• 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

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?

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?
 
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.

Few people will get that chance and even fewer will give him the chance - as the old saying goes, you only get one chance to make a good first impression.
 
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?

Because all of them are subject to the whim of the majority. The entire purpose of the Constitution is to protect it from the tyranny of the majority. There is no reason to even have a Constitution if it is subject to a popular vote. It goes against its very existence.
 
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.

Anyone who makes SSM front and center for either side at this point would not get my vote. US economy, healthcare, crime, technology, environment, wealth disparity, and other things are what I will be looking for. SSM is done. Its there. Move on to other things to fix our country's problems.
 
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.

Only too bad he didn't have a lawyer of your undoubted skills to coach him each time, before he had to get up there in front of the bench and say the right things when the Supreme Court justices challenged his arguments.

There is no better evidence of just how far statism has progressed in America than that it is now an everyday thing for a man to be slandered as an extremist nut just because he adheres to the principles of government this country was founded on, and which are expressed in its Constitution. The real extremists are those people, starting with the damned liar currently occupying the White House, who have nothing but contempt for the Constitution. These undemocratic and un-American types appreciate this wonderful country about as much as a chimpanzee would appreciate the Mona Lisa, if placed in front of it. They want to fundamentally transform the United States into the very kind of totalitarian state our Constitution was carefully designed to prevent.
 
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.

Mr. Green Eggs and Ham held this country hostage, costing taxpayers millions and dollars and doing irreparable damage to the GOP brand. Do you honestly think that they are going to reward him for that? That guy is a grade A idiot.
 
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.

Like i said many many many times before this ruling was even happening.

Any presidential running campaign with an opposition to equal rights directly in it is a guaranteed way to lose and not be president.

a candidate can still say they dont agree but if they make promises about trying to fight it or talk to much about it being wrong they will lose. The majority of american supports equal rights and going agsint that will end up in a lose :shrug:

so anybody that wants to lose . .. please . . put opposition to equal rights in your presidential race. lol
 
Because all of them are subject to the whim of the majority. The entire purpose of the Constitution is to protect it from the tyranny of the majority. There is no reason to even have a Constitution if it is subject to a popular vote. It goes against its very existence.

I'm sure you won't find the phrase "tyranny of the majority" anywhere in our constitution. That sounds like paranoia-laced rhetoric when dealing with something as good and wholesome as democracy and the right to self-determination.

The United States is the worlds oldest democracy still in existence. We hold our democratic principles in high regard. When we fight against tyranny, it's the tyrrany of dictators, monarchs, and autocrats. So, I think to have 9 lifetime appointed elites who lord over 350 million subjects without so much as an election to put them in such a position of disproportionate power....that flies in the face of every American value I know.

The constitution was put in place to separate and divide up power, specifically to avoid autocratic corruption as we had seen in Britain. I wouldn't trade this for the world.

We need to take the power out of the hands of 9 unelected boobs, and give that power to you, and me, and our neighbors, and all of the American people. This is our country, we have a right to rule ourselves.
 
Mr. Green Eggs and Ham held this country hostage, costing taxpayers millions and dollars and doing irreparable damage to the GOP brand. Do you honestly think that they are going to reward him for that? That guy is a grade A idiot.


I wouldn't discount Cruz as being an idiot, quite the opposite actually.
 
Only too bad he didn't have a lawyer of your undoubted skills to coach him each time, before he had to get up there in front of the bench and say the right things when the Supreme Court justices challenged his arguments.

There is no better evidence of just how far statism has progressed in America than that it is now an everyday thing for a man to be slandered as an extremist nut just because he adheres to the principles of government this country was founded on, and which are expressed in its Constitution. The real extremists are those people, starting with the damned liar currently occupying the White House, who have nothing but contempt for the Constitution. These undemocratic and un-American types appreciate this wonderful country about as much as a chimpanzee would appreciate the Mona Lisa, if placed in front of it. They want to fundamentally transform the United States into the very kind of totalitarian state our Constitution was carefully designed to prevent.

Is it backwards day or what? You wanna talk about a "totalitarian state"? Isn't that a state where the citizens of the state enjoy little to know rights? Hmmmmm....which party is the one seeking to take away the rights of the people? Which party is that one trying to limit fundamental Constitutional rights to only certain people? Which party is the one trying to assert the government into the most intimate aspects of the people's lives?

Dude....you couldn't be more wrong in your assessemnt. Cruz has no respect for the Constitution. He is nothing more than a political grandstanding fool who would love to impose extreme governmental controls over the people of this country. He is a puppet for the radical right-wing social agenda. Which is why the American people will take one look and him and he'll be done by the third primary.
 
I wouldn't discount Cruz as being an idiot, quite the opposite actually.

I disagree. Everytime the man opens his mouth he displays clearly that he is an extremist out of touch with the vast majority of this country. I suspect he may know that and isn't all that serious about running for the Presidency....so maybe you are correct.
 
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

The people do have a say - through the legislature.

Electing judges is a bad idea. It makes them little different than the legislature that they're supposed to be a check against.
 
Cruz is either an idiot or is simply pandering to his base.

In either case he likely won't be President so it's of little import.
 
I'm sure you won't find the phrase "tyranny of the majority" anywhere in our constitution. That sounds like paranoia-laced rhetoric when dealing with something as good and wholesome as democracy and the right to self-determination.

The United States is the worlds oldest democracy still in existence. We hold our democratic principles in high regard. When we fight against tyranny, it's the tyrrany of dictators, monarchs, and autocrats. So, I think to have 9 lifetime appointed elites who lord over 350 million subjects without so much as an election to put them in such a position of disproportionate power....that flies in the face of every American value I know.

The constitution was put in place to separate and divide up power, specifically to avoid autocratic corruption as we had seen in Britain. I wouldn't trade this for the world.

We need to take the power out of the hands of 9 unelected boobs, and give that power to you, and me, and our neighbors, and all of the American people. This is our country, we have a right to rule ourselves.

You should look at the legislative history underlying the creation of the Constitution. It absolutely was set up to protect the rights of the minority against the tyranny of the majority....those aren't my words, they were James Madison....father of the US Constitution:

http://rense.com/general64/madi.htm
 
Last edited:
The people do have a say - through the legislature.

Electing judges is a bad idea. It makes them little different than the legislature that they're supposed to be a check against.

Why this opposition to democracy?

They would be different in the function that they serve. If elected, they would be accountable to the people they mean to make judgements on behalf of, which can only be a good thing if you believe, as I do, that the Anerican people are adults who are calibre of self-determination.
 
Why this opposition to democracy?

They would be different in the function that they serve. If elected, they would be accountable to the people they mean to make judgements on behalf of, which can only be a good thing if you believe, as I do, that the Anerican people are adults who are calibre of self-determination.

They would also be likely to base their decision on what the popular vote/popular opinion is rather than based on the Constitution....so again.....why even have a Constitution is you adopt your view. What purpose would it serve? It sounds to me like you want to abolish the Constitution.
 
Why this opposition to democracy?

They would be different in the function that they serve. If elected, they would be accountable to the people they mean to make judgements on behalf of, which can only be a good thing if you believe, as I do, that the American people are adults who are calibre of self-determination.

Who's opposed to democracy? We have a three branches of government. The legislative is wholly democratic, the executive - kind of / sort of. The judiciary was never meant to be democratic for the very good reason that they shouldn't vote a certain way simply because it might enhance their re-election chances.
 
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.

This is what lost him his credibility and respect. He embarrassed the entire Nation with this stunt.

 
They would also be likely to base their decision on what the popular vote/popular opinion is rather than based on the Constitution....so again.....why even have a Constitution is you adopt your view. What purpose would it serve? It sounds to me like you want to abolish the Constitution.

I want the same election process we have for senators to apply to Supreme Court judges. Hardly the slippery slope you are portraying.

Is listening to the popular vote a bad thing? That's what we call democratic compromise and concensus, and it's how we empower the American Citizen to take charge of his own future.

Can you imagine the social policy debates we would have every couple years when a Supreme Court justice came up for election? The discourse would be wonderful for democracy and for our society.
 
I wanna see an SNL parody of the GOP debates....where every answer that Cruz gives is "I DO NOT LIKE GREEN EGGS AND HAM....I DO NOT LIKE THEM SAM I AM!"
 
Cruz knows he won't win the nomination. He's aligning himself with a demographic he will be able to profit from for years.

The problem with this theory is *every* repub candidate is acting exactly the same as cruz in this regard. One of them has to win
 
I want the same election process we have for senators to apply to Supreme Court judges. Hardly the slippery slope you are portraying.

Is listening to the popular vote a bad thing? That's what we call democratic compromise and concensus, and it's how we empower the American Citizen to take charge of his own future.

Can you imagine the social policy debates we would have every couple years when a Supreme Court justice came up for election? The discourse would be wonderful for democracy and for our society.

Nothing I am implying even comes close to a "Slippery Slope"....do you know what a Slippery Slope is? What you are advocating is doing away with the core structure of the Constitution and the principles that it stands for. What you are really advocating is to eliminate the Constitution.....at least be honest about it.
 
Who's opposed to democracy? We have a three branches of government. The legislative is wholly democratic, the executive - kind of / sort of. The judiciary was never meant to be democratic for the very good reason that they shouldn't vote a certain way simply because it might enhance their re-election chances.

None of the three branches were meant to be wholly democratic. We have an electoral college for the executive. Originally, senators were appointed and not elected.

Women and minorities were also originally not allowed to vote.

Luckily, we have improved and democratized our system of government over the years. The electoral college is impotent. Senators are now elected.

I favor holding Supreme Court elections just like we elect senators...in rotating 6 year terms.
 
None of the three branches were meant to be wholly democratic. We have an electoral college for the executive. Originally, senators were appointed and not elected.

Women and minorities were also originally not allowed to vote.

Luckily, we have improved and democratized our system of government over the years. The electoral college is impotent. Senators are now elected.

I favor holding Supreme Court elections just like we elect senators...in rotating 6 year terms.
You keep avoiding the question:

What purpose would the Constitution serve if the Justices are elected at the whim of the majority. How would a popular vote of the judges protect the rights of the minority? Would not every fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution become subject to a popular vote?
 
Back
Top Bottom