Staver Absurdly Demands Ginsburg Recusal From Marriage Case

Mat Staver, the dumbest lawyer in America not named Larry Klayman or Mike Cernovich, is demanding that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg recuse herself from any future case involving same-sex marriage because he is (no doubt deliberately) misinterpreting something she recently said.

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg told an audience at the University of Minnesota Law School that if the Sixth District Court of Appeals rules in favor of same-sex marriage, there will be “no need for us to rush” on a decision on the definition of marriage. If however, the appeals court that covers Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee upholds the centuries-old, natural definition of marriage as one man and one woman, “there will be some urgency.”

“In casting a vote publicly before the case is even heard, Justice Ginsburg has violated the Judicial Code of Conduct,” said Mat Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel. “It is now her duty to recuse herself from cases involving same-sex marriage.”

According to Canon 2 of the Judicial Code of Conduct, “A judicial employee should not lend the prestige of the office to advance or to appear to advance the private interests of others.”

Canon 3(D) declares, “A judicial employee should avoid making public comment on the merits of a pending or impending action.”

“Justice Ginsburg’s comments implied that the merits of the state constitutional amendments defining marriage as one man and one woman were such that the Supreme Court would have to overturn them with haste, if upheld by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals,” said Staver. “This is an inappropriate comment for any judicial employee, much less a Supreme Court Justice!”

But she didn’t say anything about the merits of the case. When she said that a 6th Circuit decision that overturns bans on same-sex marriage there will be less urgency than if they uphold them, it’s because in the latter case there would be a split between different circuits. When that happens, it virtually guarantees that the Supreme Court must hear the cases because there are two different laws being applied across the country. If all of the appeals courts that have ruled thus far have reached the same conclusion (and they have), it’s less likely that they will hear the case. Staver knows this, of course, he’s just lying because he knows his followers are too ignorant to catch him at it.

"" I think maybe what you are getting at with your statements about the Koran ..."

Yes, the Bible Does Say to ..."
"A young man I know explained his estrangement from his father by sharing his paternal ..."

Pastor: Moore Liked Young Girls Because ..."
"We’re into the Smart justifications-Maxwell Smart, that is.Would you believe he chased teenage girls because ..."

Pastor: Moore Liked Young Girls Because ..."
"Studying her linguistic patterns, I think Crokin tipped her hand on this one. She said ..."

Crokin: Hillary Clinton Sex Tape Will ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Modusoperandi

    She should recuse herself, not because of that, but because her views are different than mine and, by extension, the views of Americans and America itself. Clearly, that’s a conflict of interest.

  • Pierce R. Butler

    Staver knows this, of course…

    So our esteemed host should describe him as “the most dishonest lawyer not named …”, not “… the dumbest …”

  • rigorlogicmathematics

    Ed, you’ve spoken about “separating the argument from the source” (e.g. your hangout with Julia Galef).

    Here’s your quote: “we can undermine our rationality […] by dismissing arguments we shouldn’t dismiss because we got them from somebody we don’t respect.” I think you make great points in the video.

    Have you seen Mike Cernovich’s offer of $10,000? The substance of the offer: you go on a special diet, you get $10,000 and you get half of the e-book sales (he argues this would be over $10,000 in value). Other people have done the diet with success; including

    What makes you dismiss this offer?

  • dan4

    @2: You might have a point…if “dishonest” and “dumb” were mutually exclusive items (they are not).

  • Pierce R. Butler

    dan4 @ # 4 – But the original post concedes “Staver knows this…”, so in this case we do have a contradiction.

  • Aspect Sign

    There is also the matter that the 9 U.S. Supremes are not held to the judicial code of conduct. They are the only fed. judges that are not. One can certainly argue they should be but that is currently not the case .

  • dan4

    @6: Uh, the fact that Staver knows an argument is untrue but “runs” with it anyway is a confirmation of the claim that he is dumb, not (as your comment implies) a negation of it.

  • dan4

    My last comment should have referenced @5, not @6.

  • John Pieret

    I’m with Dan4 on this. Morons lie too … usually badly, as in this case. Ed might have been a little overconfident that Staver knows that a split in the Circuit Courts would force the Supremes to take up the issue sooner rather than later … it is conceivable, but not very likely, that he is really that dumb … but concluding that he is deliberately lying is hardly unreasonable.

  • maddog1129

    What happened to Orly Taitz?

  • vmanis1

    Excuse me, but hasn’t Justice Scalia opined on various judicial matters at meetings of the Federalist Society, and similar venues? If he has, does he get a pass because he has the Mat Staver Seal Of Approval? Or are Justice Ginsburg’s comments on judicial procedure more reprehensible than Justice Scalia’s on merits of actual cases? Of course, I have little doubt on how Justice Ginsburg would vote if such a matter reached her court. But then, I have little doubt on how Justice Alito would vote. [*]

    I vote for Mat being both dumb AND disingenuous.

    [*] In theory, Justice Scalia should vote for marriage equality, given his dissent in Lawrence. That said, expecting consistency from Scalia is like expecting a coherent description of the Big Bang from a garden slug.

  • abb3w

    @3ish, rigorlogicmathematics […]


  • eoraptor

    John Pieret @9

    …it is conceivable, but not very likely, that he is really that dumb…

    No, not really. USSC jurisdiction is 1st year, really basic, and heavily emphasized in law school. People might forget the esoterica of jurisdiction, but not fundamental difference of circuit court decision jurisdiction.

    OTOH, he probably is pretty dumb, and demonstrably dishonest.