SCOTUS has handed down decisions on DOMA and Prop 8

[Wendigo]

I have no personal interest in abusing people just because it's possible. Me, I give people as much as they give me and everybody else. They behave, I behave.

[GunsmithKitten]

Wendigo

GunsmithKitten

Being a closet case like he is really does ******** with his head.

But no, I can assure you from personal conversations with him that he's not playing.

What if he's a really committed character actor?

He isn't. This POS came crying to me in PM about his supposed conflict about his own homosexuality, some crocodile tears "admiring" me and my unrepentant defense of what's part of my basic personality is, and like a ******** idiot, I felt sorry for him. I thought "man, he's conflicted here, and it's finally getting to him. Maybe he's coming to some kind of clarity about it and acceptance given that he's got to live with the very aspects he himself decries." I thought, hell, maybe if he knows someone else who's gay shows him some understanding in spite of what he said, that he'll give his stance some thought and come to a more sober conclusion about homosexuality. But what does he keep on doing instead? He keeps coming here with the same song and dance, the same hatred for gays, the same "Oh woe is us poor Christians, we can't treat gays like garbage anymore without reprecussions." ******** him!

[Ban]

Kaworu 17

"If those classes are based on immutable characteristics, have been historically discriminated against solely based on hatred..." That sounds like the influence of collective guilt to me.

There's nothing in the general defining characteristics of protected classes that requires a sense of guilt, just an objective assessment of the history of these classifications, relative political power, and so forth. It's not like we're talking about restitution or anything, just preventing unequal treatment by government action.

Kaworu 17

Oh we're so sorry for those horrible things that happened long ago that weren't our fault.

Again, the constitution prevents against present unequal treatment. Try not to repeat the past, and so forth. The Fourteenth Amendment was originally passed to try and deal with stuff like Jim Crow laws, which were at the time a present ill, not "horrible things that happened long ago."

Kaworu 17

You see, my dream was to become a porn star but that was never gonna happen thanks to "lil' Kaworu" sad

Well, there's a lot of porn out there and sometimes the dude has a tiny d**k, so I'm sure your disgusting genitals are not the only reason having sex on camera is completely infeasible for you.

[GunsmithKitten]

Ban

Kaworu 17

"If those classes are based on immutable characteristics, have been historically discriminated against solely based on hatred..." That sounds like the influence of collective guilt to me.

There's nothing in the general defining characteristics of protected classes that requires a sense of guilt, just an objective assessment of the history of these classifications, relative political power, and so forth. It's not like we're talking about restitution or anything, just preventing unequal treatment by government action.

Kaworu 17

Oh we're so sorry for those horrible things that happened long ago that weren't our fault.

Again, the constitution prevents against present unequal treatment. Try not to repeat the past, and so forth. The Fourteenth Amendment was originally passed to try and deal with stuff like Jim Crow laws, which were at the time a present ill, not "horrible things that happened long ago."

Kaworu 17

You see, my dream was to become a porn star but that was never gonna happen thanks to "lil' Kaworu" sad

Well, there's a lot of porn out there and sometimes the dude has a tiny d**k, so I'm sure your disgusting genitals are not the only reason having sex on camera is completely infeasible for you.

Wait wait, he wants to be a PORN STAR yet he bangs his Bible at people?! WOW, that's just classic, man.

[Erasmas VII]

Ban

Erasmas VII

Except that it did create new precedence.

Precedent. If two people have liens on the same piece of land, one might have precedence over the other. A precedent, however, is created by a decision made in a court to which other courts must give deference.

Whatever. You know what I mean (though I'm not sure you're right...I don't feel like getting into a spelling argument).

Quote:

Erasmas VII

Your example has little to do with what happened either in the federal government or at the state level with these two cases. Your example was a dispute over Presidential authority, not an executive body flatly refusing to defend a constitutional amendment because they think it's unconstitutional, or more specifically, because their constituents disagree with its passage.

My example demonstrates the basic fact that executive authorities have the privilege of deciding not to enforce an unconstitutional law. This is true of all executive authorities, including governors and sheriffs and mayors and county executives. Whether it's a state constitutional amendment is irrelevant, because federal statutes and the federal constitution trump state laws, whether in a state constitution or in a state statute. That's what the Supremacy Clause means.

I wasn't disputing whether an executive could refuse to defend a law; I'm saying it's fairly unheard of for an executive to refuse to defend a constitutional amendment (sort of not the same thing) out of political gain. Matters of executive power can be in dispute if done in good faith, but throwing a law under the bus because your constituents don't support it, or because the political establishment you're apart of doesn't support it, isn't something there a ton of examples of. You're going off on tangents to excuse them of doing this because you're agree with the bottom line, not because you're dumbfounded by the idea that it's unprecedented (did I use it right that time?? rolleyes )

Quote:

Erasmas VII

It also doesn't include the DOJ erroneously appealing a decision all the way to the Supreme Court when they made clear concessions to the plaintiffs at the district court level. Like I said, apples and oranges.

The DOJ had standing to appeal, despite agreeing with the outcome, per INS v. Chandha. They largely did it to continue to oppose BLAG, mind you, who also appealed the case.

Sooo...what's your point? The DOJ has standing to appeal. No s**t. Why concede the case to the plaintiffs and then turn around and appeal the ruling unless you're trying to get a higher court to say the same thing? It was just bullshit gaming of the system.

Quote:

Erasmas VII

Even if you don't think it's all that new, I'm wondering why you feel the need to argue the fact that it's sorta kinda happened before. Big whoop! Most modern politicians couldn't tell you about the case involving President Wilson removing a postmaster from office, and you probably just got it from some lawyer or historian and figured it was a good rebuttal to someone pointing out the unprecedented nature of these cases.

Because you're making an incorrect argument about something I'm interested in, and possibly in a disingenuous manner. I generally dislike that sort of behvior.

Oh please. Nothing is "incorrect" about what I said. Having some tangential analogy that only generally pertains isn't refuting what I said. The point that in both cases the executive threw the law under the bus to look better for their constituents is something that's plainly obvious to anyone looking at this from an objective viewpoint. You might agree with the bottom line, but it's clear this isn't some dime-a-dozen case that I'm pretending to be shocked by.

Quote:

Erasmas VII

"The "appearance of impropriety" standard is still one of bias, but not necessarily actual bias". rolleyes Yeah okay, but it is still a basis on which a judge should recuse himself. Of course having some invested interest, personal or financial, in the outcome of a case is grounds for recusal. Having a manifest interest in the outcome of your own ruling counts of bias, but of course no one wants to be responsible for telling a gay judge that his being gay probably means he's not going to weigh both arguments equally, even though it did. He was overturned three separate times on procedural grounds during the trial. Judge Walker was even caught helping the plaintiffs in the Perry case after he'd stepped down.

Again, you're not describing the recusal standard. It's not the rule of law the case might create, but the parties themselves, that determines bias or the appearance thereof.

No, the law itself also determines bias or the appearance thereof. If a Black judge was sitting in judgment of an affirmative action law his child would directly benefit from, that would be grounds for recusal given the law itself, not necessarily the parties litigating the case.

Quote:

Erasmas VII

I'm saying if the judge or someone near to them stands to directly benefit from their ruling, that would be grounds for dismissal.

Only immediate family really, and again, it would have to be a benefit coming directly from the parties in the case, not just the rule of law.

No, it wouldn't. Having some invested interest in your own ruling, not being an impartial party, is grounds for recusal. This would be like a Mormon judge ruling that Prop 8 is unconstitutional because people should be allowed to have more than one spouse, and oh by the way, he has two wives he would like to have a legal marriage with. You can't sit in judgment of a law you have a manifest interest in. Like I said, it even gives the appearance of impropriety, which is grounds for recusal.

Quote:

Erasmas VII

So that same black judge that can sit in judgment of an affirmative action case would be compelled to recuse himself if it was involving a plan that his child would benefit from.

Not unless it was his child suing.

Wrong. If your standard was it, no judge would ever have to recuse himself. Or it would be exceedingly rare and you'll have judges like Walker who not only act in collusion with the plaintiffs, but clearly have taken a side, striking down constitutional amendments.

Quote:

Erasmas VII

Or if the NRA went to court and the judge was a card-carrying member.

Yeah, possibly, because voluntary membership in an organization might demonstrate a personal bias in favor of one of the parties, under 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(1). However, having a particular sexuality is not sufficient to meet that standard, nor is being a member of a particular ethnicity, or gender.

LOL, it's funny you decide to let a little air into the machine when I mention some right-wing outfit possibly being biased. A gay judge, a black judge...there are strict standards before one recuses himself. NRA member? Sure.

"Having a particular sexuality" isn't what I'm talking about, and I think you know that. If the judge and plaintiffs are gay, but the case has nothing to do with sexual orientation, of course that isn't grounds for recusal. But when the entire point of the case implicates their sexuality, and the supposed rights their being denied on that basis, and the judge is identically situated to the plaintiffs in the case, he should recuse himself, because he has a manifest interest in the outcome of his own ruling. He might want to marry a man one day, which is fine in and of itself, but if we're debating a constitutional amendment, we don't need someone who has zero reason to uphold it presiding over the case.

Quote:

Erasmas VII

Bullshit. If you were a lawyer, your answers to me wouldn't be this amateurish and under-thought.

I didn't say I was a lawyer. Not yet, anyway. Still have to take the bar in two weeks. But, yeah, I graduated from Georgetown Law a couple months ago and have worked as a researcher, legal assistant, and public interest advocate.

But, that's not here nor there. If you dislike the fact that I'm not really putting a lot of effort into countering such fantastic and cogent arguments as "APPLES AND ORANGES" and "HE'S GAY HE SHOULD RECUSE HIMSELF," it's honestly because I don't have a lot of respect for whiny little pricks with a mistaken sense of their own worth.

Yeah, ya got me. That's all I'm saying. rolleyes

You're not putting forth any effort because you know you're outmatched. It's easy to keep reheating the same points without giving in a little, because then you don't have to worry about being proven wrong. You are making apples to oranges comparisons, and he should have recused himself. Not just because he's gay, but I get that's the easiest explanation.

[Ban]

Erasmas VII

Whatever. You know what I mean (though I'm not sure you're right...I don't feel like getting into a spelling argument).

Well, I'm making fun of you, because you claim to read law dictionaries "for fun," yet could not spell a simple legal term.

Erasmas VII

You're going off on tangents to excuse them of doing this because you're agree with the bottom line, not because you're dumbfounded by the idea that it's unprecedented (did I use it right that time?? rolleyes )

I'm discussing precedent, not tangents. You understand what it means for something to lack precedent, right?

Also, again, your claim that a state constitutional amendment is somehow special when the it comes to the federal constitution is just incorrect. The Romer v. Evans case, for example, struck down a state constitutional amendment as violating equal protection. The Supremacy Clause means that the federal constitution trumps any state law or state constitutional amendment, and state executive authorities can refuse to enforce on the basis that a law violates the federal constitution. That's happened tons of times. Famous example I can think is Printz v. U.S.

Erasmas VII

Sooo...what's your point? The DOJ has standing to appeal. No s**t. Why concede the case to the plaintiffs and then turn around and appeal the ruling unless you're trying to get a higher court to say the same thing? It was just bullshit gaming of the system.

Are you now conceding that this isn't any new legal ground? Because your original point seemed to be this was new legal precedent. If you're no longer of that position, then what's your argument?

My point is that the DOJ has both attacked the constitutionality of a law while continuing to enforce. Happened in U.S. v. Lovett.

Erasmas VII

Oh please. Nothing is "incorrect" about what I said.

You've argued that these cases created some sort of legal precedent because of the irregular procedure. I've given examples where frankly this exact procedure or something similar has happened before. You seem to have conceded that point.

Are you confused on what it means to be incorrect?

Erasmas VII

No, the law itself also determines bias or the appearance thereof. If a Black judge was sitting in judgment of an affirmative action law his child would directly benefit from, that would be grounds for recusal given the law itself, not necessarily the parties litigating the case.

As I've already stated, this is incorrect. You might have an argument if one of the parties was a university to which the judge's son had applied and would be accepted to under an AA policy, because there is an appearance of bias stemming from a personal association and interest in the parties. But, this is otherwise an incorrect statement. You can't disqualify someone simply because they "benefit" from a law being challenged, and frankly I don't think you have any case law demonstrating otherwise.

Erasmas VII

No, it wouldn't. Having some invested interest in your own ruling, not being an impartial party, is grounds for recusal. This would be like a Mormon judge ruling that Prop 8 is unconstitutional because people should be allowed to have more than one spouse, and oh by the way, he has two wives he would like to have a legal marriage with. You can't sit in judgment of a law you have a manifest interest in. Like I said, it even gives the appearance of impropriety, which is grounds for recusal.

Your criticism is making less and less sense. Prop 8 had nothing to do with polygamy and was heavily supported by the Mormon Church.

Erasmas VII

Wrong. If your standard was it, no judge would ever have to recuse himself. Or it would be exceedingly rare and you'll have judges like Walker who not only act in collusion with the plaintiffs, but clearly have taken a side, striking down constitutional amendments.

Of course, they would. They would recuse themselves when there is a direct financial stake or personal bias towards the parties, or the appearance thereof. An example would Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal, a pretty recent case, where a judge was required to recuse because one of the parties, A.T. Massey Coal Company, had spent $3 million in campaign ads for that judge. That is indicative of a personal bias towards one of the parties and required recusal.

Erasmas VII

LOL, it's funny you decide to let a little air into the machine when I mention some right-wing outfit possibly being biased. A gay judge, a black judge...there are strict standards before one recuses himself. NRA member? Sure.

It's the same principal as to why a judge might recuse themselves if they own stock in a corporation at trial. Membership in a group indicates bias towards that group's political goals and the like. It doesn't matter whether it's the NRA or the local rotary club.

Erasmas VII

But when the entire point of the case implicates their sexuality, and the supposed rights their being denied on that basis, and the judge is identically situated to the plaintiffs in the case, he should recuse himself, because he has a manifest interest in the outcome of his own ruling. He might want to marry a man one day, which is fine in and of itself, but if we're debating a constitutional amendment, we don't need someone who has zero reason to uphold it presiding over the case.

Again, this might be what you want the law to be, but it isn't the law. You can search all those legal dictionaries and court opinions you read "for fun," but you will not find anything supporting your opinion. That's why when this very point was litigated, this very argument lost.

Erasmas VII

You're not putting forth any effort because you know you're outmatched.

You must live in a very rosy world, where you're a legal expert and can clearly state the law despite having no case law in your favor.

[Erasmas VII]

Ban

Erasmas VII

Whatever. You know what I mean (though I'm not sure you're right...I don't feel like getting into a spelling argument).

Well, I'm making fun of you, because you claim to read law dictionaries "for fun," yet could not spell a simple legal term.

Like I said, I doubt I misused the term. I didn't "misspell" anything. And you're not making fun of me for that, you're nitpicking because you don't really have a point...well, one that you can argue anyway.

Quote:

Erasmas VII

You're going off on tangents to excuse them of doing this because you're agree with the bottom line, not because you're dumbfounded by the idea that it's unprecedented (did I use it right that time?? rolleyes )

I'm discussing precedent, not tangents. You understand what it means for something to lack precedent, right?

Also, again, your claim that a state constitutional amendment is somehow special when the it comes to the federal constitution is just incorrect. The Romer v. Evans case, for example, struck down a state constitutional amendment as violating equal protection. The Supremacy Clause means that the federal constitution trumps any state law or state constitutional amendment, and state executive authorities can refuse to enforce on the basis that a law violates the federal constitution. That's happened tons of times. Famous example I can think is Printz v. U.S.

You're still lecturing me on s**t I both know and am not talking about. I didn't say a state constitutional amendment is special in and of itself. I'm saying the unique circumstances of these cases over a controversial issue like gay marriage is fairly unheard of. The state not defending a constitutional amendment just because it's more popular not to isn't something that often, and it is precedential given that they got away with it. Again: not sure why you're interested in arguing whether this is a big deal or not, but alas, here we are.

Quote:

Erasmas VII

Sooo...what's your point? The DOJ has standing to appeal. No s**t. Why concede the case to the plaintiffs and then turn around and appeal the ruling unless you're trying to get a higher court to say the same thing? It was just bullshit gaming of the system.

Are you now conceding that this isn't any new legal ground? Because your original point seemed to be this was new legal precedent. If you're no longer of that position, then what's your argument?

My point is that the DOJ has both attacked the constitutionality of a law while continuing to enforce. Happened in U.S. v. Lovett.

Cite one case in which the DOJ behaved in the same way they did in the Windsor, in which, they went to district court, conceded the case to the plaintiff, then appealed and appealed up to the SCOTUS once the district court ruled in favor of the plaintiff. Don't worry I'll wait.

Quote:

Erasmas VII

Oh please. Nothing is "incorrect" about what I said.

You've argued that these cases created some sort of legal precedent because of the irregular procedure. I've given examples where frankly this exact procedure or something similar has happened before. You seem to have conceded that point.

Are you confused on what it means to be incorrect?

And again I'll note the frivolousness of your counter-argument that this type of thing allegedly happens all the time (it doesn't) and I'll again reiterate that it is fairly unprecedented to for both a state and the federal government to conspire to undermine and overturn duly passed laws and constitutional amendments over something as controversial as gay marriage.

I mean, if you read Scalia's dissent in Windsor, it made pretty much the same case I did. That the case should have never been before the court if the government agreed with Windsor that she should not have had to pay that large estate tax. There was nothing to appeal and it was just to overturn law the President doesn't agree with.

Quote:

Erasmas VII

No, the law itself also determines bias or the appearance thereof. If a Black judge was sitting in judgment of an affirmative action law his child would directly benefit from, that would be grounds for recusal given the law itself, not necessarily the parties litigating the case.

As I've already stated, this is incorrect. You might have an argument if one of the parties was a university to which the judge's son had applied and would be accepted to under an AA policy, because there is an appearance of bias stemming from a personal association and interest in the parties. But, this is otherwise an incorrect statement. You can't disqualify someone simply because they "benefit" from a law being challenged, and frankly I don't think you have any case law demonstrating otherwise.

It's funny how you say I'm wrong and then go on to summarize my argument incorrectly. It is grounds for recusal if a judge stands to gain something as a result of his own ruling, or if he has a manifest interest in ruling one way or another.

Quote:

Erasmas VII

No, it wouldn't. Having some invested interest in your own ruling, not being an impartial party, is grounds for recusal. This would be like a Mormon judge ruling that Prop 8 is unconstitutional because people should be allowed to have more than one spouse, and oh by the way, he has two wives he would like to have a legal marriage with. You can't sit in judgment of a law you have a manifest interest in. Like I said, it even gives the appearance of impropriety, which is grounds for recusal.

Your criticism is making less and less sense. Prop 8 had nothing to do with polygamy and was heavily supported by the Mormon Church.

Oh my God, it was ******** analogy. Do try and keep up.

Quote:

Erasmas VII

Wrong. If your standard was it, no judge would ever have to recuse himself. Or it would be exceedingly rare and you'll have judges like Walker who not only act in collusion with the plaintiffs, but clearly have taken a side, striking down constitutional amendments.

Of course, they would. They would recuse themselves when there is a direct financial stake or personal bias towards the parties, or the appearance thereof. An example would Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal, a pretty recent case, where a judge was required to recuse because one of the parties, A.T. Massey Coal Company, had spent $3 million in campaign ads for that judge. That is indicative of a personal bias towards one of the parties and required recusal.

Uh huh. And so is the Perry case an example of a judge who should've recused himself. Judge Walker being gay in and of itself isn't grounds for recusal (though I think anybody who thinks a gay judge sitting in judge of a marriage amendment can be impartial is telling one big smiling lie to both you and themselves), it's that he's in a relationship identically situated to that of the plaintiffs and one that would be affected by his ruling.

Quote:

Erasmas VII

LOL, it's funny you decide to let a little air into the machine when I mention some right-wing outfit possibly being biased. A gay judge, a black judge...there are strict standards before one recuses himself. NRA member? Sure.

It's the same principal as to why a judge might recuse themselves if they own stock in a corporation at trial. Membership in a group indicates bias towards that group's political goals and the like. It doesn't matter whether it's the NRA or the local rotary club.

No, this is about being scared to suggest a gay judge is too biased to determine a law fairly.

Quote:

Erasmas VII

But when the entire point of the case implicates their sexuality, and the supposed rights their being denied on that basis, and the judge is identically situated to the plaintiffs in the case, he should recuse himself, because he has a manifest interest in the outcome of his own ruling. He might want to marry a man one day, which is fine in and of itself, but if we're debating a constitutional amendment, we don't need someone who has zero reason to uphold it presiding over the case.

Again, this might be what you want the law to be, but it isn't the law. You can search all those legal dictionaries and court opinions you read "for fun," but you will not find anything supporting your opinion. That's why when this very point was litigated, this very argument lost.

Well, no, it lost because the Judge presiding over the recusal motion didn't want to tell an older gay man and likely a colleague that his being gay is a hindrance to the rule of law and the judicial process. Also, I mean, it's obvious you're afraid to go research reasons for recusal yourself, because the plainest definition is simply a case in which there's a conflict of interest among the judge. It's not overly specific because there are instances (like this one) where it's clear to anyone looking in that there is a conflict of interest that may not be monetary in origin.

Quote:

Erasmas VII

You're not putting forth any effort because you know you're outmatched.

You must live in a very rosy world, where you're a legal expert and can clearly state the law despite having no case law in your favor.

No, I just know BS artists when I see them. Misrepresent what I clearly state, accidentally on purpose take stuff I've said out of context, swear I'm wrong when a simple Google/Wikipedia search would verify I'm correct...seen it a million times.

[Ban]

Erasmas VII

Like I said, I doubt I misused the term.

And you're wrong. Is this hard for you?

Erasmas VII

You're still lecturing me on s**t I both know and am not talking about. I didn't say a state constitutional amendment is special in and of itself. I'm saying the unique circumstances of these cases over a controversial issue like gay marriage is fairly unheard of. The state not defending a constitutional amendment just because it's more popular not to isn't something that often, and it is precedential given that they got away with it.

I'm trying to get a point through your head that you seem to be ignoring. State executive authorities can choose not to enforce state laws and state constitutional amendments if they believe they are unconstitutional under the federal constitution, because the federal constitution preempts these state laws and state amendments. That has always been the case.

Erasmas VII

Cite one case in which the DOJ behaved in the same way they did in the Windsor, in which, they went to district court, conceded the case to the plaintiff, then appealed and appealed up to the SCOTUS once the district court ruled in favor of the plaintiff. Don't worry I'll wait.

U.S. v. Lovett and INS v. Chadha. In both cases, the DOJ argued against the constitutionality of the statutes in question in lower courts and appealed to the Supreme Court anyway. In U.S. v. Lovett, though it wasn't brought in the district court, but the now defunct United States Court of Claims, involved the Solicitor General joining with Lovett and the other respondents, and they won. There was an appeal nonetheless and the Supreme Court affirmed. In INS v. Chadha, both the INS and the Attorney General agreed with Chadha's argument in the lower courts, but the appeal was nonetheless sustained. This was obviously brought in the immigration courts first, but again, same principal, and not really a distinguishable matter.

Erasmas VII

And again I'll note the frivolousness of your counter-argument that this type of thing allegedly happens all the time (it doesn't) and I'll again reiterate that it is fairly unprecedented to for both a state and the federal government to conspire to undermine and overturn duly passed laws and constitutional amendments over something as controversial as gay marriage.

I've never said that this "happens all the time," but that it's in line with precedent. Your argument to the contrary is false.

Erasmas VII

I mean, if you read Scalia's dissent in Windsor, it made pretty much the same case I did. That the case should have never been before the court if the government agreed with Windsor that she should not have had to pay that large estate tax. There was nothing to appeal and it was just to overturn law the President doesn't agree with.

I did read Scalia's dissent. I noticed he was whining a lot, and failed to address the Lovett precedent, and frankly tried to dismiss Chadha rather ineptly by arguing that Congress was somehow harmed by the challenge of the legislative veto in that case, but ignoring the intervention of the BLAG. Presumably, one would take his argument to mean that he believes that Congress is not aggrieved if it is determined that they have no authority to proscribe gay marriage, something that is plainly disingenuous given the rest of his argument.

As I said before, Scalia calling the majority opinion "legalistic argle-bargle" was just incredibly disappointing. It felt like he really checked out on this whole case when he realized the votes weren't with him.

Erasmas VII

It's funny how you say I'm wrong and then go on to summarize my argument incorrectly. It is grounds for recusal if a judge stands to gain something as a result of his own ruling, or if he has a manifest interest in ruling one way or another.

Again, do you have a case showing that a black judge could be disqualified from a case involving AA simply because his son might benefit from the law?

Protip: You don't, because this issue was already decided in United States v. Alabama, directly against you.

Erasmas VII

Oh my God, it was ******** analogy. Do try and keep up.

No, see an analogy is a rhetorical tool by which you make a comparison between two things that are similar. You're comparing one situation to another that's completely different and doesn't make any ******** sense.

Erasmas VII

Uh huh. And so is the Perry case an example of a judge who should've recused himself. Judge Walker being gay in and of itself isn't grounds for recusal (though I think anybody who thinks a gay judge sitting in judge of a marriage amendment can be impartial is telling one big smiling lie to both you and themselves), it's that he's in a relationship identically situated to that of the plaintiffs and one that would be affected by his ruling.

This is you not being able to understand precedent. A.T. Massey was not a situation where the judge was "indentically sitauted to that of the plaintiffs," it was a situation where the judge had received a direct, pecuniary benefit from one the parties.

Erasmas VII

No, this is about being scared to suggest a gay judge is too biased to determine a law fairly.

If you're going to persist in trying to imply some sort of motive without evidence and simply ignore the arguments, I'll simply take your lack of cogent response as a concession.

Erasmas VII

Well, no, it lost because the Judge presiding over the recusal motion didn't want to tell an older gay man and likely a colleague that his being gay is a hindrance to the rule of law and the judicial process. Also, I mean, it's obvious you're afraid to go research reasons for recusal yourself, because the plainest definition is simply a case in which there's a conflict of interest among the judge. It's not overly specific because there are instances (like this one) where it's clear to anyone looking in that there is a conflict of interest that may not be monetary in origin.

So, you fail to understand precedent, and you're accusing even more judges of improper bias at this point. Again, very rosy world you live in, where you know the law better than the federal judiciary, despite no precedent on your side.

Still waiting for you to actually provide a case agreeing with your point of view, by the way.

Erasmas VII

No, I just know BS artists when I see them. Misrepresent what I clearly state, accidentally on purpose take stuff I've said out of context, swear I'm wrong when a simple Google/Wikipedia search would verify I'm correct...seen it a million times.

Let me clue you in on something. If a million people disagree with you on the law, chances are the problem isn't with everyone else. It's with you.

Now, I know that's contrary to this whole inflated opinion you have of yourself, but if you're not going to start trying to actually make an argument, provide cases, and stop trying to make some silly claim that Wikipedia proves you right on these issues of recusal and precedent (hint: Wikipedia is not generally favored as an influential source in legal arguments; check your Blue Book) then I don't see the point in continuing. I've provided law and cases. You haven't. You've simply provided inaccuracies and baseless accusations.