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.
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.
I am sure the justice knows exactly which words he wanted to when he made his statements.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
originally posted by: notmyrealname
a reply to: theantediluvian
Let's keep religion out of this discussion; please!
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.
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.