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: 6
10
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 04:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: seeker1963

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.


Are you bisexual?

Do you prefer having sex with a man or a woman?

See the irony in your judgement?

My first two questions to you? The answer should have been, "Non of your GD business!"

Do you agree with that?

Then why does who a judge sleeps with become YOUR business?

You tried to shut me down by bringing up Roberts and his view on the Constitution, yet you are on a witch hunt for 2 lesbians?



Your arguments sound good and hit all the buttons. But look at the jury selection process. Many times they take great pains to weed out anyone that may have the slightest interest or sympathies for or against to insure a fair or as fair as you can get it decision.

In my lifetime I have seen at least one SC nomine rejected because of his "radical", as the left called it, legal philosophy. This guy was raked in public during publically televised hearings and raked by the liberal press. Just saying they watch who is being nominated and act accordingly to their own ideas during the hearings.

Notice during the Obama appointments, his picks were so political, not much investigation.




posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 04:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: notmyrealname
My opinion is quite simply that I do not believe that any government office (state Federal or other) should be involved with the institution of marriage; it should be a union between connecting adults. I feel there should be tax benefits or regulations that are related to marriage whatsoever.

I mean really, Wow Baby, This love we have is really amazing; I want to spend the rest of my life with you! I really love you so much so… Let's get the government involved!'

Does that make sense to anyone here?



Yea only inevitably aggrieved parties end up in court seeking a decision on child support, property ect. Way to many legal ramifications to getting married that the courts inevitable have to sort out later. Ramifications that will eventuality have be ruled on and enforced.

Like a woman, or sometimes even a man, has no legal standing in a 30 year marriage when one party wants to split with all the goods and leave mom, who raised dudes kids and held down the fort down all those years? Gots to go to court, show a legal covenant between the parties.



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 04:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Nice bit of info however, please let me know where that falls in the Constitution.



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 04:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Logarock

originally posted by: notmyrealname
My opinion is quite simply that I do not believe that any government office (state Federal or other) should be involved with the institution of marriage; it should be a union between connecting adults. I feel there should be tax benefits or regulations that are related to marriage whatsoever.

I mean really, Wow Baby, This love we have is really amazing; I want to spend the rest of my life with you! I really love you so much so… Let's get the government involved!'

Does that make sense to anyone here?



Yea only inevitably aggrieved parties end up in court seeking a decision on child support, property ect. Way to many legal ramifications to getting married that the courts inevitable have to sort out later. Ramifications that will eventuality have be ruled on and enforced.

Like a woman, or sometimes even a man, has no legal standing in a 30 year marriage when one party wants to split with all the goods and leave mom, who raised dudes kids and held down the fort down all those years? Gots to go to court, show a legal covenant between the parties.

sure fine prenups for everyone giving 50/50 prior to registering marriage. Nuff said.



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 05:41 AM
link   
First line


Justice Antonin Scalia said in his dissent in the same-sex marriage case that the ruling was a threat to our democratic form of government and constitutes a “judicial Putsch,” or secret power grab.


That happened a long time ago in eveyy part of government and it wasn't over gays.



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 06:40 AM
link   
a reply to: roadgravel
So when do we toss them all?



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 08:30 AM
link   
a reply to: notmyrealname

Why not dissect and discuss Scalia's dissent itself rather than some religious group that is irrationally and overly concerned about an imagined gay agenda, that is crying for impeachment? No I won't leave religion out of it when that's clearly at the base of this accusation of a 'putsch' (using that word is absurd).

So in Scalia's dissent do you see any legitimate argument that would lend support to impeaching two Justices?



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 08:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: notmyrealname

Hey, tell me that is so !!!!
That would truly be great. While we are at it, legalize drugs because many states already have.


You got it.



The SCOTUS legalized same sex marriage by finding a right which Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg , Sonia Sotomayor, Stephen G. Breyer, and Elena Kagan ruled as beyond a state-by-state prerogative via the 14th Amendment.

Crucial in this ruling is the fact that same sex marriage–now recognized by the SCOTUS–is not the only right the 14th Amendment shields from state-by-state prerogative and/or recognition.

Consider this pertinent aspect of the court’s Majority Opinion, written by Justice Kennedy and printed by the LA Times:

Under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, no State shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” The fundamental liberties protected by this Clause include most of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights.




Because a concealed carry license is the vehicle through which many 2nd Amendment rights are exercised in states other than your own, there seems no way to avoid the implication that a state ought to have to recognize a concealed carry license from another state, just as states are now required to recognize same sex marriage licenses from other states.



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 09:06 AM
link   
a reply to: notmyrealname

I've focused on the phrase, "He didn’t just say the majority was wrong or misguided; he essentially said they had conspired to overthrow our form of government."

The Court has begun to operate as a Super Legislative body; they've abandoned their limited mandate and they've violated the concept of the Constitutional framework for the US Government being one of three independent branches of government and government of checks and balances.

So really, I'm afraid we're seeing the US move much further down the road of being nothing more than a banana republic devoid of any concept of the "rule of law". That step is probably irreversible.



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 09:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: notmyrealname
a reply to: Gryphon66

Nice bit of info however, please let me know where that falls in the Constitution.


If you'll be a bit more specific in your question, I'll be happy to oblige.




posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 09:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: notmyrealname
Justices Elena Kagan and Ruth Bader Ginsburg had both officiated at gay weddings.


Have any of the justices officiated at straight weddings? Was there any request for THEM to recuse?

Because this ruling WASN'T about "gay marriage", it was about MARRIAGE as law, and states being compelled to offer it equally to all citizens, as the 14th amendment requires of states.
edit on 7/3/2015 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 10:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: notmyrealname
Having a personal agenda in a matter, according to the law, requires you to stay out of the discussion.


Seven Things Justice Scalia Has Said or Written About Homosexuality



"Of course it is our moral heritage that one should not hate any human being or class of human beings," Scalia wrote, in the classic prebuttal phrasing of someone about to say something ludicrous. "But I had thought that one could consider certain conduct reprehensible—murder, for example, or polygamy, or cruelty to animals—and could exhibit even 'animus' toward such conduct. Surely that is the only sort of 'animus' at issue here: moral disapproval of homosexual conduct[.]
...
Texas ban on homosexual sex "undeniably seeks to further the belief of its citizens that certain forms of sexual behavior are 'immoral and unacceptable,'" like laws against "fornication, bigamy, adultery, adult incest, bestiality, and obscenity." Scalia later tees up "prostitution" and "child pornography" as other things he thinks are banned simply because people disapprove of them.


Scalia has a long history of "having a personal agenda" in the matter of homosexuality and equal rights for gay people... Should HE have recused himself? Or is it only those who don't share his obvious bigotry when it comes to homosexuality that should be recused?



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 10:13 AM
link   
*crickets*



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 12:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Just got up a little while ago I'll be back to this one when I can reread the conversation.



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 12:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Okay and so what? we have arrived at a point where we basically have flawed people with their biases that can now dictate how people live their lives. I am not a Scalia fan and really did not know much about him until this morning. If you noticed in the OP I posed this matter as a question in order to see what others thought. As usual the same biased people on both sides call names and make accusations, some make intelligent statements and some just try to turn this into some personal bashing contest for my posts personally.

In the end, none of us are any closer to ending or reducing bigotry, fair and equal treatment under the law as the moment government tells one group how they must do something they do not agree with, people on the other side fight back against it.



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 12:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
*crickets*


Sorry but your comments could not keep me up all night...



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 12:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: notmyrealname

In the end, none of us are any closer to ending or reducing bigotry, fair and equal treatment under the law as the moment government tells one group how they must do something they do not agree with, people on the other side fight back against it.


How are we not closer to ending or reducing bigotry?

Is this a government mandated Civil Rights Equality vs personsl belief stance?



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 01:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee
I do not think the legislation will change a bigot's mind on any particular subject. Some people will just hate because that is all they know.



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 01:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: notmyrealname
Okay and so what?


I thought my point was clear. IF people with opinions for or against should be recused, and Scalia thinks Ginsburg and Kagan should be recused, then Scalia should be, too.



we have arrived at a point where we basically have flawed people with their biases


The Supreme Court has ALWAYS been filled with human beings and human beings are flawed. And they have biases. We have not "arrived at that point", we've always been there. Do you want robots to interpret the laws written by man?


that can now dictate how people live their lives.


What now? Who has dictated how people live their lives? No one HAS to get married... What do you mean?



In the end, none of us are any closer to ending or reducing bigotry, fair and equal treatment under the law as the moment government tells one group how they must do something they do not agree with,


Who is the government telling "how they must do something"? You mean county clerks? They have a job to do. If they can't do the job, they should quit.

And I disagree about not being any close to ending or reducing bigotry. This is how it happened with interracial marriage. We are taking the SAME STEPS as we did with that. Sure some will remain bigots their whole lives, but MANY will come to see that gay people are just like us!
edit on 7/3/2015 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 02:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: notmyrealname
Okay and so what?


I thought my point was clear. IF people with opinions for or against should be recused, and Scalia thinks Ginsburg and Kagan should be recused, then Scalia should be, too.



we have arrived at a point where we basically have flawed people with their biases


The Supreme Court has ALWAYS been filled with human beings and human beings are flawed. And they have biases. We have not "arrived at that point", we've always been there. Do you want robots to interpret the laws written by man?


that can now dictate how people live their lives.


What now? Who has dictated how people live their lives? No one HAS to get married... What do you mean?



In the end, none of us are any closer to ending or reducing bigotry, fair and equal treatment under the law as the moment government tells one group how they must do something they do not agree with,


Who is the government telling "how they must do something"? You mean county clerks? They have a job to do. If they can't do the job, they should quit.

And I disagree about not being any close to ending or reducing bigotry. This is how it happened with interracial marriage. We are taking the SAME STEPS as we did with that. Sure some will remain bigots their whole lives, but MANY will come to see that gay people are just like us!

Actually for a fleeting moment yesterday I did think about the computer angle and also see the flaws in that. The system is broken IMO and I am not addressing this issue alone. I have the answers that I was looking for with this thread. Thank you all.
I am not familiar with the Interracial marriage issue as it was before my time to pay attention to such things. I have also answered someone else about the Scalia portion and am kinda tired to go find it for you personally now.
People are different whether it be color, creed, location, sexuality or sex. We are not all the same except that we should be treated equally. This is something that I practice in my interracial marriage and never really thought about because I have no issue with it. I also never really thought much about my gay friends or the marriage issue as they are married and have the same challenges as any other married couple. I do think that the supreme court overriding state's individual rights in a very peculiar manner is a slippery slope; how about having the SCOTUS rule for everything in the US and then we won't need a legislative branch at all. Problem is the air up there is so thin, they really do not know what is going on in the streets and local communities.

Bah, why bother.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join