Skip to comments.
Ted Cruz Has A Plan to Fight Judicial Tyranny – And Here It Is
The Political Insider ^
| Rusty Weiss
Posted on 06/30/2015 9:33:28 AM PDT by SoConPubbie
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-78 next last
"If we must have an enemy at the head of Government, let it be one whom we can oppose, and for whom we are not responsible, who will not involve our party in the disgrace of his foolish and bad measures." - Alexander Hamilton |
|
"We don't intend to turn the Republican Party over to the traitors in the battle just ended. We will have no more of those candidates who are pledged to the same goals as our opposition and who seek our support. Turning the Party over to the so-called moderates wouldnt make any sense at all." -- President Ronald Reagan |
|
"A thing moderately good is not so good as it ought to be. Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice." - Thomas Paine 1792 |
|
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." - Samuel Adams |
|
"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams |
|
|
|
To: SoConPubbie; Kale; Jarhead9297; COUNTrecount; notaliberal; DoughtyOne; MountainDad; aposiopetic; ...
Ted Cruz Ping!
If you want on/off this ping list, please let me know.
Please beware, this is a high-volume ping list!
CRUZ or LOSE!
2
posted on
06/30/2015 9:33:55 AM PDT
by
SoConPubbie
(Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
To: SoConPubbie
It could just allow the Twittermobs to unseat Thomas and Scalia.
To: SoConPubbie; Hostage
He did well on Hannity. I donated to him again afterwards. It’s been obvious for decades that the supreme court judges are political creatures. As many have said, there was zero doubt what the 4 liberal judges would decide.
4
posted on
06/30/2015 9:44:38 AM PDT
by
xzins
(Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Pray for their victory or quit saying you support our troops)
To: SoConPubbie
One thing the Framers of the Constitution were deathly afraid of was one faction controlling all branches of government simultaneously. For this reason, they set things up so that the officials in these branches were selected by very different means and for very different terms of office.
Cruz' plan does the opposite. It will make the Supreme Court sync up more closely with the other branches of government that are themselves more closely synched with the whims of the masses.
5
posted on
06/30/2015 9:44:41 AM PDT
by
snarkpup
(We need to replace our politicians before they replace us.)
To: SoConPubbie
The best plan ever, to reduce judicial tyranny in future, is to defeat Hillary in 2016. If Obama lost in 2008, we would not have Kagan & Sotomayor ruling on same sex marriages. A split republican party is the pathway to more judicial tyranny for next 50 years at a minimum.
6
posted on
06/30/2015 9:46:29 AM PDT
by
entropy12
(I always see glass half full. I see something good in all people, even the crappy RINO's!)
To: entropy12
The best plan ever, to reduce judicial tyranny in future, is to defeat Hillary in 2016. If Obama lost in 2008, we would not have Kagan & Sotomayor ruling on same sex marriages. A split republican party is the pathway to more judicial tyranny for next 50 years at a minimum.
Ted is proposing a constitutional remedy.
It is the best plan.
7
posted on
06/30/2015 9:48:12 AM PDT
by
SoConPubbie
(Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
To: SoConPubbie
The Founders could have required retention, but did not.
If you think the court is political now, just imagine what it would be like if judges had to pander for votes.
It would be a disaster.
Again, the wisdom of the Founders is timeless. I support Ted Cruz, but this is silly and not at all worthy of him.
8
posted on
06/30/2015 9:52:20 AM PDT
by
mountainbunny
(Faithless is he that says farewell when the road darkens ~ JR.R. Tolkien)
To: snarkpup
"Cruz' plan does the opposite. It will make the Supreme Court sync up more closely with the other branches of government that are themselves more closely synched with the whims of the masses."I agree. There is a danger there. But what's the alternative? We've had the worse case for some time now. A court that unilaterally decides to refuse to protect unborn life, and now redefines marriage.
One alternative is to have congress start impeaching. That would be easier than a Cruz's amendment. But long term the retention vote might be easier than an impeachment vote.
9
posted on
06/30/2015 9:53:27 AM PDT
by
DannyTN
To: snarkpup
Except that his plan makes it 8 years. And apparently, even though, as you commented, the Framers tried to make it so one faction did not control all branches of the government, they do that today, even with their system in place.
We need to do something different. Lifetime appointments don't appear to be working as the current Supreme Court proves.
Cruz's approach will give the electorate more control over this problem. It is needed. Now!
10
posted on
06/30/2015 9:54:11 AM PDT
by
SoConPubbie
(Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
To: snarkpup
One thing the Framers of the Constitution were deathly afraid of was one faction controlling all branches of government simultaneously. For this reason, they set things up so that the officials in these branches were selected by very different means and for very different terms of office.
Except that his plan makes it 8 years. And apparently, even though, as you commented, the Framers tried to make it so one faction did not control all branches of the government, they do that today, even with their system in place.
We need to do something different. Lifetime appointments don't appear to be working as the current Supreme Court proves.
Cruz's approach will give the electorate more control over this problem. It is needed. Now!
11
posted on
06/30/2015 9:54:28 AM PDT
by
SoConPubbie
(Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
To: SoConPubbie
Because the U.S. Constitution provides a means to hold one, doing so could help return the country to its roots of limited federal powers.Or send it over the edge.
12
posted on
06/30/2015 9:57:07 AM PDT
by
Bloody Sam Roberts
(Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.)
To: SoConPubbie
The Supreme Court is hopelessly politicized. The essentially unaccountable judiciary is the biggest mistake our Founders made. The “living” constitution scumbags, the dimmos, will always protect a judge/justice that spits all over the constitution. Impeachment and removal of judges/justices should therefore be much easier than it is. On good behavior indeed.
13
posted on
06/30/2015 9:57:13 AM PDT
by
afsnco
To: mountainbunny
If you think the court is political now, just imagine what it would be like if judges had to pander for votes.
It can't be more political or worse than it is now.
We just had two justices, one appointed by a rock-solid conservative (Reagan) and one appointed by a Republican (GWB) legislate from the bench and pretend words don't mean what they mean to pass two laws that do not have any support in the constitution.
The men that started this country were from a different era, a different culture, where honor meant something. Where the judeo-christian foundation of our country meant something. We don't live in that era anymore.
Something has to be done, and Ted Cruz's approach is probably the best remedy, given the current culture and lack of honor, to fix the problem short of a Rebellion.
14
posted on
06/30/2015 9:58:19 AM PDT
by
SoConPubbie
(Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
To: SoConPubbie
As stated earlier; Since the SCOTUS cannot (?) hear its self, and the gay marriage ruling is not Constitutional nor can be found in any form in that document other than supercilious reasoning ....those states whose voters voted against such a union should be able to ignore or be exempt from that false law i.e. the supreme court CANNOT legislate....that is the job of Congress. This SCOTUS has acted lawlessly...that should be enough to ignore their ruling.
Sen. Cruz is 100% correct in demanding this Congress step up to the plate and fix this mess.
We can help by contacting out congressmen/women NOW....our religious freedom hangs in the balance imho...states rights also are left hanging in the breeze by this lawless court.
15
posted on
06/30/2015 9:58:22 AM PDT
by
yoe
To: Buckeye McFrog
Hey, we are going down anyway. Let’s give it a shot, and if it fails, we get to become fully engaged—the sooner, the better.
16
posted on
06/30/2015 9:59:08 AM PDT
by
SgtHooper
(Anyone who remembers the 60's, wasn't there!)
To: Bloody Sam Roberts
Or send it over the edge.
We are only a few short-steps from a Rebellion. Best to try all remedies before that occurs.
17
posted on
06/30/2015 9:59:16 AM PDT
by
SoConPubbie
(Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
To: SoConPubbie
Thus proving Ted’s a rabble rouser without a plan. For one thing you’d never get this through, for another on the off chance you did it would get overturned, and finally retention elections don’t actually work on the state level.
18
posted on
06/30/2015 9:59:57 AM PDT
by
discostu
(In fact funk's as old as dirt)
To: discostu
Thus proving Teds a rabble rouser without a plan. For one thing youd never get this through, for another on the off chance you did it would get overturned, and finally retention elections dont actually work on the state level.
Complete and utter B.S. on your part.
Given your "rules" the founders, those fighting the British, that rag-tag band of farmers, shop-owners, etc. who banded together to fight for their freedom against the most powerful nation on earth at the time, should have given up because they'd never win.
Given your attitude, unless it was guaranteed to be successful at the start, you would have sat on the sidelines and refused to fight because you'd be too scared to fight for fear of losing.
19
posted on
06/30/2015 10:07:08 AM PDT
by
SoConPubbie
(Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
To: discostu; All
If the next conservative president isnt willing to work with patriots to peacefully force the corrupt federal government to surrender 10th Amendment-protected state powers that the feds have been stealing from the states since before the ink on the Constitution had dried back to the states, then its only a matter of time before the country has another president as lawless as Obama.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-78 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson