Cruz to propose amendment to subject SCOTUS justices to election after 8 years
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 07:26:43 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2016 U.S. Presidential Election
  Cruz to propose amendment to subject SCOTUS justices to election after 8 years
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3
Author Topic: Cruz to propose amendment to subject SCOTUS justices to election after 8 years  (Read 3235 times)
Mr. Morden
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,073
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: June 27, 2015, 08:59:52 PM »

Cruz's proposed constitutional amendment:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/420409/ted-cruz-supreme-court-constitutional-amendment

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
GLPman
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,160
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: June 27, 2015, 09:01:40 PM »

Fail.
Logged
The Other Castro
Castro2020
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,230
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: June 27, 2015, 09:03:03 PM »

I don't think he thought this one through.
Logged
Mehmentum
Icefire9
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,594
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: June 27, 2015, 09:32:58 PM »

The fact is that this could so easily backfire on his cause.  I would laugh if Scalia and co. ended up being kicked out.

Of course, I don't like this at all regardless.  Judges are insulated from public pressure for a reason.  Yes, sometimes rulings will run counter public opinion, but public opinion isn't always right.  The court's insulation from public opinion helps stop a 'tyranny of the majority' situation from occurring.       
Logged
RogueBeaver
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,058
Canada
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: June 27, 2015, 09:37:20 PM »

Logged
Fuzzy Stands With His Friend, Chairman Sanchez
Fuzzy Bear
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,500
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: June 27, 2015, 09:51:16 PM »

I do not support SSM.  Furthermore, I believe that yesterday's SCOTUS decision on SSM was Judicial legislating from the bench, pure and simple.

I am a rather nominal Republican, and I voted for Obama in 2012.  I'm not feeling real great about that now, as while I am a union member, I am also a committed Christian and a social conservative. 

On that basis, I may well vote for Cruz in the Republican primary next year.  I'm not sure I want him to be President, and I haven't approved with much of what he's done in the past.  But what he said on the social issues is exactly correct; the GOP will feign outrage on the latest pro-abortion, pro-SSM, anti-religion action by some branch of government, but they won't do anything to reverse it or prevent future similar actions.  I've voted for folks on that basis in the past, and I'm considering Cruz on that basis right now.
Logged
Ebsy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,001
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: June 27, 2015, 10:03:53 PM »

That's not what the founders intended.
Logged
RRProgressive
Rookie
**
Posts: 31


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: June 27, 2015, 10:27:11 PM »

What a racist plan.
Logged
Fuzzy Stands With His Friend, Chairman Sanchez
Fuzzy Bear
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,500
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: June 27, 2015, 10:43:53 PM »

That's not what the founders intended.

I agree.  But they did not intend for the SCOTUS to have the power of Judicial Review to the point where they could nullify statutes.  John Marshall took that power for the Court in MARBURY v. MADISON and we have gone along with it (even though the Constitution does not give the Court power to nullify legislation) because it is the "least worst way" to resolve issues.  Friday's decision is an example of going beyond even what John Marshall envisioned.

As for the guy who stated "What a racist plan!":  I've never said this before, but it's time for the troll to take a hike.
Logged
Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas
Ray Goldfield
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,604


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: June 27, 2015, 10:52:33 PM »

These next few months are going to be a fantastic exercise in the Republicans battling the crazies for the future of the party. Here's a hint - if your solution to a court ruling you don't like is to shut down the court or try to turn it into a political tool, you're one of the crazies.
Logged
Ebsy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,001
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: June 27, 2015, 10:59:58 PM »

That's not what the founders intended.

I agree.  But they did not intend for the SCOTUS to have the power of Judicial Review to the point where they could nullify statutes.  John Marshall took that power for the Court in MARBURY v. MADISON and we have gone along with it (even though the Constitution does not give the Court power to nullify legislation) because it is the "least worst way" to resolve issues.  Friday's decision is an example of going beyond even what John Marshall envisioned.

As for the guy who stated "What a racist plan!":  I've never said this before, but it's time for the troll to take a hike.
Please elaborate.
Logged
dudeabides
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,375
Tuvalu
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: June 27, 2015, 11:04:24 PM »

The U.S. Supreme Court was created to check the powers of the other two branches, it serves as a buffer if you will. The court is here to issue opinions, it is then up to the legislature and executive branches to act on those opinions. Sometimes, these other branches act and other times, not.

The U.S. Supreme Court is not supposed to be the most political branch of government, it is quite the opposite. While some justices might act as legislators, the other two branches of government can choose to ignore their opinions, though they can't ignore any constitutional amendment or laws.

Senator Cruz clearly lacks a basic understanding of our structure of government, or he is purposely trying to create a wedge issue. My guess is, it's a combination of the two.
Logged
CountryClassSF
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,530


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: June 27, 2015, 11:06:59 PM »

Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio are being called out by the pro-family community for giving up on marriage.  You cannot claim to support traditional marriage and then present no action on how to enact it.

Ted Cruz presents action.  Scott Walker, Santorum, etc. These will be the candidates that we conservatives will consider for the nomination.
Logged
Fuzzy Stands With His Friend, Chairman Sanchez
Fuzzy Bear
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,500
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: June 27, 2015, 11:18:52 PM »

These next few months are going to be a fantastic exercise in the Republicans battling the crazies for the future of the party. Here's a hint - if your solution to a court ruling you don't like is to shut down the court or try to turn it into a political tool, you're one of the crazies.

Five SCOTUS Justices just made law in OBERGEFELL, just as they did in CITIZENS UNITED.  They made law.  They redefined corporations as people and they redefined marriage.  One for the left to be unhappy with and one for the right to be unhappy with.  And they have LIFETIME tenure.

Impeachment is the ONLY way to hold the SCOTUS accountable.  Personally, I believe it will send a message to the Court not to exceed the authority that was intended for it by the Founders.  Whether or not the Court gets the message, it needs to be sent.
Logged
Cryptic
Shadowlord88
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 891


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -6.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: June 27, 2015, 11:27:53 PM »
« Edited: June 27, 2015, 11:43:51 PM by Cryptic »

I agree.  But they did not intend for the SCOTUS to have the power of Judicial Review to the point where they could nullify statutes.  John Marshall took that power for the Court in MARBURY v. MADISON and we have gone along with it (even though the Constitution does not give the Court power to nullify legislation) because it is the "least worst way" to resolve issues.  Friday's decision is an example of going beyond even what John Marshall envisioned.

So, your answer to SCOTUS acting in a way you think the founding fathers didn't intend is to support a candidate who proposes amending the constitution in a way the founding fathers clearly didn't intend?

Kinda defeats the purpose, doesn't it?
Logged
Simfan34
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,744
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.90, S: 4.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: June 27, 2015, 11:40:23 PM »

That's not what the founders intended.

Indeed it is not.

Three things. First, judicial elections are terrible things, and this proposal is correspondingly terrible. Second, one can almost certainly say that the Founders never anticipated a level of partisanship anywhere close to what we have today. Third, if they had, I imagine they would have made judicial appointments even more difficult than they are, which is what I think would be a rather good idea; if I were to propose an amendment it would be to require a supermajority for Supreme Court nominees.
Logged
CountryClassSF
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,530


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: June 27, 2015, 11:47:22 PM »

I think what he's proposing are retention elections.  It's what we do in California. After a certain number of years, all appointees face a retention election for the higher courts, a yes or no  vote.
Some of the lower courts are elected positions but still involve/could involve gubernatorial appointments.

I think it's an interesting idea. The advantages are that the people can remove someone from the court . The disadvantage is that it may persuade the justices to rule in a certain way based on popular opinion rather than the law.
Logged
SATW
SunriseAroundTheWorld
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,463
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: June 27, 2015, 11:49:09 PM »

That's not what the founders intended.

Indeed it is not.

Three things. First, judicial elections are terrible things, and this proposal is correspondingly terrible. Second, one can almost certainly say that the Founders never anticipated a level of partisanship anywhere close to what we have today. Third, if they had, I imagine they would have made judicial appointments even more difficult than they are, which is what I think would be a rather good idea; if I were to propose an amendment it would be to require a supermajority for Supreme Court nominees.

^ This.
Logged
publicunofficial
angryGreatness
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,010
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: June 28, 2015, 12:02:19 AM »

"SCOTUS ignores and abuses the Constitution, so let's change one of the core aspects of the Constitition to fix it" is logic that doesn't make sense. It makes Cruz look stupid, and he'll be attacked for it from all sides.

Wouldn't it make more sense just to propose an amendment to ban gay marriage? It would have no chance at passing, but hey neither does this.
Logged
Likely Voter
Moderators
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,344


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: June 28, 2015, 12:19:17 AM »

Attacking "activist judges" is a golden oldie for Republicans right up there with attacking the media. So this is good politics for Cruz. The base want to see some one fighting back and not just giving in, even if the proposals are completely ludicrous. That is why Walker is now backing a constitutional amendment to let states ban the gay marriage. He knows that such a thing has 0% chance of happening but he cant afford to be outflanked by Cruz, Huckabee, Santorum if he wants to win Iowa.

I just hope some interview asks Cruz and/or Walker about the fantasy of how they will get the required large numbers of Democrats to back their new constitutional amendments
Logged
publicunofficial
angryGreatness
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,010
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: June 28, 2015, 12:33:59 AM »

Attacking "activist judges" is a golden oldie for Republicans right up there with attacking the media. So this is good politics for Cruz. The base want to see some one fighting back and not just giving in, even if the proposals are completely ludicrous. That is why Walker is now backing a constitutional amendment to let states ban the gay marriage. He knows that such a thing has 0% chance of happening but he cant afford to be outflanked by Cruz, Huckabee, Santorum if he wants to win Iowa.

I just hope some interview asks Cruz and/or Walker about the fantasy of how they will get the required large numbers of Democrats to back their new constitutional amendments

Let alone convince the 70% of Americans that support SSM.

That's always been the funniest thing about JCL's "YOU HAVEN'T WON YET" shtick. Sure rulings can be undone, bills passed, marriages yanked away from gay couples, but how exactly does he plan to stop the tide of popular opinion? When JCL is no longer part of minority of Americans, but a super-minority, will he still claim that gay marriage hasn't won?
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,611


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: June 28, 2015, 12:37:55 AM »

The fact is that this could so easily backfire on his cause.  I would laugh if Scalia and co. ended up being kicked out.

Judicial retention elections seem to hurt the left a lot more than the right, because the right is better organized. Some Iowa Supreme Court judges who ruled for gay marriage lost. In 1986, 3 of the 7 California Supreme Court judges lost because of opposing capital punishment, including the Chief Justice who lost 2-1.
Logged
CountryClassSF
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,530


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: June 28, 2015, 12:44:46 AM »

The Supreme Court's role is not to legislate.  And they legislated thrice this week. Kagan and Ginsburg should face impeachment for non-recusal.
Logged
The Mikado
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,677


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: June 28, 2015, 12:45:49 AM »

Retention elections are a terrible idea that will lead to miscarriages of justice trying to appeal to campaign donors.

That said, I wouldn't much mind if tenure on the Supreme Court were a fixed 10 years rather than life. That would instill some regular change in the Court while preserving judicial independence.
Logged
CountryClassSF
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,530


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: June 28, 2015, 12:58:42 AM »

Judges who have conflicts of interests and refuse to recuse should be removed from the bench by either voters or Congress. It shouldn't require 2/3rds.

Kagan and Ginsburg have usurped the dignity of office
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.052 seconds with 14 queries.