General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsBill O’Reilly Has A Plan To Rig The Supreme Court’s Marriage Equality Decision
These ladies have to recuse themselves, an indignant Bill OReilly proclaimed on his Fox News show Tuesday night. Im shocked they havent done it already.
The ladies OReilly was referring to are Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan, both of whom have officiated same-sex weddings in the past. OReilly wants these two justices to remove themselves from a group of pending cases challenging anti-gay marriage discrimination. In the unlikely event that Ginsburg and Kagan heed OReillys call; that would give the justices who dissented in the Courts 2013 decision striking down such discrimination at the federal level a 4-3 majority most likely changing the outcome of the case.
OReillys attempt to pressure justices who are likely to support equality off a major gay rights case is not a new strategy. The American Family Association (AFA), a leading anti-gay group, called for both justices to recuse the very same day that the Court announced that it was taking up marriage equality last January. Both of these justices personal and private actions that actively endorse gay marriage clearly indicate how they would vote on same-sex marriage cases before the Supreme Court, the AFA claimed in a statement. This, they claim, is sufficient reason for the justices to remove themselves from
the case.
If the mere fact that a justices political views can be determined by their actions were a reason to remove that justice from a case, then Ginsburg and Kagan wouldnt be the only justices who need to recuse from the marriage equality cases. Justice Antonin Scalia, with his rants about the homosexual agenda, hasnt exactly been shy about his own views on gay rights. Scalia, however, like Ginsburg and Kagan, can rest assured that he is not required to recuse himself from these cases either.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/04/22/3649757/bill-oreilly-plan-rig-supreme-courts-marriage-equality-decision/
Taylorz
(53 posts)from key cases where the justices do show true conflict-of-interest.
O'Lielly needs to shove his loofah up a little harder.
niyad
(113,552 posts)to steal it (assuming they could even find it!)
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Rant away, O'Reilly.
Yavin4
(35,445 posts)Brian Williams has.
okaawhatever
(9,462 posts)DetlefK
(16,423 posts)After all, they are prejudiced towards religion and towards a particular religion at that.
Takket
(21,625 posts)a justice recuses oneself when they have a personal gain to be made on the outcome of the case (I.E. you are a major shareholder for a company that is part of a court case) or you are personally involved with someone in the case (I.E. you are related to someone involved with the case).
Having performed a legal gay wedding does not mean you stand to make personal gain or that you are personally involved with someone in the case. similar reasoning: Having been in a car accident does not mean a judge should recuse oneself from a lawsuit involving an auto accident. Having attended a major league baseball game does not mean a judge should recuse oneself from a player's salary arbitration case. Having had surgery does not mean a judge should recuse oneself from a surgical malpractice case.
Etc etc etc......
O'Reilly's logic is completely flawed but... well, let's face it, you could say that about any opinion he has ever had.
brooklynite
(94,727 posts)After all, as privileged married heterosexuals facing the "destruction of traditional marriage" they have a stake in the outcome, don't they?