Posted on 06/29/2015 10:17:35 AM PDT by Jane Long
Edited on 06/29/2015 11:00:41 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Ted Cruz gave a great interview this morning to an NBC host who tried twice to corner him on his response to the same-sex marriage ruling, comparing it to a supreme court ruling that invalidated laws that prohibited interracial marriage. But Cruz was having none of that, explaining that there was no religious backing for that kind of law. Cruz instead took the ‘elite’ justices on, explaining how they violated their oath and why they must be held accountable.
Remember most of these ‘press punks’ are reading a monitor for a paycheck and they have to show the proper ‘attitude’ in their reading and body movements, including appropriate ‘conduct’ on and off the set.
Here’s an insightful short funny video by Conan O’Brien about the lemming like behavior of ‘press punks’:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hh_Kx7UKndI
Can you imagine Ted in a debate with any of the Dem candidates? He is going to wipe the floor with them.
Ted Cruz is very,very rapidly approaching the status of William F Buckley when it comes to interviews or debates. This reporter, so over matched in every respect, will keep a secret copy of that interview as her rite of passage with a large post it note to herself reminding her to review if she ever deigns to ask Mr Cruz about anything other than the weather.
So Cruz doesn't disagree with where we are now, he just didn't like the path it took to get here.
Not trying to be a smart-aleck. If buffering is the issue then the issue is with your ISP or your computer.
Not only that there is constant mention of Israelites marry outside their faith and ethnicity.
“So Cruz doesn’t disagree with where we are now, he just didn’t like the path it took to get here.”
I really don’t think that is where he is at.
It would be a good question to put at him, perhaps he would push for the marriage definition amendment.
We’re all kind of boxed in now after what has transpired last week.
I don’t know if he mentions it in this video but Cruz has put forward a proposed constitutional amendment to force the black robed tyrants to face an election every 8 years to remain on the court.
Finally, someone has an actual plan on how to deal with this rather than just bitching and complaining.
He took this position before last week’s decision.
I don’t know if he mentions it in this video but Cruz has put forward a proposed constitutional amendment to force the black robed tyrants to face an election every 8 years to remain on the court.
Finally, someone has an actual plan on how to deal with this rather than just bitching and complaining.
Agree. Yes, Ted DOES mention this...at about the 4:36 mark.
SG asks Cruz about his idea to subject SCOTUS to retention elections. She tries to throw him off with an asinine question about “isn’t that making this political?” Ted, of course, has the perfect reply to her ridiculous question.
I disagree.
Or at least I disagree about your comment regarding how Cruz should have answered the entrapment. Whereas what you said about the institution of marriage is correct, I think that this statement is something that we need to make to the culture ourselves, locally.
Cruz, on the other hand, has set himself up as the rule-of-law candidate. The law before this horrible ruling was that states were able to define marriage for themselves, and it was put into place in a Constitutional way. Until 5 oligarch tyrants decided to impose their will. And that is what he focused upon.
I believe that the government-recognized marriage debate is a matter of a policy debate, at least in the Constitutional framework, and the larger matter is the matter of judicial and executive tyranny. At least in the campaign.
It just seems to me that Cruz did rather well throughout this last week as far as being out there and getting exposure as the strongest most outspoken conservative candidate.
Walker did well, Jindal did well, Huckster gave some strong language, and Trump got in a cat fight with Univision....something like that... I think I saw jEb marching with a butt plug flag?
I’d say neither.
But as I mentioned in an earlier post, the matter of judicial and executive tyranny is an overarching issue that includes this gawdawful ruling.
Yes, I know, if all fifty states legalized gay marriage it would be constitutional. It would also be a product of societal moral evolution, some hold out that it is best fought at the ballot box rather than just dictated by a few unaccountable judges, there is a hope there that it may not actually happen if our country could move back to being a more moral nation.
I pray every day that this would happen.
I do understand what you are after, for one thing he has to address the platform plank off the GOP that many are trying to remove now.
I seem to recall a case involving Peyote usage as part of a religious rite, before the Court.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/494/872
Scalia’s opinion on this issue are most informative.
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.