Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

SUPREME COURT CAUGHT MESSING WITH MARRIAGE CASE?Suspicious events'troubling turn'
WND ^ | 21 Jun 15 | BOB UNRUH

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 ...


TOPICS: Front Page News; News/Current Events; US: Alaska
KEYWORDS: alaska; elenakagan; fairbanks; homosexualagenda; joemiller; libertarians; marriage; medicalmarijuana; moralabsolute; romneyagenda; romneydecides; romneymarriage; ruthginsburg; scotus; scotusssm; ssm
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-126 next last
To: xzins

Arrogance. Liberal arrogance. They just know that they are smarter than everyone else.


21 posted on 06/22/2015 10:56:57 AM PDT by blueunicorn6 ("A crack shot and a good dancer")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: djf

This is not the one I originally read, but it is of the same event:

http://socialnewsdaily.com/51708/ruth-bader-ginsberg-invokes-constitution-at-lgbt-wedding/


22 posted on 06/22/2015 11:00:56 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Pray for their victory or quit saying you support our troops)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: xzins; djf
Ruth Bader Ginsburg Officiates Another Same-Sex Wedding, Gives A Special Shout-Out To The U.S. Constitution
23 posted on 06/22/2015 11:01:07 AM PDT by PROCON (CRUZing into 2016 with Ted.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: boycott

The Supreme Court does not represent Americans anymore.

Ever since 2012 or so, they CHANGED THE RULES so that you HAVE TO BE A MEMBER OF THE BAR to submit an Amicus Curae.

So you have LOST your right to petition the government, and are no longer bound by their rulings (which affect corporate “persons” only!).


24 posted on 06/22/2015 11:01:53 AM PDT by djf (OK. Well, now, lemme try to make this clear: If you LIKE your lasagna, you can KEEP your lasagna!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: djf

This is probably the one I saw:

http://christiannews.net/2015/05/20/ruth-bader-ginsberg-officiates-same-sex-wedding-as-supreme-court-deliberates-national-case/


25 posted on 06/22/2015 11:02:20 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Pray for their victory or quit saying you support our troops)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: tanknetter

Being a chief justice means something like this:

I never lie, I always tell the truth. If you don’t believe that, you can just ask me.


26 posted on 06/22/2015 11:03:13 AM PDT by ChildOfThe60s (If you can remember the 60s, you weren't really there....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: djf

The Supreme Court certainly doesn’t represent me. Everyone of these justices will one day be judged and the stakes will be much higher.


27 posted on 06/22/2015 11:05:58 AM PDT by boycott
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: xzins

And it was at that point where the finality of determination was realized. The fix is in. There’s no going back.

We’re doomed as a culture and a nation.


28 posted on 06/22/2015 11:06:41 AM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: PROCON

Why this is not bias toward a pending case is beyond me.

If she had been out selling government raisins, you think they’d have liked her on the government raisin taking case?


29 posted on 06/22/2015 11:08:18 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Pray for their victory or quit saying you support our troops)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: xzins

I remember that too.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ginsburg-to-officiate-same-sex-wedding/2013/08/30/4bc09d86-0ff4-11e3-8cdd-bcdc09410972_story.html


30 posted on 06/22/2015 11:13:26 AM PDT by FrdmLvr ("WE ARE ALL OSAMA, 0BAMA!" al-Qaeda terrorists who breached the American compound in Benghazi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: xzins

We sit with anticipation, hands held out, waiting for 5 reprobates proclaim or withhold their blessing on our expressed will. How many people voted to define marriage? How many people have tried to redefine it? We don’t have to put up with this.


31 posted on 06/22/2015 11:14:26 AM PDT by demshateGod (The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tanknetter; Sir Napsalot
From the article: Since these two justices ignored problems caused by their conduct, the remainder of the court should have stepped in and addressed the issue for them, but the other seven justices have remained silent.”

The other justices should have at least forced the two to address the filing against them asking for their recusal.

32 posted on 06/22/2015 11:15:06 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Pray for their victory or quit saying you support our troops)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: xzins

“Why this is not bias toward a pending case is beyond me.”

Of course it us.

Unfortunately, the only judge of justices is impeachment via the House and Senate.


33 posted on 06/22/2015 11:15:08 AM PDT by Jewbacca (The residents of Iroquois territory may not determine whether Jews may live in Jerusalem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Even if successful, Obama would appoint their replacements.
Then we wait and impeach after Scott Walker takes office.
34 posted on 06/22/2015 11:15:17 AM PDT by oh8eleven (RVN '67-'68)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: xzins

The sad thing is that in the mind of Ginsburg, she thinks her stance is “normal” and that makes her unbiased.


35 posted on 06/22/2015 11:15:43 AM PDT by PROCON (CRUZing into 2016 with Ted.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: xzins

No way would the founding fathers would have ever imagined a corrupt court like we do now. They should recuse themselves due to their actions before the very case which stands before them.


36 posted on 06/22/2015 11:15:44 AM PDT by manc (Marriage =1 man + 1 woman,when they say marriage equality then they should support polygamy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: djf

Perform.


37 posted on 06/22/2015 11:16:24 AM PDT by manc (Marriage =1 man + 1 woman,when they say marriage equality then they should support polygamy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Jewbacca

Impeachment.....(crickets).....

Thanks, Jewbacca. I know your comment wasn’t intended to make me laugh, but it did. I imagined Boehner, a glass of cheap scotch, and a tough decision.


38 posted on 06/22/2015 11:17:15 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Pray for their victory or quit saying you support our troops)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Yes, I read that part.

Silence from the other justices is the same as consent.

39 posted on 06/22/2015 11:22:31 AM PDT by Sir Napsalot (Pravda + Useful Idiots = CCCP; JournOList + Useful Idiots = DopeyChangey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: xzins

relevant repost.....

a compromise would be for the court to rule that marriage is between a man and a woman but that states could allow formal cohabitation contracts among two individuals that put the matter of property ownership, joint taxes, child adoption and a host of other. such an arrangement would be similar to a partnership agreement or LLC corporation


40 posted on 06/22/2015 11:22:38 AM PDT by bert ((K.E.; N.P.; GOPc.;+12, 73, ..... No peace? then no peace!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-126 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson