Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the 82-year-old leader of the Supreme Court’s minority liberal wing, has cast aside her usual restraint in the past months and left little doubt where she stands on the upcoming gay marriage case.
The Supreme Court hears arguments in the case, Obergefell v. Hodges, on Tuesday, and will most likely announce in June whether states will still be allowed to ban same-sex marriage and refuse to recognize the rights of couples married in other states.
Ginsburg, a former civil rights lawyer, has been uncharacteristically outspoken in advance of one of the most significant civil rights decisions in decades. In August, she became the first Supreme Court justice to officiate at a same-sex wedding. Since then, she’s highlighted the big shift in public opinion on gay marriage in interviews and public speeches, breaking from her usual reticence when it comes to talking about upcoming cases.
In February, Ginsburg told Bloomberg that it “would not take a large adjustment” for Americans to accept nationwide marriage equality, given the “enormous” change in people’s attitudes about same-sex marriage. New York Times columnist Gail Collins wrote in January that Ginsburg has a “strong hunch” about the way the case will turn out. “I would be very surprised if the Supreme Court retreats from what it has said about same-sex unions,” Ginsburg told Collins, referencing the 2012 decision that found the federal government must recognize same-sex marriages.
Two anti-gay-marriage groups, the National Organization for Marriage and the American Family Association, have since called on Ginsburg to recuse herself, arguing that she can no longer be impartial. They’ve also targeted Justice Elena Kagan for officiating at a same-sex marriage, asking her to step down from the case, too.
Legal experts say the calls for recusal are unwarranted, given the 2012 ruling that the federal government must recognize same-sex marriages in states that allow them. The constitutional issue at stake in the current case is whether states can ban same-sex marriage at all. Officiating at a same-sex marriage in a jurisdiction that already allows it does not call into question the justices’ impartiality on that question, according to Columbia Law School professor Jamal Greene.i would like to see a debate with those who oppose and those real Americans who respect all Americans. i would pose just 1 question what is it that impacts your life so intensely you feel you need to trample on other's rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? they cannot claim religious belief, freedom or anything involving religion given the fact that they operate under a different deity of hate and bigotry, intolerance and not obeying or following the Ten Commandments themselves you don't get to play the religious freedom card when you are devoid of religious beliefs.
asking those on the Progressive side to recuse themselves because of their belief in every ones rights are the same then they also have to have the entire right wing side do the same because we and they knew their position before it came up
as to THE NOTORIOUS RBG GOD LOVE HER AND KEEP HER HERE WE NEED PEOPLE OF COMPASSION AND A REAL SENSE OF WHAT IT MEANS TO BE AN AMERICAN!
