[xzins]

This is a way of providing one side or the other a legitimate case against this court ruling.

[xzins]

ping to article

[atc23]

Agreed - it’s a CYA move from the unelected, black robed Vicars who serve for life -

[tanknetter]

But what would a “legitimate case” really mean?

There’s no higher Court than SCOTUS. There’s no official standard for recusal, it’s left to the Justices to do it on their own.

The only way to sanction a Justice is through the impeachment process. Good luck with that, it would have as much a chance of success as repealing the 2nd Amendment.

[semimojo]

This isn't a case of the court being asked to decide if gay marriage is good or bad, only whether every state is required to honor it. Although unlikely, Kagan and Ginsberg may support the idea of gay marriage but not think that there's a constitutional right to it.

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.