|
 |
Posted on 07/05/2015 1:30:01 PM PDT by SoConPubbie
Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, argued on NBC's "Meet the Press" that members of the Supreme Court "put on an Obama jersey" by voting to uphold the Affordable Care Act and strike down restrictions on same sex marriage.
"It is the justices who have politicized the Court," claimed the republican presidential contender, who proposed a Constitutional amendment for periodic judicial retention elections as a way of reducing what he sees as the politicization of the judicial branch.
When asked if this would actually polarize the Court further, he pushed back and said, "Look, we are polarized. And they [the justices] have seized political issues. They have become, effectively, politicians. And that's wrong."
He went on to say that members of the Supreme Court violated their oaths in their decisions on same sex marriage and the Affordable Care Act. Cruz called the decisions "an assault on democracy."
He called it "five unelected lawyers declaring they are the rulers of 320 million Americans."
According to Cruz, the Justices overstepped their bounds in upholding the Affordable Care Act, and striking down restrictions on same sex marriage, taking the role of legislators rather than judges. He said of the justices, "They rewrote Obamacare, forcing that failed law on millions of Americans, and then the next day, five justices disregarded the text of the Constitution and purported to strike down the marriage laws of all 50 states."
"If you want to change the marriages laws of your state, the Constitutional mechanism is to convince your fellow citizens to change the marriage laws," he said, adding that marriage itself was an issue that should be left up to the states rather than the federal government.
|
|
Ted Cruz Ping! I fail to see the problem.
That's crazy talk </sarc>
that would certainly raise the tone of the Court..
So? What exactly is Ted Cruz doing about this?? The Senate can impeach the supreme court. Why isn’t he?
I think the state legislatures should be the ones to vote in the retention elections of Supreme Court justices.
With 34 State Legislatures out of 50 in the hands of republicans, I think Kagan, Kennedy, Roberts and Ginsburg would be Walmart greeters instead of Supreme Court Justices. Ginsburg officiated at a queer wedding and Roberts didn't even force her recusal. Shameless.
The states powers are repeated targets of the Supreme court. If the states held the individual justices fates in their hands, the court would be a lot less likely to step on them.
Kinda like the senate would be if they were under the control of the states like intended.
Pretty much it's the leftists and two thirds of the republicans against a handful of conservative senators. Tough odds
Again
The states have a lot more fight in them than the DC RINOs. Even very liberal republican state legislators in Michigan fought gay marriage right down to the bitter end because they are tied to the people who can remove them.
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!
“He’d be lucky to get 25 republicans on board. That only leaves 75 no votes. Its simple math. “
You’ll never know until it is tried. What you just said to everyone is that there is no need to vote GOP as they won’t even bother trying. We were told give them the congress and watch miracles happen, but now you are saying they won’t even try.
I watched the interview. I don't recall correctly if Cruz applied the harsh rhetoric towards same sex marriage and more on the Affordable Care Act decision by actually re-writing legislation. I mean obviously he's more towards "the rights of the State" to define what marriage is rather than 5 unelected lawyers. Also, the quote on "Assault on democracy", Cruz is directly quoting Anthony Scalia's dissenting opinion.
Actually, what he just said, in essence, is that Cruz is a quintessential politician instead of a leader.
Instead of starting the process (on 9th/10th grounds..let alone (re) writing legislation from the bench...), fire the opening debate salvo, he’s just going to go along to get along....same leadership we have in the Crying Cheeto and McTurle. No thanks.
“Here’s what I promise to do when I get elected....”; which is what he COULD have done NOW in his current position (since the Pres. has no such authority...unless you’re figuring it’s ‘broken’ anyway). No matter that he’d have to win over Congress to get it passed BEFORE signing.
JUst another can to kick down the road. But, vote GOP..or *ELSE*
Impeachment has to start in the House. Do you honestly think that with Boehner and McConnell in leadership this is going to happen?
You really think you could get 67 votes from the senate? Good luck. Thanks for playing. Johnnie, what parting gifts do we have...
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.