Ted Cruz Ping! If you want on/off this ping list, please let me know.
Please beware, this is a high-volume ping list!
CRUZ or LOSE!
Posted on 07/14/2015 10:09:51 AM PDT by conservativejoy
Ted Cruz is right…and wrong
Judson Phillips July 5, 2015 at 9:14am in Tea Party Nation
Ted Cruz may be that once in a generation candidate who, if elected President, can change the world.
Part of the greatness of Cruz and his candidacy is his brilliance and his willingness to take on topics none of the other candidates will touch. Only Cruz and Donald Trump are going after the Republican Establishment on illegal immigration.
Ted Cruz recently came out with another idea in response to something the government did. He has the basic of the idea right but the actual idea is wrong.
What is it that Ted Cruz is so right about yet still wrong?
After the Supreme Court announced the Obergefell v. Hodges decision, where the Supreme Court ordered all states to allow homosexual marriage, Ted Cruz shot back. Cruz proposed a Constitutional amendment that would require Supreme Court justices to sit for periodic retention elections.
When the Constitution was written in 1787, the judiciary was considered the weakest branch of the government so federal judges were given lifetime tenure. In 1803, in the case of Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court made an incredible power grab. It gave itself the right to declare legislation unconstitutional.
At first, this power was used sparingly. But in the last 50 years, an increasingly activist federal judiciary has used this power over and over again to legislate from the bench.
The federal system of government has checks and balances against the abuse of power, except in the case of the judiciary. There is no check against their power.
Cruz suggests retention votes for these justices.
Retention votes are a joke. Tennessee, where I live and practice law, has retention elections for appellate judges. In 26 years, only one has been voted out.
The time has come to amend the Constitution to have all federal judges stand for popular election. We need a check on the outrageous usurpation of power by the federal judiciary.
If judges had to run every four years, how willing would they be to sign any injunction an ACLU lawyer throws in front of them? How willing would they be to silence the voices of millions who vote for natural marriage? How willing would these judges and justices be to give these crazy rulings? How willing would John Roberts be to go to the mat to save Obamacare if he had to face the people?
The answer is of course, they would not.
Ted Cruz has identified the problem. We have an unaccountable federal judiciary. But the answer is not faux elections and that is all retention elections are. The answer is real elections.
If these judges are so proud of their rulings, let them face the people with them.
We need this constitutional amendment before America truly becomes the dictatorship of the judiciary.
Ted Cruz Ping! It would be better to have all laws and ammendment expire on the census. That’s state local and federal.
I don’t disagree with this.
Something needs to be done about judicial activism and blatant abuse of power, and retention elections is not the thing to be done.
It’s going to have to be something with far more consequence than that.
Get over yourself Judson.....Cruz’s statement was clarifying......a thought experiment more than a literal proposal.
Supreme Court Justices are not given their positions for “life”, but for the “duration of good behavior”. Violating the Constitution is not “good behavior”, and the Congress has the authority to impeach them.
They are not untouchable, Congress has just used them as well as all of the president’s agencies and bureaus to delegate all of the tough decisions so they can cite their good voting records.
Wake up!
This is the way to nullify the abortion decision, the anti-school prayer decisions, the over jealous limitations on local law enforcement, school assignments, legislative apportionment, etc., etc..
I’m fine with retention elections with one tweak.
Rather than a vote by all the people, give that power to the state legislatures. The US supreme court might not be so willing to step on the state powers if the state held supreme court justices fate in their hands.
To listen to some of these people you would think Cruz had said he would sign an executive order to submit SC Judges to elections.
He is only making a point (something needs to be done) such a thing would have to be done in accordance with the constitution, he is suggesting one solution (he never said it is the best solution) that would need support of the people through Congress, there will be arguments on whether or not it is a good idea, we will no longer have a dictator in office when Cruz is POTUS!
The overall objective Cruz has (that seems to get lost in the hoopla) is to restore our Constitutional Free Republic.
That might be something that could work.
I just don’t see the use in giving the ability to retain judges to the public.
One simply has to look at the senate, and congress too for that matter, to see that’s a non-starter.
Ideally the senate would be back under the control of the state legislatures.
What's a laugh is that you fantasize that you have the intellect to demean Cruz. Now THATS funny!!!
I like the idea of allowing state legislatures to vote. The general public does not take the necessary time to get informed and are too easily manipulated.
I could hang with Cruz, no problem. He’s only a lawyer.
You were an engineer....probably a good one...and like almost all good engineers....you are hopelessly and helplessly type B left brained small picture thinkers.
I think you’ll get laughed off this forum thinking you can “hang with Cruz no problem” because he’s “only a lawyer.”
Oh, engineering is absolutely a left brained type B profession.....detail oriented, but often blind to the big picture.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.