It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Impeach Kagan and Ginsburg (should they have recused themselves from Gay Marriage Vote?)

page: 1
10
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 09:48 PM
link   
Interesting article that I am sure will draw the ire of many however, I would like to keep this as a legal discussion and not another discussion regarding what people think about gay marriage. (however impossible that may be….)

Source


Justice Antonin Scalia said in his dissent in the same-sex marriage case that the ruling was a threat to our democratic form of government and constitutes a “judicial Putsch,” or secret power grab. He didn’t just say the majority was wrong or misguided; he essentially said they had conspired to overthrow our form of government. His position on the Court may have made it impossible to supply specifics. But one possible explanation of what he meant is that he saw a conflict-of-interest on the part of members of the majority, which required their recusal from the case.


It seems that the news has potentially again avoided mentioning anything to do with the dissenting justice's comments. Noth that this is really any surprise of course but this is where the plot thickens…


The critical part of the law in the gay marriage case is Title 28, Part I, Chapter 21, Section 455 of the U.S. Code, which is applicable to judges and courts. It says, “Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” These disqualifications include cases in which “he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party…”


Here we have a legal precedent for a requirement of a Justice to recuse themselves if the matter at hand is potentially a conflict of interest. What conflict of interest could these two justices have, you ask?



Justices Elena Kagan and Ruth Bader Ginsburg had both officiated at gay weddings. Groups such as the National Organization for Marriage, the American Family Association, the Coalition of African American Pastors, and the Foundation for Moral Law had called for Kagan and Ginsburg to withdraw from the case.


…and…



Matthew Kidd, executive director of the Foundation for Moral Law, told Accuracy in Media that the failure by Kagan and Ginsburg to withdraw from the case leaves them open to impeachment and removal from the bench.


So what say all here with regards to the legal aspect of this matter? Does this possibly mean that congress should get involved as the article discusses? What does the ATS public think about this?
edit on 2-7-2015 by notmyrealname because: Didn't mean to post post….




posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 09:55 PM
link   
a reply to: notmyrealname

I supported gay marriage. Doesn't hurt me, doesn't affect me.

My issue was Roberts saying "Don't thank the Constitution, because it had nothing to do with it."

What is his Job description and why hasn't he been taken off the bench?

The SCOTUS is to interpret the Constitution in conflicts of law, right?

Yet? Roberts pissed on the document he was supposed to uphold........



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 09:58 PM
link   
a reply to: seeker1963
I am not discussing that aspect of the gay marriage decision. Please kindly read the original source article so that you can try and stay relevant; I will be patient.

By the way, I also support gay marriage; I just do not think any government should rule over marriage.

edit on 2-7-2015 by notmyrealname because: Needed to be said


+6 more 
posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 09:59 PM
link   
Erm, "recusal"...

"Conflict of interest"...



Couldn't the exact same be said for those who opposed the ruling?

Unless they had a non-religious, non-homophobic reasoning for their decision...
I've yet to hear one anywhere...
Maybe the SCOTUS did have one.

I wouldn't bank on it.
edit on 2-7-2015 by CharlieSpeirs because: My joviality was unnecessary.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 10:05 PM
link   
I agree with the decision, though it has created a lot of grey area in terms of court proceedings in the future. It's pretty obvious to me the two should have recused themselves. There was an obvious conflict of interest. Honestly, it's strange they would officiate gay weddings knowing they would see this type of case brought before them; it was literally impossible this wouldn't be settled before they were dead. The whole thing is strange.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 10:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
Hahahaha, "recusal"...

"Conflict of interest"...



Couldn't the exact same be said for those who opposed the ruling?

Unless they had a non-religious, non-homophobic reasoning for their decision...
I've yet to hear one anywhere...
Maybe the SCOTUS did have one.

I wouldn't bank on it.

Actually no CharlieSpiers, that is not correct. Having a personal agenda in a matter, according to the law, requires you to stay out of the discussion. The SCOTUS is tasked with being blind to everything but the letter of the law and interpreting the law when questions arise. DO you not think that any justice must make decisions that they personally do not agree with but they must follow the law?! Your attempt at laughing away this matter only reveals your personal opinion in this matter and makes it seem as if you are versed in main stream media tactics. I already know you are intelligent however ATS is supposed to deny ignorance which is not the same thing; try it out sometime.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 10:06 PM
link   
a reply to: IsntLifeFunny
Thank you for actually reading the article!



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 10:07 PM
link   
Can someone list the "high crimes and misdemeanors" these ladies have committed?

I mean, mirroring the requirements for Presidential impeachment, for the sake of argument.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 10:08 PM
link   
For those that do not want to click the link there is this that came as a surprise to me:



In the case of Kagan, an Obama appointee, she may have had a personal conflict-of-interest. This is a sensitive matter, but various reports indicated that Kagan was a known lesbian before she was nominated to the Court by President Obama. For example, the gay blog QueerTY had identified her as a lesbian. That would mean she was compromised on homosexual issues prior to her ascension to the bench and after she was confirmed. This is a conflict of interest that cannot be tolerated.

Whether the reports of her lesbianism are true or not, we know that Kagan had an extremely radical record as Dean of Harvard Law School (2003 to 2009) where she promoted homosexuality and transgenderism. Nevertheless, she was confirmed to the Supreme Court in a 63 to 37 vote.

Kagan “avoided the sort of scrutiny that some nominees have faced,” The Washington Post noted at the time.

We now see the evidence of what happens when the media and Congress fail to do their jobs.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 10:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Can someone list the "high crimes and misdemeanors" these ladies have committed?

I mean, mirroring the requirements for Presidential impeachment, for the sake of argument.

What are you talking about regarding "high crimes and misdemeanors"???

C'mon, red herring alert. Did you even read the article?



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 10:12 PM
link   
a reply to: notmyrealname

I was totally non bias in response.

I just found the accusation laughable.


I appreciate the kind words and candor...

But tell me thusly...


How could anyone, in 2015, be impartial to this particular debate?
That swings both ways as well... For & Against...


Enlighten me further to the oppositions decision making, and I may reconsider my initial reaction...
But something tells me that those against this decision on the bench, had one of two reasons to reject approval.

And neither is impartial.


+6 more 
posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 10:12 PM
link   
Follow up:

Should Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas, all straight Catholics, have recused themselves as well?

If not, why not? By the same logic.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 10:17 PM
link   
a reply to: notmyrealname

Have you ever read the Constitution?

What is the basis for impeachment, at least philosophically?



COTUS, Article II, Section 4:
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 10:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

My point exactly...
Only more... Precise.


There should be a saying affirming my above sentiment.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 10:19 PM
link   
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

I feel impartial on the issue however it seems that you do not. The charge by Justice Scalia was that of Judicial Putsch which is the same meaning as a Judicial coup d'etat That is something that I have never been able to find announced by a SCOTUS justice (let me know if you find it).



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 10:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: notmyrealname

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
Hahahaha, "recusal"...

"Conflict of interest"...



Couldn't the exact same be said for those who opposed the ruling?

Unless they had a non-religious, non-homophobic reasoning for their decision...
I've yet to hear one anywhere...
Maybe the SCOTUS did have one.

I wouldn't bank on it.

Actually no CharlieSpiers, that is not correct. Having a personal agenda in a matter, according to the law, requires you to stay out of the discussion. The SCOTUS is tasked with being blind to everything but the letter of the law and interpreting the law when questions arise. DO you not think that any justice must make decisions that they personally do not agree with but they must follow the law?! Your attempt at laughing away this matter only reveals your personal opinion in this matter and makes it seem as if you are versed in main stream media tactics. I already know you are intelligent however ATS is supposed to deny ignorance which is not the same thing; try it out sometime.


Are you bisexual?

Do you prefer having sex with a man or a woman?

See the irony in your judgement?

My first two questions to you? The answer should have been, "Non of your GD business!"

Do you agree with that?

Then why does who a judge sleeps with become YOUR business?

You tried to shut me down by bringing up Roberts and his view on the Constitution, yet you are on a witch hunt for 2 lesbians?
edit on 2-7-2015 by seeker1963 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 10:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: notmyrealname
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

I feel impartial on the issue however it seems that you do not. The charge by Justice Scalia was that of Judicial Putsch which is the same meaning as a Judicial coup d'etat That is something that I have never been able to find announced by a SCOTUS justice (let me know if you find it).


And what is the nature of the "putsch" (a snide and dull reference to Nazi Germany) in this case? How EXACTLY have Ginsburg and Kagan compromised or aided in the decline of the American government?

Speaking of Nazi Germany, is it coincidental that both Ginsburg and Kagan are Jewish?



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 10:25 PM
link   
a reply to: notmyrealname

I'm aware of what a Putsch is my dear fellow...

And by definition it is laughable...

Unless those who went Pro on the bench violently overthrew the Government in their endeavour to legalise same sex marriage.


Let's call it a metaphorical Putsch, even then, it's drastic hyperbole and smells of sour grapes...

Why did he not bring this up before the decision?


Would he have brought it up if the decision had gone the other way?




I'm seeing a cause for recusal, just not from who he has stated should have withdrawn.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 10:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: notmyrealname

I was totally non bias in response.

I just found the accusation laughable.


I appreciate the kind words and candor...

But tell me thusly...


How could anyone, in 2015, be impartial to this particular debate?
That swings both ways as well... For & Against...


Enlighten me further to the oppositions decision making, and I may reconsider my initial reaction...
But something tells me that those against this decision on the bench, had one of two reasons to reject approval.

And neither is impartial.


The law isn't that they have to be impartial. The law is they cannot have such a conflict of interest, be it because of their imparitality, or because of some previous action their judicial, or personal, life that would leave them without the ability to move past such biases to rule impartially. Do you think two people who officiated gay weddings can impartially rule on gay marriage?

I agree with their outcome, but not necessarily the way they arrived at it.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 10:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: notmyrealname

Have you ever read the Constitution?

What is the basis for impeachment, at least philosophically?



COTUS, Article II, Section 4:
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Look, I am keeping it civil, can you possibly try to not be condescending in your tone? Seriously, act like a mature adult.

Yes I am familiar with the constitution and the impeachment process for certain officers/elected officials. With regards to a justice the matters are different:



Only one Supreme Court Justice, Samuel Chase (one of the signatories to the Declaration of Independence), has ever been impeached. The House of Representatives accused Chase of letting his Federalist political leanings affect his rulings, and served him with eight articles of impeachment in late 1804. The Senate acquitted him of all charges in 1805, establishing the right of the judiciary to independent opinion. Chase continued on the Court until his death in June 1811.

What about these two cases are all that different?



new topics

top topics



 
10
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join