Discussion for article #238667
“When we have five unelected judges who are declaring for themselves they can decide every contested policy issue in our society, it is incumbent on elected representatives to take that authority.”
Dude. Have you not heard of Marbury v. Madison?
17 Likes
Dear Mr. Cruz,
If you don’t want the court to decide a contentious issue (such as Obamacare), don’t bring a lawsuit to the Court but try to legislate a solution. And no, eliminating Obamacare or defunding it is not a solution.
41 Likes
Yes, judicial tyranny expressed as marriage and health care is reason enough to tear up the Constitution and through away our democracy. Whereas more mercury in the air and stronger drugs to kill inmates? Not so much.
13 Likes
No complaints from the wingnuts about the Court selecting Bush, rulings that corporations always win over people, campaign finance free-for-all (all the rich, that is), Hobby Lobby - just the social issues (that the Court rules about in a compassionate and correct and Constitutional way) to excite and anger the base. Say it with me, Repubs - “Con-sti-tu-tion”
23 Likes
"When we have five unelected judges… "
I thought these ass hats have unwavering allegiance to the forefathers’ Constitution,at least the way THEY interpret it. I don’t know which is a bigger factor: their utter ignorance or their utter hypocrisy.
13 Likes
It is not bad enough to have a sordid mess of a man looking to undermine a system of government that has been functioning reasonably well since the 17th century… he wants to do it to achieve what purpose? Next time this reprehensible windbag starts rhapsodizing about the wisdom and clarity of the founding fathers, remind him the government in it’s current imperfect form was one of their ideas.
10 Likes
The same is true of Congress, since most people vote for Democrats.
20 Likes
I go with the hypocrisy.
9 Likes
Since 2010 the GOP has been big on expressing its id-fueled anger with Constitutional amendment proposals. It’s also shut the government down and threatened default.
The media seem to ignore that. Why?
2 Likes
Silly me. I thought there were nine unelected judges.
7 Likes
By definition, Judicial Activism involves judges OVERTURNING laws passed by legislatures. Upholding laws that you find distasteful is not judicial activism. It’s trolling.
13 Likes
The next party you go to take a peek into the punch bowl. You’ll find Cruz floating there.
1 Like
Chief Justice Roberts entered the Supreme Court in 2005. Since then there have been numerous 5:4 decisions; most of them won by the conservatives, some by the liberals (usually with Justice Kennedy providing the fifth vote).
Roberts has voted with the liberals two times. The two decisions on health care (never mind that the second one was 6:3). In EVERY other case he has voted with the conservative wing. This adds up to something like 98% or so conservative votes in 5:4 decisions along ideological lines over 10 years.
Obviously, that is not good enough for the conservatives.
20 Likes
You have a guy in Cruz, who has been talking about the Obama administration shredding The Constitution, who, when he doesn’t like a decision by the Supreme Court, wants to start shredding The Constitution to fit his way of thinking. These evangelicals are a trip. We’ll keep government out of your life if you promise to keep religion out of ours. I don’t think they’d like that deal.
8 Likes
The GOP really is the party of whiny-ass babies. Dems have been ROYALLY PISSED after several rulings in the past, but I do not recall any serious adults (e.g., actual sitting elected officials – I mean, I would HOPE those are serious adults) talking about dismantling our government in response. The GOP really is reprehensible.
10 Likes
Rafael Cruz’s definitions:
“Strict Constructionist” “I like the Court’s ruling!”
“Judicial Activists”“I DON’T like the way the court ruled”
Plain and simple.The TexAssHole once again shows the world that he’s just a spoiled little brat who throws tantrums when he doesn’t get his way!
6 Likes
Don’t you mean 9 unelected judges?
“Wednesday’s Senate hearing – titled “With Prejudice: Supreme Court Activism and Possible Solutions”
Oh, I’m sure that was a totally objective hearing, especially when you call the chair of the board for National Organization for Marriage as a witness/expert on the courts.
I did love this line: “(Reich-wing conservatives) frustrations reached a fever pitch.”
Ha! When are they not at a fever pitch? It’s part of their DNA.
4 Likes
We need to stop calling these guys conservatives and call them what they really are - radicals with no respect for the rule of law, intent on destroying the US government (often from within). No true conservative would seek to disenfranchise the votes of those who might vote against them (i.e., the young, the old, the poor, and the non-white). No true conservative would gerrymander voting districts so their party was guaranteed to win no matter how many citizens voted against them. No true conservative would shut down the government to achieve political ends they could not achieve through the established legislative process. No true conservative would deny health care and education to the poorest of our citizens. No true conservative would send other people’s children off to fight and die in wars they are too cowardly to fight themselves These guys give conservatism a bad name.
10 Likes