Thursday, September 18, 2014

Staver amusingly claims that Justice Ginsburg must recuse herself from marriage cases

According to Mat Staver at Liberty Counsel (a designated hate group) ina press release issued today, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Violates Judicial Code of Conduct. Justice Ginsburg has done nothing of the sort but that's not the point. The point is the spectacular stupidity of the Christianists who seek to impose their religious beliefs on everyone else.

The piece correctly notes:
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg told an audience at the University of Minnesota Law School that if the Sixth District Court of Appeals rules in favor of same-sex marriage, there will be “no need for us to rush” on a decision on the definition of marriage. If however, the appeals court that covers Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee upholds the centuries-old, natural definition of marriage as one man and one woman, “there will be some urgency.”

Staver is then quoted:
In casting a vote publicly before the case is even heard, Justice Ginsburg has violated the Judicial Code of Conduct. It is now her duty to recuse herself from cases involving same-sex marriage.
Justice Ginsburg will certainly not recuse herself nor should she. For his part, Staver seems incapable of constructing a truthful sentence. Justice Ginsburg has not "cast a vote" on the case. She is simply explaining that the Supreme Court acts more swiftly to hear cases where there is a disparity of opinion among the federal courts of appeal. She said nothing about the merits of the case nor did disclose her sentiments in advance of hearing a case.

Staver continues his gibberish:
Justice Ginsburg’s comments implied that the merits of the state constitutional amendments defining marriage as one man and one woman were such that the Supreme Court would have to overturn them with haste, if upheld by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. This is an inappropriate comment for any judicial employee, much less a Supreme Court Justice!
The Justice said absolutely nothing, directly by implication about the merits of the case. This is simply a lame (and impotent) effort to eliminate someone who is considered a liberal on the court. Not a chance in Hell.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Please be civil and do NOT link to anti-gay sites!

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.