It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ted Cruz Wants to be able to Vote Out Supreme Court Justices

page: 2
21
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 09:26 AM
link   
Voting wouldn't be a bad plan if we had a system in place where voting actually worked.

I'm afraid there's nothing that can be done that will actually help, here.

"Where are we going, and why are we in this handbasket?"




posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 09:30 AM
link   
a reply to: ladyinwaiting

Agreed, they should not be bound to any particular party, nor should their partisan beliefs have any relevance in their decision (unless those beliefs happen to directly relate to the interpretation of the constitution). Their personal religious beliefs should definitely NOT have any relevance.

That said, while listening to the mood of the country might seem good, their job is to determine constitutionality, of which the public is largely ignorant, not being scholars. The mood of the country has been against a LOT of things that are and were completely UNconstitutional.



they should be permitted to do so without concern over losing their jobs due to popular opinion from vocal politicians.


Completely agreed.

Anyway, Cruz is an idiot. I'm getting tired of his intolerable and intolerant nonsensical BS disguised as helping to better ALL Americans. It's sick.

Basically, if you can't win the game, change the game so that you CAN win, is what he wants to do.
edit on 27-6-2015 by Liquesence because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 09:31 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr


And the Judges are reduced to debating issues like gay marriage


The Judges debate the issues that are important to the country. And that's the way it should be.



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 09:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: ladyinwaiting
a reply to: intrptr


And the Judges are reduced to debating issues like gay marriage


The Judges debate the issues that are important to the country. And that's the way it should be.


So, they checked the Bushes starting both middle eastern wars, and continued waging of aggressive war for no just cause? I mean, whats more important than that?



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 09:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: michaelbrux


being able to vote cheapens Justice; makes it something that can be bought and sold.

No it doesn't. Besides -- what justice nowadays, Life tenure is the worst. Power and control freaks love it, though. The highest court in the land makes the difficult decisions (supposed to anyway). Allowing them to be appointed, (for life) flies in the face of what the constitution is all about. Every other position in government is by election, the judges were intended to be no different. As it was ordained they sowed the seeds of doubt by allowing them to be "kings for life" in their own right. (The founding Fathers wept). They had no choice at the last minute, it was either Bill of rights or supreme court justices, one or the other.

Goes to show how the King was influencing things even then. And how modern kings (career politicians) have subverted the system to keep themselves in power for life, the biggest of red flags. Clinton or Bush anyone? Whats the difference anymore?

The system is watered down today. Checks and balances of the three branches are nonexistent, the president makes war without congress declaring it anyway. And the Judges are reduced to debating issues like gay marriage(?).

Sorry about the ramblings of an old man.


the Judges don't make the laws, Congress does...they don't enforce the Law, the President does...they reconcile understanding of the Law to the Constitution...they tell us what the Law is, in short.

They are not Kings, a King would do all three and the people would love him for it unto despair.

Every choice the Justices make is done in collaboration with 8 other people...who may or may not have the same religious or philosophical background that influences their choices.

the person that chooses them for the job on the Supreme Court is elected by the people, the people that confirm the choice are elected. that the Judges are appointed for Life, simply serves to force those two branches to recognize the consequences of their decisions.

i would expect that if the Judges were chosen in a similar manner that the US would have no real courts, just people in black robes.




edit on 27-6-2015 by michaelbrux because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 10:06 AM
link   
Sounds like Ted is setting up the road to Jeb.




posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 10:21 AM
link   
a reply to: ladyinwaiting


No one should hold a high position for life. Opinions can and have been bought. The SCOTUS had no choice but to rule in favor of ACA subsidies. They were checkmated by the financial collapse of households in those 38 states had they ruled differently. It's only a matter of time, though... would the SCOTUS work without a paycheck?



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 10:23 AM
link   
I'd love for politicians to be able to be voted onto the gallows. We don't always get what we want though.



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 10:26 AM
link   
So ... many of you are as anti-American and anti-Constitution as Ted Cruz in this thread?

You want to trample the Constitution underfoot because you didn't get your way on a couple of issues?

Interesting.



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 10:26 AM
link   
a reply to: ladyinwaiting

Kind of thug youd love to see slapped in the face and when security detail moved in with their guns drawn they get slapped in the face as well. Awesome Youtube video. Im talking a real popping high pitch sounding bitch slap



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 10:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Given that the Constitution itself contains an amendment process, and that Ted Cruz is calling for a constitutional amendment, I can't see that his proposal is anti-Constitution or anti-American. Now, it may be that his proposal and his reasons for doing it are stupid, but that doesn't mean his suggested process is out of line.



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 10:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: ladyinwaiting

Agreed, they should not be bound to any particular party, nor should their partisan beliefs have any relevance in their decision (unless those beliefs happen to directly relate to the interpretation of the constitution). Their personal religious beliefs should definitely NOT have any relevance.




Thats not going to fly. It looks like soon they will be asking potential appointees all sorts of personal religious questions to find out if the "are now or ever have been a member of the....." and then bad mouth the person if they are forced to admit....lol...that they attended a Baptist church growing up.

But hay its ok now to appoint an openly liberal judge. They get all the support and anyone in congress that speaks out is attacked. It happened last time.



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 10:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
So ... many of you are as anti-American and anti-Constitution as Ted Cruz in this thread?

You want to trample the Constitution underfoot because you didn't get your way on a couple of issues?

Interesting.


Well this idea that even the president is flapping about, that the constitution guarantees marriage equality is just so much rhetoric. The constitution really provides jack squat on this issue.



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 10:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Logarock

Your comment is irrelevant to the topic. Ted Cruz, and many here, want to trample American history and tradtion, as well as the Constitution of the United States, underfoot ... apparently because SCOTUS ruled in a way he didn't favor.

Hypocrites, acting childishly, because they didn't get their way. So much for being loyal to the Constitution!

Incidentally, as to your irrelevant (not to mention, errant), of course the Constitution addresses the matters at hand particularly in the 5th and 14th Amendments as has been repeatedly demonstrated.

/shrug



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 10:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Logarock

I disagree. The 14th amendment would indeed seem to guarantee marriage equality, especially in terms of how it applies to interactions with the government. Of course, it sets up a huge potential conflict with the 1st amendment, and I think its a disaster waiting to happen for that reason, but I'm also not sure how the US Supreme Court could have wormed their way out of the decision that they made.



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 11:04 AM
link   
first and foremost i agree withpiant72 term limits for everyone that is a position of any kind of power in the government. from the president on down to the bureaucrats, any one that can make a law, rule, or order.

for those underlings that don't have any real power (those that do the work), until it is seen that they can influence the outcome of matters their fine. but when and if their seen to be able to influence outcomes those jobs to should be limited to 8 years just like the president. then and only then can it be like the corrupt abe said,


and that this government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth. ...


as far as corruption as one member put it, justices are just as susceptible to corruption as any person. all you have to do is look at the list of judges that get into trouble to know that.



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 11:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Logarock

Your comment is irrelevant to the topic. Ted Cruz, and many here, want to trample American history and tradtion, as well as the Constitution of the United States, underfoot ... apparently because SCOTUS ruled in a way he didn't favor.

Hypocrites, acting childishly, because they didn't get their way. So much for being loyal to the Constitution!

Incidentally, as to your irrelevant (not to mention, errant), of course the Constitution addresses the matters at hand particularly in the 5th and 14th Amendments as has been repeatedly demonstrated.

/shrug


What Ted Cruz does know is his support base which largely agree with him. Its really not about some outsider Canadian coming down here blah, blah and is ignorantly destroying the constitution.

And if we were going by history this measure would not have passed. Its is a crummy sloppy use calling it constitutional. Treating centuries of historical marriage definition as heterosexual with contempt, not even addressing the challenge but affixing a thing not even decided to established marriage definition recognized the world over and using the constitution as a rag to get this done. Oh and several fat headed weather eyed activist bullsh*ters to get it done.



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 11:15 AM
link   
a reply to: ladyinwaiting

Well they didn't follow the Constitution in any way, shape or form. They just ignored the words and chose to effectively rewrite them, just as Roberts did the first time.

Heck I'm about ready to use the Constitution as toilet paper. Seems our POTUS, most members of Congress and now the SCOTUS have been wiping their collective asses with it for quite some time. I may as well too. However once The People feel the Constitution is worthless, then TPTB better be very concerned. It's basically the only thing that keeps civilized discourse from becoming anarchy.
edit on 72322Saturdayk22 by Bilk22 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 11:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: Logarock

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Logarock

Your comment is irrelevant to the topic. Ted Cruz, and many here, want to trample American history and tradtion, as well as the Constitution of the United States, underfoot ... apparently because SCOTUS ruled in a way he didn't favor.

Hypocrites, acting childishly, because they didn't get their way. So much for being loyal to the Constitution!

Incidentally, as to your irrelevant (not to mention, errant), of course the Constitution addresses the matters at hand particularly in the 5th and 14th Amendments as has been repeatedly demonstrated.

/shrug


What Ted Cruz does know is his support base which largely agree with him. Its really not about some outsider Canadian coming down here blah, blah and is ignorantly destroying the constitution.

And if we were going by history this measure would not have passed. Its is a crummy sloppy use calling it constitutional. Treating centuries of historical marriage definition as heterosexual with contempt, not even addressing the challenge but affixing a thing not even decided to established marriage definition recognized the world over and using the constitution as a rag to get this done. Oh and several fat headed weather eyed activist bullsh*ters to get it done.



Blah blah blah ... please cite the Article or an Amendment of the Constitution that refers to the word "heterosexual."

I'm sorry that you feel, with Senator Cruz, that the Constitution is a "rag" merely because you don't like a judicial ruling.

It's a matter of law. The Constitution has finally put a centuries-old inequity to right. As it was and is intended to do.



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 11:18 AM
link   
I assume you guys know the reason it's called "The Growing Constitution"?




top topics



 
21
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join