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 ...
Impeachment might be the only recourse, but that doesn't mean a statute hasn't been violated.
Refusing to file motions you don’t like can’t be lawful. I don’t know what law says that but anybody who thinks this is OK is obviously a troll, and trying to make me hunt for the specific statute is the typical way for a troll to send somebody else on a wild goosechase, to waste their time.
Your slip is hanging out, semimojo. It’s easy to tell who/what you are.
And you trolls need to figure out how to not sound like lawyerly jerks; you all have the same smell.
Again:
Finally, a federal statute, 28 U.S.C. sec. 455(a), further mandates that a federal judge ‘disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned,’” Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/06/supreme-court-caught-messing-with-marriage-case/#8pk4E1QCh60Wmym3.99
Again, it's up to the supreme court justice to decide. Sorry, that's reality.
Yes, illegal activity on the part of the “justices” (I just about barf every time I use that word on these clowns). But also unlawful activity on the part of the clerks, or whoever forged the submission stamp, changed it from a motion to a request, didn’t file a bunch of motions, etc.
They’ve done the same kind of crap in cases challenging Obama’s eligibility - to Donofrio and Taitz. At SCOTUS and in places like Georgia.
Typical of the treatment I also have received from government lackeys, and it’s as transparent as Obama CLAIMS he wanted to be.
Was it a clerk who supposedly “mis-filed” the James Rosen stuff, so it was hidden from him that he, his parents, etc were having their communications monitored?
These “mistakes” always go against those fighting for the Constitution. Always. Transparently sickening.
That is not the only reality.
A federal statute says that the judge recuse.
Does it or doesn’t it? The only standard is not the judge but that ‘others’ might question the judge’s impartiality.
A federal statute, 28 U.S.C. sec. 455(a), further mandates that a federal judge ‘disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned,’”
As a violation of a clear law, it is impeachable. So, the judge isn’t the only actor in this issue.
When that many motions have been made where people are questioning the impartiality of a “justice”, only a crook would say that their impartiality cannot “reasonably” be questioned. Ginsburg was trying to say that it wouldn’t be too tough to mandate same-sex marriage because people have come to accept it. Well, if that’s her argument, then she should be saying the states should decide it, so these people can exert the popular will that she claims exists.
And in the same way, the statute that xzins cited REQUIRES a justice to recuse him/herself when impartiality can reasonably be questioned; the “justice” would have a hard time saying that it is “unreasonable” to question their impartiality if a large segment of the population DOES question their impartiality. Maybe some polls would “help” these “justices” with a reality check...
But that’s more than I should have said because I shouldn’t be feeding the trolls. Bye.
If impeachment is the remedy then a motion to the court makes no sense.
Art II:
Section. 4. The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
Article. III.
Section. 1. The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Yes it does. It is protocol.
FTA:
Moore said the Constitution’s option for impeachment appears to apply, since Ginsburg’s actions could be perceived as flouting the concept of a neutral judiciary. He noted that besides the well-known “high crimes and misdemeanors” that would subject a federal official to impeachment, Article 3, Section 1 of the Constitution also provides that judges “shall hold their offices during good behavior.”
Moore told WND that according to an analysis by historian Raoul Berger at Harvard Law School in 1970, the Constitution clearly suggests an end to “good behavior” is accompanied by an end of their “offices.”
“His conclusion is there is an implied power to remove judges whose bad behaviors fall short of high crimes and misdemeanors,” he said. Since there are no “dead words” in the Constitution, “every word has a meaning.
“The remedy rests with Congress,” he told WND, although anyone could raise the question.
Cruz is the SCOTUS wonk and if it turns out 20 motions to recuse were filed and oly one 1 of them acknowledged/recorded on the case’s docket, in a deceptive manner, could he lead a successful impeachment attempt?
Well, it's protocol that's never resulted in the recusal of a Supreme Court justice as far as I know, and certainly not their impeachment.
More to the point, I still haven't heard what Kagan or Ginsberg have done that speaks to bias on the constitutional right issue. Again, the court isn't being asked to rule on the virtue of gay marriage.
Federal judges tend to have an aversion to upholding laws over their own ideology where ever they seem themselves as unaccountable such as the Federal constitution.
That is why there are no laws in this country anymore only edicts of 5 Federal employees in black robes. One day our people will revolt against their tyranny.
The court is being asked to rule on whether states denial of homosexual marriage is a violation of equality.
Obviously, conducting such a service suggests a partial, rather than an impartial, mind on the subject.
And especially in the midst of the very deliberations about which they are to give every appearance of impartiality.
I think it could lead to a successful impeachment attempt ONLY if we retained control of the House AND with a different Speaker of the House. We would have to win the Senate by a huge majority (2/3rds, iirc), and I don’t think that will happen.
However, the conditions would be present to actually file an impeachment for cause.
“There’s no higher Court than SCOTUS”
God Almighty/The Lord Jesus Christ and He has already spoken on it....I am sure you will agree
I think a justice's personal view of gay marriage shouldn't affect their judgment on the legal questions at hand. I know that's a little idealistic but I think we often have a simplistic view of the court and the justices.
You forgot the tissues.
There are a number of remedies for that.
I would think that Chief Justice Roberts determines what cases will be heard and who will hear them. Roberts COULD CARE LESS if Ginsberg and Kagan hear a case with their mind already made up. Ten to one says he will also vote for the destruction of marriage.
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.