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: 3
21
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 11:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66


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.


Hear Hear! Well said, Sir.

You don't hear a peep out of any of them about the Supreme Court until a ruling is made they disagree with. Even Roe Vs. Wade mentioned in this thread.
edit on 6/27/2015 by ladyinwaiting because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 11:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: vor78
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.


Here is the problem with it legally. The use of it here in this case is simply an opportunistic grab in what looks like a void, but the truth is heterosexual is the frame of reference and the generalized other. The case in question where most of this 14th justifications comes from was about heterosexual marriage anyway! The gay marriage thing is simply a superimposition delivered by activist judges giving way to their liberal base instincts. Its crap rendering. Legally you cant expand here and certainly the supreme court, without a legal definition of marriage to include same gender. That wasn't even established in the Virginia case that chief justice is running his face, and Obama, about. When they use the term marriage there its about heterosexual marriage. The question was about race in regards to heterosexual marriage.
edit on 27-6-2015 by Logarock because: n



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 11:24 AM
link   
The really sad thing is that many of the arguments in this thread (and elsewhere) against this decision and against the right for gays to marry can be summed as thus:

Replace "gay marriage" with black or women's right to vote, or slavery, and they're essentially the same old BS arguments that've been used for decades to oppress people.

No freaking different at all.

And it's absolutely disgusting.



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 11:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: Logarock

originally posted by: vor78
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.


Here is the problem with it legally. The use of it here in this case is simply an opportunistic grab in what looks like a void, but the truth is heterosexual is the frame of reference and the generalized other. The case in question where most of this 14th justifications comes from was about heterosexual marriage anyway! The gay marriage thing is simply a superimposition delivered by activist judges giving way to their liberal base instincts. Its crap rendering. Legally you cant expand here and certainly the supreme court, without a legal definition of marriage to include same gender. That wasn't even established in the Virginia case that chief justice is running his face, and Obama, about. When they use the term marriage there its about heterosexual marriage. The question was about race in regards to heterosexual marriage.


At least they used the 14th amendment, unlike the ACA where they actually "re-wrote" the law and changed definitions to shoe-horn it in.

Gay marriage is a non-issue and them getting married does not harm me one iota.

The ACA is a travesty, unconstitutional, and the real problem where judicial activism comes into play and an extremely harmful law.



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 11:26 AM
link   
just the title deserves more than 9 flags from 50 hits.......
you guys are tellin on yourselves there....



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 11:26 AM
link   
a reply to: ladyinwaiting

Sounds like sour grapes to me.

Cruz is an Idiot and so is Walker for coming out against the ruling. For all the complaints about Obama initiating executive privileges, sounds like Cruz and Walker will stand at nothing to make sure they get their way if they were elected president. Whether you were for or against the rulings, you have no choice but to accept the Supreme Courts ruling. It's our system of government, which these two bozos should be well aware of if they're running for President of the United States.



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 11:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Logarock

Name another state-mandated, statutory contractual agreement in which citizens are limited or denied based on their sex.

Sexuality has nothing to do with it. It is a matter of equity before the laws of the land, a matter the Fourteenth Amendment, particularly, was intended to address.

Period.



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 11:26 AM
link   
a reply to: ladyinwaiting

The very idea of SCOTUS is to keep them away from THE GRIME of politics as best possible


Imagine how gross it would get if this idea was enacted where judges would be bribed and cajoled like the whore politicians are now treated.



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 11:27 AM
link   
I some what agree with what he is saying but also find the timing funny.

Was it only these two past decisions that made him feel this way or is he attempting to punish the SC for not agreeing with him...

I know he can't do anything right not but in the event if that snowball survives hell and he gets elected then he can.



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 11:35 AM
link   
ATS Concservatives after the Citizens United decision: "Thank God for the SCOTUS! Suck it up liberals; it's the law of the land!"

ATS Conservatives after the Hobby Lobby decision: "Thank God for the SCOTUS! Suck it up liberals; it's the law of the land!"


(... some time later, same Justices, same Court ...)


ATS Conservatives after Obergefell decision: "SCOTUS is acting like an imperial dictator! We have to get rid of these activist judges! Who are they to decide our lives anyway?"

Interesting differences, eh?



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 11:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: ladyinwaiting
a reply to: michaelbrux
Agreed. With these comments Cruz signed the guarantee that he will not be President.


agreed, what small-minded pettiness on the part of someone that wants to be commander-in-chief....he wants to change our entire federal judicial branch, because people got healthcare subsidies , and gay people's marriages have to be recognized in all 50 states.....



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 11:41 AM
link   
The wording of this ruling will enable individual rights to be expanded in other areas as well:

SCOTUS ruling on same sex marraige opens door for national concealed carry permits



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 11:41 AM
link   
a reply to: michaelbrux


the Judges don't make the laws, Congress does…they don't enforce the Law, the President does…

All three branches are supposed to check and balance each other. If they did, we wouldn't be waging endless war, unless of course, appointees, presiders and career politicians all look the other way…


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

Unelected, life terms, un answerable to the people for life…
whats the difference again, between that and Kings?


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.

Except always seems to go the way of more tax, more war and inflation, more control of government by corporations. Are you kidding?

Appointees follow suit, not stand against it. They know how fragile their tenure is if allegiance is broken.

edit on 27-6-2015 by intrptr because: punctuation



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 11:43 AM
link   
The whole idea of a judge being impartial makes me laugh. In every situation, humans react based off of their worldview, ideology, or religion (or lack of) in one way or another. Always.

Why do you think that when a judge is appointed, they have to be vetted? To try to ensure that those beliefs won't compromise their rulings, or as I like to think: To try to ensure that if they are appointed by someone belonging to a particular party, they won't be completely steadfast in their adherence to that particular party's ideology (although given more recent appointments, even that concern seems to have gone by the wayside).

I have no issue with appointed judges; electing them would only give us politicians clad in black robes, given immeasurable power over the masses, who are worried about re-election. What I do think, is that the appointments should not be life terms; I say, ten (perhaps even twenty) years, and you're out for good.



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 11:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
ATS Concservatives after the Citizens United decision: "Thank God for the SCOTUS! Suck it up liberals; it's the law of the land!"

ATS Conservatives after the Hobby Lobby decision: "Thank God for the SCOTUS! Suck it up liberals; it's the law of the land!"


(... some time later, same Justices, same Court ...)


ATS Conservatives after Obergefell decision: "SCOTUS is acting like an imperial dictator! We have to get rid of these activist judges! Who are they to decide our lives anyway?"

Interesting differences, eh?


the Citizens United case is far more destructive than any of these recent cases....citizens united legalizes the wealthy in any part of the world, to put money into American elections, in any amount, and foreign wealth can be anonymous about it......and yet gay marriage and subsidized healthcare, is what they are pissed about.



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 11:53 AM
link   
Cruz is such an idiot. Lawless?? Doesn't he know that the supreme court gets to decide what the laws mean???

What really upsets me is that: 1. This supreme court is conservative, not liberal, run by Bush appointees and 2. He apparently doesn't give a damn that they already made the two worst rulings in American history (citizens united and Kelo v. City of New London).

They should all have been impeached for those two rulings, but Cruz doesn't give a damn about them being unconstitutional, just cases that aren't religiously correct.



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 11:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: michaelbrux


the Judges don't make the laws, Congress does…they don't enforce the Law, the President does…

All three branches are supposed to check and balance each other. If they did, we wouldn't be waging endless war, unless of course, appointees, presiders and career politicians all look the other way…


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

Unelected, life terms, un answerable to the people for life…
whats the difference again, between that and Kings?


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.

Except always seems to go the way of more tax, more war and inflation, more control of government by corporations. Are you kidding?

Appointees follow suit, not stand against it. They know how fragile their tenure is if allegiance is broken.


the Branches do act as a checks and balances...I think that's Ted Cruz's main problem, he and his supporters can't overcome the Judges and he feels emasculated and now wants the Constitution to be altered according to his own design, so that the Judges can be treated like Congressmen.

The Supreme Court doesn't involve itself, as far as I've seen, in War...that's Congress and the President.


the difference from a Justice and a King is that a King singularly embodies all the branches of Government and a couple of other important components of the system, most notably the Federal Reserve, whereas, the Supreme Court only interprets the Law.

A King IS the Law, the Author of the Law and the Enforcer of the Law and if people keep messing around with the Constitution that's been gifted to us, I fear that we'll all find out the difference between a King and the form of Government we currently enjoy.

I'm not kidding, we don't have a King and the Justices are not Kings...we have a system that works...enjoy it.






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



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 11:55 AM
link   
a reply to: jimmyx

Don't disagree with you at all.



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 12:01 PM
link   
a reply to: michaelbrux


the Branches do act as a checks and balances…

No they don;t We wouldn't be waging aggressive war for unjust reasons far from home. All they are supposed to do is provide for the common defense, not conquer nations.

Despite your and mine differences on the subject overall, that one point should be a reminder the system is obviously broken.

For instance, waging war on foreign lands is the most important issue the government can decide on. The president can't do it if congress doesn't approve and the Supreme court is supposed to issue injunctions if the reasoning isn't "Just".

War is never 'just'.



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 12:04 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

I'm not sure the Supreme Court has anything to do with wars..........



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join