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

a reply to: notmyrealname

Anthony Scalia says things like this:

''The Lord repaid -- did justice -- through his minister, the state.''

and

"You're looking at me as though I'm weird. My god! Are you so out of touch with most of America, most of which believes in the devil? I mean, Jesus Christ believed in the devil! It's in the Gospels! You travel in circles that are so, so removed from mainstream America that you are appalled that anybody would believe in the devil! Most of mankind has believed in the devil, for all of history. Many more intelligent people than you or me have believed in the devil."

and

"You know, it is curious. In the Gospels, the Devil is doing all sorts of things. He’s making pigs run off cliffs, he’s possessing people and whatnot. And that doesn’t happen very much anymore."

So should he have recused himself? I really don't know how you can ignore this obvious conflict of interest arising from his religious beliefs.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs
The only thing that I see laughable is the amount of emotion you place in your responses. Are you always this condescending? the coup was by the court to rule on things and in a manner that was and is outside of their ability. Let's not change the words used, I am sure the justice knows exactly which words he wanted to when he made his statements. As to why he did not do any of your other questions, how would I know?

a reply to: IsntLifeFunny

I suppose only the people who judged would be able to tell you honestly if any impartiality (conflict of interest) was left behind...

And the guy may well have a case...



But I do wonder why this is all happening after the decision, and not prior to...
I don't think we'd hear a peep of this had the decision gone the other way...


Which leads to the impartiality (conflict of interest) of the accuser coming into question... imo.



S&F OP... Great find, and potentially, great debate to be had.

Recusal usually is expected when there is an actual personal interest. For example, if a judge has previously worked as a lawyer with someone involved in the case or if they had a major part in lower court rulings related to the case. Off the top of my head, those are instances where I have heard of judges, including SCOTUS, recusing themselves.

I think that it is understood, especially by folks such as these who must maintain high standards of behavior, that there is a difference between personal feelings on a case and what is presented and considered in the case itself. I can see a situation where Obergefell presented a really poor case, and the SCOTUS appeal would have failed. Is it not conceivable that this was a case where SCOTUS heard a really strong argument to extend marriage equality, really poor arguments against it, and (most) of the judges considered the facts as they were presented? I haven't heard a lot of complaining about other cases that they have heard, so I don't know why we are suddenly talking about how they might be incompetent, unethical, or unfit for the bench.

These people used to be lawyers and judges. They are required to have large "portfolios" of cases that they have worked on in the past. Marriage issues were bound to come up at those times, and within their personal lives as family, friends, and acquaintances of lgbtq folks. That's no reason that they should recuse themselves.

a reply to: seeker1963

I think you're missing the intent of what Roberts said which is why we were seemingly disagreeing about this in an earlier thread. Roberts was saying that the decision of the majority (which he obviously was not part of) had nothing to do with Constitution.

I disagree with him wholeheartedly, but in the interest of being accurate and fair I thought I should point that out.

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.

He did not , as you say have a "personal opinion" .Reread , forget you own personal agenda ,and know he had a Constitutional opinion. Please , spare us any more rambling.....

a reply to: notmyrealname

I've been guilty of this, but I used to see the Supreme Court as above all partisan influences.

I used to see them as smarter, wiser, more knowledgeable than I could ever be.

But in reality, they are simply men and women who occupy the 3rd branch of government.

They are as biased and partisan as any one of us. They are fallible. They make mistakes in judgment and are as bigoted and biased as any of us.

They are just as culpable in the disgusting game of politics as a Reid, Boehner, Pelosi, Obama, Clinton or Bush.


It's a damned shame. I was hoping that there would be some in DC who could rise above the fray.

This decision I happened to agree with. Some others I didn't. before I might have thought that it was because I wasn't smart enough to get the issue.

Now I see that they voted by their ideology.

a reply to: notmyrealname

I'm not being condescending...
Just candid.

I am sure the justice knows exactly which words he wanted to when he made his statements.

Yes of course he does, because any good law maker will know that hyperbolic buzz words gain the most attention...


As for not knowing why he waited for a decision...
I think you do know, and it is you who is being condescending.

a reply to: theantediluvian
Let's keep religion out of this discussion; please!

Justice Scalia used that quote in describing the prevailing attitude or consensus of Western thought until recent times however the encroachment of a Mob Rules mentality (Democracy) is changing things for the worse.

If you are going to quote it, try and quote all of it and in context.

a reply to: notmyrealname

What???

You asked me if I had read the article ... I asked you if you had read the Constitution since you didn't seem to catch a reference to Constitutional language regarding the basis for impeachment.

There is no condescension there. Seriously, stop acting like a petulant child.

What about the two cases is different? Not much actually, they're both politically motivated.

Scalia and Roberts undignified remarks are purely partisan and borderline treasonous.

Chase was not convicted. The Senate clearly saw that the impeachment was a political maneuver:

Chief Justice William Rehnquist noted in his book Grand Inquests, some senators declined to convict Chase despite their partisan hostility to him, apparently because they doubted that the mere quality of his judging was grounds for removal. All impeachments of federal judges since Chase have been based on allegations of legal or ethical misconduct, not on judicial performance. For their part, federal judges since that time have generally been much more cautious than Chase in trying to avoid the appearance of political partisanship.

Richar d Lillich, "The Chase Impeachment," American Journal of Legal History 1960 .

I didn't read the whole OP (non-original propoganda).

By the same token - all the judges that served 'corporate' interests should recruse themselves from voting on anything effecting corporations.

Oh - the source of the citation:

Regarding 'accuracy in media':

AIM was founded by Reed Irvine in 1969, when Irvine called for sedition charges to be brought against Students for a Democratic Society, the Black Panthers and the Progressive Labor Party, arguing, "If you're going to halt treason, you've got to do it while it's small." [Village Voice, January 21, 1986]


In the 1970s, Irvine endeared himself to the New Right by alleging that the corporate media were a propaganda tool for the Soviet KGB and Fidel Castro. In 1982, AIM attacked New York Times reporter Raymond Bonner for his reports (later proven accurate--see Extra!, January/February 1993) about the El Mozote massacre. Along with the Wall Street Journal editorial page, AIM succeeded in pressing the Times to pull Bonner from his Salvadoran beat.

www.sourcewatch.org...

Just another billionaire backed noise outlet.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: seeker1963

I think you're missing the intent of what Roberts said which is why we were seemingly disagreeing about this in an earlier thread. Roberts was saying that the decision of the majority (which he obviously was not part of) had nothing to do with Constitution.

I disagree with him wholeheartedly, but in the interest of being accurate and fair I thought I should point that out.

I took it as it was something they the SCOTUS ruled on and Roberts made a point to say the Constitution had nothing to do with it?

Feel free to send me a U2U if you can provide me with ANY evidence I am wrong! I am cool with being wrong! No puffy chest here except for my man boobs courtesy of Big Pharm!

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: notmyrealname

Anthony Scalia says things like this:

''The Lord repaid -- did justice -- through his minister, the state.''

and

"You're looking at me as though I'm weird. My god! Are you so out of touch with most of America, most of which believes in the devil? I mean, Jesus Christ believed in the devil! It's in the Gospels! You travel in circles that are so, so removed from mainstream America that you are appalled that anybody would believe in the devil! Most of mankind has believed in the devil, for all of history. Many more intelligent people than you or me have believed in the devil."

and

"You know, it is curious. In the Gospels, the Devil is doing all sorts of things. He’s making pigs run off cliffs, he’s possessing people and whatnot. And that doesn’t happen very much anymore."

So should he have recused himself? I really don't know how you can ignore this obvious conflict of interest arising from his religious beliefs.

The beliefs are only a part of the situation. If a justice believes his preconceived notions on a case renders him unable to judge without bias then he should recuse himself. An actual circumstance or event is another matter entirely. Equating Scalia's ramblings with Sotamayor and Kagan actually officiating a gay marriage is not logically consistent, which is not to say your point is without merit.

a reply to: notmyrealname

Your link included:

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.

If being a lesbian disqualifies her then being straight should disqualify all the others.....assuming they are of course....

My disdain is for Scalia, who wrote a ream that didn't actually address the 14th amendment at al - he's there to interpret the law - not to make law based on his opinion of what might happen if he decides one way or the other - HE should be impeached!

originally posted by: notmyrealname
a reply to: theantediluvian
Let's keep religion out of this discussion; please!

I feel the need to point out that the organizations mentioned in your OP, the ones calling for Kagan and Ginsburg to withdraw, are religious organizations. That seems to indicate that opposition to Kagan and Ginsburg is primarily religious. It's not full proof, but it's evidence that this is, in fact, a religious argument.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
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.

Because there was not a singular action which could be pointed at to call into question their ability to rule without bias. That is not the case with the two ladies on the court.

a reply to: Gothmog
I am not rambling and do not have an agenda,this is a discussion forum and every once in a while some people can have a reasonable debate on a topic without being childish. This is the form of debate I am looking for. Also, let it be known that I am not die hard regarding any issue at all (this issue as well) provided I change my mind based upon logic, reason and facts.

originally posted by: IsntLifeFunny

originally posted by: Gryphon66
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.

Because there was not a singular action which could be pointed at to call into question their ability to rule without bias. That is not the case with the two ladies on the court.

Really? We can consider the alleged sexual orientation of "the ladies" but we can't consider the religious bias of "the guys"?

It is a strongly held belief in Roman Catholicism that marriage is only between a man and a woman.

That doesn't call their "ability to rule without bias" into question for you?

a reply to: rationalconsumer
If you want to make that the case then I call for all public officials, Judges or anyone that has to make unbiased decisions be faithless and lack emotion.

Since that is not even close to ever happening, let's keep with the legal issue at hand and leave the religious spin aside.

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul
Great, then start a different thread on that subject and we can discuss it separately.