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: 5
10
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 01:03 AM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm
Two people could simply arrange their ceremony, fill in a form and register it with a competent authority. Simple and easy.




posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 01:05 AM
link   
a reply to: MonkeyFishFrog
So your point is that the whole SCOTUS is biased and not able to adequately do their job? If so fine, let's demand that all of them step down.



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 01:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: beezzer

I was wrong that there was no public outcry after CU and HL for impeachment, or raving that the Justices were anti-American.

Enjoy your Scotch. Glenlivet?

/sigh I remember those days.


I see it more of the way all of us are manipulated by the media.

You and I are both smart.

We both watch news stations, read news articles, listen to a variety of pundits.

Why is it you have a different recollection than I?

It's like we're in different countries. that's the way the media and government keep us divided on issues. They're good at it.

Very well said! Control the money and you control the laws; control the media and you control the majority of opinion.



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 01:09 AM
link   
a reply to: notmyrealname

No, just making the point that when it suits Conservatives, they play both sides.



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 01:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: notmyrealname
a reply to: mOjOm
Two people could simply arrange their ceremony, fill in a form and register it with a competent authority. Simple and easy.


Until the SCOTUS ruled, a handful of states discriminated against same sex couples who wanted to do this.



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 01:14 AM
link   
a reply to: MonkeyFishFrog
I don't really identify with many things the so called conservatives say; nor do I identify with many of the things that so called Liberals say. Most of all I do not know everything or purport to. What I do have is opinions on many topics that sometimes offend people that have made up their minds on a subject prior to potentially looking at all sides or, based simply on the label conservative or liberal. I would like to form my opinions or change them based upon as much reasonable information as I can find.

It is kinda why I am here….



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 01:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: notmyrealname
a reply to: mOjOm
Two people could simply arrange their ceremony, fill in a form and register it with a competent authority. Simple and easy.


I don't think you understand what I'm getting at. You were saying that the Government shouldn't be involved in marriage. Which is fine as long as you don't expect any Government sanctioned benefits from it. However, in order to have benefits granted by the Government that apply to those who are married, you're going to have Government involved in marriage.

So, saying we should remove Government from marriage isn't really an option as long as you still want the benefits attached to it. You see what I'm saying???



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 01:22 AM
link   
a reply to: rationalconsumer
I agree that this is wrong and have never stated that I agreed with it. Part of the difficulty in staying on topic with a single discussion is that life does not work that way. One thing relates to another and another until you are off topic completely trying to explain your point of view. I would love to discuss why our tax code is in need of some serious overhaul and why our elected officials usurp, what I feel, should be personal choices.

I enjoy most responses to my posts as they assist me in learning more about a subject than I know before I posted. Some feel they need to let of steam or whatever when responding. Who cares right? I feel that if people tried to take a more objective approach to things, maybe we could come to agreement on more things. Just possibly the human race would be less divided on foolish ideals and we could be almost on the way to unity

Until someone saw that threat and bombs the tar out of us!
edit on 3-7-2015 by notmyrealname because: commas



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 01:27 AM
link   
a reply to: mojom

I am using part of what I posted already in response to your comment.


Part of the difficulty in staying on topic with a single discussion is that life does not work that way. One thing relates to another and another until you are off topic completely trying to explain your point of view. I would love to discuss why our tax code is in need of some serious overhaul and why our elected officials usurp, what I feel, should be personal choices.

It would be great if I could just stick to one single topic however many things are interrelated to others; it gets messy.
edit on 3-7-2015 by notmyrealname because: commas



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 02:00 AM
link   
a reply to: notmyrealname

Whatever. A conversation is a two way street though and trying to control it and limit it like you just means you'll end up talking to yourself, alone. But have it your way.

After all, it was you who first brought up the idea which I am addressing. It's not like I'm just throwing it out there for no reason. It was you who was interjecting the idea of removing Gov. from marriage as if it was part of your argument. As part of your argument I felt that aspect needed to be addressed before continuing because it was an invalid position to have without at least some explaining. This would mean your original position might also be made of incorrect assumptions as well and should be verified to ensure you do in fact have an argument and position that makes sense.

As for the topic and only the topic mentioned. I think it was already laid to rest once another member pointed out how these same SCOTUS judges declined to recuse themselves when they were in conflict of interest on previous cases. That shows an obvious double standard which makes the whole idea completely invalid and pointless.



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 02:00 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Like this hasn't happened before? Clarence Thomas was a Monsanto lawyer, and in May 2013 the SCOTUS ruled in favor of Monsanto:



Farmers must pay Monsanto each time they plant the company’s genetically modified soybeans, the Supreme Court ruled Monday, rejecting an Indiana farmer’s argument that his un­or­tho­dox techniques did not violate the company’s patent.

Farmer Vernon Hugh Bowman asserted that because the company’s herbicide-resistent Roundup Ready soybeans replicate themselves, he was not violating the company’s patent by planting progeny seeds he bought elsewhere. But the justices unanimously rejected that claim, with Justice Elena Kagan writing there is no such “seeds-are-special” exception to the law.

Source

Thomas's ties to Monsanto:



The reasons for this allegation are obvious. Firstly, Thomas was an attorney for Monsanto for many years prior to being assigned to the US Supreme Court bench. He also wrote the majority opinion in a biotechnology case that was declined by the court in 2001. For many, this alone is an obvious conflict of interest, but the plot thickens. Just months ago, the Supreme Court favored Monsanto in a ruling when it held that a farmer had violated patents on a soybean plant when he tried to plant them for more than one season.

Source

So I don't want to hear it. This is a desperate attempt by conservatives to keep pitching a tantrum because they lost something they believed belonged to them.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 02:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: notmyrealname
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.


One could say being straight is a conflict of interest when it comes to law involving gays. It is absolutely arrogant and selfish to believe a straight person holds the moral high ground when it comes to love, sex and the law.
edit on 3-7-2015 by Xeven because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 02:13 AM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

Once again. Here we have a clear example of hypocrisy and a double standard being ignored with this argument. Clearly when examples like this become evident it destroys any credible excuse for the position of the OP.

MystikMushroom is 100% correct. This whole argument is nothing but a BS attempt to cry foul by those who are sore losers. Their position is a complete lie and scam as it tries to ignore their own actions.



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 02:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: seeker1963
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........



He also #ted on it too.



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 02:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: mojom
a reply to: MystikMushroom

Once again. Here we have a clear example of hypocrisy and a double standard being ignored with this argument. Clearly when examples like this become evident it destroys any credible excuse for the position of the OP.

MystikMushroom is 100% correct. This whole argument is nothing but a BS attempt to cry foul by those who are sore losers. Their position is a complete lie and scam as it tries to ignore their own actions.


The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

I scanned the thread, and at least TWO other people have brought up similar "conflict of interest" issues with the SCOTUS. None of their posts were starred or even addressed.

Thank you for responding to mine!

The lack of responses is telling IMO.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 02:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom

originally posted by: mojom
a reply to: MystikMushroom

Once again. Here we have a clear example of hypocrisy and a double standard being ignored with this argument. Clearly when examples like this become evident it destroys any credible excuse for the position of the OP.

MystikMushroom is 100% correct. This whole argument is nothing but a BS attempt to cry foul by those who are sore losers. Their position is a complete lie and scam as it tries to ignore their own actions.


The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

I scanned the thread, and at least TWO other people have brought up similar "conflict of interest" issues with the SCOTUS. None of their posts were starred or even addressed.

Thank you for responding to mine!

The lack of responses is telling IMO.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

Whoa,

Now hang on there, you may have the stars flags and power over this fiefdom however, how can you say that I have not adequately responded to various points of view here. I may have taken some personal time to take a shower or deal with personal things however as the OP I did not know that there was a T&C regarding being tethered to my computer for the life of the thread. I have also looked back at various posts about various conflict of interest from various member of the SCOTUS; I have responded to as many as I have time to thus far.
Prior to giving your seemingly self-appointed exhaled opinion on a topic that you have blessed us to 'scan' why don't you read my entire post and reply.
I have no problem with a discussion however I had no idea I had to bring small arms to the discussion. Deny Ignorance? How about perpetuate it by closing an avenue for me to learn some opposing opinions.

You're a hero.
edit on 3-7-2015 by notmyrealname because: You're edit



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 02:49 AM
link   
a reply to: mojom
I am not trying to limit it, I am not really all that familiar with posting things here. I am also not making any excuses for what I post. I see and read thread after thread with mods canceling things and closing things to do 'thread drift'. Where this starts and where it ends here I don't know. I am trying to keep things civil, learn things and respond to everyone I can however, that seems to be a problem.
So, seeing that you know much more than me and want to disagree with what I posted, go ahead. If I must duel with people on matters that they have a personal stake in, so be it.
Besides the topic that you personally have dismissed as over and solved for all eternity, what would you like to discuss (excuse me) argue about?!



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 02:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xeven

originally posted by: notmyrealname
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.


One could say being straight is a conflict of interest when it comes to law involving gays. It is absolutely arrogant and selfish to believe a straight person holds the moral high ground when it comes to love, sex and the law.

Okay, what is your point here? Are you insinuating that I am straight, gay or a lawyer. Or are you saying that the Supreme court or any court has no business in determining who can and can't get married because it is none of their business? If that is the case, I agree.



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 03:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: notmyrealname
a reply to: Aazadan
That is a really nice long post about all the benefits of marriage. I do not see the relevance of it to this conversation as I am not speaking about the abolishment of marriage; I am talking about getting the government out of administering the marriage. In this manner, the government and society can get on with the things that matter instead of dedicating too much time making legal issues out of what is easily decided between two adults.


If the government is supplying those benefits, which they are then it's their business to administer marriages. You can't have one without the other. Removing government entirely from marriage means that the only marriages come through the church and that they have absolutely no status whatsoever outside of that church. In such a scenario people would still be married by a church but there wouldn't be any legal status of married, we would all simply be single from the governments perspective.



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 03:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: notmyrealname
a reply to: Aazadan
…..


If the government is supplying those benefits, which they are then it's their business to administer marriages. You can't have one without the other. Removing government entirely from marriage means that the only marriages come through the church and that they have absolutely no status whatsoever outside of that church. In such a scenario people would still be married by a church but there wouldn't be any legal status of married, we would all simply be single from the governments perspective.

I do think that they are mutually exclusive; one marrying party and two registering authority. Registering party had the responsibility to maintain the ledger. Church marriages are a figment of your imagination just as are marriage licenses so, let's not travel there. Also if it weren't for the government stealing from you vial various taxes, there would be no talk of marriage benefits v/s single benefits.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join