There were 2 questions before the court. The one you mention and the other one, which is whether all states must allow SSM.
That would be an interesting observation if I had said I thought the Courts overstepped their bounds in Brown. But I didn’t.
What’s wrong with it is NOT ASSIGNING A LEVEL OF SCRUTINY.
You did say you wish the states and the legislatures had done it themselves. But they weren’t going to. Same as with desegregation.
The courts do have a role to play in our system. You don’t seem to understand that.
We’re pretty much out of what else it could be. You’re upset that the court played its role in enforcing the Constitution, but that concern is not a valid one. So what is it?
No, he means that’s the problem: Kennedy managed to write a due process decision without discussing the proper level of scrutiny at all. So gays are still very much in limbo on all issues other than marriage.
And of course I never said the courts don’t have a role to play in our system, so I’m not sure why you would draw that conclusion.
I’m not upset. I disagree with the court, but I don’t think the walls of civilization are going to tumble down.
This is a legitimate concern. I only hope that as this occurrs, these places of business are publicly “outed”. How ironic. As outraged as I was (am) about Indiana’s “Religious Freedom” law, I’m also encouraged that that shit blew up in their face.
He’s just full of good ideas.
I’m not, actually, totally opposed to the idea of retention elections for judges.
I’ll simply note that he may be expecting too much. While three judges in Iowa lost retention votes in 2010 following their vote on same sex marriage, it actually remained the law. Also, a retention vote for Supreme Court judges would be nationwide, and Democrats outpolled Republicans in 2014.
That’s an interesting point. There is no nationally elected official in the US, other than the president and only then thru the electoral college. I can’t see a conservative like Cruz calling for a popular vote-- it would have to be something like the electoral college.
I don’t know - the entire point of Supreme Court Justices not being elected is that they don’t pander to popular opinion. There’s always an argument to be made in regards to elected v. appointed positions. I would point out, however, that there other two branches of government (executive and legislative) are elected, so for those that support a balance between appointed and elected positions, elected judges would mean all the power players had to be people-pleasers to keep their jobs. It definitely would increase the the likelihood of “tyranny of the majority.”
So Cruz’s plan to prevent SC justices from being political and making decisions based on public opinion is to subject them to public elections in order to keep their jobs? Well, that certainly seems well thought out.
No, he’s saying they don’t listen to the people. Or, in the current case, that they only listen to the East Coast corridor, Wash - Boston snobocracy.
It is a bit funny, though, since he is a product of Princeton and Harvard taking pokes at justices from Ivy League schools…
I like the Colorado method. A judge is appointed by the appropriate executive from a list provided by a bar association. From time to time, those judges are subject to a retention election. That’s a simple yes or no. Should the vote be no, a replacement judge is appointed by the appropriate executive from a list provided by a bar association.
In my time in Colorado, judges who were rejected for retention were, in fact, usually pretty bad judges.
I absolutely do not agree with the system here in Ohio, which masquerades as a non-partisan race for the position between two or more candidates.
That doesn’t even make sense though. Support for same sex marriage was at an all time high and over a majority of Americans before the ruling.
Don’t get me wrong – I’m not asking YOU to defend his statement. I’m just sayin’ that it’s crazy talk. I suppose retention elections will only be open to landed white Christian male gentry or something. Because he sure as hell doesn’t want the public at large deciding to keep or toss people from the current lineup.
You’re right. Cruz wants to require the justices to win retention nationwide and in a majority of states. And if they lose, even with a strong majority nationwide (the 25 smallest states only account for around a sixth of the population), that would result in disqualification for life.
Apparently, Republicans think there are plenty, considering how many still bring up the Civil War to argue that Democrats are the REAL racists.
Great! When can we expect the widespread Republican opposition of laws discriminating against gays and transgendered people in the workplace?
I heard Cruz on NPR responding to that by saying: then why couldn’t it have been accomplished through the legislative process? But, I think if you go state by state, you’d still find some with < 50% in favor of SSM.
Cruz expands on his meaning in a campaign speech in Iowa:
Everything Cruz says & does is in support of his campaign. This latest outburst definitely got him publicity.
I for one am thrilled to see the level of knowledge of the law and civics demonstrated by the general public.
I mean, the sheer number of people on the internet alone who know what’s Constitutional and what’s not better than the members of the US Supreme Court do is staggering.
Homosexuals tend to hold significantly more liberal views than the rest of the population average. Curious if that’s partially due to the virulently anti-gay stances of the GOP driving people into the Democratic party where they’re then exposed to other liberal thought. Or it could be that dealing with anti-gay crap gives you a more open view of the world. Or something else entirely.
Point being, it probably won’t be soon that you see the Democratic party losing the gay vote.