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: 7
10
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 02:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: notmyrealname
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.


Agree.

But, it helps to have legal power when needed.
edit on 3-7-2015 by Annee because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 03:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: notmyrealname
a reply to: roadgravel
So when do we toss them all?


I think the ones that need to go are not subject to citizen vote and very few even know who they are.

I bet those persons laugh every time they hear regular people express the idea that the country belongs to the People.



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

originally posted by: notmyrealname
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.


But who gets to go on the ledger? Half the country was arguing that only straight couples could be on it while the other half was arguing that any couple could be on it.

Church marriages are not a figment of my imagination, to believers they are partaking in a holy ceremony that brings them closer to God. To them it is a very real thing. Church marriages currently offer zero benefits outside of church, no one has been arguing for this to change. Usually the church will also do the paperwork for the state so that everything happens in one ceremony.

The government taking taxes has zero to do with legal benefits such as marital communications. Do only straight couples get that privilege? The governments position here is that no, they don't. Some people can't accept that. Also, you will never remove government from marriage because people LIKE these benefits so all that's left is ensuring that anyone has access to them.



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 04:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: notmyrealname

originally posted by: Gryphon66
*crickets*


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


Good! For a guy that doesn't think impeachment of a Justice has constitutional standards, you probably needed the sleep.




posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 04:19 PM
link   
Here it is in a nut shell: The 2 primary sides in this case were the following:
The states that did not want to have same sex marriage, and fought such in a court of law, and the LGBT community demanding equal rights. The case was decided on the first time, as the states and those that were against same sex marriage, did not frame their arguments in a normal way, they kept trying to interject religion into the argument that caused them to lose a majority of the cases in court. They could offer no real legal explanation or reasoning to the justices that had to listen to such, while those for the same sex marriage were able to time and time again, offer legal precedent and reasoning for why such should be allowed.

There was not going to be any happy endings in this case, no matter how it went. Many of the lower courts had ruled in favor of same sex marriage, and the US Supreme Court was watching and paying attention reviewing and then deciding not to take on said cases in appeals, letting the ruling stand. When one district court decided to rule in favor of said ban, the US Supreme Court had to act and it did. It weighed the laws and the arguments, and it looked at it all. Then it made its decision.

There are those on the side against same sex marriage, stating that Kagan and Ginsburg should have recused themselves as they were going to vote in favor of same sex marriage. However, what they failed to realize, is this: If that was the case, then Scallia and Roberts should also have recused themselves as they too had equally strong feelings and have stated such.

As sad as it is, the court has to be balanced, and should be impartial. There should be no political associations and as long as the justices justify their decision with legal reasoning and in writing, there is no reason to invalidate such. And as much as some would hate it, the US Supreme Court Justices are under no obligations to recuse themselves at any time. It is always based on as they see fit.



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 05:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan
Please read my other posts that cover all of these subjects with other people.



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 06:08 PM
link   
Ahhh ... this starts to make sense now.

These particular beating drum has its source in an article from earlier this year, January 2015, from the well-known hate group American Family Association:

Ginsburg and Kagan Must Recuse Themselves on Gay Marriage Case

The problem with their argument (the Justices performing weddings) is that marriage equality existed in the District of Columbia since 2009.

/shrug



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 10:31 AM
link   

edit on 8-7-2015 by notmyrealname because: double post



posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 09:35 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 09:35 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 09:39 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 10:24 PM
link   
Yeah, so I introduce someone to ATS and direct them to a place that is easy to understand like a thread I created and my post and their post is deleted.

I still think that the two supreme court justices should recuse themselves from the decision rendered.

Kagan and Ginsburg should resign from their posts because the mods have censored the addition of an new member.



posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 11:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Ahhh ... this starts to make sense now.

These particular beating drum has its source in an article from earlier this year, January 2015, from the well-known hate group American Family Association:

Ginsburg and Kagan Must Recuse Themselves on Gay Marriage Case

The problem with their argument (the Justices performing weddings) is that marriage equality existed in the District of Columbia since 2009.

/shrug

Yes, as if the District of Columbia Laws are relevant the the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court = Law of the Nation
District of columbia = Special region & no relevance to the nation….



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join