Gay Marriage - Should Justice Ginsburg Recuse Herself?

[Brooks]

This is a picture of what Ruth Bader Ginsburg did over the weekend, she is a personal friend of one of the gentlemen.
If Justice Scalia spent his weekend peacefully carrying a sign at a pro-life rally would we be comfortable with his involvement in any future abortion rights cases?

I've seen in the past, during SC confirmation hearings, that nominees won't say how they feel about an issue that may come before them in the court, which is why they are the least accessible branch of government.

Does Justice Ginsburg tipping her hand like this demonstrate that she won't be an objective jurist if such a case came before her?

 

[clownboy]

Yes, according to the law she should, but will she, likely not.

28 U.S.C. sec. 144, captioned "Bias or prejudice of judge," provides that under circumstances, when a party to a case in a United States District Court files a "timely and sufficient Motion that the judge before whom the matter is pending has a personal bias or prejudice either against him or in favor of an adverse party," the case shall be transferred to another judge.

Source

 

[Paschendale]

Recuse herself from what? There's no case going on about SSM in front of the supreme court right now.

 

[ttwtt78640]

No. All justices likely vote, pay taxes or do (or have done) any number of things that are "related to" some issue brought before the court. Would you assert that any justice that had officiated (or is personnally invovled in) a non-SSM marriage is also "baised" and thus should recuse themselves?

 

[Aunt Spiker]

This is a picture of what Ruth Bader Ginsburg did over the weekend, she is a personal friend of one of the gentlemen.
If Justice Scalia spent his weekend peacefully carrying a sign at a pro-life rally would we be comfortable with his involvement in any future abortion rights cases?

I've seen in the past, during SC confirmation hearings, that nominees won't say how they feel about an issue that may come before them in the court, which is why they are the least accessible branch of government.

Does Justice Ginsburg tipping her hand like this demonstrate that she won't be an objective jurist if such a case came before her?

Maybe it's being sick for days that has dragged me down - but i have no clue what she's supposedly doing.

I'm an idiot - spell it out for me.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Recuse herself from what? There's no case going on about SSM in front of the supreme court right now.

Even if there such a case pending this would be no grounds for recusal. Should all justices that ever "particpated in" a non-SSM marriage also be recused from ruling on a case about marriage law?

 

[Redress]

Yes, according to the law she should, but will she, likely not.

Do you realize based on that, since most Supreme Court justices have performed wedding ceremonies(Thomas for example married Rush Limbaugh), by your interpretation, no one will be left to actually rule on any cases regarding marriage?

 

[clownboy]

Do you realize based on that, since most Supreme Court justices have performed wedding ceremonies(Thomas for example married Rush Limbaugh), by your interpretation, no one will be left to actually rule on any cases regarding marriage?

Actually, no. Marriage is settled law and no bias confers. Gay marriage however, there are cases still in the works and the law is far from settled.

 

[Helix]

This is a picture of what Ruth Bader Ginsburg did over the weekend, she is a personal friend of one of the gentlemen.
If Justice Scalia spent his weekend peacefully carrying a sign at a pro-life rally would we be comfortable with his involvement in any future abortion rights cases?

I've seen in the past, during SC confirmation hearings, that nominees won't say how they feel about an issue that may come before them in the court, which is why they are the least accessible branch of government.

Does Justice Ginsburg tipping her hand like this demonstrate that she won't be an objective jurist if such a case came before her?

should Thomas?

 

[ttwtt78640]

Actually, no. Marriage is settled law and no bias confers. Gay marriage however, there are cases still in the works and the law is far from settled.

Not true. What the cases assert is that current marriage law violates the constitution for those not allowed to marry under it. No case asserts that current state marraige laws violate the rights of those that have chosen to be married under them.

 

[clownboy]

should Thomas?

Again, no, not for this issue at least. Marriage does not translate out to gay marriage.

 

[clownboy]

Not true. What the cases assert is that current marriage law violates the constitution for those not allowed to marry under it. No case asserts that current state marraige laws violate the rights of those that have chosen to be married under them.

ONLY in it's prohibition of gay marriage. Outside that marriage law itself will remain unchanged.

 

[Dezaad]

This is a picture of what Ruth Bader Ginsburg did over the weekend, she is a personal friend of one of the gentlemen.
If Justice Scalia spent his weekend peacefully carrying a sign at a pro-life rally would we be comfortable with his involvement in any future abortion rights cases?

I've seen in the past, during SC confirmation hearings, that nominees won't say how they feel about an issue that may come before them in the court, which is why they are the least accessible branch of government.

Does Justice Ginsburg tipping her hand like this demonstrate that she won't be an objective jurist if such a case came before her?

Actually, no. All she has shown here is that she supports it in cases where it is already legal. She indicates nothing here about what she believes the Constitution says about SSM.

 

[TheNextEra]

No, she shouldn't have to recuse herself. She performed a LEGAL ceremony in a place that allows SSM. Now, if she were putting out her views vocally about how SSM should be legal everywhere, then she would have to recuse herself from such a decision. To my knowledge she has done no such thing.

 

[ttwtt78640]

ONLY in it's prohibition of gay marriage. Outside that marriage law itself will remain unchanged.

Not necessarily true. Once you open the door for those simply having a "strong personal desire" to be deserving of special (constitutional?) protection (inclusion) what is to stop polygamists or polyandrists from seeking the same level of inclusion in state marriage laws?

 

[Dezaad]

Not necessarily true. Once you open the door for those simply having a "strong personal desire" to be deserving of special (constitutional?) protection (inclusion) what is to stop polygamists or polyandrists from seeking the same level of inclusion in state marriage laws?

In the absence of a good non-religious argument against it, perhaps those should be allowed as well. But they should be considered separately, and in the context of their own unique circumstances.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

This is a picture of what Ruth Bader Ginsburg did over the weekend, she is a personal friend of one of the gentlemen.
If Justice Scalia spent his weekend peacefully carrying a sign at a pro-life rally would we be comfortable with his involvement in any future abortion rights cases?

I've seen in the past, during SC confirmation hearings, that nominees won't say how they feel about an issue that may come before them in the court, which is why they are the least accessible branch of government.

Does Justice Ginsburg tipping her hand like this demonstrate that she won't be an objective jurist if such a case came before her?

Presiding over the marriage of two men doesn't indicate a judicial bias one way or the other on the subject of gay marriage. If it's legal and she's a judge, she's simply presiding over a marriage ceremony the same as any other judge presiding over any other marriage ceremony.

 

[Helix]

Again, no, not for this issue at least. Marriage does not translate out to gay marriage.

it doesn't? he performed a straight marriage and is against gay marriage. she performed a gay marriage and is for gay marriage.

 

[clownboy]

No, she shouldn't have to recuse herself. She performed a LEGAL ceremony in a place that allows SSM. Now, if she were putting out her views vocally about how SSM should be legal everywhere, then she would have to recuse herself from such a decision. To my knowledge she has done no such thing.

During a recent interview, Ginsburg seemed excited about being the first member of the court to conduct such a ceremony and said it was only a logical next step.

“I think it will be one more statement that people who love each other and want to live together should be able to enjoy the blessings and the strife in the marriage relationship,” Ginsburg said.

Source

To be fair, it also states in the same article that she waited until after the current case before she considered doing a gay wedding.

 

[rocket88]

This is a picture of what Ruth Bader Ginsburg did over the weekend, she is a personal friend of one of the gentlemen.
If Justice Scalia spent his weekend peacefully carrying a sign at a pro-life rally would we be comfortable with his involvement in any future abortion rights cases?

I've seen in the past, during SC confirmation hearings, that nominees won't say how they feel about an issue that may come before them in the court, which is why they are the least accessible branch of government.

Does Justice Ginsburg tipping her hand like this demonstrate that she won't be an objective jurist if such a case came before her?

Unless her personal friend is a party to the case no. Justices have personal friends.

Judges perform legal wedding ceremonies. She shouldn't recuse herself for acting as a judge.

 

[TheNextEra]

To be fair, it also states in the same article that she waited until after the current case before she considered doing a gay wedding.

And that was smart of her. By doing so, she has shown no bias. She is performing a LEGAL action in a place that allows it. Again, if she were to announce she wanted ALL states to allow gay marriage that would show bias.

 

[clownboy]

it doesn't? he performed a straight marriage and is against gay marriage. she performed a gay marriage and is for gay marriage.

Okay, fine, then all justices who have officiated marriages should recuse themselves. By my count, that's currently Thomas, Breyer and Ginzberg. Not looking to good for the pro-gay marriage folks with that.

 

[Helix]

Okay, fine, then all justices who have officiated marriages should recuse themselves. By my count, that's currently Thomas, Breyer and Ginzberg. Not looking to good for the pro-gay marriage folks with that.

that's ok. The pro gay marriage side has the equal protection clause on its side. That should fill the gap.

btw, I don't think Thomas should recuse himself.

 

[disneydude]

LOL....a Judge performs a legal marriage ceremony and the right-wing nutjobs are calling for recusal? That is too funny.

 

[Redress]

Actually, no. Marriage is settled law and no bias confers. Gay marriage however, there are cases still in the works and the law is far from settled.

Where it is legal it is settled law. Going to have to come up with a better excuse.