Kagan's Hearing: “There Is No Federal Constitutional Right to Same-Sex Marriage”

If they should have recused themselves based on their known support of LGBT rights, why shouldn't Scalia, Thomas ect have done the same? Both well known publicly and privately to oppose LGBT rights for religious reasons.

 

Every justice comes to every issue with preconceived notions and opinions.
You should realize it was Kagan and Ginsburg, however, and not Scalia and Thomas, who actively
and consciously worked to achieve the agenda of gay marriage even though they knew the contentious issue would come before them in court

 

"Agenda"... how gloriously retro!

Anyway, I assume by "consciously working to achieve" you mean performing same-sex marriages where legal?

 

Yes. It's a word. From the English language. It means a course of action undertaken to effect policy.

Yes. That's what I mean. Imagine a case scheduled to come before the court legalizing marijuana in all fifty states where a couple of the justices decide to get into the marijuana business beforehand.

I'm sure you can see the conflict even though you probably won't want to concede. That's okay.

 

I know what you keep claiming, but that has been addressed and refuted.

 

Again, why would she recuse herself? The entire panel would have had to, since they've all likely officiated a wedding of one kind or another. And they made the only ruling the constitution would permit. The 14th amendment is crystal clear.

- - - Updated - - -

Which justices were homosexual and stood to benefit from same sex marriage?

 

No one has refuted my questions, least of all you.

Why would John Cornyn ask Kagan about the existence of a law that had six years to go to even come into existence?

Poster....please! Don't insult yourself.

 

You of course avoided my question, but why would someone have to be gay to want same sex marriages legalized?

Are you claiming all justices in the majority of this decision were all gay? That seems absurdly unlikely.

 

Numerous people have, including me.

You can keep asking the same question over and over as long as you want. Reality will still be here regardless. She didn't lie.

 

What nonsense. It isn't crystal clear that the word "liberty" includes the recognition, tax breaks and governmental entitlements of marriage. And it certainly doesn't make clear that it can be extended to some and denied to others.

 

your question was a non sequitur. And unless they were homosexual and stood to gain by having it legalized, there is no reason for them to recuse themselves.

I have no idea how you can possibly infer this from my post.

 

Well, if she didn't lie, she is admitting that as a supreme court justice she believes she is free to create law that previously didn't exist.

 

Equal protection.

There want any other question before the court except same sex marriage.

 

Well that's what you've claimed but never demonstrated as you show here and below.

Hilarious ducking and dodging.
Why would Cornyn expect Kagan to comment on a law from the future? You could easily answer the question here...or be seen as someone whose pants should be on roaring fire (I mean you AND Kagan, by extension).

 

Uh, no. The issue was never adjudicated by the Supreme Court before. When it was finally examined, the bans were found unconstitutional.

- - - Updated - - -

Lol, of course it's been demonstrated.

Huh? She didn't lie. ,this has been explained to you for pages now.

You can keep asking the same question over and over as long as you want. Reality will still be here regardless. She didn't lie.

 

In what possible way is asking if slave holders would be free from conflicts of interest in votes on slavery a "non sequitur" In the sense you don't want to have to admit and answer?

Yes. I think that's it.

You don't have to have been a negro to have had a very real interest in ending slavery (or prolonging it).
You are spouting nonsense now. Ginsburg and Kagan's actions show a very real stake in seeing a legal rationale for gay marriage.

I guess it was your claim only gays could said to have a conflict of interest in ruling on gay marriage.

 

So cowardly and transparently in over your head. What a joke. You cannot answer and you cannot admit you cannot answer.

 

Because it is in no way analogous to this ruling. Nobody On the court is homosexual and stand to gain from ruling in its favor.

No, it was a non sequitur.

If you want to pretend this is true then you'll need to argue Scalia and Thomas needed to recuse themselves as well.

Yea, that still makes absolutely no sense.

- - - Updated - - -

Lol, I'm not the one who's had his argument demolished on page one and have been arguing in favor of a proven lie ever since.

You've been answered repeatedly.

 

Well you can dishonestly continue to insist only a homosexual could gain from a pro gay marriage ruling but that's clearly bull (*)(*)(*)(*)!
Go look and see what constitutes a conflict of interest...you obviously don't know or can't say.

You already claimed this. You already were smacked down.

I really don't fear gay marriage. It's all their duplicitous
weasel-like backers I can't stand.

I'm not the one arguing in favor of a time warp confirmation hearing.
It's a laugh.

Not once has the basic question been answered.

 

How can Elena Kagan be expected to evaluate a law that will not even be in existence for another six years?
I invite any of you debate masters to answer that question.

 

Actually, all 50 states have laws similar to this.

160.204. PRESUMPTION OF PATERNITY. (a) A man is
presumed to be the father of a child if:
(1) he is married to the mother of the child and the
child is born during the marriage;

or from the supreme court

"We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race."

"It would make little sense to recognize a right of privacy with respect to other matters of family life and not with respect to the decision to enter the relationship that is the foundation of the family in our society... And, if appellee's right to procreate means anything at all, it must imply some right to enter the only relationship in which the State of Wisconsin allows sexual relations legally to take place."

Marriage and procreation WERE inexorably linked. Forcibly cleaved apart by this court decision, purely for the benefit of homosexuals. And necessary to make possible

The separation of sexuality from procreation entails its freedom from heterosexuality and its emergence as an individual attribute, something individuals can develop, enjoy, change or project as part of their changing definition of the self. Sexuality becomes plastic because the self itself has broken the bounds of traditional institutional expectations and it is now free to constitute and reconstitute itself in a series of narratives answering to nothing else but the growing freedom of individuals to develop their potential.
http://www.colorado.edu/Sociology/gimenez/work/GIDDENS.TXT

 

She did lie! Trolls are insisting she didn't lie when asked by John Cornyn if the constitution protected gay marriage. No, she said.

"She was right," they all hypnotically agree. "There wasn't a law then" they bleat and spew...but that assumes Cornyn asked Kagan about a LAW!
And of course he did not and would not and such a law was years away.

Why would anyone ask anyone else about an imaginary bit of legislation not at all inevitable in it's existence?

It's bull (*)(*)(*)(*)! Real, honest to God leftist bull (*)(*)(*)(*)!

 

And it is still not in the Constitution. One of the purest pieces of judicial activism in our day.

[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.” – Alexander Hamilton

 

That's because no kid based agenda is served by EXCLUDING anybody. It is only served by INCLUDING heterosexual couples. Only heterosexual couples PRODUCE children. It is their formation of a heterosexual couple that produces the child. While two people of the same sex forming a couple, rubbing genitals just like a mother and father, has no relation whatsoever to their potential decision to adopt a child.

The kid based agenda of government aid to dependent children isn't served by excluding Bill Gates kids. It is instead only served by including children from impoverished homes.

 

I don't even care if gays marry or not. I'm not going to let, however, a small group of trolls lie in my face and treat me like I'm stupid.
It won't happen. Period!