Cruz is the one to trust.
CRUZ or LOSE!
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.
Yes attacking.
Notice you still haven’t tried to answer the questions:
how will he get it out of committee?
how will he get it past congress?
how will he get it through the legislatures?
where is the proof that retention election fix judiciaries?
Those are the things I’m presenting facts against. And those are things you flee from like they’re on fire. Answer the simple questions.
I’m not divining the motivations of the people, I’m pointing out historical truths. Approximately 11,539 proposals to amend the Constitution have been introduced in Congress since 1789, 27 have passed. No divining there, simple historical truths.
Yeah we got 3 through in the 60s. And then 1 in ‘71. And then 1 in ‘92, but that one was actually proposed back in the original wave, so it 202 years to pass. And nothing since. Even in the 60s when they were “frequent” over 1000 amendments were proposed and only 3 passed.
It’s kind of like the lottery. You’ll win a lot more money betting nobody will win the lottery this week than you will playing the lottery. Assume, for the sake of process, then any constitutional amendment proposed will fail. Because there’s a 99.9% chance it will. If you really honestly think the only way to a particular problems is an amendment then functionally you think the problem is unfixable.
Reagan’s coattails weren’t that big. And given the numbers already in place a GOP winner in ‘16 probably won’t have big coattails either (there just aren’t many seat TOO gain). And setting GOP policy (especially with a uni-party) is frankly meaningless.
I’m not saying give up. I’m saying find a better plan. Because there is a guarantee this plan will fail.
I also noticed you skipped the 4th, and honestly most important, question:
Where is the proof retention voting has ever actually fixed a judiciary?
That’s not BS. That’s the truth.
http://www.senate.gov/reference/measures_proposed_to_amend_constitution.htm
As of December 16th 2014 the number is 11,623. Given that they average 100 year and we’re already half way through this one, figure it’s closer to 11,670. The fact that the ONLY amendment to pass in the last 40 years had been sitting around for 200 is also a fact, and important to understand.
I’m 100% honest. You just find the facts inconvenient.
It’s not supposition at all. It’s math and history. In the House the Dems only have 188 seats, given the average re-election rate is around 95% we’re talking about a 10 seat gain being pretty much the best the GOP can hope for. In the Senate the Dems only HAVE 10 seats on the line, again retention rate is over 90% so we’re talking maybe 2 seats, maybe 3. Gaining seats is harder the more you already have, it’s math, with a finite number of seats the fewer seats your opponent has the fewer seats you CAN gain.
And history shows setting the party policy really is just paper.
We’re not talking about polling, we’re talking about coattails.
I didn’t say they never pass, I said they don’t. Because by and large, they don’t. Amendments are 27-15,996. That’s a win loss record that even the current 76ers would find pathetic.
If somebody is changing the terms of the debate it’s you.
I notice you still won’t answer when a retention vote has fixed a judiciary.
....”I got nobody..... anybody who should be trusted to be in charge doesn’t want anything to do with politics.”....
Such as?
I already said I got nobody.
How bout instead electing judges, and all the political skullduggery that implies, we term limit judges. Say four years.
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.