• 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

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.

Influence from what, the will of the people they serve?

I want them to be more in touch, not more out of touch.
 
Re: Cruz: Opposition To Same-Sex Marriage Will Be 'Front And Center' In 2016 Camp...

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.

Your continued insistence on making this personal, in spite of my repeated requests to keep this discussion civil and on topic, regrettably leave me with no choice but to stop debating with you on this topic for the time being.

I just want to discuss the issues, man.
 
Re: Cruz: Opposition To Same-Sex Marriage Will Be 'Front And Center' In 2016 Camp...

Your continued insistence on making this personal, in spite of my repeated requests to keep this discussion civil and on topic, regrettably leave me with no choice but to stop debating with you on this topic for the time being.

I just want to discuss the issues, man.

If you have trouble confronting the scope of the issue, that's your and Cruz's problem. Luckily for the rest of us, we aren't going to put in place a system which puts our justice system in a position where it has to produce the results the majority wants, even if it oppresses a minority that the majority has made no attempts to disguise it's hatred for.
 
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

Yes, I know. You're happy with less freedom as long as people vote for less freedom.

I am 100% comfortable with being "inconsiderate" of your ability to vote away someone else's freedom and make absolutely no apology for that.
 
Re: Cruz: Opposition To Same-Sex Marriage Will Be 'Front And Center' In 2016 Camp...

If you have trouble confronting the scope of the issue, that's your and Cruz's problem. Luckily for the rest of us, we aren't going to put in place a system which puts our justice system in a position where it has to produce the results the majority wants, even if it oppresses a minority that the majority has made no attempts to disguise it's hatred for.

I don't know why you assume an elected judge serving a six-year term will be incapable of delivering justice on behalf of minority groups. The lack of confidence in people that shows is disheartening.

But you have to remember, there is no guarantee that the 9 robed men/women will protect minorities under the current system. We really don't know anything about these people. We didn't elect them.
 
Yes, I know. You're happy with less freedom as long as people vote for less freedom.

So, should senators and congressmen and presidents be appointed too? I mean, if you don't believe in Democracy, what do you believe in?
 
Says who? That seems backwards. I don't want a justice who is out of touch, I want one who is tuned in to public discourse and who is ultimately accountable to the people he serves.

A justice has to deal with matters of law. If justices and judges were elected by the people like normal politicians, then they would be susceptible to the same flaws as elected politicans.

Judges that are appointed are preferable because they can make decisions without the fear of running for reelection.
 
Cruz: Opposition To Same-Sex Marriage Will Be 'Front And Center' In 2016 Camp...

I don't know why you assume an elected judge serving a six-year term will be incapable of delivering justice on behalf of minority groups. The lack of confidence in people that shows is disheartening.

But you have to remember, there is no guarantee that the 9 robed men/women will protect minorities under the current system. We really don't know anything about these people. We didn't elect them.

I saw it in 2004. Then and after then, just as in the past, the show of strength for oppressing people was through the referendum process. Oh conservatives loved that. The masses got to vote whether to create a constitutional amendment to deny civil rights to people who were in a same sex relationship. Passed with flying colors. A constitutional amendment.

And then the courts came in and tore it down with their unelected fingers.
 
A justice has to deal with matters of law. If justices and judges were elected by the people like normal politicians, then they would be susceptible to the same flaws as elected politicans.

Judges that are appointed are preferable because they can make decisions without the fear of running for reelection.



The law is not above the people. The law is for the people. The people have a right to decide who is sitting on that bench doling out the law to them.

Americans are capable of governing themselves, they don't need a self-appointed genius lawyer (or nine of them) to lay out the law for how they should live their lives. The people deserve a hand in our own destiny. I don't buy the pretense that we're not capable or smart enough to do that for one odd minute.

Give the power back to the American People, I say.
 
So, should senators and congressmen and presidents be appointed too? I mean, if you don't believe in Democracy, what do you believe in?

Quit making stupid leaps and you'll be less confused.
 
Re: Cruz: Opposition To Same-Sex Marriage Will Be 'Front And Center' In 2016 Camp...

I saw it in 2004. Then and after then, just as in the past, the show of strength for oppressing people was through the referendum process. Oh conservatives loved that. The masses got to vote whether to create a constitutional amendment to deny civil rights to people who were in a same sex relationship. Passed with flying colors. A constitutional amendment.

And then the courts came in and tore it down with their unelected fingers.

Not every battle is going to go your way, that doesn't mean you shun democracy from now on. The Supreme Court once upheld slavery. Which is worse?
 
I think we have a fundamental difference of political philosophy.

That is clear to me. I have very much the same political philosophy as the men who founded this country, and there is not much I would change about the Constitution. I would leave the power Art. II, sec. 2, cl. 2 gives the president to appoint justices of the Supreme Court by and with the advice and consent of the Senate just as it is. I would probably also keep as is the provision of Art. III, sec. 1 by which justices of the Supreme Court, like other appointed federal judges, "shall hold their offices during good behaviour," although I am interested to see just what Sen. Cruz is proposing to change about that tenure.

Alexander Hamilton said this about the tenure of appointed judges in The Federalist No. 78 about providing for them to hold office during good behavior:

[This] is conformable to the most approved of the state constitutions . . . . Its propriety having been drawn into question by the adversaries of that plan, is no light symptom of the rage for objection, which disorders their imaginations and judgments. The standard of good behavior for the continuance in office of the judicial magistracy, is certainly one of the most valuable of the modern improvements in the practice of government. In a monarchy it is an excellent barrier to the despotism of the prince; in a republic it is a no less excellent barrier to the encroachments and oppressions of the representative body. And it is the best expedient which can be devised in any government, to secure a steady, upright, and impartial administration of the laws.


I agree with Hamilton. The main problem I see with decisions like Obergefell is the doctrine of substantive due process they rely on. As the Court itself has discussed, it tends to lead to rulings whose lack of any reasoned constitutional basis invites the suspicion they are nothing more than arbitrary, undemocratic dictates. In fact that was the main reason the Court ended its three-decade-plus "Substantive Due Process Era" in 1937, as far as economic regulations are concerned. It is in reaction to the excesses of that era, during which the Court struck down more than 200 laws for violating an implied constitutional "liberty of contract," that ever since, laws setting maximum work hours, imposing professional licensing standards, or similarly regulating economic matters have been presumed constitutionally valid and have only had to meet the extremely deferential standards of rational basis review.

But when it comes to controversial social issues, the Court has shown none of that restraint. Due process has become a convenient excuse for concocting liberties that no one who drafted or approved the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868 ever imagined in his wildest dreams. Maybe Congress should start viewing flagrant misuse of the Due Process Clause in cases like Obergefell as a violation of the standard of "good behaviour."
 
That is clear to me. I have very much the same political philosophy as the men who founded this country, and there is not much I would change about the Constitution. I would leave the power Art. II, sec. 2, cl. 2 gives the president to appoint justices of the Supreme Court by and with the advice and consent of the Senate just as it is. I would probably also keep as is the provision of Art. III, sec. 1 by which justices of the Supreme Court, like other appointed federal judges, "shall hold their offices during good behaviour," although I am interested to see just what Sen. Cruz is proposing to change about that tenure.

Alexander Hamilton said this about the tenure of appointed judges in The Federalist No. 78 about providing for them to hold office during good behavior:

[This] is conformable to the most approved of the state constitutions . . . . Its propriety having been drawn into question by the adversaries of that plan, is no light symptom of the rage for objection, which disorders their imaginations and judgments. The standard of good behavior for the continuance in office of the judicial magistracy, is certainly one of the most valuable of the modern improvements in the practice of government. In a monarchy it is an excellent barrier to the despotism of the prince; in a republic it is a no less excellent barrier to the encroachments and oppressions of the representative body. And it is the best expedient which can be devised in any government, to secure a steady, upright, and impartial administration of the laws.


I agree with Hamilton. The main problem I see with decisions like Obergefell is the doctrine of substantive due process they rely on. As the Court itself has discussed, it tends to lead to rulings whose lack of any reasoned constitutional basis invites the suspicion they are nothing more than arbitrary, undemocratic dictates. In fact that was the main reason the Court ended its three-decade-plus "Substantive Due Process Era" in 1937, as far as economic regulations are concerned. It is in reaction to the excesses of that era, during which the Court struck down more than 200 laws for violating an implied constitutional "liberty of contract," that ever since, laws setting maximum work hours, imposing professional licensing standards, or similarly regulating economic matters have been presumed constitutionally valid and have only had to meet the extremely deferential standards of rational basis review.

But when it comes to controversial social issues, the Court has shown none of that restraint. Due process has become a convenient excuse for concocting liberties that no one who drafted or approved the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868 ever imagined in his wildest dreams. Maybe Congress should start viewing flagrant misuse of the Due Process Clause in cases like Obergefell as a violation of the standard of "good behaviour."

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.
 
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.

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?
 
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 you'd be bitterly disappointed, but will put cash money on it isn't the first disappointment you have faced.

Back when the CONs were appointing the Justices there was no call for 'reform'. BushII appointed a very young Chief Justice thinking a CON Justice would be running the Court for a long time... funny how that worked out, ain't it.

I reckon you know how Justices get on the Bench, you just like playing silly CON games with the process. I do believe it takes a bit more than just being 'appointed' by the President, I do believe the Justice has to run the posturing bicker factory's thousand wacks of a 'confirmation process' with 2/3rds of the elected boobs voting to seat the candidate.

I believe the Founders and follow-up early politicians got the Judical just about right. For all some on both sides of the politics game howl about 'unelected'- who feared/loathed unelected leaders more than those who just threw off a monarchy- now THAT was an unelected Boob.

But it is fun to watch the CONs carry on about unelected lawyers, appointed for life tyrants... throw in some crap about Amending the Constitution to 'protect' marriage, and 'defend' religion and the Clowns have once again taken center stage in the GOP nomination process and all but assures Hillary will have a historic Presidency.... :peace
 
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.

I don't know how popular that issue will be. Remember Cruz's "cause" to shut the govt down to prevent the final provisions of Obamacare from being funded? It cost the govt billions of dollars, and citizens their income and jobs, and everyone knew it was just a publicity stunt without a chance of doing anything.
 
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.

Why would the left atack religious institutions? Liberals go to church, too. ????
 
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.

I agree to some extent. Except that Cruz (who is a newbie, after all) has a lot of money from donors. He's a sweetheart of the Tea Party (although, if you notice, they are keeping a low profile of late).
 
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, 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!
 
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

There's nothing so corrupt as a politician who depends on money from corporations and people to keep his job. Once "elected" by big money, he is beholden to do their bidding.

Once a S.Ct. justice is appointed and confirmed, s/he has a job for life and is secure to make decisions that are not related to special interests, funding issues, keeping a job. That is, s/he is more pure in his decisions than an elected official.

The President nominates people to the S.Ct., and the Senate has a say through a confirmation process, including rejection of the nominee.

It's a pretty good system. Believe me, you don't want elected officials deciding our constitutional rights. Our rights would be stripped in no time for the benefit of big business.
 
Re: Cruz: Opposition To Same-Sex Marriage Will Be 'Front And Center' In 2016 Camp...

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.

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.
 
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.

I just found this picture of the Cruz campaign plane.

plane-going-down.jpg


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.
 
Says who? That seems backwards. I don't want a justice who is out of touch, I want one who is tuned in to public discourse and who is ultimately accountable to the people he serves.

Dear Peter:

Our rights exist NOT to protect what the majority wants or is. The majority doesn't need protection. The rights granted by the Constitution exist to protect the MINORITY.

So you see, the Justices are not on teh bench to decide cases in accordance with what the MAJORITY of the people in the country think. We don't decide whether other people have certain rights. The Constitution grants certain rights to the country's citizens, and a panel of nine people, removed from influence, sit to decide the application of those rights in individual real-life situations.

If most people in the country wanted to make one race second class citizens, they couldn't, because that race has Constitutional protections. The Law of the Land is not based on what the majority wants.

If our Founding Fathers wanted the majority to decide on who gets what rights, they would have set up the system that way. They expressly put that in the hands of a group of justices, free of politics to the extent possible, who are schooled in the law and legal cases, to decide specific real-life applications of the rights in the Constitution.

The majority, thankfully, cannot take away your rights or my rights. The whole country could decide, for example, that we don't want Peter to have freedom of speech rights. You could sue us, and the U.S. Supreme Court would decide NOT whether the people in the country really don't want Peter to have freedom of speech; it would decide if the freedom of speech right in the Constitution applies to Peter.

The justices decide on the rights as stated in the Constitution. If we were to have a vote on an issue, most people wouldn't understand that the question is not whether we WANT something, but whether that right is covered in the Constitution (whether we like it or not). Most people haven't even read the Constitution, and if they did, wouldn't necessarily understand the rights given in it.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom