Cruz touts radical court-stripping scheme (Ref: Homosexual “Marriage”)

MSNBC's Rachel Maddow Show ^ | April 7, 2015 | Steve Benen

[2ndDivisionVet]

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) was in Iowa yesterday, where the presidential hopeful reflected on the possibility of a Supreme Court ruling endorsing marriage equality. The far-right senator told his audience, “The first thing and I think the most important thing every one of us can do, is pray. Lift up in prayer.”

But as the Dallas Morning News noted, that’s not all Cruz said.

He reiterated his vow to press for a constitutional amendment that would clarify the power of state legislatures to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. If the high court does legalize gay marriage nationwide, he added, he would prod Congress to strip federal courts of jurisdiction over the issue, a rarely invoked legislative tool.

The prospect of changing the U.S. Constitution to block marriages seems a little silly, especially since most Americans actually support equal marriage rights.

But it’s that other part that stood out for me.

“Court-stripping” – or “jurisdiction-stripping,” as some call it – is a fringe idea that doesn’t come up often, largely because it’s just too bizarre for most policymakers to even consider. The idea isn’t complicated: under this scheme, Congress would pass a federal law effectively telling the courts, “We’ve identified a part of the law that judges are no longer allowed to consider.”(continued)

[fieldmarshaldj]

"The far-right senator told his audience"

Ha-cha-cha. Of course, never do we see the Democrats labeled far-left.

[NetAddicted]

I don’t understand this.

[Hostage]

> “The prospect of changing the U.S. Constitution to block marriages seems a little silly, especially since ***most Americans actually support*** equal marriage rights.”

Lie ... but not surprising as this is MSNBC.

[oldplayer]

I suppose this is intended to be a hit piece? Instead, it makes me like him even more.

I don’t think this Rachel Madow person and I are on the same page.

Oldplayer

[Gator113]

“............especially since most Americans actually support equal marriage rights.”

That is a lie.

[SmokingJoe]

“Especially since most Americans support ‘equal marriage rights’ “.

Is that why most states that voted on the issue toed against gay marriage only for unelected, probably gay, loony left Obama judges to go against the will of the people and impose gay marriage anyway? Is that not what is happening in Alabama right now even as we speak? If the Supremes try to impose Sodom and Gomorrah on every state, the Supremes SHOULD be stripped of that power.

[WildHighlander57]

“... If the high court does legalize gay marriage nationwide,he added,he would prod Congress to strip federal courts of jurisdiction over the issue,a rarely invoked legislative tool. ....”

Time to invoke it more often; take action against judges that see legal things that aren’t there.

Cruz 2016, or lose 2016 !

[jazzlite]

Interesting idea. I think I like it.

[olezip]

The prospect of changing the U.S. Constitution to block marriages seems a little silly, especially since most Americans actually support equal marriage rights.

This is an UNSUPPORTED assertion. Perhaps the writer meant to say most liberal/progressive Americans (that also believe that man causes global warming).

These leftist propagandists have a great advantage because there are so many low information voters out there, thanks to our corrupt government driven educational systems.

[manc]

first thing I noticed was he was classed as far right, . Weird how Clinton or fairy boy was never classed as far left.

[manc]

A lie being put out by MSNBC and the homosexual woman on there.

[Tonytitan]

...especially since most Americans actually support equal marriage rights.

In what parallel universe?

[manc]

funny how Rand Paul has avoided this issue and when asked by Hannity last night about it he tried to appease Christians and homosexuals .

Take a stand Paul instead of your pandering.

[newfreep]

The first thing I noticed, too.

Leftism, by definition, is the Bi-Polar” opposite of the Constitution.

So, by definition, anyone who believes the Constitution is the Supreme law of the land will always be to the “far right” of the anti-Constitutionalist leftists.

[fatnotlazy]

“Most Americans” = Both of MSNBC’s viewers.

[Timber Rattler]

“Court-stripping” – or “jurisdiction-stripping,” as some call it – is a fringe idea that doesn’t come up often, largely because it’s just too bizarre for most policymakers to even consider.

I guess Steve here has never heard for checks and balances.

[BobL]

This WILL BE FUN. All that Cruz seems to be saying is that if you don’t like the definition of marriage in the state where you live, then move to one that defines it to your liking. Sounds reasonable to me...millions of people move every year.

[wastoute]

Once we get all the Proglodytes localized in a few basket case states we can cut them adrift!

[IronJack]

Instead of a constitutional amendment allowing states to define marriage, how about an amendment at the federal level defining it as one man-one woman?