Yes.
But she won’t.
Well, guys, now you know why most theater in this country stinks.
Geez....we are so screwed.
Yes, she should have recused herself because there is no way she could be a fair, independent juror.
We should remember the Republicans that voted to confirm her. She was confirmed by a 96 to 3 vote. The three negative votes came from conservative Republican Senators – Don Nickles (OK), Bob Smith (NH) and Jesse Helms (NC). All the rest - spineless.
Gee, that includes me!
I have Huguenot and English ancestors who were in the Revolution, can't think of any of them who would approve of this!
In fact, being mostly hard edged radical Protestants, they would have barfed at the thought.
And this freak Communist in a black robe dares to mention the Constitution?
The witch knows she has a bias and she just doesn’t care. To her, the Constitution is what she says it is. She has absolute power with no accountability. (I would say that about the federal judiciary in general, actually.)
When the states ratified the Constitution,
was gay “marriage” a right?
No, of course not.
Now, what amendment was ratified that made it a “right”?
None? Well, then, the Constitution has nothing to say on the matter, and it’s up to the states.
Gay is in the US Constitution - right under the part about free abortions for all and gun control. :)
Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
They are sneering at us.
It’s not enough just to debase America’s moral foundation, the Progressive Left just can’t resist rubbing it in our faces with stunts like this. They see no need anymore to even pretend that there are impartial judges making a careful constitutional determination here.
From their attitude one might think the next Presidential election had already been rigged.
We need to concentrate on nominating people who will put true conservatives on the court that will rule the way we wont them to.
To hell with stare decisis and precedent, the left doesn't care about it, and we need to stop caring about it. Any politician that spouts drivel about not having a litmus test needs to be immediately disqualified from consideration.
No actually. Consider the flip side, if another judge performed a normal marriage, should they recuse themselves because of bias on the normal side? How about Scalia because he’s Catholic? You’d have to find advocacy, not simply executing judicial roles.
I’m definitely believe marriage is as originally defined and intended but even having a gay judge is not enough to recuse because the flip argument could be used on a straight one.
The two lesbians recused themselves because they perform gay weddings. Buzzi needs to do the same.
The issue before SCOTUS is whether the Constitution requires that states permit same-sex marriage even if the voters and their representatives have voted against it. Ginsburg has performed same-sex marriages only in the District of Columbia, whose elected City Council voted for same-sex marriage. So no, she is not required to recuse. (Had she performed a same-sex marriage in a state where it exists only because of a judicial decision, I would agree with you that she should recuse.)
I couldn’t agree more!!! What is the correct response to this? Is it impeachment? I don’t know the answer, but assume they will just do the right thing isn’t enough.
Well, that ruined “Mr. Sandman” forever.
She’s an old coot who should have stepped down eons ago.
That would require honesty.