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: 3
10
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 10:53 PM
link   

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.


That's the problem!!!!!!

We have Religion on one side who is often referred to as Conservatives. Now! On the other side we have the NEW religion called Progressives.

It's going to be a fight to the death where 40% of the believers end up taking down the 60% who are just trying to survive and keep a roof over our heads?

My figures were based upon a scientific poll that was cherry picked by myself! Anyone who didn't answer my questions to my satisfaction were eliminated from my poll results!




posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 10:54 PM
link   

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.


Agreed. Only those people could tell you if their bias would affect them in such a manner that impartiality became impossible. The heart of the argument lies in the act, though. Since those gentlemen (using the term loosely for Scalia's) do not have a specific action that can be pointed to then their judgement is left to them. That is not the case with the ladies. The entire 'recuse yourself' is left up to judgement, as this was and why they were not forced to recuse themselves.

The idea is to maintain the symblance of honor and integrity within the highest court. Since they did perform such a marriage, people will always be able to look at the case as tarnished, even if only for their own biases. That is why recusal was placed on the judges discretion, as it is their legacy involved, but it is an important matter that deals with the legitimacy of the court, which when looking at case law is of paramount importance to our entire system as many of the necessary changes in our country have come from the Supreme Court, and not the legislator.
edit on 2-7-2015 by IsntLifeFunny because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 10:54 PM
link   
Scalia won't recuse himself from Cheney case

www.cnn.com...



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 10:55 PM
link   

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.

Nothing "childish" here. It even says that he had an opinion based on the Constitution. That is what the Supreme Court of this nation is all about. Upset much are we when someone points out the flaws ?



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 10:56 PM
link   
a reply to: notmyrealname

Please explain to me why religious conviction represents any less of a potential conflict of interest? Scalia has made it abundantly clear that his decisions are informed by his faith. Just because you want to ignore that fact doesn't make it any less relevant.

It's pretty obvious that you're not interested in an honest discussion but rather in pushing your agenda.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 10:56 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer
Ah kind intelligent human, thank you for your comments! I can completely agree with your opinion and comments regarding unmet expectations of this in DC. I have been there many times and each time marveled at the single-minded objective of almost every person there and that lack of almost anyone having an objective for the public at hand that elected them.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 10:58 PM
link   

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.


You get peeved when folks leave out facts from your source/OP, yet you want to gloss right over the religious bias that's right there in the content. Okay, let's throw out all of it. We're left with a few concerns about someone being a lesbian or whatever. Looking at just that, we essentially have tabloid gossip (at best) or borderline bashing (at worst). The conclusion is clear: (most of) the judges made a decision based on the facts. End of story.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 11:00 PM
link   

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?

I didn't say that. I said there is not a direct action which could call into doubt their ability to rule impartially. This is true. I never said anything about Kagan or Sotamayor's sexual orientation, and honestly I'm slightly offended you would twist my words in such a way without cause.
edit on 2-7-2015 by IsntLifeFunny because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 11:01 PM
link   
a reply to: IsntLifeFunny

Ok here 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.
edit on 2-7-2015 by CharlieSpeirs because: Here, not hear!



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 11:02 PM
link   

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?


Marrying someone at a wedding is not a conflict of interest, if it were you could flip it around and say Scalia who supports "traditional" marriage as part of his Christian faith also has a conflict of interest. If you go down this road you eventually wind up in a spot where the only people who are ever qualified to make a ruling on anything are those who have no opinion on the subject and know nothing of it. Clearly that isn't who we want making the rules. What impartiality actually means is that while one can have an opinion they can look past it and make a fair ruling based upon the letter of the law rather than their own personal beliefs. Oddly enough, by this metric it was actually Scalia who had a conflict of interest and should have recused himself because of his day to day beliefs rather than a one off event.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 11:03 PM
link   

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.


But the ruling was great. I can now use my WA state concealed license in all 50 states with same ruling that they used on gay marriage ruling. I'm really wondering what else will be affected too as a result in this ruling.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 11:04 PM
link   
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?



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 11:05 PM
link   

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.

It did and is a valid question. I'm not sure as to the answer. I know, that logically speaking in terms of case law and when someone is supposed tonrecuse themselves, that putting themselves into the middle of the situation muddies the water, which is, in and of itself, a reason for recusal. However, the point is valid, and it is why judges are not forced to recuse themselves. They obviously shouldn't be impeached over the matter. My entire argument was that it was stupid, at least in my eyes, to allow their judgement to be second guessed because of a direct action they chose to do when they knew this case would face them sometime in their tenure as a Supreme Court Judge.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 11:06 PM
link   
a reply to: notmyrealname


“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.


LOL...that does not constitute a conflict of interest nor does it prove that they held a bias.

If that proves they held a bias, then you can argue that all the other Justices held a bias AGAINST gay marriage because they have never officiated at gay weddings.

The Right is throwing their tantrum after they lost...nothing new (Please Refer To Birthers)...but it doesn't matter, the matter is settled.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 11:06 PM
link   
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!



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 11:09 PM
link   

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?


Was there an outcry to impeach Justices or charges of bias after the first two cases ... anything like on the scale we're seeing now (and in the OPs article)?

There is a vast difference between disagreeing and claiming that the other side is "overthrowing the government" ... isn't there?



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 11:13 PM
link   

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!

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



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 11:17 PM
link   

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?


They might be opinionated but this case was always going to go this way ever since the 1967 decision on interracial marriage. Had the courts ruled the other way there would have been a successful appeal on first amendment grounds since the primary opposition to same sex weddings is based on Christian doctrine and that would have meant the government was placing one religion above others (many of which support same sex marriage).



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 11:19 PM
link   

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


That's a really, really sad argument that you're making. If we want to question the ethics of our governments and the people that run them, we should go to a "Communist" nation where we will prevented from doing so? What are you even trying to say? This isn't a matter of disagreeing. The OP is talking about folks that are going beyond that to claim that these people are unethical and should possibly be impeached. If I'm only here to signal my disagreement with that, and then move on, then that's really, really boring.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 11:20 PM
link   
a reply to: rationalconsumer
Where am I 'peeved'?
If the conclusion was that clear, there would be nothing to discuss. This issue is not clear and that is what this discussion is all about.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join