• 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

CriticalThought

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 11, 2009
Messages
19,657
Reaction score
8,454
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Texas Sen. Ted Cruz intends to make his opposition to the Supreme Court's decision last week to legalize same-sex marriage nationwide "front and center" in his presidential campaign.In an interview with Morning Editionhost Steve Inskeep on Sunday in New York City, the GOP presidential hopeful doubled down on his belief that the court had overstepped its bounds in both the marriage decision and in upholding Obamacare. And as a result, Cruz said, the justices should be subject to elections and lose their lifetime appointments.
"This week in response to both of these decisions, I have called for another constitutional amendment — this one that would make members of the Supreme Court subject to periodic judicial retention elections," said Cruz.

Cruz: Opposition To Same-Sex Marriage Will Be 'Front And Center' In 2016 Campaign : It's All Politics : NPR

Well so much for the SCOTUS ruling not being an election issue. I wonder how much traction the judicial elections amendment will get. I am sure the liberals would love another shot at Citizens United and Hobby Lobby in their lifetime. It might not go like Cruz thinks. There is a reason the founding fathers wanted to put justices above the sway of election cycles and political parties.
 
Cruz: Opposition To Same-Sex Marriage Will Be 'Front And Center' In 2016 Campaign : It's All Politics : NPR

Well so much for the SCOTUS ruling not being an election issue. I wonder how much traction the judicial elections amendment will get. I am sure the liberals would love another shot at Citizens United and Hobby Lobby in their lifetime. It might not go like Cruz thinks. There is a reason the founding fathers wanted to put justices above the seat of election cycles and political parties.
And how has that worked out so far?
 
Cruz: Opposition To Same-Sex Marriage Will Be 'Front And Center' In 2016 Campaign : It's All Politics : NPR

Well so much for the SCOTUS ruling not being an election issue. I wonder how much traction the judicial elections amendment will get. I am sure the liberals would love another shot at Citizens United and Hobby Lobby in their lifetime. It might not go like Cruz thinks. There is a reason the founding fathers wanted to put justices above the seat of election cycles and political parties.

Cruz will be nowhere near the nomination and the 2016 election will be about a dozen other things before anyone even thinks or considers SSM. Unless the left is foolish enough to attempt to attack religious institutions, it is dead as an issue at the federal level, in my view. If the left is that foolish, all bets are off.
 
Cruz: Opposition To Same-Sex Marriage Will Be 'Front And Center' In 2016 Campaign : It's All Politics : NPR

Well so much for the SCOTUS ruling not being an election issue. I wonder how much traction the judicial elections amendment will get. I am sure the liberals would love another shot at Citizens United and Hobby Lobby in their lifetime. It might not go like Cruz thinks. There is a reason the founding fathers wanted to put justices above the sway of election cycles and political parties.

This conduct is what makes it hard for Republicans to be Republicans.
 
This is a phenomenal idea. No reason 9 unelected boobs should get to lord over 350 million of us.
 
This conduct is what makes it hard for Republicans to be Republicans.

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.
 
And how has that worked out so far?

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.
 
Cruz will be nowhere near the nomination and the 2016 election will be about a dozen other things before anyone even thinks or considers SSM. Unless the left is foolish enough to attempt to attack religious institutions, it is dead as an issue at the federal level, in my view. If the left is that foolish, all bets are off.

No but he can indri dice the legislation as a senator as well
 
Cruz: Opposition To Same-Sex Marriage Will Be 'Front And Center' In 2016 Campaign : It's All Politics : NPR

Well so much for the SCOTUS ruling not being an election issue. I wonder how much traction the judicial elections amendment will get. I am sure the liberals would love another shot at Citizens United and Hobby Lobby in their lifetime. It might not go like Cruz thinks. There is a reason the founding fathers wanted to put justices above the sway of election cycles and political parties.

Though, I think that the ruling was atrocious, I think that that is a bad solution to this problem.
 
This is a phenomenal idea. No reason 9 unelected boobs should get to lord over 350 million of us.

So you want 9 elected boobs who are more focused on raising money for their next election, to lord over 350 million of us? Yup, I think the country will work much better if you can buy the interpretation of the Constitution you want.

How is the whole hating gays been working out for ya?
 
So you want 9 elected boobs who are more focused on raising money for their next election, to lord over 350 million of us? Yup, I think the country will work much better if you can buy the interpretation of the Constitution you want.

How is the whole hating gays been working out for ya?

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
 
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?

Works for me. I really do not think you have thought this through. Imagine a court with nine Ginsburgs instead of the current makeup.
 
This is a phenomenal idea. No reason 9 unelected boobs should get to lord over 350 million of us.

Well...no reason except for the US Constitution.
 
You have to love the collective right wing reactions to all of this. So far:

- Judges writing out dissenting opinions = constitutional crisis (this forum)
- State workers can arbitrarily decide who they'll allow to get married (Texas)
- If states can't decide who gets married, a reasonable solution is doing away with marriage licenses (Some conservatives in US/Canada)!
- The judges aren't siding with us? Better replace them every couple of years then!

Oh, September-November 2016 is going to be great. Some people will be tripping over themselves to support gay marriage, others will fade into obscurity for attacking it, and better yet, some will fall into disrepute because of their thinly veiled homophobia.

---------

My, my, my - what a difference a few elections and some really good marketing make. In less than 20 years, the gay community has managed to turn this issue around completely. I remember in 2004, the election being almost entirely around the concept of gay marriage and the Iraq war. People were beating their chest about who could hate on homos the most if they weren't calling the other side unpatriotic. Even Lurch, err Kerry - who had voted against DOMA - could not bring himself to simply support gay marriage. Now it's 2015, and opinions have changed but very little will change in DC. Though the majority of the population either doesn't give a **** or supports gay marriage, there will still be political bottom feeders like Cruz.
 
Well...no reason except for the US Constitution.

Social conservatives pick and choose which parts of that pesky document they like depending on whether or not it is currently helping them get their way.
 
Well...no reason except for the US Constitution.

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?"
 
Cruz: Opposition To Same-Sex Marriage Will Be 'Front And Center' In 2016 Campaign : It's All Politics : NPR

Well so much for the SCOTUS ruling not being an election issue. I wonder how much traction the judicial elections amendment will get. I am sure the liberals would love another shot at Citizens United and Hobby Lobby in their lifetime. It might not go like Cruz thinks. There is a reason the founding fathers wanted to put justices above the sway of election cycles and political parties.

Cruz knows he won't win the nomination. He's aligning himself with a demographic he will be able to profit from for years.
 
Oh PLEASE do this. I would love an easy landslide for Democrats in 2016. Hopefully it will extend beyond the white house and the near-inevitable retaking of the senate, and maybe we'll swing the house, too.
 
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

Because the Founders, or at least some of them, were wise enough to realize that the people can only be trusted to a limited degree. We elevate an unelected body of Judges to act as permanent arbiters of the law in order to check (among many other things) the intemperate choices and bigotry of the masses. The Constitution, in letter and spirit, should reign above what the people think. If you disagree there is thankfully but one mechanism to change it.
 
You have to love the collective right wing reactions to all of this. So far:

- Judges writing out dissenting opinions = constitutional crisis (this forum)
- State workers can arbitrarily decide who they'll allow to get married (Texas)
- If states can't decide who gets married, a reasonable solution is doing away with marriage licenses (Some conservatives in US/Canada)!
- The judges aren't siding with us? Better replace them every couple of years then!

Oh, September-November 2016 is going to be great. Some people will be tripping over themselves to support gay marriage, others will fade into obscurity for attacking it, and better yet, some will fall into disrepute because of their thinly veiled homophobia.

---------

My, my, my - what a difference a few elections and some really good marketing make. In less than 20 years, the gay community has managed to turn this issue around completely. I remember in 2004, the election being almost entirely around the concept of gay marriage and the Iraq war. People were beating their chest about who could hate on homos the most if they weren't calling the other side unpatriotic. Even Lurch, err Kerry - who had voted against DOMA - could not bring himself to simply support gay marriage. Now it's 2015, and opinions have changed but very little will change in DC. Though the majority of the population either doesn't give a **** or supports gay marriage, there will still be political bottom feeders like Cruz.

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."
 
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?"

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?"

Edit: Also, "Do you support universal background checks for the purchase of a firearm?"
 
Because the Founders, or at least some of them, were wise enough to realize that the people can only be trusted to a limited degree. We elevate an unelected body of Judges to act as permanent arbiters of the law in order to check (among many other things) the intemperate choices and bigotry of the masses. The Constitution, in letter and spirit, should reign above what the people think. If you disagree there is thankfully but one mechanism to change it.

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
 
Back
Top Bottom