• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

I suspect if you asked a simple question via referendum to the American public, they would answer "yes" rather resoundingly..."should same sex couples be allowed to marry?"

Fine, then they should have done that. Wait, they did do that in California, right? No matter, as long as the process is democratic, I can live with whatever the outcome.

I believe most people now do support gay marriage, so it could be that you are correct...and to think how much more meaningful a popular victory would be
 
Funny. When people's beliefs don't hold hold up under Constitutional scrutiny, they want to change the Constitution so they can vote for whatever SCOTUS judge will allow them to legally discriminate against queers into perpetuity. ****ing bunch of pathetic losers.
 
With a few exceptions, pretty good. I do not think you can call yourself a conservative anymore if you want to radically alter how the government has run for over two centuries just because you now have to share marriage with gays and the word "state" could also mean the federal government.

Come now. You SERIOUSLY think the SCOTUS is devoid of 'politics'?

What is one of the first consideration of president? Will there be an opportunity to appoint a new SC judge and influence the future.
 
The OP is a suggestion to amend the constitution.

I suspect if you asked a simple question via referendum to the Anerican public, they would answer "yes" rather resoundingly..."should Supreme Court judges be elected by the public rather than appointed for life by the president?"

The irony and ignorance in this post is astounding. A clear indication that the poster has no clue what the Constitution is and why it exists.
 
Fine, then they should have done that. Wait, they did do that in California, right? No matter, as long as the process is democratic, I can live with whatever the outcome.

I believe most people now do support gay marriage, so it could be that you are correct...and to think how much more meaningful a popular victory would be

Actually....I find the holding of the SCOTUS much more meaningful than a "popular victory"....essentially the SCOTUS said that the right to marriage is so fundamental that it should never be put to a popular vote. THAT is much more meaningful.
 
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

I think the arguments in favor of reverting the election of Senators to State Legislatures are intriguing at least inasmuch as they focus on encouraging civic interest in State and Local government which is lacking. I don't believe in 'Democracy' I believe in a Democratic form of government with significant checks on the People. Therefore I fiercely support our existing Judicial structure as an essential check not only on the Legislative and Executive branches but as a check on the People. I'm not at all averse to the Judiciary acting as the body which cuts the 'Gordian Knot' in order to advance our country as our decentralized federal structure makes sweeping reform and change quite difficult. Usually this is a good thing but there are times when 'States Rights' and 'Popular Sovereignty' must be crushed in favor of paving the way forward--like in Brown v. Board which many scholars term a 'moment of Constitutional Amendment'.
 
Actually....I find the holding of the SCOTUS much more meaningful than a "popular victory"....essentially the SCOTUS said that the right to marriage is so fundamental that it should never be put to a popular vote. THAT is much more meaningful.

Some people prefer autocratic power. Most people prefer to have a hand in their own destiny, therefore most people will choose democracy when given the chance
 
The irony and ignorance in this post is astounding. A clear indication that the poster has no clue what the Constitution is and why it exists.

The OP's suggestion was a constitutional amendment to have Supreme Court judges be elected....similar to how we had a constitutional amendment to elect senators.
 
No but he can indri dice the legislation as a senator as well

He can filibuster and attempt to introduce things, but he's pretty well marginalized, ineffective, and irrelevant in the Senate these days too. He's burned too many bridges with his arrogance and ignorance to ever be a meaningful force in government.
 
I think the arguments in favor of reverting the election of Senators to State Legislatures are intriguing at least inasmuch as they focus on encouraging civic interest in State and Local government which is lacking. I don't believe in 'Democracy' I believe in a Democratic form of government with significant checks on the People. Therefore I fiercely support our existing Judicial structure as an essential check not only on the Legislative and Executive branches but as a check on the People. I'm not at all averse to the Judiciary acting as the body which cuts the 'Gordian Knot' in order to advance our country as our decentralized federal structure makes sweeping reform and change quite difficult. Usually this is a good thing but there are times when 'States Rights' and 'Popular Sovereignty' must be crushed in favor of paving the way forward--like in Brown v. Board which many scholars term a 'moment of Constitutional Amendment'.

I strongly disagree with you, although I do respect the logic behind your opinion.

I believe we should never underestimate or baby the public. Put as much power in the hands of the people, and as little in the hands of autocrats as possible.

In no way does 9 lifetime, unelected individuals holding as much power as they do over 350 million citizens make any sense, even if one does insist on some degree of judicial independence.
 
Not a "collective" right wing reaction. ;) Some of us don't hold any of those thoughts. Some of us say "Who cares who marries who? Stay out of it. Let adults pick their spouses and butt out."

Whatever 2-3 people you're talking about does not really speak for a general depiction of the right wing's reaction. :lol:
 
Some people prefer autocratic power. Most people prefer to have a hand in their own destiny, therefore most people will choose democracy when given the chance

Most people would find it morally degrading that their marriage is put to a popular vote. Should we put inter-racial marriage to a popular vote? What about inter-faith marriages....should they be put to a popular vote?
 
I strongly disagree with you, although I do respect the logic behind your opinion.

I believe we should never underestimate or baby the public. Put as much power in the hands of the people, and as little in the hands of autocrats as possible.

In no way does 9 lifetime, unelected individuals holding as much power as they do over 350 million citizens make any sense, even if one does insist on some degree of judicial independence.

It absolutely makes sense when you understand that the Constitution exists for the simple fact that there are certain rights that are so fundamental that they should never be put to whim of the majority. Why even have a Constitution if you are going to put everything to a popular vote? There would be no purpose for it.

I can tell you one group that would absolutely hate what you are proposing....gun owners.
 
Some people prefer autocratic power. Most people prefer to have a hand in their own destiny, therefore most people will choose democracy when given the chance

So you would be ok with DC v Heller being overturned to meet public demand for gun control?
 
Most people would find it morally degrading that their marriage is put to a popular vote. Should we put inter-racial marriage to a popular vote? What about inter-faith marriages....should they be put to a popular vote?

I think the idea that we would so fundamentally alter the structure of our government over one minor hot button issue is a nonstarter.

The question whether judges should be elected is bigger than gay marriage. It comes down to what constitutes a fair system of government and how much do you trust the American Public to govern itself?
 
Cruz is Donald Trump with a law degree. They will both, hopefully, not find their way onto the stage for many or any Republican debates.

It is just because there will be debates that I think Cruz has more chance than some people seem to think. He is a far better debater than anyone else who will be on that stage, and it will score a lot of points for him. No one could have argued eight cases before the Supreme Court of the U.S. without unusual skills. The only candidate I can recall who had debating skills like that was Ronald Reagan--as William F. Buckley once noted, he was "a hell of a good debater."
 
So you would be ok with DC v Heller being overturned to meet public demand for gun control?

Absolutely, if that's what the people wanted. i wouldn't agree with the ruling, but it's a lot easier to bash unelected autocrats forcing policy on an unwilling public than it is to bash a democratic process that didn't go your way.

That's to say, respect the will of the people.
 
I think the idea that we would so fundamentally alter the structure of our government over one minor hot button issue is a nonstarter.The question whether judges should be elected is bigger than gay marriage. It comes down to what constitutes a fair system of government and how much do you trust the American Public to govern itself?
Well now you are changing your tune....a few minutes ago you were trying to argue that a gay marriage referendum by popular vote would be more meaningful. That is different than electing judges.If you wanna talk about that....I would say that it has nothing to do with trusting the American public to govern itself...if that were the case, why have judges at all? There is value in judges not being beholden to lobby groups and fund raising, especially when dealing with fundamental rights.
 
It is just because there will be debates that I think Cruz has more chance than some people seem to think. He is a far better debater than anyone else who will be on that stage, and it will score a lot of points for him. No one could have argued eight cases before the Supreme Court of the U.S. without unusual skills. The only candidate I can recall who had debating skills like that was Ronald Reagan--as William F. Buckley once noted, he was "a hell of a good debater."
The first debate is going to KILL Cruz....because he is so far to the extreme and wacko...putting in on display for all to see is not going to be good for Mr. Green Eggs and Ham.
 
It absolutely makes sense when you understand that the Constitution exists for the simple fact that there are certain rights that are so fundamental that they should never be put to whim of the majority. Why even have a Constitution if you are going to put everything to a popular vote? There would be no purpose for it.

I can tell you one group that would absolutely hate what you are proposing....gun owners.

I think you underestimate the voting public. Anyways, by all the polling, gay marriage was popularly supported.

I'm not saying that everything should be put to popular vote, but what I am saying is the degree of democracy in our judicial branch needs to be ratcheted up a few notches. I would be in favor of more judges, of having the judges elected, and having the judges serve 6 year terms similar to senators. That way, they are at least somewhat accountable to the people they are meant to govern.
 
jeb won't bring it up. in the debates he will say "it's the law of the land now, so lets focus on the bigger issues like the economy and foreign policy." perfectly acceptable answer without stirring up the bee hive.

if anything the court did the GOP a favor in the upcoming election
 
Well now you are changing your tune....a few minutes ago you were trying to argue that a gay marriage referendum by popular vote would be more meaningful. That is different than electing judges.If you wanna talk about that....I would say that it has nothing to do with trusting the American public to govern itself...if that were the case, why have judges at all? There is value in judges not being beholden to lobby groups and fund raising, especially when dealing with fundamental rights.

There's no change to my tune but perhaps I can make my position clear: I believe in democracy and I think that our current judicial system of having 9 unelected judges weild such disproportionate power over 350 million subjects who have absolutely no say in who they are, for life, is fundamentally unjust.

I believe in empowering people.

The American People are not children, we can pick for ourselves who we want to have as our judges. We don't need Obama or George W Bush to do that for us. Let the people decide.
 
There's no change to my tune but perhaps I can make my position clear: I believe in democracy and I think that our current judicial system of having 9 unelected judges weild such disproportionate power over 350 million subjects who have absolutely no say in who they are, for life, is fundamentally unjust.

I believe in empowering people.

The American People are not children, we can pick for ourselves who we want to have as our judges. We don't need Obama or George W Bush to do that for us. Let the people decide.

Its not a matter of "treating people like children"....it is about understanding that the Constitution exists to ensure that fundamental rights are never put to a popular vote. When you subject Supreme Court judges to a popular vote, in essence that is what you are doing. Why have a Constitution if you are going to knock out the supports under it?
 
It is just because there will be debates that I think Cruz has more chance than some people seem to think. He is a far better debater than anyone else who will be on that stage, and it will score a lot of points for him. No one could have argued eight cases before the Supreme Court of the U.S. without unusual skills. The only candidate I can recall who had debating skills like that was Ronald Reagan--as William F. Buckley once noted, he was "a hell of a good debater."

Cruz can't help himself - like Trump and like Hillary Clinton - he comes off as a very unappealing personality, full of arrogance, and regardless of the validity of any argument he may make, the message is lost because the messenger is such a dick.
 
Cruz can't help himself - like Trump and like Hillary Clinton - he comes off as a very unappealing personality, full of arrogance, and regardless of the validity of any argument he may make, the message is lost because the messenger is such a dick.

I can see how a lot of people might take Cruz that way. But as someone who has heard him talk personally in a lot in interviews about his background, his views on constitutional issues, etc., I got the impression of a very nice guy with a very firm belief that continuing to ignore the Constitution is steadily destroying this country. I could not agree more.
 
Back
Top Bottom