Posted on 06/22/2015 10:43:04 AM PDT by xzins
Nor does anyone have the right to force an inapplicable persons entry into a third party’s contract.
In most states it is not legal, aside from the court rulings based on Federal rulings.
LOL! The whole thing is hilarious. In a dark way.
Look. These 9 political hacks in black muumuus answer only to themselves. They never face election. In only extreme cases do they face the very remote possibility of impeachment. They’re going to do as they please and laugh at the peasantry while they do it.
Issuing licenses to homosexuals was decided by the politicians and the chamber of crony capitalists awhile ago. The court case is just ceremonial. Yet people are hanging on every hint, every utterance by the hacks.
“...called their actions a violation of the code of ethics for judges.”
Judges have a code of ethics? Who knew?
Obama put them on the Court to "Fundamentally change America", and Kagan, Sotomayor and Ginsberg plan on doing just THAT.
Add two more judges and you got the Trifecta!
Judge Roy Moore has been shouting this from the rooftops and leftist just turn a blind ear. Roy Moore even reclused himself from a ruling because he had written publically about his position on a matter that he felt made him unable to fairly rule. He set presidency on how a SC judge should act.
We know that two women supreme court justices are just classless liberal non-constitution goons. They cheapen the whole system to just whores of progressive left.
Sorry, come again? It isn't legal except for the court rulings that say it is?
Future Supreme courts can reverse whatever decision this one makes.
Executive branches can also ignore the decision just like Washington DC and Chicago did with McDonald v Chicago and DC v Heller.
Even the WND article doesn't accuse anyone of breaking the law. What statutes do you think are being violated here?
There is absolutely no suspense. We all know how Kennedy (and perhaps Roberts) along with the radical left 4 will vote.
It depends on what you think the headlines are gonna be.
SUPREME COURT RULES IN FAVOR OF SAME-SEX; DOZENS OF FILED RECUSAL MOTIONS NOT RECORDED ON DOCKET IN RUN-UP TO DECISION
or
SCOTUS DELIVERS DEFEAT TO SAME-SEX MARRAIGE PLAINTIFF 4-3
AFTER 2 JUSTICES RECUSE FROM CASE AMID PROCEDURAL MISTAKES
“each U.S. Supreme Court Justice has the final word on his own fitness to serve.”
Well that’s the end of that. About the only people honest
enough to actually recuse themselves is Thomas and Scalia.
At the end, everyone would recluse themselves for some reason and then there would be no one to rule on anything.
Do you think it’s lawful for submitted motions to be left unfiled, deleted, and altered?
Why are linking to this Clinton loving scumbag’s site?
RRR. Sorry. Was thinking Newsmax. My bad.
Sorry, but this is silly. Everyone, including the groups filing these motions/requests, admit that it is entirely up to the individual justices to recuse themselves.
Ginsberg and Kagan know full well that some want them to recuse. Whether these motions were filed or not has absolutely no bearing on anything. If they want to recuse themselves, they will, if not they won't and the entire court won't do a thing about it.
Nice try. You made the claim that there was illegal activity. What was it?
That is, there is no affirmative law that says it is. There is only the over-ruling of laws that says it isn’t...except in a few places. I’m hearing the Maryland is one of those places that has affirmatively approved homosexual marriage via their legislature.
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.