National Organization for Marriage Needs To Read The Constitution

"NOM" is coming out saying that Justices Ginsberg and Kagan need to recuse themselves from all cases pertaining to Gay Marriage.
http://www.wnd.com/2015/02/calls-for...case-escalate/

Well, here is a news flash. SCOTUS Judges don't have to do anything. They can rule anyway they wish, and do not have to give any reason for their decisions. They are totally independent of any recourse aside from Impeachment.

"NOM" is simply showing their ignorance of The Constitution and the what it says about SCOTUS?

To sum it up,a Supreme Court Judge can vote on a ruling for any reason they wish. In fact, they don't even have to give a reason, and they answer to no one except The Congress of The United States through the Impeachment Process.

That's the way it works.

Ok...

Yeah, when Clinton was POTUS.

I recall the libs demanding the Clarence Thomas recuse himself because his wife worked for a group opposing Obamacare. Justice Kagan was also involved but the demand was for Thomas only.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/supre...ry?id=12878346

We also have Ginsburg saying that she wants all of the Supremes to be women and she voted on things based on not the law but what she thought should be the law.

I think the NOM folks are onto something. Shouldn't all married justices recuse themselves? All potentially married ones? All homosexual ones? All heterosexual ones?

That should really help things don't you think?

Amazingly stupid these NOM folks.

You are misrepresenting what NOM said.

1. NOM didn't say the justices HAVE TO recuse themselves; they are saying they should. Big difference. Are you saying that NOM doesn't have the right to express themselves? Recusal because a judge has already formed their opinion prior to hearing both sides is solid ground for requesting recusal.

And there are many cases of federal judges recusing themselves. So NOM isn't out of bounds in making that request.

Of course, the SCOTUS judges won't recuse on this issue. But NOM has every right to make the case.

Making a case for judicial recusal isn't ignorance of the law; at least the way you frame the argument in this thread.

"NOM" is coming out saying that Justices Ginsberg and Kagan need to recuse themselves from all cases pertaining to Gay Marriage.
http://www.wnd.com/2015/02/calls-for...case-escalate/

Well, here is a news flash. SCOTUS Judges don't have to do anything. They can rule anyway they wish, and do not have to give any reason for their decisions. They are totally independent of any recourse aside from Impeachment.

"NOM" is simply showing their ignorance of The Constitution and the what it says about SCOTUS?

To sum it up,a Supreme Court Judge can vote on a ruling for any reason they wish. In fact, they don't even have to give a reason, and they answer to no one except The Congress of The United States through the Impeachment Process.

That's the way it works. Originally Posted by Jackie S

I see we're off on another crusade for truth, logic and good sense.

I think all idiod should recuse themselves from tbis one.

You are misrepresenting what NOM said.

1. NOM didn't say the justices HAVE TO recuse themselves; they are saying they should. Big difference. Are you saying that NOM doesn't have the right to express themselves? Recusal because a judge has already formed their opinion prior to hearing both sides is solid ground for requesting recusal.

And there are many cases of federal judges recusing themselves. So NOM isn't out of bounds in making that request.

Of course, the SCOTUS judges won't recuse on this issue. But NOM has every right to make the case.

Making a case for judicial recusal isn't ignorance of the law; at least the way you frame the argument in this thread. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Whirly, I am just saying that it does their cause no good to ask in the first place, and, in my opinion,shows an ignorance of how our Government works. That would be like asking Scalia to recuse himself from a 2d Amendment argument because he owns a shotgun.

It is no different when the ultra liberal left makes the same argument from the other end of the political spectrum.

In the next few months, it will become clear to everybody why taking control of the Senate was so important in the last two years of President Obama's term. Just amagine what type of liberal shithead or Democrat lackey he would send up if a vacancy comes.

Of course, we would be hoping that the Republican Controled Senate will have the guts to say no to The President. The question should be......"how do you know that this nominee is not suitable to sit on SCOTUS? Simple. Obama thinks they are".

Scalia owns a shotgun?

Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

another brilliant post, SLOBBRIN. Relevant to the conversation as always.

another brilliant post, SLOBBRIN. Relevant to the conversation as always. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

He can't help himself. He has not learned what "relevant" means.

Anyone care to tell me what kind of person has walked through life without forming one single opinion of anything? Ummm, besides FuckZup I mean.

Anyone care to tell me what kind of person has walked through life without forming one single opinion of anything? Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Exactly. I suspect most the justices have an opinion on many cases before they come up.

How may justices get confirmed without being grilled on abortion, for example?