Posted on 06/29/2015 6:13:06 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Ted Cruz has some unsolicited advice for the states not specifically named in last week’s Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage: Ignore it.
“Those who are not parties to the suit are not bound by it,” the Texas Republican told NPR News’ Steve Inskeep in an interview published on Monday. Since only suits against the states of Ohio, Tennessee, Michigan and Kentucky were specifically considered in the Supreme Court’s Obergefell v. Hodges decision, which was handed down last Friday, Cruz — a former Supreme Court clerk — believes that other states with gay marriage bans need not comply, absent a judicial order.
“[O]n a great many issues, others have largely acquiesced, even if they were not parties to the case,” the 2016 presidential contender added, “but there’s no legal obligation to acquiesce to anything other than a court judgement.”
While Cruz’s statement may be technically true, federal district and circuit courts are obligated to follow the Supreme Court’s precedent and overrule all other states’ same-sex marriage bans as unconstitutional.
The Texas senator then went on to suggest that Republicans who have called for following the court’s decision are members of a “Washington cartel” and are lying when they say they do not support same-sex marriage.
“[Republican Party leaders] agree with the rulings from last week, both the Obamacare ruling and the marriage ruling,” Cruz said. “[T]he biggest divide we have politically is not between Republicans and Democrats. It’s between career politicians in both parties and the American people.”
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
Actually, any Supreme Court clerk is a huge deal. My husband clerked for a local judge, and that was a highly respected and desired position for a new law school grad. It went only to the top students. It ensured he got more experience than most attorneys from his class and set him up for life in the field of law. After his clerkship, he had his pick of local law firms, primarily because of that experience and because of the connections he made.
And that was just working for a local judge. Any lawyer takes pause when he hears someone clerked for the SCOUS Chief Justice, as did Cruz. That’s THE top spot in the nation for a young lawyer.
Your point is well taken, but not to be picky, that’s no Republican flag. (We were with Lincoln, remember?)
If they want to pollute our White House with their queer rainbow it would be fair play to light it up with something that would be as equally offensive to them. I think so, anyway.
Outstanding
I am no troll. Please reread what I wrote. I said that the stupid idiots at Politico think that by calling Ted Cruz a “clerk” we will think less of him. Why is it a problem for me to say that when we all know that the left will use any tactic they can to demean our guys. Geesh.
Sorry, it’s late. You were pinged to see the detractors coming back with their attacks on Ted Cruz. It was never intended that you were considered in their class.
I’ll be more careful next time to make it clear.
The following is an excerpt from Cruz’s recent NPR interview pushing his new book. The interview is great and easy yet informative reading)
http://www.npr.org/about-npr/418600824/complete-transcript-senator-ted-cruz-interview-with-npr-news
“And one of the things I talk about in the book is having been, as a grade school kid and junior high kid unpopular and then having changed my behavior to become more popular, it taught me a lesson that popularity isn’t the end-all, be-all. That what matters far more is that you stick to your principles, that you stand up and you live a life of integrity.
One of the problems in Washington — and this is something I talk about in great length in the book, “A Time for Truth” — is there are far too many politicians in Washington who desperately just want to get re-elected....
I think we are at a time of crisis, which is why — I mean, the book is entitled “A Time for Truth.” I think our nation faces enormous challenges, and we need leaders who are willing to tell the truth and do the right thing regardless of the consequences.”
It don't have to be SCOTUS for a governor to bend over, all it takes is a retired blind family law judge to get a governor to starve a young woman to death.
Well then he will lose and so will you and the country,COWARD,who then will stand for anything?
These communist aftershave been incrementally moving us to destruction for decades,the country is dead,spiritually,economically and is filled with pathetic cowards who when a leader comes along thresholds wet their pants,lost causes are the only ones worth dying for,quit being a pussy and get behind a leader with some courage
There is a difference between being a flip flopper and changing your vote based on a change in circumstances. By the time TPA was passed in the House, many Dem amendments had weakened it, while Conservative amendments were not allowed. Then there was the back door dealing being done by McConnell and Boehner to extend the EX-IM bank corporate welfare in exchange for Dem votes. He did the right thing by voting “No”.
“Well that’s the way Politico is interpreting it, and that’s the way I interpret it as well. “
I don’t put words in Cruz’s mouth. He is very articulate. He says what he means and means what he says.
I don’t care what any click-bait headline says, I go with what the MAN says.
Yes, but more than the white evangelicals who have formed the core of the modern “religious right.” This is an issue which infuriates lots of traditional Catholics, black evangelicals, Orthodox Jews, and even a fair number of secular people.
The margin of victory in California against gay marriage — a deep blue state — was provided by Hispanics and blacks who usually vote Democrat.
Getting to 50 percent is key.
The radical left is overplaying its hand. There are a lot of people who don't think the government has any business telling two men or two women what to do in their bedroom who don't think bakers, florists, and pizza places should be shut down because they won't cater to a gay wedding. Some of those people are even supporters of gay marriage who don't think gay marriage will affect anyone except gays, and then they wake up and get angry when told that people who oppose gay marriage will be forbidden from objecting to it.
If I were a supporter of gay marriage, I'd sit quiet and let people get used to the “new reality” of the recent Supreme Court decision, rather than giving Republicans a wedge issue to turn out huge numbers of angry voters who know the next president will appoint at least three and possibly more Supreme Court justices.
However, the extreme wing of the group pushing gay marriage shows no indicator they're slowing down. On the contrary, they're pushing the accelerator on the car.
That may well work in places like San Francisco and Greenwich Village, but it's poor politics in lots of other places.
Which Scott Walker could do.
But won’t.
Because he’s merely posturing for votes.
Walker is part of the uniparty.
He won’t do anything effective on the subject.
The point in dispute is what I heard him say.
“The point in dispute is what I heard him say”
Wrong. I just listened to the audio. He was ASKED if states should ignore the ruling. He then only gave a legal opinion. He did NOT give a recommendation for action to the states.
“If you go back and read my posts this got started because I said I think Ted may have doomed himself with this statement.”
Okay I see what you’re saying — if he’d actually said what Politico said he said. In reading the story, I saw no specific instruction to anyone to ignore the ruling, what I saw was an explanation of the law and possible options states had.
I don’t know if it was the best line of attack in the wake of the ruling. I thought he would focus more on pushing a constitutional amendment to allow states to decide (which he has also done) and push for more laws protecting religious liberty for pastors and Christian businesspeople. Going forward, if he fights the battle on that terrain, I think it’s a winning issue for him.
Read between the lines. No other purpose is served by giving such a legal opinion.
I get it. It was a good point.
“Read between the lines. No other purpose is served by giving such a legal opinion. “
I don’t read between the lines on what Cruz says.
Cruz has stated that the states have the legal right to legalize marijuana. Per your ‘reading between the lines’ you would have him saying he recommends that the states legalize marijuana.
FYI, Cruz has said he does not recommend that states legalized marijuana.
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.