In another display of judicial arrogance and bias, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg once again officiated at a same-sex ‘wedding’ over the weekend, this time perhaps hinting that the Court will find that such ‘marriages’ are required by the Constitution.
As reported by New York Times, Ginsburg did not clarify why she emphasized the word “constitution” in her remarks. Perhaps she was expressing her own view – which she has improperly telegraphed for months. It is this kind of behavior that seriously calls into question the impartiality of a judge that requires her to remove herself from voting on the marriage case. As legal expert Ed Whelan noted yesterday in a post at NRO’s Bench Memos, her refusal to do so is why “no one should be expected to regard as legitimate a Supreme Court decision inventing a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.”
Wearing her black robe with her signature white lace collar, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg presided over the marriage on Sunday afternoon of Michael Kahn, the longtime artistic director of the Shakespeare Theater Company in Washington, and Charles Mitchem, who works at an architecture firm in New York.
. . .
But the most glittering moment for the crowd came during the ceremony. With a sly look and special emphasis on the word “Constitution,” Justice Ginsburg said that she was pronouncing the two men married by the powers vested in her by the Constitution of the United States.
No one was sure if she was emphasizing her own beliefs or giving a hint to the outcome of the case the Supreme Court is considering whether to decide if same-sex marriage is constitutional.
The foundation of the United States judicial system is that the judge is to be unbiased in opinion, and should only consider the facts of a case. However, as “the groom and groom strolled down the aisle to the mellow strains of “Mr. Sandman,” Justice Ginsburg demonstrated that she holds a biased opinion with regards to same-sex marriage. While in the midst of a court decision that could change the fabric of America, it will be hard to trust a decision issued by a Justice who cannot refrain from publicly exemplifying their impartiality when it comes to the definition of marriage.