• 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 just found this picture of the Cruz campaign plane.

View attachment 67186471


Psst.... its a joke. That isn't really the Cruz campaign plane. We all know before you can go "down in flames" you first must get airborne. We know this is not the Cruz plane because his campaign is not now, nor will it ever be, airborne.

Funny, but.....he's got a lot of funding and is very popular among the Tea Party crowd. I would "misunderestimate" him. Altho he doesn't have a chance to win, really.
 
Re: Cruz: Opposition To Same-Sex Marriage Will Be 'Front And Center' In 2016 Camp...

All I'm saying is I want Supreme Court judges to be elected, just like senators are elected. I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill here. I was just banned for 2 days for taking bait like this, I won't make the same mistake twice. Let's just keep a civil discussion going on the issues, please. I'd like to say I learned my lesson.

So, you are a conservative that has found fault with the Constitution.... interesting!

Sorry, the idea of electing the SCOTUS seems something close to asinine. That is just what we need: politicians running $1B campaigns to get elected to something, that in a post-popular vote America, would really just be an 9 man legislature.

Fortunately, our founding fathers were geniuses. In creating the appointed for-life SCOTUS, they established a branch of government that generally protects us from our short-sided whims and knee-jerk reactions... and, most importantly, protects the minority from the tyranny of the majority (which would not happen if they are elected by the majority).....

The idea of electing the SCOTUS would render it almost useless to its mission.
 
Last edited:
You seem to be advocating the removal of the checks and balances system created by our constitution. In other words, the legislature rules supreme without any objective restraint.

Subjugating the federal judiciary to elections puts them in the same position as the legislature as far as being subject to the whim of popular opinion (or in the case of marriage equality, a very loud but not so popular opinion).

You, and Ted Cruise seem to be advocating that we change our entire system of governance from a constitutional republic to an absolute democracy where majority rules regardless of the implications on civil rights.

I'm not sure you are following your assertions to their logical conclusions. If we remove the judicial branch from the system of checks and balances, what will replace it? The will of the people? That would be an absolute democracy. In this case, why even bother with judges at all, just put everything up to popular vote and to heck with restraint.

As has been pointed out, it's highly likely that such a move would backfire on those who propose it. Taking recent polls into account, how do you think the nation as a whole would vote on marriage equality today?

Checks and balances are what make our constitution and our system of government so great. What is being proposed here, allowing people to democratically elect justices rather than have them appointed for us, would IMPROVE our checks and balances!

That's why it's such a great idea. It would re balance government in such a way that freedom and liberty and democracy win.
 
Yes, let's have judges who are elected! That way, Exxon gets the rulings IT wants, and the animal rights organizations can get the rulings THEY want, and Big Pharma can get the rulings IT wants. Just like our other politicians, who are bought and paid for by special interests. Yay!

I'm sorry you have such a negative view of democracy. Democracy is a way for people to be in charge of their own destiny, rather than rely on the benevolence of those appointed to oversee them, as is the case in other systems of government (and our own appointment of judges).

I believe in the American People. I would like to empower Americans to make their own choices as much as possible.
 
Re: Cruz: Opposition To Same-Sex Marriage Will Be 'Front And Center' In 2016 Camp...

No, you don't. You don't understand politics at all. You WANT people who aren't beholden to anyone to decide cases based on the law, without fear of losing funding for their next election, or in fear of not getting that fat job with Big Pharma after they leave their judgeship.

I just can't think that cynically. I'm an optimist, I believe in choice and democracy and the ultimate goodness of the American Public to make good decisions.
 
Checks and balances are what make our constitution and our system of government so great. What is being proposed here, allowing people to democratically elect justices rather than have them appointed for us, would IMPROVE our checks and balances!

That's why it's such a great idea. It would re balance government in such a way that freedom and liberty and democracy win.

It is a very stupid idea. Judges are not politicians, nor should they lower themselves to fundraising (and being beholden to their donors) and running for office.

This system works, besides, if some liberal judges got elected you'd be whining and crying for change.
 
Re: Cruz: Opposition To Same-Sex Marriage Will Be 'Front And Center' In 2016 Camp...

So, you are a conservative that has found fault with the Constitution.... interesting!

Sorry, the idea of electing the SCOTUS seems something close to asinine. That is just what we need: politicians running $1B campaigns to get elected to something, that in a post-popular vote America, would really just be an 9 man legislature.

Fortunately, our founding fathers were geniuses. In creating the appointed for-life SCOTUS, they established a branch of government that generally protects us from our short-sided whims and knee-jerk reactions... and, most importantly, protects the minority from the tyranny of the majority (which would not happen if they are elected by the majority).....

The idea of electing the SCOTUS would render it almost useless to its mission.

Our founding fathers were the greatest generation of political thinkers collected under one roof, perhaps in the history of the world.

It would be a disservice to them, then if the rest of us rested on their laurels and took the fact that we're born Americans as license to sit around and be lazy. We still need to actively participate in our government and continually maintain the vision they left with us: that we should have a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.... a government with proper checks and balances.
 
It is a very stupid idea. Judges are not politicians, nor should they lower themselves to fundraising (and being beholden to their donors) and running for office.

This system works, besides, if some liberal judges got elected you'd be whining and crying for change.

Running for office is not the bad thing you seem to think it is. It's part of the democratic process.... getting your message out there to voters. Our political process is part of what makes America great!
 
Running for office is not the bad thing you seem to think it is. It's part of the democratic process.... getting your message out there to voters. Our political process is part of what makes America great!

Selling your vote, getting dark money, pimping yourself out.

Nope.

Everyone wants to stick to the constitution...except when they disagree with something. :lamo
 
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.

I discussed quite a number of checks on the Supreme Court that are already available, some of which have been used. I think they are more than powerful enough, whenever there is the will to use them. I am reluctant to support drastic measures because I appreciate the importance of insulating the justices pretty thoroughly from outside influences. It seems clear to me that too much volatility in the Supreme Court invites decisions that bend the meaning of the Constitution to suit political trends. We already have too much of that going on.
 
I favor holding Supreme Court elections just like we elect senators...in rotating 6 year terms.

Contact your legislator and get them to propose a bill doing just that. I bet they either laugh you off the phone, or more likely you will never hear from them again. :lamo
 
Re: Cruz: Opposition To Same-Sex Marriage Will Be 'Front And Center' In 2016 Camp...

Reported for personal attack. Keep it civil and on topic, please.

My goodness, I can't verify that quote was even me. That would've been 3 years ago if so.

Lol? Ummm okay:

1. Click the little blue icon next to your name in the posted quote. It's there.
2. There was no personal attack. I simply pointed out the fact that you only hitch your wagon to the American people when the elections seem to be going your way. If they're not, your 'trust' in the American people is questionable.
3. Lol, if you could kindly point out the personal attack, I'll be waiting.
 
Last edited:
Re: Cruz: Opposition To Same-Sex Marriage Will Be 'Front And Center' In 2016 Camp...

Our founding fathers were the greatest generation of political thinkers collected under one roof, perhaps in the history of the world.

It would be a disservice to them, then if the rest of us rested on their laurels and took the fact that we're born Americans as license to sit around and be lazy. We still need to actively participate in our government and continually maintain the vision they left with us: that we should have a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.... a government with proper checks and balances.

So, you are for a living, breathing Constitution that is responsive to the times?
 
Re: Cruz: Opposition To Same-Sex Marriage Will Be 'Front And Center' In 2016 Camp...

Lol? Ummm okay:

1. Click the little blue icon next to your name in the posted quote. It's there.
2. There was no personal attack. I simply pointed out the fact that you only hitch your wagon to the American people when the elections seem to be going your way. If they're not, your 'trust' in the American people is questionable.
3. Lol, if you could kindle point out the personal attack, I'll be waiting.

You're trying to take a discussion on a particular topic... in this case, the question whether Supreme Court judges should be elected.... and you're trying to support your point by making the argument about me and attacking my character.

That's an ad hominem. Win the discussion on the merits of your arguments, don't resort to mud slinging.

I'm not going to respond to any personal accusations against me. I'm not even going to ask why or how you dug up a post I allegedly made 3 years ago (again, I can't validate that I even made it) after the Obama election, and I'm certainly not going to give any explanation for it.

You're lucky you didn't get infracted for doing that, to be honest.
 
'Cruz: Opposition To Same-Sex Marriage Will Be 'Front And Center' In 2016 Campaign'

Idiot.

Yeah...you'll really get the WH with that dinosaur position.
 
Re: Cruz: Opposition To Same-Sex Marriage Will Be 'Front And Center' In 2016 Camp...

So, you are for a living, breathing Constitution that is responsive to the times?

I see what you're doing, but let me say that I don't think it needs to be a "left vs right" argument... I think everybody can get behind the idea of democracy and putting the decision in the hands of the American People who to have as our judges.

As long as we work within the framework of what the constitution allows, I think it's necessary for us to alter parts of it from time to time to keep up with the times. The key there, though, is that we need to work within the constitution to achieve these alterations. Too often, unelected judges legislate from the bench, interpreting existing legislation in an overly broad manner, which unfortunately bypasses the normal checks and balances that I believe were intended.

An elected judiciary would go a long way toward fixing this, in my opinion.
 
Re: Cruz: Opposition To Same-Sex Marriage Will Be 'Front And Center' In 2016 Camp...

You're trying to take a discussion on a particular topic... in this case, the question whether Supreme Court judges should be elected.... and you're trying to support your point by making the argument about me and attacking my character.

Nope, I'm simply saying that your opinion is subject to change depending on how the elections go. That much remains true and is proven by how little faith you seem to have in the American people when things don't go your way. There is no argument there, it's a fact. :shrug:

That's an ad hominem. Win the discussion on the merits of your arguments, don't resort to mud slinging.

I'm not going to respond to any personal accusations against me. I'm not even going to ask why or how you dug up a post I allegedly made 3 years ago (again, I can't validate that I even made it) after the Obama election, and I'm certainly not going to give any explanation for it.

You're lucky you didn't get infracted for doing that, to be honest.

Lmao, there is nothing to be infracted over. The post is by you and the link in it leads directly to YOUR statements in a different thread where the elections didn't go your way. You've been around long enough to know how this forum works, that you're now pretending you didn't say that or that you don't know how to follow links is pretty funny. Anyways Peter, your dream of an elected SCOTUS simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Hell, you yourself seem to have admitted how little faith you have in the American people after every election.
 
Re: Cruz: Opposition To Same-Sex Marriage Will Be 'Front And Center' In 2016 Camp...

Nope, I'm simply saying that your opinion is subject to change depending on how the elections go. That much remains true and is proven by how little faith you seem to have in the American people when things don't go your way. There is no argument there, it's a fact. :shrug:



Lmao, there is nothing to be infracted over. The post is by you and the link in it leads directly to YOUR statements in a different thread where the elections didn't go your way. You've been around long enough to know how this forum works, that you're now pretending you didn't say that or that you don't know how to follow links is pretty funny. Anyways Peter, your dream of an elected SCOTUS simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Hell, you yourself seem to have admitted how little faith you have in the American people after every election.

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

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.

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.
 
Last edited:
Yes I would rather have a judicial branch that is answerable to the electorate. Why shouldn't the people have a say in what kind of country they want to live in?

Think of it this way, 9 unelected judges over the American population means that each unelected judge rules over about 35 million people for life without seeking representation from them. It's the ultimate farce. No matter how educated they are, no one deserves that kind of power
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.
 
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.
 
Re: Cruz: Opposition To Same-Sex Marriage Will Be 'Front And Center' In 2016 Camp...

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

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

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.
 
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.
 
Back
Top Bottom