of Supreme Court 'coupe' where the 4 justices she agrees with get to act unilaterally?

Her post has no foundation in reality.

None.

Not legally, not rationally.

 

[Skylar]

Silhouette seems to be implying that there could be some kind of Supreme Court 'coupe' where the 4 justices she agrees with get to act unilaterally?

Her post has no foundation in reality.

None.

Not legally, not rationally.

A complete lack of legal, historical or rational merit has never limited Sil's arguments before.

This thread is pure desire for wish fulfillment. Where Sil is imagining a hypothetical world where his loss vanishes, where Obergefell magically changes, and everything that Sil believes is imposed by law.

Its the 'bargaining' stage of grief.

 

[Silhouette]

Obergefell vs Caperton then. Let the best case law win. I wonder who it was who voted "governor" in the poll above? Which one were you thinking of? I have a couple in mind that might take on the task of suing for redress of violation of Constitutional provisions from last Spring's case.

 

[Syriusly]

Obergefell vs Caperton then. Let the best case law win. I wonder who it was who voted "governor" in the poll above? Which one were you thinking of? I have a couple in mind that might take on the task of suing for redress of violation of Constitutional provisions from last Spring's case.

As nonsensical as the rest of your posts in this thread.

What is the 'rule of four'?

 

[Skylar]

Obergefell vs Caperton then. Let the best case law win. I wonder who it was who voted "governor" in the poll above? Which one were you thinking of? I have a couple in mind that might take on the task of suing for redress of violation of Constitutional provisions from last Spring's case.

Nope. There's no such dichotomy. No such fight. Its your denial vs. Obergefell.

And Obergefell wins.

 

[Silhouette]

Obergefell vs Caperton then. Let the best case law win. I wonder who it was who voted "governor" in the poll above? Which one were you thinking of? I have a couple in mind that might take on the task of suing for redress of violation of Constitutional provisions from last Spring's case.

Nope. There's no such dichotomy. No such fight. Its your denial vs. Obergefell.

And Obergefell wins.

How do you know? How do you know that? It's a little disturbing to me that you "know" always how US Supreme Court rulings will come down. Why even have a Court at all. Let's just defer all dicey and nuanced questions of law set to drastically alter the fabric of society (like motherless/fatherless marriages as a new subsidized/enticed institution) to "Skylar the internet poster". All hail King Skylar and his consorts, Queen Kagan and Queen Ginsburg!

 

[Syriusly]

What is the 'rule of four"?

 

[Silhouette]

What is the 'rule of four"?

Where it takes only four Justices in the SCOTUS to vote to take up and Hear (or Rehear) a case.

In this example it likely would be Scalia, Thomas, Alito & Roberts. The case would be essentially about if the June 26, 2015 Opinion was illegal based on the mandatory recusal that Ginsburg and Kagan defied, re: Caperton v Massey Coal 2009 where it was found that any judge many not show a single atom of obvious bias towards or against a particular set of litigants, or the case has to be reheard.

 

[Syriusly]

What is the 'rule of four"?

Where it takes only four Justices in the SCOTUS to vote to take up and Hear (or Rehear) a case.

In this example it likely would be Scalia, Thomas, Alito & Roberts.

Thank you- I have been wondering all of this time what the hell you were saying.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Inspired from post #905 here: Judge declines to marry same sex on religious grounds Page 91 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Exactly. Not only is Sil's claim invalid, its a physical impossibility. As its quite impossible to demonstrate a bias against same sex marriage bans that don't exist.
And no such ban existed in either Maryland nor DC....

One set of litigants wanted the question to be reserved to the states to...wait for it...*drum roll*.... say yes OR NO to fatherless/motherless (gay) marriages. Having Kagan and Ginsburg AS EMBODIMENTS OF THE FEDERAL BODY SET TO DETERMINE THAT RIGHT TO SAY NO THAT WAS PENDING AT THE TIME THEY PERFORMED THE GAY MARRIAGES did display arrogantly as that embodiment, that their pitch was "approval of gay marriage as a fed say-so".

Ginsburg even did interviews where she said "its time has come...etc etc.". On television aired at prime time viewers. Which of course was tantamount to her announcing "look folks, I'm voting to deny states the right to say "No" to gay marriage, so stick that in your pipe and smoke it awhile"...you know, BEFORE the Hearing took place.

Which of course means that Caperton v Massey Coal 2009 applies. Caperton's successful premise, supported by the conclusion which would apply to ANY case involving suspected or in this case arrogantly-flaunted bias, was that no judge may ever show any bias that a reasonable person would suspect would disfavor an impartial hearing, to their demise. These two women pitching hard for the hard left just simply announced with their words and actions "we are going to deny states the right to say "No" to gay marriage and that's that."

Kagan and Ginsburg's gooses are cooked. As I suggested before, they should be given the option to withdraw their votes from this June's Opinion, the case should be reheard...or...they face real actual impeachment proceedings when the GOP takes over a whopping majority in 2017 in Congress.

In fact, the "Rule of Four" might save the day on this one too. If a person caught up in this "just some favorite deviant sex behaviors of the Court's left Justices" "fatherless/motherless" marriage debacle decided to appeal a case they had stemming from it right back up to the court, they could cite the Caperton v Massey Coal case and win an appeal I'd think to have their case heard. The four more typically conservative Justices could vote to take the case up and that would be that. It would be on for all to view and then Ginsburg and Kagan would have to explain to the country how it is that a Justice can flaunt arrogant bias and still sit on a case, in pure violation of the spirit and letter of Caperton v Massey Coal 2009.

The question is then, who has standing to challenged Ginsburg and Kagan? I would say it is any citizen who feels their civil right to self-govern as a state (perhaps an AG or a Governor...Perry? You listening?) could sue to recuse and rehear th case based on suppression of rights guaranteed to states and to individual citizens under the US Constitution to have Kagan and Ginsburg recuse themselves, and the case reheard?

What the hell is your crazy ass "Rule of Four"?

This thread is even more irrational than your usual irrational anti-gay spiels.

And just as irrational as measures seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law.

 

[Silhouette]

What is the 'rule of four"?

Where it takes only four Justices in the SCOTUS to vote to take up and Hear (or Rehear) a case.

In this example it likely would be Scalia, Thomas, Alito & Roberts. The case would be essentially about if the June 26, 2015 Opinion was illegal based on the mandatory recusal that Ginsburg and Kagan defied, re: Caperton v Massey Coal 2009 where it was found that any judge many not show a single atom of obvious bias towards or against a particular set of litigants, or the case has to be reheard.

Thank you- I have been wondering all of this time what the hell you were saying.

Would you like me to post a separate thread on just exactly how the "rule of four" works in SCOTUS? Just to refresh your memory?

 

[Syriusly]

What is the 'rule of four"?

Where it takes only four Justices in the SCOTUS to vote to take up and Hear (or Rehear) a case.

In this example it likely would be Scalia, Thomas, Alito & Roberts. The case would be essentially about if the June 26, 2015 Opinion was illegal based on the mandatory recusal that Ginsburg and Kagan defied, re: Caperton v Massey Coal 2009 where it was found that any judge many not show a single atom of obvious bias towards or against a particular set of litigants, or the case has to be reheard.

Thank you- I have been wondering all of this time what the hell you were saying.

Would you like me to post a separate thread on just exactly how the "rule of four" works in SCOTUS? Just to refresh your memory?

Sure- go for it- I am always amused by your babbling OP's.