Page 18 of 21 FirstFirst ... 81617181920 ... LastLast
Results 171 to 180 of 207

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

  1. #171
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    10-10-15 @ 12:31 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    2,069
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Grimm View Post
    The founders didn't want us voting on senators either, we amended the constitution to change that. This is no different. I believe in democracy and it's high time that principle extended to the judiciary, not just the executive and legislative branches
    We aren't a democracy. We're a republic.

    So... The founders, who were infinitely more familiar with, infinitely closer to and the subjects of... tyranny than you will ever be. The founders who cast a long eye to history and its lessons, who correctly identified many common failures to each attempt at government through the centuries... The historical constants of human nature... The funders whose greatness was not that they were smarter, or more moral, or even right... It's that they had the intellectual honesty to say, we who gather to institute a new government are just as flawed and ambitious as all that came before us, and all that will come after.

    From that they set out, not to repeat past mistakes of others, but to attempt to safeguard us from ourselves and the tendency for all civilizations to peak and quickly burn out.

    Or....

    We can let a bunch of history channel educated wiki scholars pretend they're going to get one over on the founders by pandering to self interest

    But, I'd be open to some negotiation... Like, I'd support your suggestion of elected justices if you supported taking all political donations over $5000 and super PACs out of the equation.

  2. #172
    OWL Forever
    katiegrrl0's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    at the computer
    Last Seen
    07-07-17 @ 06:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    4,121

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

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    What I find hilarious is if some other politician had proposed this a week ago you probably would have opposed it. You are angry that a group of people you find disgusting and who you hate has been given the right to marriage and so you want to fire the judges who did it. And feel free to hit the report button if you like, but I am merely repeating what you shared days ago and it is fair to consider a poster's motivations when he suddenly has an opinion on judicial lifetime appointments when he never really had one before. In fact, had the ruling gone the other way and those nine robed figures declared there was no right to same-sex marriage you would have been very happy and content with that ruling lording over 350 million of us and you would not even be talking about judicial elections. This is about your hatred of gays. Nothing else.

    Welcome to America. We are a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy. The Constitution is the will of the people, not a simple majority vote. In our country the rights of the minority are protected from the tyranny of a majority.
    KInd of funny how everyone hates judges now. It makes me laugh many did not what a judge was before this ruling.
    The flame that is between us could set every soul on fire. I would love to take that heat and let's fill the whole world with desire.
    Sophie B. Hawkins

  3. #173
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:34 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    41,660

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Grimm View Post
    You don't seem to understand or realize or see the difference between debating a topic and making it about the person.

    It's an ad hominem fallacy, look it up. I reported you again.
    Please, continue to do so. I'm simply pointing out YOUR words and how fickle your opinion can be when things don't go your way. It's pretty clear that the only reason you support this is that the SCOTUS ruling did not go your way. So now you're trying to change the rules to the game while thinking it will help out your strategy to institutionalize hatred of homosexuals. It won't. Your suggestion has far more problems than the system we currently have. More importantly, the days of letting majorities decide what contracts 2 consenting adults can go into are pretty much over.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  4. #174
    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 CriticalThought View Post
    What I find hilarious is if some other politician had proposed this a week ago you probably would have opposed it. You are angry that a group of people you find disgusting and who you hate has been given the right to marriage and so you want to fire the judges who did it. And feel free to hit the report button if you like, but I am merely repeating what you shared days ago and it is fair to consider a poster's motivations when he suddenly has an opinion on judicial lifetime appointments when he never really had one before. In fact, had the ruling gone the other way and those nine robed figures declared there was no right to same-sex marriage you would have been very happy and content with that ruling lording over 350 million of us and you would not even be talking about judicial elections. This is about your hatred of gays. Nothing else.

    Welcome to America. We are a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy. The Constitution is the will of the people, not a simple majority vote. In our country the rights of the minority are protected from the tyranny of a majority.
    The problem with attacking people ad hominem instead of debating the actual points being discussed is that you don't know what a person's motivations are, even if you think you do. You think you know me, but in reality, you don't.

    But because you strike me as more sincere and less egocentric than the last poster, I WILL offer you something of a background.

    I have always believed exactly as I'm saying in this thread... I have always been of the strong opinion that we shouldn't have an unelected Supreme Court with a life appointment that wields as much power as it does. The opinion started at Bush vs Gore (I voted for Gore), and I've held it ever since.

    While I've traditionally been against SSM, it's never been an issue that has been that near and dear to me with the exception of two days ago. For two days in a row, the Supreme Court made decisions on behalf of America that I felt overstepped its bounds. The SSM vote was the last straw. I was incensed, especially after what I read what I perceived as gloating and rubbing it in on the part of a lot of SSM advocates. Some people seemed to be getting more delight out of annoying conservatives than they were about getting justice for the LGBT community, and that set me off.

    It felt to me as if a group of people I knew nothing about (LGBT) were selling my country down the river (by going to the Supreme Court) for their own ends and in some part, just to get under people like me's skin, and that angered me. I stepped way out of line and acted out in a way I'm not very proud of.

    I was banned from this site for two days. That night, I went out with my girlfriend. She must know me pretty well, but anyway she invited her gay friend to come hang out with us (unbeknownst to me) that night I was banned. Being around a gay guy for several hours in a relaxed setting and seeing that this isn't some abstract concept meant to infuriate conservatives, but rather something that touches human beings in a very sincere way in their lives and that he wasn't at all interested in gloating CHANGED MY MIND about SSM.

    For what it's worth, you guys have my blessing anyway, I was wrong about opposing SSM I just frankly didn't know any gay people.

    I still don't like the Supreme Court. But, that has nothing to do with you. That really is just a matter of principle, and one that this whole week (SSM ruling included) has once again brought to the forefront.

  5. #175
    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 katiegrrl0 View Post
    This is why the US is a Constitutional republic with a representative democracy because the founders decided the majority may not always be correct. Jefferson called Pure Democracy Mob Rules. This sounds like what you would like. I am happy as it is even if all the decisions don't go my way.
    We elect senators. Why not elect Supreme Court judges?

    I would be much happier with decisions that go against me if I knew that they represented the will of the people. What I don't like is unelected officials wielding that much power. Only nine justices for 350 million citizens seems highly excessive in terms of how much power each justice holds, and he is in no way accountable to the public he purportedly serves. That concerns me greatly.

  6. #176
    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 Hatuey View Post
    Please, continue to do so. I'm simply pointing out YOUR words and how fickle your opinion can be when things don't go your way. It's pretty clear that the only reason you support this is that the SCOTUS ruling did not go your way. So now you're trying to change the rules to the game while thinking it will help out your strategy to institutionalize hatred of homosexuals. It won't. Your suggestion has far more problems than the system we currently have. More importantly, the days of letting majorities decide what contracts 2 consenting adults can go into are pretty much over.
    If you're so good at finding posts of mine from 3 years ago, why don't you dig up a few that I've made this past two years about how I think Supreme Court justices should be elected? Because this isn't the first time I've said this.

    Or go find how active I've been in the LGBT section or the sex and sexuality forum. Because that's never been an issue that's really concerned me.

    See, that's why it's not worth it to me to respond to the stuff you want to dig up.... because you can be selective and dig through several years of posts to cherry pick stuff that fits the portrait you're trying to paint. It's petty, really.

  7. #177
    OWL Forever
    katiegrrl0's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    at the computer
    Last Seen
    07-07-17 @ 06:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    4,121

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Grimm View Post
    We elect senators. Why not elect Supreme Court judges?

    I would be much happier with decisions that go against me if I knew that they represented the will of the people. What I don't like is unelected officials wielding that much power. Only nine justices for 350 million citizens seems highly excessive in terms of how much power each justice holds, and he is in no way accountable to the public he purportedly serves. That concerns me greatly.
    Court justices are not elected because this is the check and balance branch of Government. This protects our rights. We are a nation of law. We are not a democracy so everyone is not elected. If the judges were elected they could be swayed by the electorate and not follow the rule of law when making a decision. They do not represent the will of the people because they represent the will of the Constitution and prevent mob rule. Judges are accountable to the Constitution not the voter. This system has worked from the beginning of the US. It will never change and this is good because it protects us all. The judges are being attack over this decision because some just don't like gays. Up until a few days ago most didn't even think about the SCOTUS now they dislike the justices but not really they dislike them for supporting a minority in their struggle for fairness under the law.
    The flame that is between us could set every soul on fire. I would love to take that heat and let's fill the whole world with desire.
    Sophie B. Hawkins

  8. #178
    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 Occam's Razor View Post
    We aren't a democracy. We're a republic.

    So... The founders, who were infinitely more familiar with, infinitely closer to and the subjects of... tyranny than you will ever be. The founders who cast a long eye to history and its lessons, who correctly identified many common failures to each attempt at government through the centuries... The historical constants of human nature... The funders whose greatness was not that they were smarter, or more moral, or even right... It's that they had the intellectual honesty to say, we who gather to institute a new government are just as flawed and ambitious as all that came before us, and all that will come after.

    From that they set out, not to repeat past mistakes of others, but to attempt to safeguard us from ourselves and the tendency for all civilizations to peak and quickly burn out.

    Or....

    We can let a bunch of history channel educated wiki scholars pretend they're going to get one over on the founders by pandering to self interest

    But, I'd be open to some negotiation... Like, I'd support your suggestion of elected justices if you supported taking all political donations over $5000 and super PACs out of the equation.

    I do think we need election reform. Particularly if this becomes Bush vs Clinton... that, to me, would be ridiculous and I'm sure most Americans would agree. At some point, it can't just be the richest of the rich, or the political aristocracy that has access to the White House.

    What that reform ought to be, I haven't the answer.

  9. #179
    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 katiegrrl0 View Post
    Court justices are not elected because this is the check and balance branch of Government. This protects our rights. We are a nation of law. We are not a democracy so everyone is not elected. If the judges were elected they could be swayed by the electorate and not follow the rule of law when making a decision. They do not represent the will of the people because they represent the will of the Constitution and prevent mob rule. Judges are accountable to the Constitution not the voter. This system has worked from the beginning of the US. It will never change and this is good because it protects us all. The judges are being attack over this decision because some just don't like gays. Up until a few days ago most didn't even think about the SCOTUS now they dislike the justices but not really they dislike them for supporting a minority in their struggle for fairness under the law.
    But what does it mean to be a nation of law? The law exists to serve the people. There is no use for the law if it doesn't better the lives of the American People.

    So if the law is in the self-interest of Americans, then I don't believe we need to protect the American People from themselves, as some of you seem to believe. Elected judges would be answerable to the public, and would be more likely to consider how their job performance affects and betters the lives of the American People as a result.... which is the purpose of the law to begin with.

  10. #180
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:34 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    41,660

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Grimm View Post
    If you're so good at finding posts of mine from 3 years ago, why don't you dig up a few that I've made this past two years about how I think Supreme Court justices should be elected?
    Lol, that is great. I'm guessing you figured out how to follow that little icon that has been around for around 10+ years on this forum. Congratulations, I mean, I know you knew how to do that but it was funny watching you try and deny you didn't know how quotations in this forum work.

    Anyways, my comment had nothing to do with the positions you support as they concern SCOTUS judges. I simply pointed out that your faith in the American people only seems to be around when they vote in accordance to what you want. That much remains true and there is no reason to expect such a stance to change if SCOTUS judges were to be elected.

    Your fickle opinion on elected officials alone is enough to completely dismiss your statements on this matter as nothing more than wishful thinking from a young person who doesn't quite understand what it is they're suggesting. Nobody is going to agree to change how SCOTUS justices are put in place because Peter Grimm in Texas didn't like the results of one case.

    tl;dr version: The fact that Peter Grimm thinks less of the American people if they don't elect the candidates he likes is a pretty good reason to dismiss allowing the same American people to vote on judges.

    Last edited by Hatuey; 06-30-15 at 01:14 AM.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

Page 18 of 21 FirstFirst ... 81617181920 ... 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
  •