Skip to comments.SUPREME COURT CAUGHT MESSING WITH MARRIAGE CASE?Suspicious events'troubling turn'
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 foundations 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 foundations 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 ...
Arrogance. Liberal arrogance. They just know that they are smarter than everyone else.
This is not the one I originally read, but it is of the same event:
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!).
This is probably the one I saw:
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.
The Supreme Court certainly doesn’t represent me. Everyone of these justices will one day be judged and the stakes will be much higher.
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.
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?
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.
The other justices should have at least forced the two to address the filing against them asking for their recusal.
“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.
The sad thing is that in the mind of Ginsburg, she thinks her stance is “normal” and that makes her unbiased.
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.
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.
Silence from the other justices is the same as consent.
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
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.