National Org. for Marriage calls for Congressional investigation of Justice Ginsburg

GFR7

New member
I thought this was interesting, indeed.

I myself was very surprised at her remarks.

"Justice Ginsburg has brought disrepute on the Supreme Court and eliminated any pretext that she will approach the marriage issue with an open mind when it comes before her. Because of this prejudice, federal law requires her to remove herself from hearing the cases," said Brian Brown, NOM's president. "If she does not step aside, we will ask Congress to investigate the matter and pursue legislative remedies."

Ginsburg gave a media interview this week to Bloomberg where she said "it would not take a large adjustment" for the American people to accept a ruling redefining marriage and that, "In recent years, people have said, 'This is the way I am.' And others looked around, and we discovered it's our next-door neighbor — we're very fond of them. Or it's our child's best friend, or even our child. I think that as more and more people came out and said that 'this is who I am,' the rest of us recognized that they are one of us." Ginsburg previously has presided at same-sex 'marriage' ceremonies.

Federal law (28 US Code Sec. 455) requires federal judges to disqualify themselves "in any proceeding in which [her] impartiality might reasonably be questioned."

"Justice Ginsburg has made it crystal clear that she is going to rule in favor of redefining marriage when these cases come before her," Brown said. "We demand that she comply with federal law and disqualify herself as she is required to do. If she refuses, we will ask Congress to act."

Ginsburg's highly inappropriate media commentary is being used by advocates for same-sex marriage who also see it as a foreshadowing of her ruling. The Human Rights Campaign called her comments "taking a bold stand for progress and equality, stating that the country is ready for marriage equality." They are using her comments to recruit signers to a brief they plan to submit to the Court.

"The impartiality of judges is the very foundation of our legal system" said Brown. "When you have a situation where a judge has already decided how to rule on a pending case before it is even presented or argued, the integrity of the judicial system is called into question. This goes way beyond the issue of same-sex marriage and cuts to the heart of whether our federal judiciary can be trusted to fairly consider and adjudicate important issues. Ginsburg comments suggest they cannot."


- See more at: http://www.nomblog.com/39952/#sthash.Eo6T22rl.dpuf
 

quip

BANNED
Banned
Poppycock.

The right simply wants to nix a judge in their favor.

The impartiality of judges is the very foundation of our legal system" said Brown. "When you have a situation where a judge has already decided how to rule on a pending case before it is even presented or argued, the integrity of the judicial system is called into question.

Would they be singing this song if the situation was reversed?

I don't think so.
 

bybee

New member
Poppycock.

The right simply wants to nix a judge in their favor.

The impartiality of judges is the very foundation of our legal system" said Brown. "When you have a situation where a judge has already decided how to rule on a pending case before it is even presented or argued, the integrity of the judicial system is called into question.

Would they be singing this song if the situation was reversed? lol
 

Morpheus

New member
And when Scalia and Thomas show up at Bilderberg Group meetings, or when Scalia grants interviews and tells his opinion on some upcoming case then that is somehow different? Judges are only expected to recuse themselves if they have some actual conflict of interest. Having a legal opinion is the job of a Supreme Court justice.
 

zoo22

Well-known member
Eh, this is last gasps.

I figure there's going to be a whole lot of flailing like this in the next few months before the supreme court rules in favor of same-sex marriage.
 

GFR7

New member
I would agree: The same scrutiny ought to apply to Scalia or any other Justice.

I suppose this will go nowhere.

As they are using her remarks on briefs, though, it does seem improper.
 

Morpheus

New member
I would agree: The same scrutiny ought to apply to Scalia or any other Justice.

I suppose this will go nowhere.

As they are using her remarks on briefs, though, it does seem improper.

What's to scrutinize. The Supreme Court isn't like some county court hearing a case in it's initial phase. By the time each case reaches them it has already been litigated and gone through a lengthy appeals process. All the justices have read the transcripts prior to agreeing to hear final arguments. Their job is to determine the Constitutionality of some particular question(s) related to the earlier decisions, and they typically don't all agree. Of course they already all have an opinion. The only purpose for the final arguments is so a couple of brilliant legal minds can lay out opposing arguments in hope of possibly expressing a position that the justices hadn't already considered, thereby possibly getting one or two to change their minds.

Them having already developed an opinion is a long way from having a conflict of interest. You read more than one source instead of just accepting one biased viewpoint as gospel, especially when it comes to legalities. Just not liking something doesn't make it illegal or unethical.
 

GFR7

New member
What's to scrutinize. The Supreme Court isn't like some county court hearing a case in it's initial phase. By the time each case reaches them it has already been litigated and gone through a lengthy appeals process. All the justices have read the transcripts prior to agreeing to hear final arguments. Their job is to determine the Constitutionality of some particular question(s) related to the earlier decisions, and they typically don't all agree. Of course they already all have an opinion. The only purpose for the final arguments is so a couple of brilliant legal minds can lay out opposing arguments in hope of possibly expressing a position that the justices hadn't already considered, thereby possibly getting one or two to change their minds.

Them having already developed an opinion is a long way from having a conflict of interest. You read more than one source instead of just accepting one biased viewpoint as gospel, especially when it comes to legalities. Just not liking something doesn't make it illegal or unethical.
I understand all of this, yes.

But there is still something unseemly about her speaking at length about this as though its a done deal. She has even been invited on the Rachel Maddow show. I think silence until the ruling would be more judicial.
 

Morpheus

New member
I understand all of this, yes.

But there is still something unseemly about her speaking at length about this as though its a done deal. She has even been invited on the Rachel Maddow show. I think silence until the ruling would be more judicial.

Yet NOM saying that they're calling for a "congressional investigation" is just bluster aimed at boosting donations.
 
Top