[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.

[Tonytitan]

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

In what parallel universe?

[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.

[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?

[theBuckwheat]

Marriage is a covenant defined by God, not a contract defined by man and thus cannot be regulated by man’s governments.

Because too many government officials are now hostile to how God defines marriage, government is being used to force me to recognize and even enable “marriage” that God tells me is morally repulsive. Just as we have a separation of church and state, we must now have a separation of marriage and state. When marriage is a private matter, then anyone can enter into any manner of relationship they please, but they cannot use government to impose their definition on others.

[Georgia Girl 2]

“Most Americans support equal rights marriage”

Since when?

[privatedrive]

A lot of people here consider themselves Constitutionalists, until it comes to ‘marriage’.

No, that does not mean that I support gay marriage, in fact I am vehemently against it.

But as a matter of law, and the Constitution, the federal government needs to stay out of it.

[BuckeyeTexan]

FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.

[PapaBear3625]

“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)

US Constitution, Article III, Section 2:

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

Congress, at any time, could add one clause to a piece of legislation, saying "The Supreme Court, and all lesser federal courts, shall have no jurisdiction to consider the constitutionality of this Act", and that would be that.

They don't, because they want the credit for passing it, but want to let the Supremes the unpopular duty of striking it down.

[Still Thinking]

“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.”

Here's the problem with most nuclear options. Conservatives might do it once or twice and rediscover the timids. Then Katy bar the door, every single unConstitutional law passed by fascists liberals would be so designated.

[GeronL]

radical?

It’s in the Constitution, unlike everything leftists want