- Joined
- Jun 11, 2009
- Messages
- 19,657
- Reaction score
- 8,454
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Texas Sen. Ted Cruz intends to make his opposition to the Supreme Court's decision last week to legalize same-sex marriage nationwide "front and center" in his presidential campaign.In an interview with Morning Editionhost Steve Inskeep on Sunday in New York City, the GOP presidential hopeful doubled down on his belief that the court had overstepped its bounds in both the marriage decision and in upholding Obamacare. And as a result, Cruz said, the justices should be subject to elections and lose their lifetime appointments.
"This week in response to both of these decisions, I have called for another constitutional amendment — this one that would make members of the Supreme Court subject to periodic judicial retention elections," said Cruz.
And how has that worked out so far?Cruz: Opposition To Same-Sex Marriage Will Be 'Front And Center' In 2016 Campaign : It's All Politics : NPR
Well so much for the SCOTUS ruling not being an election issue. I wonder how much traction the judicial elections amendment will get. I am sure the liberals would love another shot at Citizens United and Hobby Lobby in their lifetime. It might not go like Cruz thinks. There is a reason the founding fathers wanted to put justices above the seat of election cycles and political parties.
Cruz: Opposition To Same-Sex Marriage Will Be 'Front And Center' In 2016 Campaign : It's All Politics : NPR
Well so much for the SCOTUS ruling not being an election issue. I wonder how much traction the judicial elections amendment will get. I am sure the liberals would love another shot at Citizens United and Hobby Lobby in their lifetime. It might not go like Cruz thinks. There is a reason the founding fathers wanted to put justices above the seat of election cycles and political parties.
Cruz: Opposition To Same-Sex Marriage Will Be 'Front And Center' In 2016 Campaign : It's All Politics : NPR
Well so much for the SCOTUS ruling not being an election issue. I wonder how much traction the judicial elections amendment will get. I am sure the liberals would love another shot at Citizens United and Hobby Lobby in their lifetime. It might not go like Cruz thinks. There is a reason the founding fathers wanted to put justices above the sway of election cycles and political parties.
This conduct is what makes it hard for Republicans to be Republicans.
And how has that worked out so far?
Cruz will be nowhere near the nomination and the 2016 election will be about a dozen other things before anyone even thinks or considers SSM. Unless the left is foolish enough to attempt to attack religious institutions, it is dead as an issue at the federal level, in my view. If the left is that foolish, all bets are off.
Cruz: Opposition To Same-Sex Marriage Will Be 'Front And Center' In 2016 Campaign : It's All Politics : NPR
Well so much for the SCOTUS ruling not being an election issue. I wonder how much traction the judicial elections amendment will get. I am sure the liberals would love another shot at Citizens United and Hobby Lobby in their lifetime. It might not go like Cruz thinks. There is a reason the founding fathers wanted to put justices above the sway of election cycles and political parties.
This is a phenomenal idea. No reason 9 unelected boobs should get to lord over 350 million of us.
So you want 9 elected boobs who are more focused on raising money for their next election, to lord over 350 million of us? Yup, I think the country will work much better if you can buy the interpretation of the Constitution you want.
How is the whole hating gays been working out for ya?
Yes I would rather have a judicial branch that is answerable to the electorate. Why shouldn't the people have a say in what kind of country they want to live in?
This is a phenomenal idea. No reason 9 unelected boobs should get to lord over 350 million of us.
Well...no reason except for the US Constitution.
Well...no reason except for the US Constitution.
This is a phenomenal idea. No reason 9 unelected boobs should get to lord over 350 million of us.
Cruz: Opposition To Same-Sex Marriage Will Be 'Front And Center' In 2016 Campaign : It's All Politics : NPR
Well so much for the SCOTUS ruling not being an election issue. I wonder how much traction the judicial elections amendment will get. I am sure the liberals would love another shot at Citizens United and Hobby Lobby in their lifetime. It might not go like Cruz thinks. There is a reason the founding fathers wanted to put justices above the sway of election cycles and political parties.
Wait till one or more of them is an unelected gay member of the SOTUS
Yes I would rather have a judicial branch that is answerable to the electorate. Why shouldn't the people have a say in what kind of country they want to live in?
Think of it this way, 9 unelected judges over the American population means that each unelected judge rules over about 35 million people for life without seeking representation from them. It's the ultimate farce. No matter how educated they are, no one deserves that kind of power
You have to love the collective right wing reactions to all of this. So far:
- Judges writing out dissenting opinions = constitutional crisis (this forum)
- State workers can arbitrarily decide who they'll allow to get married (Texas)
- If states can't decide who gets married, a reasonable solution is doing away with marriage licenses (Some conservatives in US/Canada)!
- The judges aren't siding with us? Better replace them every couple of years then!
Oh, September-November 2016 is going to be great. Some people will be tripping over themselves to support gay marriage, others will fade into obscurity for attacking it, and better yet, some will fall into disrepute because of their thinly veiled homophobia.
---------
My, my, my - what a difference a few elections and some really good marketing make. In less than 20 years, the gay community has managed to turn this issue around completely. I remember in 2004, the election being almost entirely around the concept of gay marriage and the Iraq war. People were beating their chest about who could hate on homos the most if they weren't calling the other side unpatriotic. Even Lurch, err Kerry - who had voted against DOMA - could not bring himself to simply support gay marriage. Now it's 2015, and opinions have changed but very little will change in DC. Though the majority of the population either doesn't give a **** or supports gay marriage, there will still be political bottom feeders like Cruz.
We probably already have one.
The OP is a suggestion to amend the constitution.
I suspect if you asked a simple question via referendum to the Anerican public, they would answer "yes" rather resoundingly..."should Supreme Court judges be elected by the public rather than appointed for life by the president?"
Because the Founders, or at least some of them, were wise enough to realize that the people can only be trusted to a limited degree. We elevate an unelected body of Judges to act as permanent arbiters of the law in order to check (among many other things) the intemperate choices and bigotry of the masses. The Constitution, in letter and spirit, should reign above what the people think. If you disagree there is thankfully but one mechanism to change it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?