Posted on 01/24/2015 7:51:13 PM PST by SeekAndFind
The American Family Association has called on U.S. Supreme Court Justices Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Elena Kagan to recuse themselves from the marriage equality cases the court announced last Friday (Jan. 16), that it will be hearing appeals on, likely in April. Ginsberg and Kagan should not participate in the hearing, AFA President Tim Wildmon has declared, because they have both officiated as same-sex weddings, according to reports by the UK LGBT news site Pink News.
SCOTUS announced Friday that the court will accept appeals on four marriage equality cases — from Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee. The four cases are from the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, the only federal appellate circuit court to rule against marriage equality since June 2013, when the Supreme Court struck down that portion of the federal Defense of Marriage Act that banned the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages performed in jurisdictions that honor marriage equality.
Last October, the Supreme Court declined to hear appeals of cases in which other federal appellate courts had ruled in favor of marriage equality. And in December the the Supreme Court declined to extend a stay on a federal trial court ruling in favor of marriage equality in Florida, a decision that allowed legal same-sex marriages to begin there on Jan. 6. (A state judge who had also ruled in favor of equality but had also stayed her ruling lifted that stay on Jan. 5, so the first legal same-sex marriages in Florida were performed that day.)
Pink News notes that Ginsberg “has quietly officiated a number of same-sex weddings,” the first in 2013, while Kagan presided over the wedding ceremony of her former law-clerk and his partner last year. That, to Wildmon, indicates “Both of these justices’ personal and private actions that actively endorse gay marriage clearly indicate how they would vote on same-sex marriage cases before the Supreme Court.”
But the Pink News posts also notes that the other justices’ previous actions could be seen as indicating bias as well: “However, Mr Wildmon’s claims have no discernible legal basis; similarly arbitrary claims could be made that as seven of the nine justices are themselves married to people of the opposite sex, the entire court should be recused.”
So, if true, that should be enough to recuse them. They have no business ruling on an issue they have a personal stake in. That is the point of recusal, even to an idiot like me.
Absolutely.
Underscores the observation that there is nothing “constitutional” about these de facto policy decisions made by the Supreme Court. The Justices are political activists in black robes.
Recuse they must.
But they will make ridiculous analogies to why Scalia did not recuse himself against a case involving Cheney because he went duck hunting with the then VP.
I'll not hold my breath waiting for that to happen.
Me either.
Doubt if Buzzy is a lesbo, or even thought about sex for many decades.
Well, since one of the big talking points of “gay marriage” supporters is that it will have no effect on traditional marriage, then they really don’t have a reason to think normal married people would be biased against it, do they?
Ginsberg has been married for quite a few years. She’s just extremely liberal. Of course, if the argument is that gay marriage would devalue or harm heterosexual marriage, then one could make the case that she should recuse herself because she has a heterosexual marriage...
Has anyone examined the conditions of Utah’s statehood? My recollection is that polygamy was to cease. If so, was it a condition that marriage was between a man and a woman? Curious.
They are Leftists. Ignoring the rules and discarding fairness is what they do. They will not recuse themselves with glee.
This just serves to yet again illustrate the degree of dishonesty and corruption of our apparent supremely lawless dictators in black robes.
In this particular case it appease there isn’t even going to be an attempt at the appearance of impartiality and justice.
This ‘court’ and its totally corrupt membership MUST BE ABOLISHED! Its just powers reinvested in better men accountable to history and power actually interested in having a written constitution of limited Federal Government.
Let’s put it this way — The Court might declare same-sex ‘marriage’ a legal right in the eyes of government, but judges cannot make it morally right in the hearts of the people.
The problem with DECLARING it legal is this -— by doing so, a few mortals on the bench will summarily declare the vast majority of Americans to be bigots and FORCE them to act against their morality.
The court can no more redefine marriage than I could get up tomorrow morning and redefine gravity. Yes, I could declare that when you drop something from now on it will go up instead of down. But that would not change the Creator’s law of gravity. And like gravity, marriage between a man and woman is part of God’s creative plan. No human being or group of human beings can change that.
Ohhh and one thing about the SUPREME court. They’re NOT SUPREME.
Here’s a case that came up about polygamy:
http://www.oyez.org/cases/1851-1900/1878/1878_0
The chances of them recusing themselves is effectively zero, as their presence on the court was meant to further such evils in the first place.
What you say is of course the heart of the matter the Federal employees have now taken it upon themselves to userp.
There is no legal right in the Federal constitution to force any definition of anything upon our states. But of course the Federal employees who style themselves judges while acting merely a dictators of law never written over law written are of course posed to that which is there new supreme dictatorial tradition again in imposing their ideology and the ideology of the expensive lairs that now argue before them ways to create something in law where nothing was ever written or practiced before.
But from a moral point of view as well as that of a naturalist point of view theses people cannot change the laws of nature. Man is still man, and woman is still woman.
A marriage takes a man and a woman to consummate, just as the family requires both parities to create. All they can do is demand that law now share in the lie told by some to debase the nature of the truth lived by others.
“Here’s a case that came up about polygamy:
http://www.oyez.org/cases/1851-1900/1878/1878_0
“
Marriage among the members of this lawless court is most likely already dead. There is little reason to believe that they would not mock its memory further by further lawless demands to expand the lie that claims its name to any and all unions.
I believe if anyone is interested in any of theses injustices wife’s or husbands now might be the time to take advantage of that which they have abandoned in essence in favor of something pointless & transitory in practice. Let them live with the lies they claim to believe, and would force the rest of us to live by.
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.