Justices Ginsburg, Kagan ‘Violated The Constitution,’ Should Have Withdrawn On Gay Marriage Ruling [Video]


Court Justices Elena Kagan and Ruth Bader Ginsburg acted illegally by not recusing themselves before weighing in on same-sex marriage.


Why, their impartiality on the matter was compromised.

Title 28, Part I, Chapter 21, Section 455 of the U.S. Code reads: 

(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;

Both Kagan and Ginsburg have performed same-sex wedding ceremonies.

CNS News reported:

Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) told C-SPAN’s “Washington Journal” on Wednesday that Supreme Court Justices Elena Kagan and Ruth Bader Ginsburg “acted illegally” by not recusing themselves before weighing in on same-sex marriage.

“Two of our justices – Kagan and Ginsberg – had presided over same-sex marriage. So there was no question they believed it was constitutional. That means they were disqualified. The law 28 USC 455 says: ‘Any justice, judge or magistrate of the United States shall disqualify’ – not maybe – ‘shall disqualify in any proceeding in which impartiality might reasonably be questioned,’” Gohmert said.

As CNSNews.com previously reported, Ginsburg officiated the gay marriage ceremony of Michael Kahn, artistic director of the Shakespeare Theater Company in Washington, and Charles Mitchem, who works for an architecture firm in New York. Kagan also officiated a same-sex marriage ceremony.

Alabama Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore told CNSNews.com that was grounds for impeachment for both justices.

Moore’s Foundation for Moral Law issued a press release in May, saying, “Canon 3A(6) of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges provides that ‘A judge should not make public comment on the merits of a matter pending or impending in any court.’ 28 U.S.C. sec 455(a) mandates that a Justice ‘shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.’”

“We had two justices that were totally disqualified. They acted illegally. They violated the Constitution,” Gohmert told the “Washington Journal.”

“That’s an illegitimate and improper decision, and when the highest court in the land has two judges that are that condescending and that willing to violate the law in order to impose their unelected will on the American people, then God help us. We’re in a lot of trouble, and I think that’s where we are,” he added.


Photo courtesy of Google


  1. Sorry, but there is no Constitutional requirement for any Judge to recluse themselves from any case, the duty come from the Code of Judicial Conduct. Other that seeking an impeachment there is no recourse.

    • You don’t know much “Rexx”. You can’t even spell or correct your own mistakes, let alone speak for judges who are brazenly PARTIAL due to conflict of interest or lack of impartiality! They should have recused themselves out of respect for the law!

      • Beware the (re)definition of the word “education”. Nowadays, thexdwfault understanding of the word means “agreeing with leftists”, just like the term “critical thinking”.

    • You are correct, Rexx. There is no Constitutional requirement and, therefore, their actions cannot be “unconstitutional.” Regardless of the personal attacks against your statements, you are factually correct.

      • Rexx, Mike, you seem to miss the fact that their actions were not a question of constitutionality, but a question of law. As cited in the article, it is against the LAW for a judge to render judgement when they have made an earlier indication of their standing in the argument before them. By performing same-sex marriages,they are abligated by law to recuse themselves from rendering verdict in the case. Further, by not acting appropriately, they can and should be impeached. Their jurist prudence is now in question, therefore they are no longer qualified to serve in this capacity. It is also quite evident that they are practicing judicial activism. I assume by your defense of these non elected tyrants, you would have no problem being ruled over by a King, Queen or dictator? That being the case, you have plenty of choices as to which country you’d like to apply for citizenship, please, by all means, get right on that…

        • It is pseudo-intellections and mental-midgets like you that continue to cause the problems with situations like this. Both the heading of the story and the story itself state that they acted “unconstitutionally.” You even said “their actions were not a question of constitutionality” – NO KIDDING! That’s what I said. They did not violate the U.S. Constitution.

          Why is it that every time some half-wit like you thinks they managed to rub two brain cells together and generate a thought, they think they need to tell everyone around them that those people should just “leave” if they don’t agree with them? I happen to have spent several years studying our founding history and the U.S. Constitution and have dedicated a good portion of my time to debunking they myths that surround both the document and the period in which it was written.

          How about YOU do some reading and critical thinking instead of attacking people that actually know more about the topic than you do?

          (Especially when you attack them by saying the same thing the did)…

          • …and, yes, I realize the “helpful” auto-correction and small typing area managed to get spelling errors into a non-correctable statement. And, as people in this thread have already chosen to base their entire statements on picking apart other people’s grammar, I shall address them:

            “…debunking the myths…”
            “…same thing they did…”

            As an additional point, they did act unconstitutionally – but no more than the other 7 justices did. It was unconstitutional for the U.S. Supreme Court to even hear this case.

  2. If this is true, than the court ruling would be 4-3 against same sex marriage. The ruling must be overturned by the laws of our constitution.

    • “by the laws of our constitution”? What does that mean? The only Constitutional action even possible by the U.S. Supreme Court on this entire topic was “No Equity.” Every issued opinion, regardless of content, on this matter is unconstitutional to begin with.

  3. The left will argue against this claiming that any judge who has conducted a man-woman marriage should then also recuse themselves. But this is a faulty counter argument, because the legal issue is the redefinition of marriage. Officiating at an authentic natural (man-woman) marriage does not indicate whether or not you support the redefinition of marriage and thus your presumption of impartiality is preserved. There are plenty of people who have officiated at an natural marriage who also support same sex so-called “marriage.” However, to officiate at a same sex so-called “marriage” is to cast your vote for redefinition — and thus proves you are not impartial.

  4. Scalia and Alito participated in anti equality rallies. And Thomas is a direct beneficiary of a ruling of the supreme court on marriage equality in the 60’s.

  5. Wait a minute. Just because they performed a gay marriage in a state where gay marriage is legal does not automatically mean that they think it should be unconstitutional to deny gay marriage rights in all other states. I just don’t believe you can leap to that conclusion. Otherwise the only judges who could have ruled on this would have been judges who had NOT performed a gay marriage. That’s not very balanced. I think these professionals can rule fairly even if they already have opinions. Who doesn’t already have an opinion on gay marriage? This reeks of desperation.

  6. There is absolutely no Constitutional requirements for judges to recuse themselves for any reason. Therefore, their actions cannot be “unconstitutional.” They may be in violation of something else, but it’s not the U.S. Constitution. Not everything that you don’t like is “unconstitutional” any more than the things you like are “constitutional.” It’s always best to actually read the document…

    • …now, that being said, the entire situation is unconstitutional in its entirety. The only possible opinion that U.S. Supreme Court could constitutionally render on this topic would be “No Equity.” Anything else, regardless of whether you agree with it or not, is unconstitutional.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here