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

originally posted by: Gryphon66
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.

Don't have to. All I have to show is Chief SCOTUS is on about.

And are you going to set there an honestly tell me that the case in questions WASNT talking about heterosexual marriage?

And this case was about race and heterosexual marital standing. Just how that magically expanded to gays is like gas coming out of the heads of some.

a reply to: Logarock

You're doing nothing but side-stepping, and not doing it very well. Muddying the water as it were.

America is a place where the Founders structured our Constitution to insure, late or soon, that all citizens are treated equitably before the law, regardless of their race, sex, religion, national origin (or any other arbitrary difference one wishes to mention).

That is the issue at hand.

Marriage (as a legal contract with state-mandated benefits, rights and privileges) has been variously offered to American citizens based on their sex.

SCOTUS corrected that long-standing yesterday. That's the end of it.

originally posted by: ladyinwaiting
a reply to: intrptr

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

Exactly. The three branches are Executive, Legislative and Judicial , they are supposed to check each other to prevent any one of them from declaring war for instance, the most important issue before any peoples. Sadly that notion is lost long ago.

It is what they seek to do, make and sell arms, destroy countries, then make loans to rebuild them.

It is the most enterprising enterprise and the most threatening to the people. After all, we are all put at risk if the enterprise fails (losing the war) and always sheds blood of sons and daughters.

Besides, blow back. See what happened in Tunisia?

Someone needs to check and balance the three Branches.

a reply to: Logarock

And this case was about race and heterosexual marital standing. Just how that magically expanded to gays is like gas coming out of the heads of some.

Do you deny that a ruling was necessary on this issue? Or does your ire erupt because it's not what you wanted --
Had it gone the other way, would you still be making the same comments?

originally posted by: intrptr
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'.

the law is precise and at present, the United States isn't involved in any 'Wars'.

and if you don't realize this, then you also realize why some things should not be put to popular vote.

the voter isn't up for the challenge of voting for Justices of the Supreme Court.

a reply to: ladyinwaitingIMHO the SCOTUS should not be a lifelong appointment. Those 9 judges should be elected same as all the other people in Washington. They should also be term limited to 3 terms.

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?

Or the good ole," the process has spoke now you have to deal with the outcome."

Good to see ya back gryph, haven't seen ya post in a bit.

Although its not feasible, I really liked a proposal I heard a few days ago, which is that the US Supreme Court should consist of all the chief justices of the state supreme courts.

a reply to: vor78

Now that is a great idea!

but I will say one thing specific about the Judges decision regarding same sex marriage, the reason, i suppose that Ted Cruz is in such an uproar:

The Constitution doesn't say anything about any type of marriage and the only understanding of the concept of marriage that people could have comes from their various Religions...and All Religions and their Opinions are Invalid when discussing laws in the United States; thus, there is no way gay marriage can be unlawful in this land, so it must be lawful.

frankly, Rome, Jerusalem and/or Mecca are not friends of America...and they have exhausted any meaningful influence in this land as a result of their endless unprovoked hostility...

a reply to: michaelbrux

…at present, the United States isn't involved in any 'Wars'.

Hides bloody sleeves beneath table.

a reply to: intrptr

no blood on America's sleeves or the United States.

that must be someone else you are thinking of; that someone else doesn't have a very pleasant future.

a reply to: michaelbrux

frankly, Rome, Jerusalem and/or Mecca are not friends of America...and they have exhausted any meaningful influence in this land as a result of their endless unprovoked hostility...

That's interesting. Confusing, but interesting.

The Constitution doesn't say anything about any type of marriage and the only understanding of the concept of marriage that people could have comes from their various Religions...and All Religions and their Opinions are Invalid when discussing laws in the United States; thus, there is no way gay marriage can be unlawful in this land, so it must be lawful.

Also interesting. Your thinking is spherical. I like it, though it may.. or may not... be true..

a reply to: angeldoll

i'm not trying to be confusing, it just seems obvious that the United States is a stand alone system and doesn't require the input or support of foreign entities, especially those three...

...i honestly believe that they need to be kept away and their beliefs have no place going forward in an American system.

they are dangerous, hostile and a burden.

First we get a Constitutional Amendment Passed that Limits Justices to 10 or 20 years Terms of office and limit the Justices to only 1 term. Then we simply make it where the justices are chosen by election. Take the power away from the Senate and the President. And in the event a justice dies we simply have a vote for a new one next election.

originally posted by: michaelbrux
a reply to: angeldoll

i'm not trying to be confusing, it just seems obvious that the United States is a stand alone system and doesn't require the input or support of foreign entities,

Stand alone?

How about Israel? The US and Israel seemed joined at the hip and we can't do squat without Israel's OK.

www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...

a reply to: JBRiddle

Take the power away from the Senate and the President. And in the event a justice dies we simply have a vote for a new one next election.

You can't be serious. So the Justices will be waging multiple-million dollar campaigns, and will be bought and paid for by big greedy corporations? I am shuddering to think of the consequences we would face.

What a nightmare. The country would be hi-jacked by big corporations in short-order, if it hasn't been already.

The Supreme Court is functioning as it should. It's not broken. Ted Cruz and his colleagues can suck it up.

a reply to: olaru12

Hello! I sometimes think people judge Israel too harshly. They are bordered on four sides by countries who would like them to cease to exist. Read: die. Sometimes it's not just paranoia that they react to, although they have plenty of reasons to be paranoid. Who wouldn't be under those circumstances?
I read your link (mostly). Thanks for it.

originally posted by: Ceeker63
a reply to: ladyinwaitingIMHO the SCOTUS should not be a lifelong appointment. Those 9 judges should be elected same as all the other people in Washington. They should also be term limited to 3 terms.

Certainly Scalia should be able to be voted out - what a numpty - he seems to have forgotten that being a judge is supposed to be about interpreting the law - no preserving tradition, not avoiding decisions because it might make some situations difficult, not coming up with pages of irrelevant blow-hard and calling it "dissent"!!

a reply to: ladyinwaiting

OMG, just when you think you can't possibly hear anything stupider, out come the haters.

Ted Cruz and Scott Walker are morons. Scott Walker is an embarrassment to my state and most of us hate his guts.

They will both get their arses kicked, and have absolutely no chance at the repub nomination for president.

originally posted by: michaelbrux
a reply to: intrptr

no blood on America's sleeves or the United States.

that must be someone else you are thinking of; that someone else doesn't have a very pleasant future.

There, see? You just made a veiled threat against another unnamed nation state.

In two sentences, you denied being blood stained and threatened someone else.

Don't need forensics to see that.