Reply to But religious accommodation is a thing, right?

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "But religious accommodation is a thing, right?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]You realize she simply doesn't want to sign it, but will file the contract, right?  [/quote]

You realize this dispute is over issuing a license, which is a legal prerequisite to entering into a valid marriage, and has nothing whatsoever to do with a contract, right?[/quote]

You realize two of the SC justices had performed same sex marriages in the past and should have recused themselves,  right?[/quote]

That is not grounds for recusal.  Not remotely. [/quote]

Their active endorsement by officiating makes it clear how they would vote:

[i]Congress has directed that federal judicial officers must disqualify themselves from hearing cases in specified circumstances. Title 28, Section 455 of the United States Code states ‘any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.’[/i]

[/quote]

Under the case law, this doesn't rise to the level of a reasonable question.  A judge who is Catholic and never had a divorce and believes it to me a mortal sin doesn't have to recuse himself from a divorce case. Judges need a much more personal stake or bigger bias than that.

Quit whining. Nobody likes a loser who whines. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics