I love it when the Worldnetdaily thinks they have an important scoop. They slap the “exclusive” label on it (along with practically every other story they run) and scream “A HA! We gotcha!” This time it’s the Supreme Court, which they think has been “caught messing with” the same-sex marriage case. I’m sure you’ll be surprised to hear that they’re completely full of shit.
This all comes from William Olson and Herb Titus, their favorite theocratic lawyers, who think they’re caught the court red-handed ignoring a motion that they have no authority to rule on.
The circumstances concern efforts to have Ruth Ginsburg and Elena Kagan recused from the marriage case because they both have taken public advocacy positions for same-sex “marriage” by performing those ceremonies even while the case was pending before the justices.
WND reported just days earlier when a former member of the federal judiciary, Joe Miller, who, when he was appointed U.S. magistrate judge in Fairbanks, Alaska, was the youngest person then serving in that federal position in the nation, called their actions a violation of the code of ethics for judges.
The report from Olson and Titus noted that the Foundation for Moral Law twice formally filed documents seeking the recusal of Kagan and Ginsburg.
“Importantly, Miller also reported that not only had the court not ruled on the foundation’s motion, but that the motion had not even been posted on the Supreme Court docket. While a delay in posting can occur for a number of reasons, none applied here. Did someone at the high court not want to acknowledge that such a motion had been filed?”
They continued, “Now we may have some indication that the U.S. Supreme Court uses Google Alerts, because shortly after the Miller article was published, on either June 17 or 18, 2015, the foundation’s recusal motion suddenly appeared on the docket of the U.S. Supreme Court. Under a date of May 21, 2015, the entry read: ‘Request for recusal received from amicus curiae Foundation for Moral Law.’”
But that, they said, raises even more questions.
“First, the missing motion. The foundation’s first motion to recuse consisting of eight pages was submitted on April 27, 2015 (and date and time stamped on April 27, 2015, at 11:47 a.m.) — a good three weeks before the Supreme Court claims that it was ‘received’ on May 21, 2015. The Foundation for Moral Law later filed a second motion to recuse consisting of four pages on May 21 (date and time stamped on May 21, 2015, at 11:28 a.m.). The second motion was filed after Justice Ginsburg performed another same-sex wedding, and was to the effect of: ‘there, you did it again.’ The second motion refers back to the first motion. Why is there only one entry on the court’s docket sheets? What happened to the original motion?”Then, as lawyers are apt to do, they noticed the specific language used by the Supreme Court.
“The Foundation document is entitled a ‘Motion.’ Why is it entitled on the docket as a ‘Request’? Third, the action. According to the court rules, a ‘Motion’ is ‘filed’ with the court. Why is the action taken by the court described only as ‘received’ and not ‘filed’?”
“These points … suggest that the high court, for an inordinate time, has ignored the recusal motion. While the court has finally acknowledged that some recusal filing was made, it certainly gives no assurance that any ruling on the motion will be forthcoming before the court decides the same-sex marriage case,” the lawyers explained.
Oh boy, they sure have uncovered some serious misconduct here, haven’t they? Of course not. The Supreme Court has no intention of ruling on this recusal motion for two reasons. First, because only a party to the case, which the Foundation for Moral Law is not, would be allowed to make such a motion. Second, because that motion would be only to the judges they want to recuse, not to the court. Each justice must decide for themselves whether to recuse and there is no procedure by which the full court could force them to do so. The motion is totally irrelevant and will end up in a circular file where it belongs.
And isn’t it funny that they’re only going after the liberal judges? Justice Scalia has made his opposition to same-sex marriage absolutely clear in both his earlier opinions on the matter — this is a man who argued in 2003 that moral disapproval was an adequate justification for throwing gay people in jail — and in public comments. So why aren’t they challenging Scalia to recuse himself? I think we all know the answer to that.