Activism Change

Chief Justice Margaret Marshall Violated the Code of Judicial Conduct

Question:

I gather that if Justice X holds informed views about legal issue Y, and explains those views at event Z, then Justice X must forever recuse himself / herself from any cases about, or touching on, issue Y.  Yes?

Of course, except that SC Justice Scalia has set precedent otherwise. "Quack! Quack!" — Gary

Response:

done, the Supreme Court vote would have been four to three to allow a complete audit of ALL the disputed Florida ballots, which would almost certainly have given us a verified Gore presidency.

This claim is very certainly false, because there were recounts of all the ballots, done by the New York Times and a cast of many, who took advantage of the ballots being public documents. The count you were asking for of the ballots was made, with an open audit, and it did not give the result you are claiming it would. This claim surfaces here on a fairly regular basis, and it was not true any of the other times either. By almost all of a very wide range of standards, Bush–who I do not like at all as a President–did indeed win the Florida vote.  Indeed, while you will have to do a web search for it, there is on the web a javascript program with the data that lets you see the margins (all teeny tiny) by which Bush won.  The link is bookmarked on my other machine, so you will have to find it for yourself. It does appear that if you made the strictest possible interpretation that Bush’s attorneys wanted, and no one else supported, that there is a narrow range of legal interpretation under which Gore might have won. Never forget: Gore WON THE POPULAR VOTE decisively. Bush LOST THE POPULAR VOTE

This is a totally meaningless statement, because the President of the United States is selected by the electors chosen by the 50 states using methods chosen by their state legislatures.  We almost had an even more recherche example of the actual wording of the constitution on this topic, but fortunately for the news readers who would have had to explain it we dodged that bullet. by at least a million ballots. Come back and talk to us about Justice Marshall’s "judicial integrity and impartiality" when you’ve dealt with the reprehensible behavior of Scalia and Thomas on this far more important issue.

George Phillies – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –

Response:

Her position was predetermined and consequently she discounted all evidence presented by those opposed to homosexual marriage. That’s intolerable.  She should be impeached and jailed.

…and we’re all confident that you’d be just as outraged about this "activism" had the decision gone the other way.

Response:

Supreme Judicial Court Chief Justice Margaret Marshall, the prime mover behind the same-sex marriage ruling and author of the official decision, appears to have seriously violated the Massachusetts Code of Judicial Conduct. She was the keynote speaker at a fundraiser for a major homosexual legal advocacy group prior to hearing the Goodridge case.  At that event she publicly advocated for extensions of homosexual rights. [More ...] http://www.article8.org/marshall.htm [and ...] http://www.article8.org

Response:

Supreme Judicial Court Chief Justice Margaret Marshall, the prime mover behind the same-sex marriage ruling and author of the official decision, appears to have seriously violated the Massachusetts Code of Judicial Conduct.

How exactly did she violate the Code?  Did she, for example, know any of the plaintiffs personally?  Did she have a financial interest in the outcome of the case?  What part of the code is she supposed to have violated? If you can’t point out the section of the code you allege she violated, then STFU.

Response:

I gather that if Justice X holds informed views about legal issue Y, and explains those views at event Z, then Justice X must forever recuse himself / herself from any cases about, or touching on, issue Y.  Yes? If so, is it not in the public interest to keep our Justices sequestered? RPD / Cambridge Facts can be your friends if you treat them right. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Supreme Judicial Court Chief Justice Margaret Marshall, the prime mover behind the same-sex marriage ruling and author of the official decision, appears to have seriously violated the Massachusetts Code of Judicial Conduct. She was the keynote speaker at a fundraiser for a major homosexual legal advocacy group prior to hearing the Goodridge case.  At that event she publicly advocated for extensions of homosexual rights. [More ...] http://www.article8.org/marshall.htm [and ...] http://www.article8.org

Response:

I gather that if Justice X holds informed views about legal issue Y, and explains those views at event Z, then Justice X must forever recuse himself / herself from any cases about, or touching on, issue Y.  Yes? If so, is it not in the public interest to keep our Justices sequestered? Her position was predetermined and consequently she discounted all evidence presented by those opposed to homosexual marriage. That’s intolerable. She should be impeached and jailed.

You really believe no other judge ever has their own opinion on a topic until and unless a case comes up before them?  What planet do you live on? Priscilla

Response:

How exactly did she violate the Code?  Did she, for example, know any of the plaintiffs personally?  Did she have a financial interest in the outcome of the case?  What part of the code is she supposed to have violated? If you can’t point out the section of the code you allege she violated, then STFU.

Indeed. The URL leads back to a hysterical anti-gay rant-o-rama site, quite reminiscent of the "skies will fall if we let negro and white children sit together" propaganda which was published by Southern anti-integrationists during the 1950s. The allegation in the article should be weighed accordingly. I’m delighted to say that I’m one of the few folks who actually DID get to cast a "gratitude vote" for SJC Justice Marshall, when she was recently listed on a ballot to serve as a trustee for Yale University, against two other alumni candidates. (I should check to see if the winner has been announced!)

Response:

I gather that if Justice X holds informed views about legal issue Y, and explains those views at event Z, then Justice X must forever recuse himself / herself from any cases about, or touching on, issue Y.  Yes? If so, is it not in the public interest to keep our Justices sequestered? Her position was predetermined and consequently she discounted all evidence presented by those opposed to homosexual marriage. That’s intolerable. She should be impeached and jailed.

If so then Justice Scalia is in deep shit on this and several other issues.

Response:

I gather that if Justice X holds informed views about legal issue Y, and explains those views at event Z, then Justice X must forever recuse himself / herself from any cases about, or touching on, issue Y.  Yes? If so, is it not in the public interest to keep our Justices sequestered? Her position was predetermined and consequently she discounted all evidence presented by those opposed to homosexual marriage. That’s intolerable. She should be impeached and jailed.

I bet you think it was just peachy keen that Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is hunting buddy with Dick Cheney, even though Cheney has a lawsuit pending against him before the Supreme Court. Am I right? — Gregory Gadow http://www.serv.net/~techbear "If you make yourself a sheep, the wolves will eat you." — Benjamin Franklin

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I gather that if Justice X holds informed views about legal issue Y, and explains those views at event Z, then Justice X must forever recuse himself / herself from any cases about, or touching on, issue Y.  Yes? If so, is it not in the public interest to keep our Justices sequestered? Her position was predetermined and consequently she discounted all evidence presented by those opposed to homosexual marriage. That’s intolerable. She should be impeached and jailed. If so then Justice Scalia is in deep shit on this and several other issues.

SLAM-FRIGGIN’-DUNK!!! Those of you who are such purists about judicial integrity and impartiality, please weigh this: TWO of the U.S. Supreme Court Justices who voted to seat the UNELECTED George Bush Jr. — specifically, Justices Scalia and Thomas — had close family members WHO WERE ACTIVELY WORKING FOR THE BUSH CAMPAIGN. Had they recused themselves because of this conflict, as they should properly have done, the Supreme Court vote would have been four to three to allow a complete audit of ALL the disputed Florida ballots, which would almost certainly have given us a verified Gore presidency. Never forget: Gore WON THE POPULAR VOTE decisively. Bush LOST THE POPULAR VOTE by at least a million ballots. Come back and talk to us about Justice Marshall’s "judicial integrity and impartiality" when you’ve dealt with the reprehensible behavior of Scalia and Thomas on this far more important issue.

Response:

complete audit of ALL the disputed Florida ballots, which would almost certainly have given us a verified Gore presidency.

(1) The recount Gore was asking for would have resulted in his losing Florida (with the coupled irony that the recount Bush was asking for would have resulted in his losing Florida). (2) Your statement of "certainly" is a lie, as the media-led post-election recounts showed. Never forget: Gore WON THE POPULAR VOTE decisively. Bush LOST THE POPULAR VOTE by at least a million ballots.

You liberals always have to come back to irrelevancies when you don’t have an real argument.  Amend the Constitution to abolish the Electoral College first, and then you can start wanking about your poor candidate winning the popular vote. —

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I gather that if Justice X holds informed views about legal issue Y, and explains those views at event Z, then Justice X must forever recuse himself / herself from any cases about, or touching on, issue Y. Yes? If so, is it not in the public interest to keep our Justices sequestered? Her position was predetermined and consequently she discounted all evidence presented by those opposed to homosexual marriage. That’s intolerable. She should be impeached and jailed. If so then Justice Scalia is in deep shit on this and several other issues. SLAM-FRIGGIN’-DUNK!!! Those of you who are such purists about judicial integrity and impartiality, please weigh this: TWO of the U.S. Supreme Court Justices who voted to seat the UNELECTED George Bush Jr. — specifically, Justices Scalia and Thomas — had close family members WHO WERE ACTIVELY WORKING FOR THE BUSH CAMPAIGN. Had they recused themselves because of this conflict, as they should properly have done, the Supreme Court vote would have been four to three to allow a complete audit of ALL the disputed Florida ballots, which would almost certainly have given us a verified Gore presidency. Never forget: Gore WON THE POPULAR VOTE decisively. Bush LOST THE POPULAR VOTE by at least a million ballots. Come back and talk to us about Justice Marshall’s "judicial integrity and impartiality" when you’ve dealt with the reprehensible behavior of Scalia and Thomas on this far more important issue.

Read the Constitution: the President is elected by the Electoral College, NOT the popular vote. Why does this constantly need to be pointed out? There’s no proof Gore would have won if the Supremes had decided otherwise. In fact, I recall that an independent media group did an audit and Bush still won. There’s also the matter of the Democrats trying to keep military absentee ballots from being counted – not so pretty either. Let’s face it: both side stunk and stink. No system is perfect, but we do the best we can. I don’t much like Bush and won’t vote for him, but I really think it’s time that Democratic die-hards quit whining about 2000 and concentrate on 2004. Bush is a legimate president, period. Forget it. Grow up and move on and vote the bastard out now, when it counts. m

Response:

Filed under: Activism

Related Posts

• misc.activism.general ACK procedures
• Food Irradiation: Dangers (and Comparison With Nuclear Medicine) (was: Food Irradiation: -The $20K question and the answer in URL form
• The Decline of America: Class-War Against Middle Class & Poor (III)
• A volunteer army could stop mass murder!
• Carleton Hemp Club
• L.E,G.A,L. ,C.A,B.L,E. ,D.E,S.C,R.A,M.B,L.E,R. ,..., .G,E.T, .P,A.Y, .P,E.R, .V,I.E,W.,.................... .............................. ............................ 2123 [1/2]
• Guns for Bucks
• Where is Tony Santiago?
• RVing whilst working in San Diego?
• Culpability in biker death