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: rationalconsumer
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: CharlieSpeirs
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.
originally posted by: notmyrealname
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: notmyrealname
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.
originally posted by: Gryphon66
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?
originally posted by: notmyrealname
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?
originally posted by: beezzer
It's a damned shame. I was hoping that there would be some in DC who could rise above the fray.
originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: IsntLifeFunny
Ok hear is a question that hasn't arisen yet...
Which States did these Judges officiate those same sex marriages in?
Let's assume, nay, realise, States where it was legal... Yes?
Can we then extrapolate that there was no bias from their previous engagements of officiating same sex marriages...
Just proof that they're willing to uphold the law when on the bench?
*I'm assuming they did so as judges, and not clergy*
Then what would be the conflict of interest?
A previous court ceremony that they had no decision in, just there to confirm the law was, what it was...
Ugh, horribly incoherent...
I hope that made sense, somewhat.
“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…”
...
Justices Elena Kagan and Ruth Bader Ginsburg had both officiated at gay weddings.
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.....
originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: notmyrealname
The funny thing is, most people should be in agreement on this.
I think everyone has dealt with SC decisions that they disagreed with. Does that mean they were wrong, and the Supreme Court was right?
We have recent cases like;
Citizen United
Hobby lobby
Marriage
Not everyone has agreed with all 3 cases.
Does that make them dumber than the Justices?
Or does that make the justices just as opinionated as the rest of us?
originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Gothmog
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.....
Oh well if he said so, than it must be true because obviously nobody with an agenda would be misleading about having an agenda. What a preposterous notion!
originally posted by: beezzer
Does that make them dumber than the Justices?
Or does that make the justices just as opinionated as the rest of us?
originally posted by: Gothmog
Again , believe it or not , Constitutional concerns are what the Supreme Court is all about. Dont like other people having a differing opinion than you ? Especially when they are a member of government ? People can always go to a Communist Nation where they are told what to think , and everyone must agree...Peace