Page 21 of 21 FirstFirst ... 11192021
Results 201 to 207 of 207

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

  1. #201
    Canadian Conservative
    CanadaJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    27,040

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

    Quote Originally Posted by JumpinJack View Post
    Why would the left atack religious institutions? Liberals go to church, too. ????
    Take a look at some other threads.
    A Canadian conservative is one who believes in limited government and that the government should stay out of our wallets and out of our bedrooms.

  2. #202
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    17,895

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Grimm View Post
    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.
    Well okay then.

    The founding fathers were very specific in wanting an independent judiciary because they had experienced the alternative.

    Quote Originally Posted by http://www.legislationline.org/topics/topic/9
    Judges have the ultimate responsibility for decisions regarding freedoms, rights and duties of natural and legal persons within their jurisdiction. The independence of each individual judge safeguards every personís right to have their case decided solely on the basis of the law, the evidence and facts, without any improper influence. A well-functioning, efficient and independent judiciary is an essential requirement for a fair, consistent and neutral administration of justice. Consequently, judicial independence is an indispensable element of the right to due process, the rule of law and democracy.
    Once you make the courts susceptible to private or partisan influence you will see a vast increase in unjust rulings. We promote judicial independence by granting life tenure or long tenure for judges, which ideally frees them to decide cases and make rulings according to the rule of law and judicial discretion, even if those decisions are politically unpopular or opposed by powerful interests.

  3. #203
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    17,895

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Grimm View Post
    What makes a lawyer above partisanship?


    Also, you can't tell someone what opinions they can/can't have, it doesn't work that way. I'm telling you I believe in the American People and that I think democratic principles should determine who our Supreme Court judges are. That's my opinion. You don't share it. You don't believe in democracy in this case, and that's fine. At least you're starting to own up to it.
    I think you are embracing the Jacksonian ideal of the common man's voice but at one point all of our state courts were partisan and we ended up moving away from it because powerful corporate interests had too much influence. The idea of an independent judiciary is that you, as an individual, could take an extremely powerful group such as a corporation or the government to court if they are violating your rights and you will be fairly heard and have your case determined by its merits. That does not happen in courts run by machine politics.

    I think you believe that elections somehow make judges more answerable to the public but really what you end up with are robed lawyers would answer to the likes of Google and ExxonMobil.
    Last edited by CriticalThought; 06-30-15 at 08:14 AM.

  4. #204
    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
    This has nothing to do with same sex marriage, for me... it just ended up being an interesting catalyst in to this discussion. It's more principled on my side now. I don't believe in unelected governance. That's been true long before the SSM ruling, and it will be true long afterward.

    My view on homosexuals has been all over the board this past week. I went from not caring, to extreme dislike after the ruling, to extreme compassion after meeting my girlfriend's gay best friend this weekend.

    My view on lawyers, on the other hand, is unchanged. I don't trust them. And Supreme Court judges are nothing but robed lawyers.

    I realize you can't have a legal system without lawyers, but, at least, they need to be held in check as much as humanly possible.
    I put in bold your last statement. This is true of the majority of people. You need to hold them in check as much as possible. You said yourself how your opinions changed. If you vote when you don't care you may not vote at all or flip a coin. When you were disliking gays you would vote against them. When you felt compassion after meeting a gay friend you would vote for them. Same person three different votes and all valid reasons for doing so. Imagine a mob of people doing exactly this. Then take it down to the Justices and have them make the decision for all using the rule of law. What you are missing is this is a protection against the majority who may well be wrong or not willing to yield to those who wield less power in numbers. These landmark decisions that the whole nation waits on are really few and far between. The founders of the nation saw fit to set in place this one check which holds is to the road and keeps us on course. Without this the country might just as well be a gang beating up on all the little people and kicking them to the curb. This issue would have passed by popular vote anyway, the poles show this. The justices vote mirrored the will of the people pretty well. Yes it would have passed by vote but would have been close. I think 5 - 4 shows that very well.
    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

  5. #205
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    50,768

    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.
    You should check out Last Week Tonight with John Oliver. They did a segment on judicial elections, it's really good stuff.
    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?

  6. #206
    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
    You should check out Last Week Tonight with John Oliver. They did a segment on judicial elections, it's really good stuff.
    That show is hilarious.

  7. #207
    Sage
    VanceMack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    53,411

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Grimm View Post
    We have a great constitution, the greatest constitution on earth.

    One of the great things about it is the amendment process which makes it a living document. So, just like we amended the constitution to allow people to vote for their senators, if we were to do the same amendment process to allow the people to vote for their Supreme Court justices, I would applaud that as a victory for democracy, the constitution, and Americans.

    I don't believe anybody is so high and mighty that they should be above the "inconvenience" of having to be elected. Supreme Court judges are human like the rest of us.

    We elect our president, we elect our representatives, our senators, our governors, our mayors, etc. why should our judges not be held to the same standard?
    You can't REALLY be serious about that.

Page 21 of 21 FirstFirst ... 11192021

Posting Permissions

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