Page 14 of 21 FirstFirst ... 41213141516 ... LastLast
Results 131 to 140 of 207

Thread: Cruz: Opposition To Same-Sex Marriage Will Be 'Front And Center' In 2016 Campaign

  1. #131
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    49,504

    Re: Cruz: Opposition To Same-Sex Marriage Will Be 'Front And Center' In 2016 Campaign

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Grimm View Post
    The inconsideration with which some people so easily dismiss democracy borders on negligence. Ironically, the callousness of your response in itself makes the best anti-democracy argument thus far on this thread.

    Still, I would rather ride with the will of the people than with the will of 9 unknown, unelected lawyers
    Yes, I know. You're happy with less freedom as long as people vote for less freedom.

    I am 100% comfortable with being "inconsiderate" of your ability to vote away someone else's freedom and make absolutely no apology for that.
    Quote Originally Posted by calamity View Post
    Well, certainly the customer is not an N-word.
    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    You know her?

  2. #132
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    The anals of history
    Last Seen
    07-25-15 @ 01:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    10,348

    Re: Cruz: Opposition To Same-Sex Marriage Will Be 'Front And Center' In 2016 Camp...

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    If you have trouble confronting the scope of the issue, that's your and Cruz's problem. Luckily for the rest of us, we aren't going to put in place a system which puts our justice system in a position where it has to produce the results the majority wants, even if it oppresses a minority that the majority has made no attempts to disguise it's hatred for.
    I don't know why you assume an elected judge serving a six-year term will be incapable of delivering justice on behalf of minority groups. The lack of confidence in people that shows is disheartening.

    But you have to remember, there is no guarantee that the 9 robed men/women will protect minorities under the current system. We really don't know anything about these people. We didn't elect them.

  3. #133
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    The anals of history
    Last Seen
    07-25-15 @ 01:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    10,348

    Re: Cruz: Opposition To Same-Sex Marriage Will Be 'Front And Center' In 2016 Campaign

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Yes, I know. You're happy with less freedom as long as people vote for less freedom.
    So, should senators and congressmen and presidents be appointed too? I mean, if you don't believe in Democracy, what do you believe in?

  4. #134
    Sage
    Unitedwestand13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Sunnyvale California
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:00 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    13,437

    Re: Cruz: Opposition To Same-Sex Marriage Will Be 'Front And Center' In 2016 Campaign

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Grimm View Post
    Says who? That seems backwards. I don't want a justice who is out of touch, I want one who is tuned in to public discourse and who is ultimately accountable to the people he serves.
    A justice has to deal with matters of law. If justices and judges were elected by the people like normal politicians, then they would be susceptible to the same flaws as elected politicans.

    Judges that are appointed are preferable because they can make decisions without the fear of running for reelection.
    "If you can't stand the way this place is, Take yourself to higher places!"
    Break, By Three days grace

    Hilliary Clinton/Tim Kaine 2016

  5. #135
    Angry Former GOP Voter
    Fiddytree's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    25,006

    Cruz: Opposition To Same-Sex Marriage Will Be 'Front And Center' In 2016 Camp...

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Grimm View Post
    I don't know why you assume an elected judge serving a six-year term will be incapable of delivering justice on behalf of minority groups. The lack of confidence in people that shows is disheartening.

    But you have to remember, there is no guarantee that the 9 robed men/women will protect minorities under the current system. We really don't know anything about these people. We didn't elect them.
    I saw it in 2004. Then and after then, just as in the past, the show of strength for oppressing people was through the referendum process. Oh conservatives loved that. The masses got to vote whether to create a constitutional amendment to deny civil rights to people who were in a same sex relationship. Passed with flying colors. A constitutional amendment.

    And then the courts came in and tore it down with their unelected fingers.
    "We all of us know down here that politics is a tough game. And I don't think there's any point in being Irish if you don't know that the world is going to break your heart eventually."-Daniel Patrick Moynihan, December 5, 1963

  6. #136
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    The anals of history
    Last Seen
    07-25-15 @ 01:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    10,348

    Re: Cruz: Opposition To Same-Sex Marriage Will Be 'Front And Center' In 2016 Campaign

    Quote Originally Posted by Unitedwestand13 View Post
    A justice has to deal with matters of law. If justices and judges were elected by the people like normal politicians, then they would be susceptible to the same flaws as elected politicans.

    Judges that are appointed are preferable because they can make decisions without the fear of running for reelection.


    The law is not above the people. The law is for the people. The people have a right to decide who is sitting on that bench doling out the law to them.

    Americans are capable of governing themselves, they don't need a self-appointed genius lawyer (or nine of them) to lay out the law for how they should live their lives. The people deserve a hand in our own destiny. I don't buy the pretense that we're not capable or smart enough to do that for one odd minute.

    Give the power back to the American People, I say.

  7. #137
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    49,504

    Re: Cruz: Opposition To Same-Sex Marriage Will Be 'Front And Center' In 2016 Campaign

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Grimm View Post
    So, should senators and congressmen and presidents be appointed too? I mean, if you don't believe in Democracy, what do you believe in?
    Quit making stupid leaps and you'll be less confused.
    Quote Originally Posted by calamity View Post
    Well, certainly the customer is not an N-word.
    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    You know her?

  8. #138
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    The anals of history
    Last Seen
    07-25-15 @ 01:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    10,348

    Re: Cruz: Opposition To Same-Sex Marriage Will Be 'Front And Center' In 2016 Camp...

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    I saw it in 2004. Then and after then, just as in the past, the show of strength for oppressing people was through the referendum process. Oh conservatives loved that. The masses got to vote whether to create a constitutional amendment to deny civil rights to people who were in a same sex relationship. Passed with flying colors. A constitutional amendment.

    And then the courts came in and tore it down with their unelected fingers.
    Not every battle is going to go your way, that doesn't mean you shun democracy from now on. The Supreme Court once upheld slavery. Which is worse?

  9. #139
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Los Angeles area
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 12:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    9,868

    Re: Cruz: Opposition To Same-Sex Marriage Will Be 'Front And Center' In 2016 Campaign

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Grimm View Post
    I think we have a fundamental difference of political philosophy.
    That is clear to me. I have very much the same political philosophy as the men who founded this country, and there is not much I would change about the Constitution. I would leave the power Art. II, sec. 2, cl. 2 gives the president to appoint justices of the Supreme Court by and with the advice and consent of the Senate just as it is. I would probably also keep as is the provision of Art. III, sec. 1 by which justices of the Supreme Court, like other appointed federal judges, "shall hold their offices during good behaviour," although I am interested to see just what Sen. Cruz is proposing to change about that tenure.

    Alexander Hamilton said this about the tenure of appointed judges in The Federalist No. 78 about providing for them to hold office during good behavior:

    [This] is conformable to the most approved of the state constitutions . . . . Its propriety having been drawn into question by the adversaries of that plan, is no light symptom of the rage for objection, which disorders their imaginations and judgments. The standard of good behavior for the continuance in office of the judicial magistracy, is certainly one of the most valuable of the modern improvements in the practice of government. In a monarchy it is an excellent barrier to the despotism of the prince; in a republic it is a no less excellent barrier to the encroachments and oppressions of the representative body. And it is the best expedient which can be devised in any government, to secure a steady, upright, and impartial administration of the laws.


    I agree with Hamilton. The main problem I see with decisions like Obergefell is the doctrine of substantive due process they rely on. As the Court itself has discussed, it tends to lead to rulings whose lack of any reasoned constitutional basis invites the suspicion they are nothing more than arbitrary, undemocratic dictates. In fact that was the main reason the Court ended its three-decade-plus "Substantive Due Process Era" in 1937, as far as economic regulations are concerned. It is in reaction to the excesses of that era, during which the Court struck down more than 200 laws for violating an implied constitutional "liberty of contract," that ever since, laws setting maximum work hours, imposing professional licensing standards, or similarly regulating economic matters have been presumed constitutionally valid and have only had to meet the extremely deferential standards of rational basis review.

    But when it comes to controversial social issues, the Court has shown none of that restraint. Due process has become a convenient excuse for concocting liberties that no one who drafted or approved the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868 ever imagined in his wildest dreams. Maybe Congress should start viewing flagrant misuse of the Due Process Clause in cases like Obergefell as a violation of the standard of "good behaviour."

  10. #140
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    The anals of history
    Last Seen
    07-25-15 @ 01:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    10,348

    Re: Cruz: Opposition To Same-Sex Marriage Will Be 'Front And Center' In 2016 Campaign

    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    That is clear to me. I have very much the same political philosophy as the men who founded this country, and there is not much I would change about the Constitution. I would leave the power Art. II, sec. 2, cl. 2 gives the president to appoint justices of the Supreme Court by and with the advice and consent of the Senate just as it is. I would probably also keep as is the provision of Art. III, sec. 1 by which justices of the Supreme Court, like other appointed federal judges, "shall hold their offices during good behaviour," although I am interested to see just what Sen. Cruz is proposing to change about that tenure.

    Alexander Hamilton said this about the tenure of appointed judges in The Federalist No. 78 about providing for them to hold office during good behavior:

    [This] is conformable to the most approved of the state constitutions . . . . Its propriety having been drawn into question by the adversaries of that plan, is no light symptom of the rage for objection, which disorders their imaginations and judgments. The standard of good behavior for the continuance in office of the judicial magistracy, is certainly one of the most valuable of the modern improvements in the practice of government. In a monarchy it is an excellent barrier to the despotism of the prince; in a republic it is a no less excellent barrier to the encroachments and oppressions of the representative body. And it is the best expedient which can be devised in any government, to secure a steady, upright, and impartial administration of the laws.


    I agree with Hamilton. The main problem I see with decisions like Obergefell is the doctrine of substantive due process they rely on. As the Court itself has discussed, it tends to lead to rulings whose lack of any reasoned constitutional basis invites the suspicion they are nothing more than arbitrary, undemocratic dictates. In fact that was the main reason the Court ended its three-decade-plus "Substantive Due Process Era" in 1937, as far as economic regulations are concerned. It is in reaction to the excesses of that era, during which the Court struck down more than 200 laws for violating an implied constitutional "liberty of contract," that ever since, laws setting maximum work hours, imposing professional licensing standards, or similarly regulating economic matters have been presumed constitutionally valid and have only had to meet the extremely deferential standards of rational basis review.

    But when it comes to controversial social issues, the Court has shown none of that restraint. Due process has become a convenient excuse for concocting liberties that no one who drafted or approved the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868 ever imagined in his wildest dreams. Maybe Congress should start viewing flagrant misuse of the Due Process Clause in cases like Obergefell as a violation of the standard of "good behaviour."
    Why wait around and hope that the court will suddenly find "restraint," or why hang our hats on a subjective standard of "good behavior" which has been used to remove zero Supreme Court justices in my memory.

    We need a mechanism to ensure judicial restraint, and to ensure good behavior... to where it is no longer a question of hoping and watching, but rather an active, democratic process.

    It seems to me, no better judge of good behavior and ethical restraint exist than the voting American Public.

Page 14 of 21 FirstFirst ... 41213141516 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •