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 ...
Let’s say that your job as a judge is to be impartial. Should I as a citizen be concerned only with what they say or should I be concerned with what they do?
Sounds like the only way to force recusal is through impeachment. This does feel like a big middle finger to the rule of law, and the big issue America faces is how we get the system to actually work. Congress is supposed to be protecting us from lawless SCOTUS justices, cabinet appointments, etc. If they abdicate that duty, the system is irreparably out of balance/checks. This is not “politics”; this is the rule of law we’re talking about. As long as government officials confuse “politics” with lawfulness, the system is beyond repair. Once they are in a position of authority, they MUST NOT continue to be “politicians”. At that point it is their duty to be BLIND to politics and be ONLY instruments of the Constitution.
Nope. Alaska candidate for Senate
Then why was one filing deleted, two filings not filed, neither of them even listed on the docket until a news article noted the problem, and even now the filing altered so it is a “request” rather than a “motion”?
If this motion has no merit, why is somebody going to a lot of trouble to break the law regarding two motions lawfully filed in this case?
They know the motion has merit, or they wouldn’t have acted in this extra-lawful way. And if they are being deliberately lawless on these motions then why should anybody trust them to be lawful in the actual ruling?
Even those who think the motion has no merit should be screaming bloody murder over the lawless way the case is being handled because it proves the lawlessness of those who are handling the case, and that undermines EVERYTHING that SCOTUS is supposed to be about. It also undermines everything that the whole lawyering profession is supposed to be about and reduces the whole system to a farce.
Rules don’t mean anything anymore.
Suppose for a moment that in their initial vote, homosexual marriage lost 5-4. If these 2 kicked themselves off with planned outrageous behavior that 5 would still stand, and it would be known that the 5-2 was still 5-4.
Would there be an advantage to such behavior?
However, what if the vote were 4-5 and homosexual marriage won. Getting 2 judges kicked off the case would be a 4-3 win for marriage and would generate a firestorm for years.
Let’s say, though, that a judge was torn, and it was a 4.5-4.5 vote based on something technical to him like ripeness or state’s rights.
Would they plan a scheme that would bring the case back to the court within a few years to see if they could more easily ram it through? Are they that Machiavellian?
Or am I a conspiracy theorist? :>)
A number of organizations filed recusal motions, I didn’t post all the ones I found in Search articles. Maybe that’s what the filers have been waiting for: SCOTUS to be proven to
be ignoring the motions up until the last minute.
You are thinking too much. Obama just stacked the court with lesbos because he knew how they would vote.
Go look at all the old articles during the pre-nomination period.
Every person under consideration was a lesbian.
WRIT OF CERTIORARI MOTION FOR RECUSAL OF JUSTICES RUTH BADER GINSBURG AND ELENA KAGAN
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3285919/posts
28 U.S.C. § 455(a) mandates that any justice of the United States “shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” See Pilla v American Bar Ass’n, 542 F.2d 56, 58 (8th Cir. 1976) (explaining that 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) applies to members of the U.S. Supreme Court).
Next time read the article.
17 posted on 5/3/2015, 10:34:25 PM by hinckley buzzard
CAAP Calls on Justices Ginsburg and Kagan to Recuse Themselves from Same-Sex Marriage Decision
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3267751/posts
I’m glad I read the whole article: Joe Miller has an airtight case against Ginsberg and Kagan. Comments are pretty funny, too.
If I’m reading this right, there was only ONE motion written onto the docket (with a forged date stamp), when apparently there have been dozens of motions for recusal filed. That’s gonna be a problem. Gonna blame it on some bonehead Cincinnati clerks?
Government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed. I worry about how quickly and how thoroughly FedGov could lose that consent, but I also worry how far they will go if there is no overt response to notify those who see themselves as our ruling class that they have lost that consent.
Make sure and use small words, but the impact will be the same. You will get the middle finger.
Everyone with a brain thought the same thing as you.
unless they are going to be unanimouse because of the myth of born to behave.
Be sure to write on soft paper so he does not scratch his hemorrhoids 'cause you know that is what he will use it for.
“It is also an very open secret that Sotomayer and Kagen are both lesbians. (My niece was a Supreme Court Clerk.)”
SHOCKED! I am absolutely shocked by this revelation! ;)
Sorry there is no "IF"s about it. Check this out from sevenwheel.
Let us all know how that works out for ya.
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.