• 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

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

The inconsideration with which some people so easily dismiss democracy borders on negligence. Ironically, the callousness of your response in itself makes the best anti-democracy argument thus far on this thread.

Still, I would rather ride with the will of the people than with the will of 9 unknown, unelected lawyers

You know what though? He's right.

The masses shouldn't be trusted to vote on the civil rights and liberties of minorities.

Those 9 unknown, unelected lawyers chose to give my people freedom while the masses were against it because putting my people away in institutions gave them cushy jobs. They made money off of our backs, and our freedom represented an economic danger for them.

Homosexuals were denied equality on the basis of the majority's discomfort with their existence. They were not causing harm, but the masses said "God wills me to hate you and oppress you."

Screw the public and its ideas of democracy.
 
Last edited:
You know what though? He's right.

The masses shouldn't be trusted to vote on the civil rights and liberties of minorities.

Those 9 unknown, unelected lawyers chose to give my people freedom while the masses were against it because putting my people away in institutions gave them cushy jobs. They made money off of our backs, and our freedom represented an economic danger for them.

Screw the public and its ideas of democracy.

Not sure who your people are, but the Supreme Court ruled in FAVOR of slavery.

Abraham Limcoln and the Union army freed your people, not the court.

So guess who put ole honest abe in power...the PEOPLE.
 
Not sure who your people are, but the Supreme Court ruled in FAVOR of slavery.

Abraham Limcoln and the Union army freed your people, not the court.

So guess who put ole honest abe in power...the PEOPLE.

The disabled.

And yes, you wise masses fought against our freedom because it hurt you economically.
 
Cruz: Opposition To Same-Sex Marriage Will Be 'Front And Center' In 2016 Camp...

Freedom of the disabled? Huh?

Context please

Research it yourself.

The matter is that you seem to think it justified to put minority rights up for vote by the majority.

The majority oppress the minority every chance they get. In order to receive basic human rights you democrats want us to get on our knees to beg, and beg everyone to secure liberties you folks take for granted.

Not only is it demeaning it is also not virtuous.

The majority do not have the right nor do they deserve the right to dictate what freedoms and liberties are not going to be bestowed to peoples they hate.
 
Re: Cruz: Opposition To Same-Sex Marriage Will Be 'Front And Center' In 2016 Camp...

Research it yourself.

The matter is that you seem to think it justified to put minority rights up for vote by the majority.

The majority oppress the minority every chance they get. In order to receive basic human rights you democrats want us to get on our knees to beg, and beg everyone to secure liberties you folks take for granted.

Not only is it demeaning it is also not virtuous.

The majority do not have the right nor do they deserve the right to dictate what freedoms and liberties are not going to be bestowed to peoples they hate.

I favor electing Supreme Court judges the same way we elect senators. You don't make every decision for your senator, do you? No...but it's a good thing we have that oversight where we can hold him or her accountable by voting him out of office if necessary.

I'm sorry you have such a low opinion of the inherent goodness of the American People. Personally, I think that while nobody is perfect, there's no wagon I'd rather hitch mine to than the American People.

This is the greatest country on earth, and our people are the reason
 
Cruz: Opposition To Same-Sex Marriage Will Be 'Front And Center' In 2016 Camp...

I favor electing Supreme Court judges the same way we elect senators. You don't make every decision for your senator, do you? No...but it's a good thing we have that oversight where we can hold him or her accountable by voting him out of office if necessary.

I'm sorry you have such a low opinion of the inherent goodness of the American People. Personally, I think that while nobody is perfect, there's no wagon I'd rather hitch mine to than the American People.

This is the greatest country on earth, and our people are the reason

By putting them to vote you want their decisions to not be based on justice, but your temperamental whims. You also want this because a minority won basic human rights. Your hatred should not be the primary determinant to whether minorities get rights. It's transparent as can be because you have faith that gays are less likely to have civil rights if you can get democracy in there, and that's why you want the American people to have more influence in the outcomes of the court system.

I don't have faith in the American people with minority civil liberties. There's few more likely to remove my civil liberties than my neighbor. Why? Because they are bigoted, hateful creatures who neither understand issues or rights in front of them, nor do they pay much mind to the consequences of such actions.
 
Last edited:
Re: Cruz: Opposition To Same-Sex Marriage Will Be 'Front And Center' In 2016 Camp...

By putting them to vote you want their decisions to not be based on justice, but your temperamental whims. You also want this because a minority won basic human rights. Your hatred should not be the primary determinant to whether minorities get rights. It's transparent as can be because you have faith that gays are less likely to have civil rights if you can get democracy in there, and that's why you want the American people to have more influence in the outcomes of the court system.

I don't have faith in the American people with minority civil liberties. There's few more likely to remove my civil liberties than my neighbor. Why? Because they are bigoted, hateful creatures who neither understand issues or rights in front of them, nor do they pay much mind to the consequences of such actions.

Agree to disagree, but no need to make this personal.
 
Re: Cruz: Opposition To Same-Sex Marriage Will Be 'Front And Center' In 2016 Camp...

I'm sorry you have such a low opinion of the inherent goodness of the American People. Personally, I think that while nobody is perfect, there's no wagon I'd rather hitch mine to than the American People.

This is the greatest country on earth, and our people are the reason

Lmao:

Every time election season comes around, it makes me think less of the American people. Americans are TERRIBLE at picking candidates these days.

We know that sentiment wouldn't apply to these imaginary SCOTUS elections if you're on the losing end... right? ;)
 
Cruz: Opposition To Same-Sex Marriage Will Be 'Front And Center' In 2016 Camp...

Agree to disagree, but no need to make this personal.

I can agree to not make it personal here because it is a web forum, but let's examine why your statement is incredibly audacious.

Why shouldn't we make it personal? It's a very personal matter to the folks you wish to oppress.

We could keep our distance because you hold no power, but if you did, they would have every right to make it personal because it impacts them to an extent you wouldn't have to deal with, nor would you tolerate if it was done to you.

If you not only had publicly advocated for the ability to vote for for a Judge, rallied for a Judge with your proclivities, and in your own little way advocated to influence the outcome of a case by way of mass outrage, I would think very much that they would have every right to take it personally and admonish you for it.

I know it's easy for you to keep your distance, because voting against gay marriage doesn't affect you either way, but it nevertheless does great impact the civil liberties of others.
 
Re: Cruz: Opposition To Same-Sex Marriage Will Be 'Front And Center' In 2016 Camp...

Lmao:



We know that sentiment wouldn't apply to these imaginary SCOTUS elections if you're on the losing end... right? ;)

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

I can agree to not make it personal here because it is a web forum, but let's examine why your statement is incredibly audacious.

Why shouldn't we make it personal? It's a very personal matter to the folks you wish to oppress.

We could keep our distance because you hold no power, but if you did, they would have every right to make it personal because it impacts them to an extent you wouldn't have to deal with, nor would you tolerate if it was done to you.

If you not only had publicly advocated for the ability to vote for for a Judge, rallied for a Judge with your proclivities, and in your own little way advocated to influence the outcome of a case by way of mass outrage, I would think very much that they would have every right to take it personally and admonish you for it.

I know it's easy for you to keep your distance, because voting against gay marriage doesn't affect you either way, but it nevertheless does great impact the civil liberties of others.

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.
 
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.




Judges do not "govern" anyone, they merely interpret the words of those who do govern. That's why they aren't subject to election.

If the legislature had not written equal protection under the law into the constitution, it could not have been interpreted to mean that all people (including gays, and including laws on marriage) were guaranteed equal protection.

Cruse's proposal is the ultimate grasping at straws.
 
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.


But it is on topic. Increasing democracy to the court system increases to prominence of the citizenry's impulses and their motivations for certain justices *and* expected rulings. Your advocacy of such a position, much like Mr. Cruz, is predicated on a certain belief that the solution must come because of a specific outcome in a specific case by which a minority was granted civil rights.

It's all related and the consequences of your policy idea would necessarily mean that the motivations of the citizenry take center stage in the highest court in the criminal justice system. Your proposal does not exist in a vacuum, however much of an inconvenience it is for you to accept that.

Call it bait if you wish, but this is merely basic intellectual research and discussion.

I don't need to press any further, because I've said all I can, and you've said as little as you can.
 
Judges do not "govern" anyone, they merely interpret the words of those who do govern. That's why they aren't subject to election.

If the legislature had not written equal protection under the law into the constitution, it could not have been interpreted to mean that all people (including gays, and including laws on marriage) were guaranteed equal protection.

Cruse's proposal is the ultimate grasping at straws.

They do govern, though. They have the power to set policy by defining laws. They do this by way of establishing legal precedent for lower courts to follow.

I agree that Cruz's proposal is unlikely to pass, however, this site being one where politics are debated, I am expressing my opinion in favor of it. I think his proposal is highly democratic and it shares my optimistic view of the capabilities of the Anerican People
 
As if Cruz gives a flying **** what the homosexual lunatic fringe thinks of him.
 
Re: Cruz: Opposition To Same-Sex Marriage Will Be 'Front And Center' In 2016 Camp...

But it is on topic. Increasing democracy to the court system increases to prominence of the citizenry's impulses and their motivations for certain justices *and* expected rulings. Your advocacy of such a position, much like Mr. Cruz, is predicated on a certain belief that the solution must come because of a specific outcome in a specific case by which a minority was granted civil rights.

It's all related and the consequences of your policy idea would necessarily mean that the motivations of the citizenry take center stage in the highest court in the criminal justice system. Your proposal does not exist in a vacuum, however much of an inconvenience it is for you to accept that.

Call it bait if you wish, but this is merely basic intellectual research and discussion.

I don't need to press any further, because I've said all I can, and you've said as little as you can.

The problem is you never know another man's motivation, and I'm under no obligation to explain myself to you.

I'm here to debate issues. If you want to speculate on why I believe or advocate for this or that, I won't entertain it.
 
Cruz: Opposition To Same-Sex Marriage Will Be 'Front And Center' In 2016 Camp...

The problem is you never know another man's motivation, and I'm under no obligation to explain myself to you.

Don't you find that incredibly hypocritical considering you're wanting the right to determine the human and civil rights of swaths of the American public?

They have to explain themselves to you, but be damned if the same is asked of you?

I suppose it helps being part of the comfortable majority. You get to say your motivations are beyond question while trying to determine who gets to sit in the Judge's chair and what they are going to do when they get there.
 
Last edited:
Re: Cruz: Opposition To Same-Sex Marriage Will Be 'Front And Center' In 2016 Camp...

Don't you find that incredibly hypocritical considering you're wanting the right to determine the human and civil rights of swaths of the American public?

They have to explain themselves to you, but be damned if the same is asked of you?

I'm not asking anyone to explain themselves to me.

I'm simply stating that I would rather see us elect judges, as we do senators, than have them be lifetime appointed lawyers who decide the fate of 350 million people without those people having a say in who represents them.

That's all I'm saying. Everything else you are projecting on to me.
 
Re: Cruz: Opposition To Same-Sex Marriage Will Be 'Front And Center' In 2016 Camp...

I'm not asking anyone to explain themselves to me.

I'm simply stating that I would rather see us elect judges, as we do senators, than have them be lifetime appointed lawyers who decide the fate of 350 million people without those people having a say in who represents them.

That's all I'm saying. Everything else you are projecting on to me.

So you would rather have them rule based on what will get them elected than on what the law and the constitution is? That seems wrong somehow...
 
Why should the Supreme Court be insulated from the will of the very people it is meant to govern? The American People are not idiots or children, we can govern ourselves quote capably.

The safeguards to judicial power you have outlined, while important, represent an emergency brake when what we, the Anerican Public, require, is much more involved oversight.

I think we have a fundamental difference of political philosophy. I understand that the American People will get it wrong from time to time, just as the unelected 9 will get it wrong a lot of the time as well. History has proven both of these statements out.

But when the cards are laid down....I would much rather ride with the Anerican People than with 9 elitist appointees who hide behind their robes and their marble walls.

Checks and balances. They need to be removed from influence. Also the reason for the high hurdle to change/amend the constitution. It can be done, just not easy.
 
Re: Cruz: Opposition To Same-Sex Marriage Will Be 'Front And Center' In 2016 Camp...

So you would rather have them rule based on what will get them elected than on what the law and the constitution is? That seems wrong somehow...

I don't think the will of the people and the constitution/law are in direct opposition. It's not an either/or. I want judges who base their decision on the rule of law AND who are accountable to the public whom they serve.

I think six year terms are quite reasonable in this regard.
 
Add my family to that. They are all for folks going their own way. But even the ones who campaigned in their states for homosexual marriage, hate this decision and the way in which they got what they wanted. When will the namecallers learn that the method counts often more than the result.

How else could this have been solved? Isn't this the purpose, basically of the SC..to settle constitution disputes? The bare basics of this right is that gay people are taxpayers too and they deserve the same benefits of any other tax payer. Our society cannot function with the opposing side always getting their way on every issue. This right doesn't affect anyone except the ones who need it. The States were not able to handle this issue fairly and it was turfed to a higher court. Not all decisions make everyone happy...but this one was such a no brainer and has very little impact on normal society. This should have happened years ago.
 
Cruz: Opposition To Same-Sex Marriage Will Be 'Front And Center' In 2016 Camp...

I'm not asking anyone to explain themselves to me.

I'm simply stating that I would rather see us elect judges, as we do senators, than have them be lifetime appointed lawyers who decide the fate of 350 million people without those people having a say in who represents them.

That's all I'm saying. Everything else you are projecting on to me.

Do you recall why we pushed to elect Senators? Increased majority input as opposed to well-entrenched minorities. Electing judges is a purposeful act of trying to impose democratic wills onto a traditionally oligarchical institution. Likewise, the reason why this has come up was because of gay marriage. That's the rationale for elected judges, and Ted Cruz rationalized in on that basis. So did you.

We also both know I am not projecting what your motivations are here.
 
Back
Top Bottom