Supreme Court Justices Ignoring the Law?

Supreme Court caught messing with marriage case

by Bob Unruh
June 21, 2015

A series of events that has been described as a “troubling turn” has been found to have taken place at the U.S. Supreme Court regarding the justices’ looming decision on marriage – whether they will affirm the millennia old standard of one man and one woman or whether they will create a right to homosexual “marriage.”

The report is from the law firm of William J. Olson, P.C. the workplace of Olson, who served in several positions for the Reagan administration, and Herb Titus, a longtime constitutional law professor.

The organization has issued a series of reports on the issue of marriage, under funding from the United States Justice Foundation.

The circumstances concern efforts to have Ruth Ginsburg and Elena Kagan recused from the marriage case because they both have taken public advocacy positions for same-sex “marriage” by performing those ceremonies even while the case was pending before the justices.

WND reported just days earlier when a former member of the federal judiciary, Joe Miller, who, when he was appointed U.S. magistrate judge in Fairbanks, Alaska, was the youngest person then serving in that federal position in the nation, called their actions a violation of the code of ethics for judges.

The report from Olson and Titus noted that the Foundation for Moral Law twice formally filed documents seeking the recusal of Kagan and Ginsburg.
Importantly, Miller also reported that not only had the court not ruled on the foundation’s motion, but that the motion had not even been posted on the Supreme Court docket. While a delay in posting can occur for a number of reasons, none applied here. Did someone at the high court not want to acknowledge that such a motion had been filed?”

They continued, “Now we may have some indication that the U.S. Supreme Court uses Google Alerts, because shortly after the Miller article was published, on either June 17 or 18, 2015, the foundation’s recusal motion suddenly appeared on the docket of the U.S. Supreme Court. Under a date of May 21, 2015, the entry read: ‘Request for recusal received from amicus curiae Foundation for Moral Law.’”

But that, they said, raises even more questions.

“First, the missing motion. The foundation’s first motion to recuse consisting of eight pages was submitted on April 27, 2015 (and date and time stamped on April 27, 2015, at 11:47 a.m.) — a good three weeks before the Supreme Court claims that it was ‘received’ on May 21, 2015. The Foundation for Moral Law later filed a second motion to recuse consisting of four pages on May 21 (date and time stamped on May 21, 2015, at 11:28 a.m.). The second motion was filed after Justice Ginsburg performed another same-sex wedding, and was to the effect of: ‘there, you did it again.’ The second motion refers back to the first motion. Why is there only one entry on the court’s docket sheets? What happened to the original motion?”

Then, as lawyers are apt to do, they noticed the specific language used by the Supreme Court.

“The Foundation document is entitled a ‘Motion.’ Why is it entitled on the docket as a ‘Request’? Third, the action. According to the court rules, a ‘Motion’ is ‘filed’ with the court. Why is the action taken by the court described only as ‘received’ and not ‘filed’?”

“These points … suggest that the high court, for an inordinate time, has ignored the recusal motion. While the court has finally acknowledged that some recusal filing was made, it certainly gives no assurance that any ruling on the motion will be forthcoming before the court decides the same-sex marriage case,” the lawyers explained.

“They quoted federal law, which requires judges to exit from a case where their impartiality, “may reasonably be questioned.”

“However, as this case is demonstrating, the Supreme Court appears to believe it is under no obligation to abide by that federal law and judicial ethical rule. First, while Justices Ginsburg and Kagan have an ethical duty to avoid commenting on cases, and a statutory duty to recuse when their impartiality ‘may reasonably be questioned,’ as a matter of practice, each justice is the sole judge of her own case.  While a decision of a lower federal court judge may be appealed to a higher authority, each U.S. Supreme Court Justice has the final word on his own fitness to serve. These two justices should have addressed the question publicly prior to participating in oral argument … on April 28, 2015, but they did not.  Since these two justices ignored problems caused by their conduct, the remainder of the court should have stepped in and addressed the issue for them, but the other seven justices have remained silent.”

The lawyers noted that the move to take Kagan and Ginsburg off the case also has involved the American Family Association, Vision America Action, National Organization for Marriage, the U.S. Justice Foundation, the Louisiana House of Representatives and Gov. Bobby Jindal.

The result will ultimately, they said, “will not only erode public confidence in the U.S. Supreme Court, but would call into question the constitutional legitimacy of its forthcoming same-sex marriage decision.”

The complete article can be read HERE.

–00–

Why am I not at all surprised?  It is horrific that the highest court in our country would circumvent or ignore constitutional rights  law.  Yet given all the lawlessness, inactions, and outright illegal actions of government for the last dozen years or more, I am no longer even shocked.  What a sad indictment of the beginning of the 21st century.  It wasn’t Y2K that was the end of our century heralded “doomsday event” but these governmental offices that was the problem.

Unfortunately as stated in the last paragraph above, it not only calls into question for me the legal determination of this case by the Supreme Court but past and future cases as well.  In determining any legal matter, we have to be able to depend on the courts of our land to read, follow our laws, and ultimately stand as vanguard to our constitition  and way of life.  If they can not, then we have passed go and wound up in Oz. Come to think of it one or two do remind me of the wizard.

–Uriel–

 

About Uriel

Retired educator and constitutionalist
Tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to Supreme Court Justices Ignoring the Law?

  1. Kathy says:

    There’s nothing in the Constitution about marriage, so what have they got to base their decision on? This case should have been tossed back to the states, but it’s my guess they’ll rule in favor of same sex marriage.

    After all, these are the same people that declared part of O’care a tax, and since two judges performed such ceremonies tells us they’re in favor of it and had no intention of recusing themselves.

    We lost our vanguard a long time ago. Welcome to Oz.

    • Uriel says:

      True Kathy. However rule of law when protested requires recusal. This is my main argument. Marriage is easily settled with civil court judges performing or benign willing church ministers. This is about having our highest court not following the very laws they uphold and rule on daily. Yes states should be making these decisions but like Congress have knowingly ceded authority over the years in exchange for money.

      • Kathy says:

        I see your point – had my brain in the wrong gear.

        So basically, all 9 justices have violated their code of conduct – Ginsburg and Kagan by not recusing themselves and the others by not disqualifying them. In fact, they didn’t even acknowledge the filing of the motion until much later, and apparently haven’t ruled on it yet – if I understood correctly.

        True that it could question the constitutional legitimacy of their decision, but who are they accountable to that could or would take this up? No one.

        The way Ginsburg talked in the WND piece, I’d say it’s a given that this is approved, even though there’s no Constitutional basis for it. Yep, we’re in Oz.

    • Uriel says:

      Lol Kathy. I would have to agree or someone has done a quick alternate reality. Maybe it’s the scientists, let’s blame them for mucking with stuff they shouldn’t mess with.

  2. Buck says:

    Seems time to eliminate the SCOTUS and allow each state’s high courts decide what is constitutional or not. California could have faggots marrying cockroaches while Utah could have polygamy and Texas could have the option of recognizing or denying other state’s decisions. That would more or less return the states to sovereignty and if you don’t like Texas’ decision on a subject, move to a state where it was decided in another way.
    The only damn things the federal government is tasked to do is maintain a standing army, defend our borders and deliver the mail. So far they have two F’s and a D.

    • Uriel says:

      Reasonable to me. Now if we can get O to sign it umm maybe some of his wife’s healthy concoctions would zone him out long enough to sign?

  3. Buck says:

    I believe the Governors of the several states may call a Constitutional Convention.
    Now, I’m fuzzy but I am thinking if 3/4 of the STATE Legislatures ratify the proposed changes then it becomes law.
    Brian, C’Fish help me out here….

    • Uriel says:

      That is true Buck. Several states have signed on already. Louisiana senate seems to have deliberately stalled a request for action. Typical. For convention to be successful tough it will take 2/3 of all states in compliance and willing to move on this. I honestly don’t see it happening in the next few months and surely not quick enough to stop O in his quest.

  4. Clyde says:

    While I disagree with eliminating the SCOTUS, I do agree this case needs to be remanded back to the states. Nothing there for ANY federal court to rule on. Ginsburg and Kagan absolutely MUST recuse. Of course, with leftists, THEY never think they are wrong, so unfortunately, with the weak-kneed Roberts stinking the place up, we shall, YET AGAIN see political correctness triumph over the Constitution.

  5. Hardnox says:

    I’m with Buck. The Supremes have morphed into a body of political hacks loyal only to their ideology and not to the Constitution that they swore to uphold.