Here, SCOTUS preens and bows before Obama (ex parte)
even as the case against him --YEARS ago-- was before them.
The ex parte litigant thanked them by making them EXEMPT.
Posted on 06/22/2015 10:43:04 AM PDT by xzins
A series of events that has been described as a “troubling turn” has been found to have taken place at the U.S. Supreme Court regarding the justices’ looming decision on marriage – whether they will affirm the millennia old standard of one man and one woman or whether they will create a right to homosexual “marriage.”
The circumstances concern efforts to have Ruth Ginsburg and Elena Kagan recused from the marriage case because they both have taken public advocacy positions for same-sex “marriage” by performing those ceremonies even while the case was pending before the justices.
WND reported just days earlier when a former member of the federal judiciary, Joe Miller, who, when he was appointed U.S. magistrate judge in Fairbanks, Alaska, was the youngest person then serving in that federal position in the nation, called their actions a violation of the code of ethics for judges.
The report from Olson and Titus noted that the Foundation for Moral Law twice formally filed documents seeking the recusal of Kagan and Ginsburg.
“Importantly, Miller also reported that not only had the court not ruled on the foundation’s motion, but that the motion had not even been posted on the Supreme Court docket. While a delay in posting can occur for a number of reasons, none applied here. Did someone at the high court not want to acknowledge that such a motion had been filed?”
They continued, “Now we may have some indication that the U.S. Supreme Court uses Google Alerts, because shortly after the Miller article was published, on either June 17 or 18, 2015, the foundation’s recusal motion suddenly appeared on the docket of the U.S. Supreme Court. Under a date of May 21, 2015, the entry read: ‘Request for recusal received from amicus curiae Foundation for Moral Law.’”
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
I’ve got no problem with that because it’s a contract entered by 2 people. The laws of the state, though, govern contracts.
No one has a right to force someone else to enter a contract with them.
Nor does anyone have a right to force someone to marry them....therefore, marriage is NOT a ‘right’.
Nothing wrong with gallows humor.
I concur there is nothing to be done.
If they had anything resembling honor or a commitment to justice, of course they would recuse.
It is also an very open secret that Sotomayer and Kagen are both lesbians. (My niece was a Supreme Court Clerk.)
What is your niece’s prediction on this marriage decision? Have you spoken to her?
"Find out just what people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both.
"The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress."
-Frederick Douglas
I think it's a near certainty that they will rule in favor of gay marriage, but I don't think them performing a ceremony in a state where it's legal is grounds for recusal.
It would be very different if they chose to conduct a gay wedding in a state where it wasn't legal.
Actions are speech
Fine, but their actions don't really say anything about their view of the constitution.
The Marxists on the Supreme Court should never have been allowed on it for they took an oath to the Constitution which they are ejecting (unconstitutionally).
How evil these Marxists are to allow the promotion of vice and welfare (socialism) to be promoted in our “Justice” System which is based on ...” the Laws of Nature and nature’s God”.
They are creating Rule of Man-—ejecting Rule of Law (Higher Laws (God”s) for the Marxist and Muslim one which believes sodomizing other-—the vile dehumanizing act of vice-—is a “Natural” “Right” from God.
It is a learned, pagan behavior from child abuse and neglect-—like all of history proves, and the Afghani boy harems prove. Forcing Tribal ethics on ust is to destroy our Christian Ethics and all Traditions (destroy Traditions for our irrational Utopia which these elitists are planning FOR US (NWO)-—Remove Natural Law Theory (Right Reason/Scince/Truth/God) from the basis of our “Justice” (virtue) System so we are ALL Slaves of the arbitrary (unconstitutional) State.
Pure evil-—to force the muslim, pagan irrational utopianism of Marx....where all biological connections are destroyed so babies can be bought and sold and ALL their ideas are programmed from the State..
These Marxists are forcing Marxist (irrational) Gender Theory down our throats——LITERALLY. They are the Ethics of Satan and Stalin. and antithetical to the Constitution (Null and Void).
Am I the only one that remembers Joe Miller?
Presiding at Same-Sex Wedding, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Emphasizes the Word ‘Constitution’
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3291113/posts
Prejudiced Justices? AFA calls on Ginsberg, Kagan to recuse themselves from marriage equality ruling
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3250387/posts
State chief justice calls out Ginsburg for backing same-sex ‘marriage’
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3294773/posts
Yeah, he ran against Murkowski in ‘10? and is running again, I think?
They don’t care. They know no one will impeach them.
She’s at a giant lawyer mill since the beginning of summer, so she doesn’t know (or won’t tell me).
The two lesbos and Ginsburg are a given.
She does know that Justice Ginsberg’s mezzuzah (on her office door) is empty because she heard that and looked to see if there was a scroll inside.
Justice Kagan Performs Her First Same-Sex Wedding
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3206892/posts
There is also an article here about the Justices sorta sniping at each other in their written opinions. Wish I could find it, it was only a couple days ago.
Regardless of their ruling those SOB’s need to be on camera when performing their official duties. Shame, shame on the highest court of the land hiding in secrecy from it’s citizens.
Interesting,Thanks xzins.
Under no law but her own
Let’s say that the Supreme Court decides that each state can decide for itself about gay marriage. So if Justices Kagan and Ginsburg performed gay marriages where it was decided to be legal, and I don’t know, then their actions may not be as bad as people think.
Regardless of PC, pro-gay interpretations of the 14th Amendment’s equal protections clause, the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect gay marriage. So it remains that the states are free to make 10th Amendment-protected laws which prohibit constitutionally unprotected gay marriage imo.
Nevertheless, I’m bracing myself to be disappointed by pro-gay activist, state sovereignty-ignoring justices concerning gay marriage.
I’m of the opinion that an unethical person will more readily violate the Constitution....any law for that matter.
Their unethical behavior will serve notice of their belief system.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.