Jindal Supports Ginsburg, Kagan Recusal From Gay Marriage Decision

[DonViejo]

Source: TPM

By CAITLIN MACNEAL Published APRIL 30, 2015, 9:17 AM EDT

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) expressed support on Wednesday for a measure passed in the Louisiana state House calling on Supreme Court Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan to recuse themselves from the decision on state bans on same-sex marriage.

The state House on Monday passed a resolution claiming that Ginsburg and Kagan "have each engaged in public conduct suggestive of bias" regarding gay marriage and have "thus demonstrate(d) an inability to be objective."

Jindal said on Wednesday that it a "fair question" to ask if the two justices should recuse themselves from the Supreme Court case. "It’s a fair question in that they have officiated same-sex weddings, which is the subject of the decision," Jindal Spokeswoman Shannon Bates told Buzzfeed News. "If he had his way, they would both recuse themselves from every case because they are liberal activists who see the bench as a means of enacting their agenda."

Both Ginsburg and Kagan have officiated weddings for gay couples.

###

Read more: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/jindal-ginsburg-kagan-recusal-gay-marriage

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

1. Sure, as long as the conservative 4 recuse themselves as well for displaying their bias over the

years.

[UpInArms]

53. +1000

but I thought their bias was against the human race.

[ismnotwasm]

54. Right?

Omg. Dumbasses

[MyOwnPeace]

2. What a TWIT!

I guess the other 7 should recuse themselves because they are in a heterosexual relationship (unless there's something we don't know about them!!!)!

[marym625]

3. I call for all Justices that attend church to recuse themselves from all decisions.

Obviously, they don't have the ability to follow the Constitution because they are religious people. Religious people cannot make a fair decision on anything because they cannot separate church and state.

<-- added so no one else thinks I'm serious.

[Ms. Toad]

8. That is bigoted, offensive.

Not to mention just plain wrong on this issue.

BRIEF FOR AMICI CURIAE PRESIDENT OF THE HOUSE OF DEPUTIES OF THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH AND THE EPISCOPAL BISHOPS OF KENTUCKY, MICHIGAN, OHIO, AND TENNESSEE; GENERAL SYNOD OF THE UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST; JEWISH THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY; RECONSTRUCTIONIST RABBINICAL ASSOCIATION; RECONSTRUCTIONIST RABBINICAL COLLEGE AND JEWISH RECONSTRUCTIONIST COMMUNITIES; UNION FOR REFORM JUDAISM; UNITARIAN UNIVERSALIST ASSOCIATION; UNITED SYNAGOGUE OF CONSERVATIVE JUDAISM; AFFIRMATION; COVENANT NETWORK OF PRESBYTERIANS; FRIENDS FOR LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL, TRANSGENDER, AND QUEER CONCERNS; METHODIST FEDERATION FOR SOCIAL ACTION; MORE LIGHT PRESBYTERIANS; MUSLIMS FOR PROGRESSIVE VALUES; THE OPEN AND AFFIRMING COALITION OF THE UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST; PARITY; RECONCILING MINISTRIES NETWORK; RECONCILING WORKS: LUTHERANS FOR FULL PARTICIPATION; RELIGIOUS INSTITUTE, INC.; AND 1,900 INDIVIDUAL FAITH LEADERS IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS AND IN FAVOR OF REVERSAL

. . .

Amici curiae (“Amici”) comprise a broad range of religious groups, organizations, and leaders (including nearly 2,000 individual clergy) who support equal treatment for same-sex couples with respect to civil marriage. While Amici come from faiths that have approached issues affecting lesbian and gay people and their families in different ways over the years, they are united in the belief that, in our vastly diverse and pluralistic society, particular religious views or definitions of marriage should not be permitted to influence which couples’ marriages the state recognizes or permits. Such rights must be determined by religiously neutral principles of equal protection under the law.

http://www.kramerlevin.com/files/upload/Brief_Obergefell.pdf

[marym625]

9. seriously?

I didn't think I needed to use the sarcasm thing but I will edit so it is clear.

Dear dog!

[truth2power]

20. Some here are a bit sarcasm impaired. *sigh*

[marym625]

23. LMAO!

Sarcasm impaired!

[Ms. Toad]

21. Yes, seriously -

Things exactly like that, said in all seriousness, are routinely posted on DU.

I'm glad to hear you intended it sarcastically - since the vast majority who say similar things here don't.

[marym625]

24. I have never seen it.

Sorry you didn't catch the sarcasm. Considering the post it is reply to, I assumed it was obvious.

I won't pretend that I don't think highly religious people should not be on the Supreme Court but I would never say that a Justice should recuse themselves because of it. If we could seek recusal for every belief held by a Justice, we would never have a decision on anything

[Ms. Toad]

41. My guess is that since it apparently isn't directed at you,

that you just don't notice it.

But believing that highly religious people should not be on the Supreme Court is also offensive, since it implies that highly religious people cannot be trusted to follow the law. There are many reasons people cannot be trusted to follow the law - and if the individual's personal history demonstrates that inability (whether based on religion or any other factor they cannot set aside), they should not be on the Supreme Court. But presuming that religion should disqualify people as a broad category,without regard to the role it plays in their ability to do their job, is just as offensive as saying race or gender (or any other broad category) should disqualify people for a particular job.

As a highly religious person, I have drafted approximately 100 opinions which were ultimately signed and issued by a state appellate court judge. Had I been writing from the perspective of my religious beliefs, many of them would have turned out differently. (Incidentally, that is also true with respect to my views on social justice, since the law is often not on the right side of social justice.) But as an officer of the court my role was to follow the law and, when the law was not yet settled, to draft the first impression opinion in the way the judge I was working for wanted it to be drafted. Religion (and my beliefs on social justice) play no role in that.

It would have played a role in one particular kind of case - death penalty cases. My faith prohibits me from imposing or continuing a death sentence, and since it is impossible to tell in advance which way the case would go, those cases were assigned to the other judicial attorney in the office. My judge knew that restriction before hiring me, and hired me with the understanding that he could not assign me the few death cases which made a stop at the appellate court (most go directly to the Supreme Court). I believe there were two during my two year stint there.

That is, incidentally, also the reason it would be appropriate to oppose me, specifically, for a seat on the Supreme Court). As a justice of the Supreme Court (as opposed to a judicial attorney at the state appellate level) participating in those cases is a job requirement. Since my faith prohibits me from imposing or continuing a death sentence, I am not eligible for that position. In other words while it is appropriate to oppose me, specifically, because of the role religion plays in my life (and the barrier it would pose to cases that I would require to hear), it is not appropriate to oppose me because I am generically highly religious. Ironically, it is because of my particular faith based belief in integrity, that I would turn it down if offered.

[marym625]

45. I believe you made my argument for me

While I am 100% against the death penalty, I would not take the chance that religious beliefs in other areas would not come into play for someone that is highly religious. To say that "only this one thing" matters enough, I don't believe is worthy of a SCJ position.

You are saying you would not be eligible to be a SCJ candidate while telling me that I am being offensive. That's pretty hypocritical. Anyone that would say that they would make a decision based on their religious beliefs shouldn't be on the supreme court. Period

[Ms. Toad]

50. No. You rejected an entire class solely based on your prejudices about the group

or whether their beliefs would require them to act in a particular way as a Supreme Court Justice.

What I said was, if the particular history of a particular justice indicates they cannot separate their faith from their work, then that particular justice should not be sitting on the Supreme Court. Not because religious people - generally - are inappropriate for the Supreme Court, but because that particular individual is unwilling or unable to act consistently with the law when the law is in conflict with their beliefs (and it doesn't matter whether those beliefs are religious or from some other source).

I gave you three examples, and you conveniently ignored the first two: The 100 or so opinions I drafted, many of which were inconsistent with how I would decide them had I been deciding based on my religious beliefs. In other words highly religious people can act in accordance with the law, even when the law conflicts with their religious beliefs.

The second is that I also have very strong biases on social justice. Some of the opinions I drafted were inconsistent with those biases. In other words, it is not just religion where people have strong beliefs and may be called - in a particular job - to act inconsistently with those beliefs.

Just as it would be inconsistent to reject all individuals with strong social justice beliefs from sitting on the Supreme Court merely because they hold strong social justice beliefs, it is also inconsistent to reject all individuals with strong religious beliefs from sitting on the Supreme Court merely because they hold strong social justice beliefs.

Rejection based on religion only becomes appropriate on an individual level - when strong beliefs, whatever the source, would prevent an individual from following the law. (And the rejection is really even based on religion, but on an inability to perform the duties of the job.)

For example, I know people with equally strong social justice beliefs who could not have drafted some of the opinions I did, because those opinions followed the law but were inconsistent with their own beliefs. Those individuals would have been inappropriate for the job I performed, because - on an individual basis - they could not follow the law because the law was not consistent with their own beliefs.

And, in contrast, I also know people with equally strong religious views who can follow the law in all instances, including the death penalty, or abortion, or whatever other hot button issue you want to name, even when it conflicts with their religious beliefs. Those individuals should not be disqualified merely because they have strong religious beliefs, when those beliefs do not interfere with the job they are expected to do.

Your final comment is the exact point I was making, "Anyone that would say that they would make a decision based on their religious beliefs shouldn't be on the supreme court. Period" That is a personal statement, indicating that that single person would act in accordance with their religion, not the law. That person should not be on the Supreme Court. It is when you extend it, as you did, to all "highly religious people" that you are acting inappropriately out of bigotry.

[gregcrawford]

58. Get over yourself

Ever heard of the separation of church and state? Religious beliefs have NO place in legal decisions.

I was raised by someone just like you. That's why I'm an atheist.

[Ms. Toad]

61. Correct. But neither do any other strong non-legally based beliefs - such as social justice

But that has absolutely nothing to do with what I was responding to.

The DUer to whom I responded asserted that anyone who is highly religious should not be on the Supreme Court - a blanket prohibition on a class of people.

That is no more acceptable than a blanket prohibition on any other class of people: people who are dedicated to social justice or any other cause, people who have any other strong belief system, people who are black, or female, or any other category of people you can name.

Everyone brings their experiences and beliefs with them to their role as a judge. Everyone appropriate to serve in that role needs to be able to set those aside and follow the law. Excluding someone, whatever class they fall into, or whatever beliefs they hold, should be based on their individual inability or unwillingness to follow the law - not on an assumption that people in certain classes will refuse to follow the law.

[tularetom]

51. Wow, I know!

I can't tell you how often I've had to go back and add that thing just because somebody's sarcasmdar wasn't functioning.

[rurallib]

17. can I recommend a post?

that is about the perfect response to the crazies in the Louisiana legislature. And it has a basis in the constitution!

[marym625]

19. You can

Are you saying that they have a leg to stand on?

[rurallib]

26. you lost me

I am agreeing with you.
The La. lege's reasoning is so flimsy in calling for Ginsburg and Kagan to recuse themselves that calling for all the others to recuse themselves because of any religious affiliation is a natural progression of that concept.

Makes sense to me.

Now in the case of Thomas when the Mrs. is making huge bucks off of things like opposing gays, there is a reason for recusal. Someone should wake Thomas up and ask him about it.

Jindhal is so pathetic - like an ambulance chasing lawyer (OMG is that offensive to lawyers?)

[marym625]

29. ah!

Misunderstood. So very glad!

Don't forget scalia and his big oil affiliations

[rurallib]

37. don't forget Scalia and his son the priest who advises him

on many things that in any way touch the church.

[marym625]

39. Yes. definitely he should recuse himself

Hell, he should be impeached. That is not, in the least bit, sarcastic

[marym625]

34. Just saw I misunderstood because I read it wrong

You were pretty clear. My bad. Sorry

[Gore1FL]

4. Bobby who? n/t

[Thinkingabout]

5. Has Jindal ever "engaged in public conduct suggestive of bias" regarding this subject?

Why, yes, then he should keep his bigoted mouth shut.

[stone space]

6. Should all the married Justices recuse themselves, also? (nt)

[cosmicone]

7. Jindal has been doing everything to stay relevant and in limelight

Last edited Thu Apr 30, 2015, 10:54 AM - Edit history (1)

except running naked on Bourbon street with a burning candle sticking out of his ass.

[Human101948]

11. I would contribute to his campaign to see that!

Well worth it!

[alcina]

16. I once saw a comedian do that on stage

Seriously. At the end of his monologue, the curtain went down, and then rose again to display him standing naked in front of the crowd. He then turned sideways, and marched back and forth on the stage with what appeared to be a Roman candle sticking out of his ass, while "There's No Business Like Show Business" played loudly through the theatre.

It got a standing ovation.

[3catwoman3]

22. That image is hysterical...

...and disturbing at the same time.

I don't think even that would help. He has been irrelevant since his ghostly SOTU response way back when.

[mountain grammy]

35. All right, now we're talking..

I'd donate to that effort too.

[geek tragedy]

46. David Vitter says: been there, done that nt

[Fearless]

10. Governor, your stupid is showing.

[ck4829]

12. And Scalia wrote about the "homosexual agenda" in 2003, which is a wacky conspiracy theory

But you don't see any states telling him to recuse himself, and that's because the disenfranchisement of 'the other side' in the United States is not mutual, it's really only the right wing that seeks to remove anything to the left of it from not just political power, but political life entirely.

[DonCoquixote]

13. translation of Bobby's rant (sarcasm alert)

"when we know we are about to lose, we will drive out the winning team's players, and make sure the law ain't nothing but a reflection of what we white duded want...wait a minute, yes I am a white man!"

[BE10sCoach]

14. Jindal & GOP

These Conservative Republicans, no pretty much ALL of the GOP are really "CERTIFIED: JERKS, NUTBAGS, ASSHATS, & JUST PLAIN BATSHIT CRAZY"!

[SoapBox]

15. STFU Jindal...POS!

Of all the nerve...

[Suji to Seoul]

18. Howdy Doody needs to shut up.

[uppityperson]

25. I thought this must be The Onion.

[Botany]

27. If it wasn't for the Supreme Court back in the day Jindal wouldn't be allowed to eat @ the ...

.... same restaurants, sit on the same benches, go to school w/whites, or drink @ the
same water fountains. Did Jindal say word one when SCOTUS ruled on bush v Gore
and Citizens United?

[Bluenorthwest]

28. How about all the Justices who openy admit to membership in a stridenly anti gay religious group?

Haven't they spent years expressing their bias? Why yes they have.

[Bluenorthwest]

30. Scalia in Romer v Evans:

Court held that Colorado could not enact a state constitutional amendment motivated solely by animus towards gay people. Tony's response:


“The Court’s opinion contains grim, disapproving hints that Coloradans have been guilty of ‘animus’ or ‘animosity’ toward homosexuality, as though that has been established as Unamerican. . . . I had thought that one could consider certain conduct reprehensible–murder, for example, or polygamy, or cruelty to animals–and could exhibit even ‘animus’ toward such conduct.”

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/03/25/1766941/thirteen-offensive-things-justice-scalias-compared-to-homosexuality/

[mountain grammy]

43. I remember Amendment 2. We were devastated when it passed,

but were confident it would be overturned. It was blatantly unconstitutional. That amendment really got me active again. We must have knocked on thousands of doors and made countless phone calls. It was horrifying to find out just how hateful and ignorant people are. This was 1992, and friends were still dying of AIDS, and my state passes this crap..
I remember Scalia's dissent. I'm a non believer, but I really want to believe in hell for Tony. I wish him a long and agonizing death and hope to someday dance on his grave. His spawn are evil too. Molly Ivins wrote about son Eugene in "Bushwhacked." Tony Scalia: Reagan's gift that keeps on giving.

[valerief]

31. In my dreams, someone stuffs Jindal down a garbage disposal. Problem solved. nt

[MADem]

32. Sounds like a GREAT idea!!!!

So long as ALITO and SCALIA and THOMAS, because of their painfully ostentatious "Catholic Church bias" do the same.

Really--since the court is made up mostly of Catholics (six of them), with three Jews, it could come down the Jewish Justice Breyer alone, and that's assuming he hasn't had anything to say that is suggestive of "bias" about the situation....!

For those who don't see that this post is loaded with all that toasty-keen I just can't help you. I am sorry to even have to put this disclaimer at the bottom of my post, but better safe than sorry, I suppose.

[sendero]

33. I support the recusal...

... of all morons from public office. Sorry Bobby, you didn't make the cut.

[blkmusclmachine]

36. http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-d2yBIN2LesU/Ua3V6X-I8WI/AAAAAAAAKno/kLaNn9j1Ij0/s200/7.jpg

[onehandle]

38. what a moron

Louisiana, please come to your senses next election.

[MosheFeingold]

40. Here is the standard and what Wikipedia says

28 U.S. Code § 144 - Bias or prejudice of judge

"Whenever a party to any proceeding in a district court makes and files a timely and sufficient affidavit that the judge before whom the matter is pending has a personal bias or prejudice either against him or in favor of any adverse party, such judge shall proceed no further therein, but another judge shall be assigned to hear such proceeding.
The affidavit shall state the facts and the reasons for the belief that bias or prejudice exists, and shall be filed not less than ten days before the beginning of the term at which the proceeding is to be heard, or good cause shall be shown for failure to file it within such time. A party may file only one such affidavit in any case. It shall be accompanied by a certificate of counsel of record stating that it is made in good faith."

WIKI:

"In the Supreme Court of the United States, the Justices typically recuse themselves from participating in cases in which they have financial interests. For example, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor generally did not participate in cases involving telecommunications firms because she owned stock in these firms, and Justice Stephen Breyer has disqualified himself in some cases involving insurance companies because of his participation in a Lloyd's of London syndicate. Justices also have declined to participate in cases in which close relatives, such as their children, are lawyers for one of the parties. On occasion, recusal occurs under more unusual circumstances; for example, in two cases, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist stepped down from the bench when cases were argued by Arizona attorney James Brosnahan, who had testified against Rehnquist at his confirmation hearing in 1986. Whatever the reason for recusal, the United States Reports will record that the named justice "took no part in the consideration or decision of this case."

Historically, standards for recusal in the Supreme Court and lower courts were less rigorous than they have become in more recent years. In the 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice John Marshall participated in the decision and authored the opinion of the Court even though Marshall's actions as Secretary of State two years prior could be seen as the subject of the proceeding. On the other hand, Marshall did recuse himself in both the 1813 and 1816 hearings of Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, despite its equally significant constitutional implications, as he and his brother had contracted with Martin to buy the land in dispute. Moreover, during the 19th century, the U.S. federal court system was structured so that an appeal from a judge's decision was often heard by an appellate panel containing the same judge, who was expected to sit in impartial review of his own earlier ruling. This situation is no longer permissible, and 28 U.S.C. Sec. 47 provides that "No judge shall hear or determine an appeal from the decision of a case or issue tried by him."

One of notable dispute over recusal in U.S. Supreme Court history took place in 1946, when Justice Hugo Black participated in deciding the Jewell Ridge Coal case, although a former law partner of Black argued for the prevailing side. The losing party in the 5–4 decision sought reargument on the ground that Black should have been disqualified; Black declined to recuse himself and the decision stood, but Justice Robert H. Jackson wrote a short opinion suggesting that the decision that Black should sit in the case was Black's alone and the Court did not endorse it. The dispute aggravated infighting between Black and Jackson, and it has been suggested that this was one of the reasons that, when Chief Justice Harlan Fiske Stone died, President Harry S. Truman appointed Fred M. Vinson to succeed Stone rather than promote a sitting Associate Justice to Chief Justice.

In 1973, then-Associate Justice Rehnquist wrote a lengthy in-chambers opinion declining to recuse himself in Laird v. Tatum, a case challenging the validity of certain arrests, even though Rehnquist had previously served as a White House lawyer and opined that the arrest program was valid.[2] In 2004, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote an opinion declining to recuse himself in a case to which Vice President Dick Cheney was a party in his official capacity, despite the contention of several environmental groups that Scalia's participation created an appearance of impropriety because Scalia had recently participated in a widely publicized hunting trip with the Vice President.[3] The same year, however, Scalia recused himself without explanation in Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, a First Amendment case challenging inclusion of the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, after giving a public speech in which Scalia stated his view that Newdow's claims were meritless."

[MosheFeingold]

42. Sorry, found a more detailed statute

(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
(b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances:
(1) Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;
(2) Where in private practice he served as lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom he previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter, or the judge or such lawyer has been a material witness concerning it;
(3) Where he has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy;
(4) He knows that he, individually or as a fiduciary, or his spouse or minor child residing in his household, has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;
(5) He or his spouse, or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person:
(i) Is a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of a party;
(ii) Is acting as a lawyer in the proceeding;
(iii) Is known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;
(iv) Is to the judge’s knowledge likely to be a material witness in the proceeding.
(c) A judge should inform himself about his personal and fiduciary financial interests, and make a reasonable effort to inform himself about the personal financial interests of his spouse and minor children residing in his household.
(d) For the purposes of this section the following words or phrases shall have the meaning indicated:
(1) “proceeding” includes pretrial, trial, appellate review, or other stages of litigation;
(2) the degree of relationship is calculated according to the civil law system;
(3) “fiduciary” includes such relationships as executor, administrator, trustee, and guardian;
(4) “financial interest” means ownership of a legal or equitable interest, however small, or a relationship as director, adviser, or other active participant in the affairs of a party, except that:
(i) Ownership in a mutual or common investment fund that holds securities is not a “financial interest” in such securities unless the judge participates in the management of the fund;
(ii) An office in an educational, religious, charitable, fraternal, or civic organization is not a “financial interest” in securities held by the organization;
(iii) The proprietary interest of a policyholder in a mutual insurance company, of a depositor in a mutual savings association, or a similar proprietary interest, is a “financial interest” in the organization only if the outcome of the proceeding could substantially affect the value of the interest;
(iv) Ownership of government securities is a “financial interest” in the issuer only if the outcome of the proceeding could substantially affect the value of the securities.
(e) No justice, judge, or magistrate judge shall accept from the parties to the proceeding a waiver of any ground for disqualification enumerated in subsection (b). Where the ground for disqualification arises only under subsection (a), waiver may be accepted provided it is preceded by a full disclosure on the record of the basis for disqualification.
(f) Notwithstanding the preceding provisions of this section, if any justice, judge, magistrate judge, or bankruptcy judge to whom a matter has been assigned would be disqualified, after substantial judicial time has been devoted to the matter, because of the appearance or discovery, after the matter was assigned to him or her, that he or she individually or as a fiduciary, or his or her spouse or minor child residing in his or her household, has a financial interest in a party (other than an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome), disqualification is not required if the justice, judge, magistrate judge, bankruptcy judge, spouse or minor child, as the case may be, divests himself or herself of the interest that provides the grounds for the disqualification.

[Myrina]

44. aaaahahahahahahahahahahaaaaa

n/t

[Major Nikon]

47. We've got to stop being the stupid party.

-- Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal

[LibertyLover]

48. Works for me, so long as

Thomas, Roberts, Alito and Scalia recuse themselves because of their religion which demands they oppose marriage equality.

And just in case anyone gets upset, I was baptised and confirmed a Roman Catholic.

[Aristus]

49. Jindal is such a fucking idiot.

They don't have to be objective about the issue. They just have to be objective about the law. There's a difference. And Jindal is too fucking stupid to see it.

[gordianot]

52. Jindal may be one of the most delusional people on the planet.

To think anyone counts as a constituent, and he keeps coming back for more.

[blackspade]

55. Fuck Jindal. He needs to recuse himself from politics.

Period.

[dbackjon]

56. Then Alito, Scalia and Thomas should recuse themselves

For speaking publically against gay equality and using a mythological book as basis for discrimination.

[closeupready]

59. +1000.

[LynneSin]

57. So shouldn't any of the Justices that have officiated weddings for straight couples also recuse?

Those other justices might be showing favoritism for straights if we are using the warped logic of Bobby Jindal.

[samsingh]

60. nice idea - let's have the five repug asswipes recuse themselves for hating American freedom

seriously, i am so tired of dumb idiot repugs. they just get more stupid by the day.