Page 19 of 21 FirstFirst ... 91718192021 LastLast
Results 181 to 190 of 207

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

  1. #181
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    The anals of history
    Last Seen
    07-25-15 @ 12:05 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
    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.

    Reported again for personal attacks. You know, for what it's worth, I didn't follow the link back, it just doesn't matter enough to me to go back and verify. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt.

    I do believe in the American People, very much so. Maybe I had an angry moment after the presidential election where I questioned the American Public for voting for Obama (I voted for the other guy).... sue me.

    Who around here doesn't get passionate when their presidential candidate loses? That doesn't change what I overwhelmingly believe. And, by the way, things happen over three years time. A lot of beliefs I once held have changed over the years.

  2. #182
    OWL Forever
    katiegrrl0's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    at the computer
    Last Seen
    11-11-16 @ 01:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    4,120

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Grimm View Post
    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.
    The rule of law is the legal principle that law should govern a nation, as opposed to being governed by arbitrary decisions of individual elected government officials. The Constitution is the Law of the land. All things stem from this document it is the final word. The executive branch carries out laws. The legislative branch makes up laws. The Judicial Branch, their job is to explain the laws of this country under the Constitution. They must decide if laws are constitutional. This separation of labors makes checks and balances. One executive, two legislative, and one Judicial. Three parts are voted for one is selected and approved for life. It keeps the facets of government in line and creates order. You do need to protect the people from themselves. Thomas Jefferson said Democracy mob rules. The majority gets their way whether right or wrong. It would give the mob the ability to make anything law by a vote. It would collapse the Constitution and corrupt the nation. Pure Democracy does not work for long. It becomes IMO a dictatorship of the masses. Instead of one tyrant you make millions who agree on anything the tyrant. Law goes out the window and the US would have maybe lasted 50 years. It has been built for the long haul. The reason the justices are under fire I say again is not because the system is broken. It is because so many hate and or are disgusted by gays. The system works as is. This is why you are as free as you are.
    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. #183
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    39,920

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Grimm View Post
    Reported again for personal attacks. You know, for what it's worth, I didn't follow the link back, it just doesn't matter enough to me to go back and verify. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt.

    I do believe in the American People, very much so. Maybe I had an angry moment after the presidential election where I questioned the American Public for voting for Obama (I voted for the other guy).... sue me.
    That's great, however as with gay marriage and this recent ruling, you simply will not get your way. There are no attacks in my post and if there are I welcome you to point them out. I discussed the fickle attitude with which you treat the American public. If they vote according to your wishes: Great! If they don't, you think less of them.

    That sort of instability in a position is the reason why nobody will ever seriously consider the election of SCOTUS judges. It's even less likely to be supported when the agenda - your agenda - is also based on your admitted hatred of homosexuals. Now you can give me all the 'benefit of the doubt' that you want, I don't really care for it; I don't need favors. However, you've been here long enough to know how to the forum works and how quotes are created and you did in fact think less of the American people when they voted contrary to your own wishes.

    Who around here doesn't get passionate when their presidential candidate loses? That doesn't change what I overwhelmingly believe. And, by the way, things happen over three years time. A lot of beliefs I once held have changed over the years.
    Your mercurial positions on the American people and your emotional partisan outbursts when your candidate doesn't win is exactly why SCOTUS remains a branch of appointed officials. They shouldn't be subject to the partisan wishes of people who don't like their decisions. They certainly shouldn't be subject to popular opinion on what makes a good judge. If you don't like the people being appointed to become SCOTUS judges, contact your congressional representative, state your disagreement, and get them to vote accordingly. If not, then tough nut nobody is going to change the constitution and 200+ years of convention simply because you didn't like a SCOTUS ruling.
    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. #184
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    The anals of history
    Last Seen
    07-25-15 @ 12:05 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
    The rule of law is the legal principle that law should govern a nation, as opposed to being governed by arbitrary decisions of individual elected government officials. The Constitution is the Law of the land. All things stem from this document it is the final word. The executive branch carries out laws. The legislative branch makes up laws. The Judicial Branch, their job is to explain the laws of this country under the Constitution. They must decide if laws are constitutional. This separation of labors makes checks and balances. One executive, two legislative, and one Judicial. Three parts are voted for one is selected and approved for life. It keeps the facets of government in line and creates order. You do need to protect the people from themselves. Thomas Jefferson said Democracy mob rules. The majority gets their way whether right or wrong. It would give the mob the ability to make anything law by a vote. It would collapse the Constitution and corrupt the nation. Pure Democracy does not work for long. It becomes IMO a dictatorship of the masses. Instead of one tyrant you make millions who agree on anything the tyrant. Law goes out the window and the US would have maybe lasted 50 years. It has been built for the long haul. The reason the justices are under fire I say again is not because the system is broken. It is because so many hate and or are disgusted by gays. The system works as is. This is why you are as free as you are.
    Here's an interesting in the New York Times on something similar: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/25/us...pagewanted=all

    According to the article, 87 percent of all state court judges are elected. Also according to the article, the United States is the only major nation to do this: ie we already elect judges. So, if we're as free as you say we are, then perhaps the fact that we elect, rather than appoint, judges is partly the reason?

    The point is, what I'm advocating isn't anything unprecedented or unproven. It would simply be an expansion of something we're already doing at a lower level and bringing it to the Supreme Court.

    And, once again, if we can elect the other branches of government, there is no reason the judiciary should be seen in a different light. All three are supposed to check and balance each other, right?

    I agree that a direct democracy is a bad idea (although I do think we should have more referendums like in Europe).... but nobody is saying that's what we should shoot for. What I'm after is equal representative government covering all three branches. A Supreme Court judge would be no more beholden to his constituency than a senator.

  5. #185
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    The anals of history
    Last Seen
    07-25-15 @ 12:05 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
    That's great, however as with gay marriage and this recent ruling, you simply will not get your way. There are no attacks in my post and if there are I welcome you to point them out. I discussed the fickle attitude with which you treat the American public. If they vote according to your wishes: Great! If they don't, you think less of them.

    That sort of instability in a position is the reason why nobody will ever seriously consider the election of SCOTUS judges. It's even less likely to be supported when the agenda - your agenda - is also based on your admitted hatred of homosexuals. Now you can give me all the 'benefit of the doubt' that you want, I don't really care for it; I don't need favors. However, you've been here long enough to know how to the forum works and how quotes are created and you did in fact think less of the American people when they voted contrary to your own wishes.



    Your mercurial positions on the American people and your emotional partisan outbursts when your candidate doesn't win is exactly why SCOTUS remains a branch of appointed officials. They shouldn't be subject to the partisan wishes of people who don't like their decisions. They certainly shouldn't be subject to popular opinion on what makes a good judge. If you don't like the people being appointed to become SCOTUS judges, contact your congressional representative, state your disagreement, and get them to vote accordingly. If not, then tough nut nobody is going to change the constitution and 200+ years of convention simply because you didn't like a SCOTUS ruling.


    Again, you're putting words in my mouth, and trying to fix motives to what I do that have no real bearing on this discussion. I don't know why you insist on continuing to debate ad hominem, but, at this point, perhaps that's the best angle you feel you have.

    Underneath all the finger pointing, your argument really amounts to this: you don't trust the American Public to decide for themselves who ought to be judge over them. I do. You don't believe in the democratic process for electing Supreme Court judges. I do.

    You not only don't believe in democracy in this instance, you are so strongly against it that you feel the need to attack me ad hominem as just coming out and stating your position would probably be ineffectual. Attack the messenger to silence the message, that sort of thing.

    The message is democracy and freedom of choice. I'm for it. You're against. If I'm wrong, just come out and say so.

  6. #186
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    39,920

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Grimm View Post
    Again, you're putting words in my mouth,
    Now you're venturing into the magical world of silliness. You yourself stated that you think less of the American people. That statement was based on who they vote. Those are words from your mouth. There is no reason to believe it wouldn't apply to SCOTUS judges if they too were elected officials. That is enough to dismiss the entire premise.
    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

  7. #187
    OWL Forever
    katiegrrl0's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    at the computer
    Last Seen
    11-11-16 @ 01:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    4,120

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Grimm View Post
    Here's an interesting in the New York Times on something similar: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/25/us...pagewanted=all

    According to the article, 87 percent of all state court judges are elected. Also according to the article, the United States is the only major nation to do this: ie we already elect judges. So, if we're as free as you say we are, then perhaps the fact that we elect, rather than appoint, judges is partly the reason?

    The point is, what I'm advocating isn't anything unprecedented or unproven. It would simply be an expansion of something we're already doing at a lower level and bringing it to the Supreme Court.

    And, once again, if we can elect the other branches of government, there is no reason the judiciary should be seen in a different light. All three are supposed to check and balance each other, right?

    I agree that a direct democracy is a bad idea (although I do think we should have more referendums like in Europe).... but nobody is saying that's what we should shoot for. What I'm after is equal representative government covering all three branches. A Supreme Court judge would be no more beholden to his constituency than a senator.
    Within states some judges are voted on and approved by the people. Federal Judges serve and are selected. The Supreme Court is as it is as it was set up by the founders. This is as I say to have Judges who are free from the electorate. They can rule on cases as they see fit without backlash from the people. They rule according to their idea of what the Constitution means not what you or anyone else would like them to see.
    The will of the people is not always correct and these 9 people fill the gap between tyrants and freedom. This decision was unpopular with many not as many as some decisions in the past but unpopular. A few days ago we would not have had this discussion because no decision had been made. Today we are having this discussion because you don't care for the result. I am guessing. If you had a hand in electing these judges they may see it more your way. I again am guessing from the type of dialogue we are having. Your last phrase is interesting
    A Supreme Court judge would be no more beholden to his constituency than a senator.
    But the Senator certainly hands in the favors for votes promised to keep her or his job. You really don't want judges like this. My guess is you are not in favor of the decision the Justices or 5 of them made. Now you dislike the idea of them being able to defeat the mobs in the street. By the way The popular vote according to poles would have legalized same sex marriage anyway. The majority of voters poled were for Same Sex Marriage. It may have taken another year to make it legal and it would have been the main plank in the parties platforms so it is best out of the way.
    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. #188
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    The anals of history
    Last Seen
    07-25-15 @ 12:05 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
    Now you're venturing into the magical world of silliness. You yourself stated that you think less of the American people. That statement was based on who they vote. Those are words from your mouth. There is no reason to believe it wouldn't apply to SCOTUS judges if they too were elected officials. That is enough to dismiss the entire premise.
    Actually, it isn't, that's why ad hominem is an established logical fallacy.

    I could be the lovechild of Adolf Hitler and Sadaam Hussein with a penis goatee and fire spraying out of my ears, it would have no effect on the logic of my argument. That's the way it works, in the civilized world of debate.

    You, however, seem to prefer the mudslinging world of campaign politics.... I'm trying to debate, you're trying to smear.

    Interesting that you never responded to the last part of what I said. I'll give you another shot at it.

    Underneath all the finger pointing, your argument really amounts to this: you don't trust the American Public to decide for themselves who ought to be judge over them. I do. You don't believe in the democratic process for electing Supreme Court judges. I do.

    You not only don't believe in democracy in this instance, you are so strongly against it that you feel the need to attack me ad hominem as just coming out and stating your position would probably be ineffectual. Attack the messenger to silence the message, that sort of thing.

    The message is democracy and freedom of choice. I'm for it. You're against. If I'm wrong, just come out and say so.

    How about it?

  9. #189
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    39,920

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Grimm View Post
    Actually, it isn't, that's why ad hominem is an established logical fallacy.
    Utter nonsense. There was no ad hominem. I discussed your positions, not your character. If you want my thoughts on your character, I'd be more than wiling to give them. However, then, you'd actually have grounds to report me and I'm having so much fun watching you squirm and acting clueless about how the forum works. They statements would be entirely true, but they'd be ad hominems none the less and I'd miss out on this exchange.

    With that said, the fact still remains. Your positions on elected officials and the people are entirely dependent on how they vote. That alone is enough to dismiss the entire premise. If you don't like who the SCOTUS judges are, petition your representatives and tell them to vote in accordance to your wishes. If they won't, vote for a different person next time. What you don't get to do is change the rules to the game because you don't like the outcome.
    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

  10. #190
    Sage
    chromium's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    A2
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    14,871

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

    It's hard to keep track of the GOP loons, but isn't cruz the one that compared opposing equality to MLK's struggle?

    So when does he begin the march on D.C? Half a dozen old farts join him in texas on this march, until their scooters break down

Page 19 of 21 FirstFirst ... 91718192021 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
  •