Posted on 06/22/2015 10:43:04 AM PDT by xzins
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.