Cruz: Supreme Court 'abdicating its duty'

The Hill ^ | October 6, 2014 | Ben Kamisar

[jazusamo]

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) on Monday slammed the Supreme Court for declining to hear appeals on lower court rulings that overturn same-sex marriage bans, calling the justices’ move “tragic and indefensible.”

“By refusing to rule if the States can define marriage, the Supreme Court is abdicating its duty to uphold the Constitution,” he said in a statement. “The fact that the Supreme Court Justices, without providing any explanation whatsoever, have permitted lower courts to strike down so many state marriage laws is astonishing.”

On Monday, the Supreme Court decided not to hear challenges to lower court rulings on same-sex marriage during its upcoming term. That effectively marked the end of the road for cases from five states: Indiana, Utah, Virginia, Oklahoma and Wisconsin. Without a Supreme Court challenge, the lower court rulings that allowed gay marriage to become law in those states.

Similar ramifications are likely to be felt in six other states that fall under the same circuit courts.

“This is judicial activism at its worst,” Cruz said. “Unelected judges should not be imposing their policy preferences to subvert the considered judgments of democratically elected legislatures.” Cruz is often vocal on legal issues. As the former solicitor general of Texas, he argued cases in front of the Supreme Court and, before that, he clerked for former Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist. He is also a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The freshman Texas senator is a favorite among many Christian conservatives because of stances based upon his religious convictions, including a staunch opposition to same-sex marriage. In September, he won the presidential straw poll at the Value Voters Summit in Washington after a speech in which he repeatedly talked about his religious faith and said that Republicans should stick to socially conservative values.

Cruz included his own brief legal rationale for why he believed the court had erred and said that he will introduce a constitutional amendment to “prevent the federal government or the courts from attacking or striking down state marriage laws.” He also touted a bill he introduced in February that would force the federal government to follow an individual state’s definition of marriage.

In response to Cruz’s statement, the Democratic National Committee emailed out the entire text of his statement to reporters, along with photos of two female couples that were just married in Virginia and Utah.

[onyx]

BTTT

[FunkyZero]

that is sort-of my point. fundamentally, what they are saying is we already decided how this will turn out and we don’t want to have to say it. An appeal is the right of the states who brought it, but hearing and ruling on it would be nothing more than a formality. They all have their minds made up already and it’s all political or personal bias. It’s sickening. Of course, just my humble opinion... I know little about formal procedure etc...

[Georgia Girl 2]

I don’t personally disagree with you and I think gay marriage is totally ridiculous. However since government in our real world does get involved in these things it should be up to each individual state as to who they issue a marriage license to for civil marriages.

[jazusamo]

Hiya, my FRiend. :-)

[onyx]

Prayers and ((((jazusamo))))

[EternalVigilance]

States have no right to issue anything except licenses between one man and one woman. Anything beyond that is a breach of their rightful authority.

William Blackstone:

“Good and wise men, in all ages...have supposed, that the deity, from the relations, we stand in, to himself and to each other, has constituted an eternal and immutable law, which is, indispensably, obligatory upon all mankind, prior to any human institution whatever...This is what is called the law of nature, which, being coeval with mankind, and dictated by God himself, is, of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries at all times. No human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid, derive all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original.”

Alexander Hamilton:

“Upon this law, depend the natural rights of mankind, the supreme being gave existence to man, together with the means of preserving and beautifying that existence. He endowed him with rational faculties, by the help of which, to discern and pursue such things, as were consistent with his duty and interest, and invested him with an inviolable right to personal liberty and personal safety.

“Hence, in a state of nature, no man has any moral power to deprive another of his life, limbs, property, or liberty; nor the least authority to command, or exact obedience from him....

“Hence also, the origin of all civil government, justly established, must be a voluntary compact, between the rulers and the ruled; and must be liable to such limitations, as are necessary for the security of the absolute rights of the latter; for what original title can any man or set of men have, to govern others, except their own consent? To usurp dominion over a people, in their own despite, or to grasp at more extensive power than they are willing to entrust, is to violate that law of nature, which gives every man the right to his personal liberty; and can, therefore, confer no obligation to obedience.”

“When human laws contradict or discountenance the means, which are necessary to preserve the essential rights of any society, they defeat the proper end of all laws, and so become null and void.”

[WashingtonSource]

Bump

[EternalVigilance]

Only liberals scream “theocracy” every time God’s Name is invoked.

Sorry, but the founders of this free republic invoked God from Day One, as the very basis for our understanding of the basis of the rule of law, government, and any decent claim to liberty, and I will continue to follow their example.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are CREATED EQUAL, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men...”

And no, polygamy is contrary to the laws of God and nature.

Americans have always understood this.

[Shery]

One of the saddest things about this outcome is that those 30+ states who VOTED to ban same sex marriage had their votes overturned by one man. This man will reap God’s judgment in a way he’ll always regret. I would NOT want to be him.

[Rome2000]

“By refusing to rule if the States can define marriage, the Supreme Court is abdicating its duty to uphold the Constitution,” he said in a statement.

“The fact that the Supreme Court Justices, without providing any explanation whatsoever, have permitted lower courts to strike down so many state marriage laws is astonishing.”

Then he ought to become Dictator once elected and end this sham once and for all.

Sometimes that's what it takes to fix a Republic.

The fact that he has the stones to speak out with such coherence against this MONSTROUS act by the UNELECTED CLOWNS on the SCOTUS is very encouraging.

[eyeamok]

Maybe I am confused but In NO WAY does the refusal of the Supreme Court to hear this case “Legalize” Anything in ANY STATE.
My constitution clearly states “That in ALL case where a State is a Part to the action, the Supreme Court SHALL have Original Jurisdiction.’

The Supreme Court REFUSED to take the Case, the STATES ARE FREE TO DO WHAT THEY WANT on this issue.

No State is BOUND BY AN INFERIOR COURT.

[huldah1776]

No one is righteous. Some of us were gifted with that knowledge and the humility to ask for saving.

[Jack Black]

From Wikipedia:

Multiple marriage was considered a realistic alternative in the case of famine, widowhood, or female infertility.[2] The practice of levirate marriage makes it an obligation for a man whose brother has left a widow without heir to marry her.[Deut 25:5–10] No allowance is given for a man who already had a wife.

The Torah includes specific regulations on the practice of polygamy,[3] such as Exodus 21:10, “If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her marital rights.” Deuteronomy 21:15–17, says that a man must award the inheritance due to a first-born son to the son who was actually born first, even if he hates that son’s mother and likes another wife more and Deuteronomy 17:17 states that the king shall not have too many wives.[4]

The first polygamist mentioned in the Bible is Lamech, whose two wives were Adah and Zillah (Genesis 4:19). Many important figures had more than one wife, such as Esau (Genesis 26:34; Genesis 28:6-9), Abraham (Genesis 16:3, Genesis 21:1-13, Genesis 25:1, Genesis 25:6), Moses (Exodus 2:21; Exodus 18:1-6, Numbers 12:1), Jacob (Genesis 29:15-28), Gideon (Judges 8:29-32), Elkanah (1 Samuel 1:1-8), David (1 Samuel 25:39-44; 2 Samuel 3:2-5; 2 Samuel 5:13-16) and Solomon (1 Kings 11:1-3).

[EternalVigilance]

In determining God’s original intent, Jesus’ words about the rules Moses laid down concerning divorce apply equally to polygamy.

---

Mark 10:5

And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.

6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife ...

---

“Wife.” Singular.

Christians, who built America, have always understood this.

And now folks like yourself are surrendering the moral foundations of this great free republic.

Thanks a lot.

[Mozilla]

Nothing quite like having ‘’unelected’’ officials, implicitly making the law of the land…..overruling the will of ‘’We, the People.’’

The ‘’Laws of the Land’’ should be what are legislated….NOT what is ruled on or NOT ruled on by a handful of judges.

The liberal democrat agenda, tearing morality and the USA down one brick at a time with lawyers and judges...

[supercat]

Only liberals scream “theocracy” every time God’s Name is invoked.

Any argument which relies upon the Bible or any other religious text will only be meaningful for those who regard that text as authoritative, and may be perfectly legitimately disregarded by anyone who does not. Further, the insistence of some people to cite such arguments is often taken by undecided voters as a sign that secular arguments do not exist.

Conservatives should have won the marriage issue by focusing on a few key points:

1. Even before the development of organized religion or organized government, many tribes recognized the human tendency toward heterosexual pair-bonding, and recognized that any attempt by an outside male to mate with a paired-off woman would be considered an act of war against that woman's mate. Different societies have differed greatly in how they recognize pair-bonding, but the one consistent aspect is that 99.9999% have recognized that a male-female mating pair bond is fundamentally different from any other kind of pair bond which does not involve exactly one man and at least one woman. The fact that societies consistently recognize a concept of "marriage" which requires one man and at least one woman, even when they've never heard of any sort of Judeo-Christian religion, implies that the requirement that marriage involve exactly one man cannot be reasonably regarded as an effort to impose Judeo-Christian mores.

2. A mother who is considering voluntarily giving up her child for an adoption should have an absolute 100% unconditional right to refuse any prospective adoptive parents for any reason whatsoever, based upon any criteria whatsoever she wishes, subject only to the constraint that being overly selective may result in her not finding anyone acceptable. Further, she has the right to instruct any agencies whom she hires to seek suitable adoptive parents about whatever criteria she would choose to apply, subject again only to the constraint that if her criteria are unreasonable the agencies may be unable to find anyone suitable (and might regard the task as too hopeless to even attempt).

I don't think conservatives can win the issue of whether a mother should be allowed to give her child to people other than one-man-one-woman married couples. On the other hand, if conservatives were to focus on the authority of a mother to determine, either directly or by proxy, who she thinks will raise her child as she should wish, I would expect the reaction of gay activist groups would steer undecided voters toward the conservative side.

[EternalVigilance]

If everyone who said they believe in the authority of the Bible would simply take a no compromise position politically on abortion and marriage, there would be no abortion or “gay marriage” in America. Forget about the heathens.

So, you do it your way, I’ll do it mine.

The authority of God Almighty, and a healthy fear of His judgment upon our nation, is so much more powerful than arguments that appeal only to tradition or economy or whatever.

I have no problem with making the latter arguments. Do it all the time. But they pale compared to “straighten up or God is going to wipe you out.” Seriously. “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom.”

[Kenny Bunk]

...... 17th Amendment rather than ....... the way the Constitution originally intended, is the root of bad Supreme Court judges and the decisions that flow from them.

Yet not one Presidential wannabe ... Cruz, Jindal, Sarah, Mitt, Jeb, Paul, Christie, etc. ad naus. has even mentioned it ... never mind much else except to tell us "we are not Obama."

Love to see a concrete
Program
a for-real Plan,
and a Leader
with the cojones to sell it,

[marktwain]

As I recall, they did. That is how they struck down the Defense of Marriage Act.

Now that lower courts are saying that bans on the marriage of men to men or women to women is unconstitutional, they refuse to rule in line with their earlier ruling, but refusing to rule.

This is judicial tyranny.

[marktwain]

” If a state wants to rule that a relationship between five men, three women, two dogs and fifteen parakeets constitutes a “marriage,” then so be it. This is where the Court’s refusal to take these cases is consistent with their prior DOMA ruling. There is simply no provision of the U.S. Constitution that establishes a Federal role in marriage law.

P.S. This is why even “originalist” justices like Scalia and Thomas refused to take the case.”

That does not make any sense to me. It is federal courts striking down state laws that we are talking about. The Supreme Court is allowing the federal appellate courts tell the states what to do on marriage.