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 29, 2024, 10:04:28 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 3237 times)
Gass3268
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,478
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: June 28, 2015, 12:59:41 AM »
« edited: June 28, 2015, 01:03:23 AM by Gass3268 »

The Supreme Court's role is not to legislate.  And they legislated thrice this week. Kagan and Ginsburg should face impeachment for non-recusal.

Why should they? There was clearly no conflict of interest. All they did was officiate some marriages that were legal in the states in which they preformed them. If you go by your logic, everyone by Kagan should have recused themselves because they are in heterosexual marriages. Also Thomas should have recused himself from all the ACA cases because his wife was actively involved with groups affiliated with groups trying to kill the law. Seriously, stop crying and get over it, you lost. As MLK said "the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice" and justice finally came on Friday! Cheesy
Logged
YaBoyNY
NYMillennial
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,469
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: June 28, 2015, 12:59:59 AM »

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.

I hope the Republicans nominate Cruz, Walker, or Santorum.

The blowout would be hilarious.
Logged
CountryClassSF
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,530


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: June 28, 2015, 01:06:34 AM »

Officiating a "marriage" like that implies and equates support. Period.  It is a direct case of bias. They should face impeachment.

Your idea of justice is unelected officials creating a right that never existed, at the expense of Christian religious freedom.


Any and all GOP candidates that do not support a constitutional amendment will not receive support from the pro-family community. Primary or general.
Logged
YaBoyNY
NYMillennial
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,469
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: June 28, 2015, 01:09:00 AM »

Officiating a "marriage" like that implies and equates support. Period.  It is a direct case of bias. They should face impeachment.

Your idea of justice is unelected officials creating a right that never existed, at the expense of Christian religious freedom.


Any and all GOP candidates that do not support a constitutional amendment will not receive support from the pro-family community. Primary or general.

Christian religious freedom is in no way being infringed here.
Logged
CountryClassSF
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,530


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: June 28, 2015, 01:09:37 AM »
« Edited: June 28, 2015, 01:12:06 AM by CountryClassSF »

Tell that to Baronelle Stutzman. Tell that to the Little Sisters of the Poor. Tell that to them.  You not only desire equality under the law, you now seek to destroy anyone who has a different view.
Logged
Likely Voter
Moderators
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,344


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: June 28, 2015, 01:14:23 AM »

Are we going to let someone derail yet another thread?

I am not a mod, but might I suggest we, dunno, maybe stick to the politics of the "2016 U.S. Presidential Election"? Being that this is the " 2016 U.S. Presidential Election" board?

Can't we just ignore the nonsense?
Logged
Gass3268
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,478
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: June 28, 2015, 01:16:16 AM »

Officiating a "marriage" like that implies and equates support. Period.  It is a direct case of bias. They should face impeachment.

Your idea of justice is unelected officials creating a right that never existed, at the expense of Christian religious freedom.


Any and all GOP candidates that do not support a constitutional amendment will not receive support from the pro-family community. Primary or general.

It doesn't matter anymore, there is no such thing as "gay marriage" anymore. For everyone its just marriage. No more need for the adjective. So really Ginsburg and Kagan just performed normal marriages.    

Also luckily the "pro-family" community is the weakest its been in decades. They don't really matter anymore, other than to produce Republican candidates that are too conservative for mainstream America. Just look at the polls. Americans in record numbers supports gay marriage, marijuana legalization, removing racist symbols, and right to chose.

This past week has truly been amazing. Confederate flags are coming down everywhere, Obamacare was declared Constitutional... again, and we now finally have marriage equality. America took a giant step forward this week.  
Logged
Gass3268
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,478
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: June 28, 2015, 01:20:41 AM »

Back to the topic, Cruz is crazy and I would love to see him be the nominee. He'd be lucky to get 200 electoral votes in 2016.
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 #33 on: June 28, 2015, 01:24:46 AM »

Cruz's proposal is nothing more than bait to reel in very desperate soc-cons. It has no chance of ever becoming reality. It is just a way for him to try and get votes for the primary.
Logged
CountryClassSF
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,530


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: June 28, 2015, 01:30:43 AM »

Are we going to let someone derail yet another thread?

I am not a mod, but might I suggest we, dunno, maybe stick to the politics of the "2016 U.S. Presidential Election"? Being that this is the " 2016 U.S. Presidential Election" board?

Can't we just ignore the nonsense?

Wasn't aware of the asterisk that showed that only Cruz haters opinions were welcome

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Oh, there never was.
Logged
Middle-aged Europe
Old Europe
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,178
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: June 28, 2015, 04:16:17 AM »

Term limits for the Supreme Court justices wouldn't be a bad idea IMO, but as a matter of principle I'm opposed to the idea of electing judges by the people.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: June 28, 2015, 07:39:44 AM »

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.

That about sums it up. It's a deal killer for me. And a lot of Pubs tend to drink that kool aid.
Logged
HAnnA MArin County
semocrat08
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,037
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: June 28, 2015, 08:16:01 AM »

The man who shut down the government now wants to determine how the government operates? He's a confusing buffoon, but then again, most Republicans are, but oh how I hope he is the nominee. Hillary would annihilate him.
Logged
Mister Mets
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,435
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: June 28, 2015, 09:06:30 AM »

I don't think he thought this one through.
Sure he did. It has no chance of passing, so he could blow smoke free of consequences. Anyone who criticizes him is going to be against democracy (even if it's the right position to take in this case.)
Logged
The Other Castro
Castro2020
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,230
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: June 28, 2015, 12:57:05 PM »

I don't think he thought this one through.
Sure he did. It has no chance of passing, so he could blow smoke free of consequences. Anyone who criticizes him is going to be against democracy (even if it's the right position to take in this case.)

I meant he didn't think it through because a Democrat won 50%+ in 25+ states in the last two elections. Anyone who thinks we should vote for Justices has no idea what they're talking about.
Logged
Kaine for Senate '18
benconstine
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,329
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: June 28, 2015, 01:24:00 PM »

Man, this is really a terrible plan.  Definitely worse than FDR's attempt to pack the court.
Logged
7,052,770
Harry
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,222
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: June 28, 2015, 02:53:16 PM »

Considering how gay marriage has clear majority support, wouldn't Cruz's idea have made the dissenters MORE LIKELY to support gay marriage, not the other way around? Perhaps Cruz wishes it had been a 7-2 decision instead (I assume Scalia/Thomas would've stuck to their guns)
Logged
Blair
Blair2015
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,817
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: June 28, 2015, 03:05:32 PM »
« Edited: June 28, 2015, 03:07:52 PM by Senator Blair »

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.

What's your view on Citizens United v Fec? Bush v Gore? Shelby County v Holder?

SCOTUS has always done this
Logged
The Dowager Mod
texasgurl
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,973
United States


Political Matrix
E: -9.48, S: -8.57

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: June 28, 2015, 03:13:27 PM »

Just set a mandatory retirement age, Scalia and his increasingly over the top opinions point to early onset dementia.
Logged
TDAS04
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,475
Bhutan


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: June 28, 2015, 03:59:22 PM »
« Edited: June 28, 2015, 04:01:25 PM by TDAS04 »

Just set a mandatory retirement age, Scalia and his increasingly over the top opinions point to early onset dementia.

Not a mandatory retirement age, but I support forcing justices to retire after 20 years on SCOTUS.  With lifetime appointments, presidents scramble for young justices who will serve for a long time.  (The age discrimination would still be there with a mandatory retirement age, obviously.)

Anyway, back to the OP, electing justices would be idiotic, and Cruz is clearly an idiot.
Logged
Fuzzy Stands With His Friend, Chairman Sanchez
Fuzzy Bear
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,504
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: June 28, 2015, 05:03:39 PM »

Officiating a "marriage" like that implies and equates support. Period.  It is a direct case of bias. They should face impeachment.

If just officiating a marriage implies and equates support, then I wonder what actual involvement in one of those marriages would equate. Impeach everyone but Kagan.

In truth, whether Ginsburg and Kagan officiated over a SSM ceremony before Obergefell was decided is kind of irrelevant.  They had their minds made up beforehand, and they were not interested in the facts.

They should all be impeached, and be forced to show that they did nothing more than say what the law is.  While an elected Court was not the intent of the Framers, neither was a Court that could nullify legislation and write new legislation without any precedential basis.  Which is, essentially, what they did.

And the guy who ought to be grilled the hardest is Anthony Kennedy.  Here's a guy who's a professional swing vote who will always decide for the GOP on political questions (Bush v. Gore, Obamacare, Citizens United) but always fall on the liberal side on social issues.  A Harry Blackmun without intellectual honesty, seeking to create a lasting legacy for himself. 
Logged
Skill and Chance
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,522
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: June 28, 2015, 05:12:04 PM »

Officiating a "marriage" like that implies and equates support. Period.  It is a direct case of bias. They should face impeachment.

If just officiating a marriage implies and equates support, then I wonder what actual involvement in one of those marriages would equate. Impeach everyone but Kagan.

In truth, whether Ginsburg and Kagan officiated over a SSM ceremony before Obergefell was decided is kind of irrelevant.  They had their minds made up beforehand, and they were not interested in the facts.

They should all be impeached, and be forced to show that they did nothing more than say what the law is.  While an elected Court was not the intent of the Framers, neither was a Court that could nullify legislation and write new legislation without any precedential basis.  Which is, essentially, what they did.

And the guy who ought to be grilled the hardest is Anthony Kennedy.  Here's a guy who's a professional swing vote who will always decide for the GOP on political questions (Bush v. Gore, Obamacare, Citizens United) but always fall on the liberal side on social issues.  A Harry Blackmun without intellectual honesty, seeking to create a lasting legacy for himself. 

I don't think people give Kennedy enough credit.  He is a pretty sincere libertarian IMO between this and his NFIB dissent.  Also, Roberts seems surprisingly consistent if you think of him as a G.W. Bush compassionate conservative.  He'll be there for the right on all social issues and election laws but is broadly quite okay with expanding the social safety net.  His Obamacare opinions and gay marriage dissent read like a notice to the right that the New Deal is still off limits even if they get one more R appointee. 
Logged
Xing
xingkerui
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,303
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.52, S: -3.91

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: June 28, 2015, 05:13:01 PM »

Of course, he's not doing this because he disagrees with their decision. No, that's ridiculous, he'd propose the same legislation if they ruled against gay marriage, right? ..... Right!?
Logged
Türkisblau
H_Wallace
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,402
Ireland, Republic of


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: June 28, 2015, 05:14:32 PM »

The ultimate irony is the folks who overturned the law and years of precedent in Citizens United are the same ones who are accusing the Majority in Obergefell of legislating from the bench. Which one is it?

Anyway, I support strengthening the institution of marriage instead of fighting a horrible fight dismissive of the happiness of an entire group of people that just want to be happy. If it takes an activist Supreme Court to reach that end, then why not?

Though, I do agree that we need elections for judges, though for completely different reasons.
Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,665
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: June 29, 2015, 12:58:26 AM »

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.

Judicial review was envisioned by the Founders in the discussion of the Constitution - see Federalist 78.  The Court's decision here however goes way beyond that, as it often has.   But Cruz's idea is to basically get rid of the distinct judicial role altogether, and replace it with political offices, which would enshrine the Court's authority as a law-making body by removing democracy as a limiting claim.  Now the Court can exercise even greater authority into the affairs of the people, and claim that they have democratic license. And at that point you get rid of any conception of precedent or reliability in the law, and you allow for legislative tyranny, where you are judged by the very people who make the law.   The entire idea of the separation of powers falls apart.   
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 0.058 seconds with 13 queries.