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 think there should be zero communication at all on the subject. The only way someone would know Thomas had “declined” would be if he said so. Otherwise, it would be a ‘no comment’
We trust (in theory)that they can set those opinions aside when they rule, but in reality it isn't that simple. It tends to make us uncomfortable when they're vocal but I don't think it changes anything.
Context, man. Context.
The point of contention is whether the laws were appropriately overturned. The Justices in question participated in activities which contradict those laws prior to hearing the appeal on those laws.
That’s pure grounds for recusal.
Well, you might have a point if they had performed the weddings in states where bans had been overturned by the federal courts. In this case, however, the marriages took place in MD and DC, both of which have chosen to allow gay marriage.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that the federal courts would ban gay marriages in the states that want to allow them, so I don't see the controversy in presiding over a wedding in one of those states.
Well, given the statement you were responding to, and what you were dissenting with, what would it seem I was referring to?
“In most states it is not legal, aside from the court rulings based on Federal rulings.”
I’d say that is referring to states which did not pass laws enacting recognition of, or conduct of, homosexual marriage.
Sorry, I was referring to the topic of the thread which is recusal of justices for performing marriages in states (and a district) where it is legal due to the choice of the citizens.
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.