Originally posted by whodey
What do you expect from someone who should have recused herself on a case in SCOTUS
There is no rule that a SCOTUS justice has to recuse themselves just because it's reasonably obvious how they are going to rule. Just about every decision would be 1-0 if there was such a guiding principle. Moreover, the weddings performed were legal in the States and DC where the Judges officiated and the issue of whether there is a right to marriage equality for gays is surely different from whether a Judge decides to perform a legal wedding ceremony so the argument presented is spurious.
Some "legal expert" you found there:
Fischer has said that welfare has "destroyed the African-American family" by "offering financial rewards to women who have more children out of wedlock" thereby incentivizing "fornication rather than marriage" creating "disastrous social consequences of people who rut like rabbits." The AFA has repudiated the characterisation of minorities as "people who rut like rabbits," as well as the view that immigration should be restricted because Hispanics are "socialist by nature" and vote Democratic because it allows them to "benefit from the plunder of the wealth of the United States."
Fischer has argued that "Many of the tribal reservations today remain mired in poverty and alcoholism because many Native Americans continue to cling to the darkness of indigenous superstition instead of coming into the light of Christianity and assimilating into Christian culture." The AFA has repudiated his view that "Superstition, savagery and sexual immorality" morally disqualified Native Americans from "sovereign control of American soil."
Fischer has described Muslims as "Parasites Who Must Convert or Die," and stated that Muslims are worshipping a demon and "every time we allow a mosque to go up in one of our communities, it’s like planting an improvised explosive device right in the heart of your city and we have no idea when one of these devices is going to go off.” He stated that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects only the religious practice of Christianity, writing in a blog post “The real object of the amendment was, not to countenance, much less to advance [Islam], or Judaism, or infidelity... So the purpose of the First Amendment was most decidedly NOT to “approve, support, (or) accept” any “religion” other than Christianity." Fischer has suggested Jews and Muslims are not included in religious freedom protections in the US, saying: “I have contended for years that the First Amendment, as given by the Founders, provides religious liberty protections for Christianity only.” He later wrote: “We are a Christian nation and not a Jewish or Muslim one.”
It goes on in rather nauseating detail.