By Suzanne Eovaldi, staff writer
This week’s Supreme Court decision in regard to legitimacy of homosexual marriage just well may be illegitimate itself whatever way the Court decides. And because of this very fact, 2016 and its crucial election must include initiatives to institute TERM LIMITS for SCOTUS along with a swift and very definitive process for removal of any member of the U.S. Supreme Court!
Just consider the fact that their rabid feminism pushed both Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Justice Elena Kagan to “marry” two same-sex couples though they knew full well they were being called upon to give definitive judgment in the Obergefell case. Also, “Justice Ginsburg had gone so far as to strongly suggest in public that the time for same-sex marriage had arrived.” (1) Both female judges are insulting America’s highest legal authority, insulting ethical restraint in regards to conflict of interest, insulting the American family and, in fact, insulting the basis of our country’s rule-of-law underpinnings.
This final step in the use of historicity to re-write our constitutional laws and legal process is a step that must be called out now. “If it didn’t happen that way, then it should have,” said an Afro-American teacher to me one day. She was referring to something that happened in the race-relations controversy and historical milieu in our country. In other words, she wanted the laws re-written the way she wanted them written and she wanted it done NOW.
Well, this version of Ginsburg-Kagan historicity is beyond anything the lib/Dem bulldozer through America has done so far. Their rabid hubris and out-of-control feminism have taken our country to a whole new level that in no way is America. But what is shaping up to be another slap in the face of honest rule-of-law has to do with how court employees manipulate “motion” versus “filed” to accomplish what the justices themselves really want done.
“The Foundation for Moral Law had submitted a friend-of-the-court brief in favor of traditional marriage (and) had also submitted a motion in support of Justices Ginsburg’s and Kagan’s recusals. . .not only had the Court not ruled on the Foundation’s motion, but the motion had not even been POSTED (emp. added) on the Supreme Court docket. Did someone at the High Court not want to acknowledge that such a motion had been filed?” (2) In other words, docket clerks somehow did a Texas two-step to delay amicus curiae motions-filings.
Again, let’s repeat: “Did someone at the High Court not want to acknowledge that such a motion had been filed?” (3) The first motion to recuse was submitted on April 27, 2015, and so time-stamped–THREE ENTIRE WEEKS “before the Supreme Court claims that it was RECEIVED on May 21, 2015!” The Moral Law Foundation filed a second motion to recuse on May 21, 2015, after Justice Ginsburg “married” another gay couple. The docket titled this motion as merely a request. This reporter recalls similar Texas two steps that docket clerks danced in the Obama birth eligibility case facing SCOTUS.
Lowly clerks appear to be doing the Court’s work for it by delay and obfuscation and ultimately “deciding” its cases in the mail room! Same-sex marriage is not Kagan’s first conflict of interest case. As I recall, she represented Obama himself in his eligibility defense legal maneuverings. Payback was her appointment to the nation’s highest Court. This begs the question, did the Ginsburg-Kagan rule-of-law insult itself come from the White House?
These same-sex marriage docket clerks did not engage in either delaying effort without winks and nods from higher ups. IMHO, both of these critical issues, were, as they say in Chicago, “GREASED” from the git-go! Is America still a rule-of-law democracy? Is America still ruled by the impartial administration of justice? Is America a joke in jurisprudence? America is as the lib/Dem leftist rulers say it is. End of Story, end of country.
SOURCE: all footnotes are from http://www.westernjournalism.com/same-sex-marriage-efforts-to-have-justi. . . 6/22/2015, at 6:19pm by Herbert W. Titus and William J. Olson/ go to email@example.com or twitter.com/Olsonlaw Constitutional law professor Herbert W. Titus & William J. Olson filed amicus curiae briefs in this recusal action.
BTW: Did Ginsburg and Kagan not take Anatomy 101 while undergrads?