Posted on 06/30/2015 9:33:28 AM PDT by SoConPubbie
Never has it been more evident that America needs a strong Constitutional conservative in the White House to help negate the last two terms of a radical left-wing President, the last six years of Republicans who bow down to Obama’s every whim, and now against a Supreme Court engaged in judicial tyranny.
Last week was a devastating blow for conservatives, but worse, it was a devastating blow to the Constitution, our Founding Fathers, and America in general.
Presidential candidate, Ted Cruz, put it in no uncertain terms – the Supreme Court rulings on Obamacare and same-sex marriage were “some of the darkest 24 hours in our nation’s history.”
Via the Daily Caller (HT Gateway Pundit):
Continuing his critique of the Supreme Court’s recent decisions on Obamacare and same-sex marriage, Sen. Ted Cruz said Friday that the rulings mark “some of the darkest 24 hours in our nations history.”
Cruz made the comments in an interview on Sean Hannity’s radio show Friday afternoon.
“Today is some of the darkest 24 hours in our nation’s history,” Cruz said.
“I couldn’t say it more eloquently,” Hannity responded.
“Yesterday and today were both naked and shameless judicial activism,” Cruz said. “Neither decision — the decision yesterday rewriting Obamacare for the second time. Six justices joined the Obama administration. You now have President Obama, Kathleen Sebelius and six justices responsible for forcing this failed disaster of a law on millions of Americans, and simply rewriting the law in a way that is fundamentally contrary to their judicial oaths.”
“And then today, this radical decision purporting to strike down the marriage laws of every state. It has no connection to the United States Constitution. They are simply making it up,” Cruz said. “It is lawless, and in doing so, they have undermined the fundamentally legitimacy of the United States Supreme Court.”
Anybody who knows Cruz knows he isn’t your typical RINO Republican, all talk and no action. After the Obamacare ruling was handed down, Cruz took to the chamber floor and blasted the “rogue justices” of the Supreme Court for upholding the policies of a “lawless” administration, adding that they too, had become “lawless.”
After declaring that justices who engage in activism should “resign and run for office,” Cruz is offering up a plan to make it happen – judicial elections.
In a column for the National Review, Cruz said “enough is enough.”
Judicial retention elections have worked in states across America; they will work for America. In order to provide the people themselves with a constitutional remedy to the problem of judicial activism and the means for throwing off judicial tyrants, I am proposing an amendment to the United States Constitution that would subject the justices of the Supreme Court to periodic judicial-retention elections. Every justice, beginning with the second national election after his or her appointment, will answer to the American people and the states in a retention election every eight years. Those justices deemed unfit for retention by both a majority of the American people as a whole and by majorities of the electorates in at least half of the 50 states will be removed from office and disqualified from future service on the Court.
Cruz warned that if Congress is unwilling to correct this lawlessness, “the movement from the people for an Article V Convention of the States — to propose the amendments directly — will grow stronger and stronger.”
Watchdog explains what that means:
If enough states act, a convention would be one means for reformers to rein in the reach of the federal government. 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.
It’s clear from this past week that the country needs a strong conservative as President – to fight back against an out-of-control government ushered in under Obama.
Is Cruz that man? He’s sure acting like it.
I didn’t put forth any rules. I simply said what is. This won’t pass. And judicial retention:
http://216.36.221.170/ajs/publications/Judicature_PDFs/905/aspin_905.pdf
historically runs between 75 and 80%, thus clearly showing it clearly doesn’t fix an out of control judiciary.
There’s nothing wrong with being against things that have a multi-decade proven track record of abject failure. It’s the attitude of ignoring previous results that’s dangerous. I’m not looking for guaranteed success, I’m looking to AVOID guaranteed failure. And an amendment that will NOT pass and will NOT accomplish anything if it somehow does pass is a guaranteed failure.
I liked the idea posted by another FR of instituting an independent People review and court system...a ‘People’s Court’.
If, like today, Congress refusing its duty, these bodies can review and recommend to the P. Court where they prosecute activist judges.
Now, how that would actually work out, be setup, funded, etc....But the idea of a body beholden, staffed and looked after by those that have NEVER, nor WILL be a lawyer, judge or politician...
The sheep have One chance and ONE chance Only.. for salvation from sure carnage...
.....STAMPEDE....... i.e. Civil War II
“A split republican party is the pathway to more judicial tyranny for next 50 years at a minimum.”
Then they’d better not nominate another liberal.
The States will have to take back their own powers under Article 5.
Washington D.C., et al are not going to willingly surrender the powers they have usurped, and no president, even a willing one, has the power to do it.
Cordially,
The wisdom of the Founders is not timeless. There were just men trying to figure it out. The system they created was good one but not a flawless one.
Lifetime appoint for SCOTUS hasn’t worked out to well, time to change it.
Yeah, I don’t think this is a good idea at all.
I didn’t put forth a remedy. You’re imagining a lot of content that isn’t there.
Cruz isn’t fighting anything. He’s just banging the table. Any time any candidate says they want a constitutional amendment to fix something what you should hear is “I want to be credited with taking a bold firm stance on this issue without actually doing anything about it. By and large constitutional amendments don’t get passed. Over 11 THOUSAND of them have hit the congressional floor, and 27 of them got passed, and the first 10 really don’t count. This approach has failure written all over it, history proves it.
I’m at a loss - what DO you do when the self-anointed “final” arbiter of the law is lawless?
Write another law? An amendment that they’ll ignore?
The founders provided for impeachment, but that hasn’t worked or even been attempted but a couple of times.
I think it’s time to dust that one off, though.
Affirmation by the public is ineffective. It also creates re-election PACs which allows money to flow from Wall Street into judges’ retirement funds who make ‘correct’ rulings, much like Congress enjoyed in the recent TPA show.
Removing their judicial immmunity is a different story. If a Constitutional Convention specifically limits the powers of the judiciary, there would be reason to allow examination of judges’ finances and credible rulings.
Another thought would be to subject judges rulings to a jury, or Grand Jury under specific circumstances. An example would be to subject SCOTUS rulings to such a body if the ruling affected more 50% of the population.
BTW, your idea has the same probability of success as the current constitutional remedy of impeachment.
Not going to happen.
It is the best plan.
if anyone is gonna go fiddling with the Constitution, the FIRST thing they can do is get rid of 17A. This crisis with SCOTUS is a direct result of 17A and STATES not having representatives for THE RIGHTS OF THOSE INDIVIDUAL STATES.
Democracy... popular voting... it does not work when 47% is on the take, and of the 53% left 2/3 of them are corporate cronyists.
But this won’t solve the problem.
Show me a judiciary that has been fixed by retention elections. Be specific.
I don’t have a different candidate in mind. Currently the entire crew is quite disappointing.
Cruz’s “solution” is an attempt to get attention. That’s all constitutional amendment attempts are, attention grabbers. And really, if he honestly thinks that’s that answer then he should get cracking. He’s in the senate, he should make this one of the 100ish amendments that’ll get proposed this year. On the off chance it does succeed it’s a long process, no reason not to get cracking now.
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.