Ted Cruz and the Incredibly Shrinking Supreme Court

[Edge-]

Oh look, Ted Cruz continuing to act like a retarded, petulant child. How surprising.

Seriously, fuck the GOP for playing politics with the supreme court like this. Democrats have threatened, but I don't think they've ever blocked holding a hearing for a full year and then threatened to refuse to vote for the entire next term if they lose the White House.

I've had my gripes with the GOP over the years given that I strongly disagree with their parties positions on a number of issues but they've always at least remained somewhat grounded in reality. Now though, they're going full on crazytown and I honestly hope their party fractures in two. One half can be the reasonable, sensible conservatives that have an actual interest in governing and adhering to traditional conservative economic and governmental positions. The other half can be the crazies that just want their way no matter what or they'll throw a temper tantrum like children (like the GOP is doing now) until they get it, no matter how stupid what they want may be (like shutting down the government, thanks Ted Cruz!).

No amendment applies. The issue should have been left up to the States to decide. They should have refused to rule on it as the Chief Justice said.

The SCOTUS disagreed, and they were right to do so. Unless you think that states should also decide whether interracial marriage should be legal or not. Because, you know, that's a thing that many Republicans still wish they could ban: http://www.theatlantic.com/national/...licans/349433/

[Paranoid Android]

The 14th Amendment is a constitutional issue.

The gay marriage issue showed that conservatives don't give a damn about smaller government. They simply want a bigger government... their way.

Yeah back to the good ole "We hate Activist Judges", until of course they rule in their favor. Many ruling throughout time that the Constitution does not deal with any time. Such as 2000 election and Citizens United.

Oh yeah as far as just abortion. They reference the 14th Amendment, but all it states is rights to people "born or naturalized". Plus I could add that most against abortion are for religious reasons, which are again people forcing their religion unto others.

- - - Updated - - -

No amendment applies. The issue should have been left up to the States to decide. They should have refused to rule on it as the Chief Justice said. This legislating from the bench needs to stop.

Let the states decide? Such as when that was the argument for slavery or segregation, or Loving vs Virginia? All those examples, you could argue some states would still have implemented in one way or the other. Minus slavery.

[araine]

Yes, there used to be fewer justices. However I an imagine that if RBG died, and they had Romney as pres, they would have no problem with adding another justice.

They would even accept a nomination in the lameduck session by a lame duck president if the president elect was a democrat, really we know how the right wingers operate and anyone not seriously pissed of at them and there ways of fucking the country over is a lost cause when it comes to saving the country.

[Cyberowl]

No amendment applies. The issue should have been left up to the States to decide. They should have refused to rule on it as the Chief Justice said. This legislating from the bench needs to stop.

Just curious; are you anti-gay marriage or just that big of a supporter of state rights? I always wonder, because public approval was with same sex-marriage. I think it's safe to say that gay marriage was coming anyways, they just accelerated it and skipped all the circus in congress, where many politicians only care about their own voters, not the American people. Maybe it was their job, maybe it wasn't, but unless you are against gay marriage I see little reason to be unhappy about the ruling.

[araine]

Good for the republicans. Hillary wants more Sotomayors on the Supreme Court. Which would awful for this country for generations even after Hillary is long gone.

I hope they do what they can to stop it from happening. Or at the very least force her to pick someone they both agree on.

you are right we need more RBG's and Sotomayor's on the court. And i truly wish and hope we can pay back to the republicans what they have done to the court and the reputation of the court and the way appointing judges to it works.

I promise you i have ZERO objections to liberals blocked every damn judge suggested by the conservatives ZERO objections it is just payback and i am all for it. Cant stand the right wingers and there obstruction. Yet i know they will cry a river if we treated them to the same stuff as they have been doing for YEARS now in Washington.

So yeah I am 100% in favor of blocking and obstructing and veto EVERYTHING the conservatives suggests and put forward if democrats gets in a position to block them. payback all the way 100% in favor of it so cry me a river about it. you just will reap what you sow and the right wing EXTREMISTS have created this so they can feel it for years as far as i am concerned.

[Paranoid Android]

Just curious; are you anti-gay marriage or just that big of a supporter of state rights? I always wonder, because public approval was with same sex-marriage. I think it's safe to say that gay marriage was coming anyways, they just accelerated it and skipped all the circus in congress, where many politicians only care about their own voters, not the American people. Maybe it was their job, maybe it wasn't, but unless you are against gay marriage I see little reason to be unhappy about the ruling.

We know the "states right" argument is bullshit. Plus more to the fact, our Federal Government needs to implement laws to protect the "minority" throughout the U.S., as a whole. The obvious example on gay marriage, is that you have a fervent right who oppose gay marriage (honestly equal rights) and on other side while now it is a majority who favor gay marriage, they may not be the most motivated crowd to go out and vote for a law in some state. Also the fact again, if you get married in Massachusetts and move to wherever. All of sudden your marriage is dissolved.

[araine]

No amendment applies. The issue should have been left up to the States to decide. They should have refused to rule on it as the Chief Justice said. This legislating from the bench needs to stop.

civil rights cant be decided in populare elections on the state level really we tried that in the 1960s and you know the total fucking disaster we got from that

[Machismo]

No amendment applies. The issue should have been left up to the States to decide. They should have refused to rule on it as the Chief Justice said. This legislating from the bench needs to stop.

It wasn't legislating from the bench, they ruled on the constitutionality of the laws. States are allowed to make their own laws based on the 10th Amendment. However, those laws cannot be unconstitutional. In the case of the 14th Amendment, people are guaranteed equality under the law. The bans on gay marriage were a clear violation of the 14th Amendment freedoms of the people within those states.

[Moralgy]

No amendment applies. The issue should have been left up to the States to decide. They should have refused to rule on it as the Chief Justice said. This legislating from the bench needs to stop.

What is the point of the supreme court if it can not judge if something is unconstitutional or not? We are walking dangerously close to having only two branches of government if we take this stance on the supreme court.

[Machismo]

Yeah back to the good ole "We hate Activist Judges", until of course they rule in their favor. Many ruling throughout time that the Constitution does not deal with any time. Such as 2000 election and Citizens United.

Oh yeah as far as just abortion. They reference the 14th Amendment, but all it states is rights to people "born or naturalized". Plus I could add that most against abortion are for religious reasons, which are again people forcing their religion unto others.

- - - Updated - - -



Let the states decide? Such as when that was the argument for slavery or segregation, or Loving vs Virginia? All those examples, you could argue some states would still have implemented in one way or the other. Minus slavery.

I have disagreed with many court rulings throughout the years, but that doesn't mean I disagree with the process itself. I opposed Citizens United, even though I knew it to be constitutional. I simply saw it as something that would eventually lead to more government, and less freedom.

[Noxx79]

Well if the Republicans refuse to confirm anyone for the entirety of Hillary's likely presidency, we will never see 9 justices again until the complete demolition of the 2 party system, and even then, it may break down to just Liberals vs conservates.

Do you think the Democrats would be within their rights to never confirm a conservative judge should a republican become president? I would think so if the republicans do this.

Although the 9 judges isn't in the Constitution (no number is) it doesn't seem very "conservative" to upend a law that's been in place since 1869

[satimy]

Oh look, Ted Cruz continuing to act like a retarded, petulant child. How surprising.

Seriously, fuck the GOP for playing politics with the supreme court like this. Democrats have threatened, but I don't think they've ever blocked holding a hearing for a full year and then threatened to refuse to vote for the entire next term if they lose the White House.

I've had my gripes with the GOP over the years given that I strongly disagree with their parties positions on a number of issues but they've always at least remained somewhat grounded in reality. Now though, they're going full on crazytown and I honestly hope their party fractures in two. One half can be the reasonable, sensible conservatives that have an actual interest in governing and adhering to traditional conservative economic and governmental positions. The other half can be the crazies that just want their way no matter what or they'll throw a temper tantrum like children (like the GOP is doing now) until they get it, no matter how stupid what they want may be (like shutting down the government, thanks Ted Cruz!).



The SCOTUS disagreed, and they were right to do so. Unless you think that states should also decide whether interracial marriage should be legal or not. Because, you know, that's a thing that many Republicans still wish they could ban: http://www.theatlantic.com/national/...licans/349433/

Oh look more name calling from he chief Clinton correspondent at gen ot

[Machismo]

Oh look more name calling from he chief Clinton correspondent at gen ot

Feel free to leave, it's a free country.

[araine]

Just curious; are you anti-gay marriage or just that big of a supporter of state rights? I always wonder, because public approval was with same sex-marriage. I think it's safe to say that gay marriage was coming anyways, they just accelerated it and skipped all the circus in congress, where many politicians only care about their own voters, not the American people. Maybe it was their job, maybe it wasn't, but unless you are against gay marriage I see little reason to be unhappy about the ruling.

States rights is just right wing nonsense talk for we will show them who is the boss our churches in the south blah blah blah dont tolerate this and that. thats what states rights really mean when they talk about it. And the same folks that claim states right do not have any objections to creating federal law on abortion etc etc etc heck they would have ZERO objections to federally outlaw of gay marriage, just so they can over rule liberal states.

So much for states right then ehh? we know how the far right operates on these issues trust me we know it,

[Paranoid Android]

I have disagreed with many court rulings throughout the years, but that doesn't mean I disagree with the process itself. I opposed Citizens United, even though I knew it to be constitutional. I simply saw it as something that would eventually lead to more government, and less freedom.

Exactly. I disagree with rulings, but don't demand we tear down one of our branches of government or call the judges "activist". While we can laud on how great the U.S. Constitution when created. No way can it deem this as the final saying on all that has happened after.

[Dch48]

Just curious; are you anti-gay marriage or just that big of a supporter of state rights? I always wonder, because public approval was with same sex-marriage. I think it's safe to say that gay marriage was coming anyways, they just accelerated it and skipped all the circus in congress, where many politicians only care about their own voters, not the American people. Maybe it was their job, maybe it wasn't, but unless you are against gay marriage I see little reason to be unhappy about the ruling.

I am very much anti-gay marriage and anti-abortion. That however has nothing to do with the fact that neither one is a Constitutional issue.

[Deleted]

Even if Republicans intend to filibuster, unless they have Senate majority (which is looking less and less likely as Trump keeps setting himself and the party on fire), there is nothing they can REALLY do. Democrats can just declare a recess of the Senate and Clinton can then recess appoint ANYONE basically. It is a dumb long-term strategy for the Republicans as they would be giving up any "tempering" influence they could possibly yield. By declaring this 100% blockade they are showing they have no respect for the institution so Democrats should go ahead and make them pay for it.

[araine]

Well if the Republicans refuse to confirm anyone for the entirety of Hillary's likely presidency, we will never see 9 justices again until the complete demolition of the 2 party system, and even then, it may break down to just Liberals vs conservates.

Do you think the Democrats would be within their rights to never confirm a conservative judge should a republican become president? I would think so if the republicans do this.

Although the 9 judges isn't in the Constitution (no number is) it doesn't seem very "conservative" to upend a law that's been in place since 1869

100% in favor of blocking any republican appointed judge if that case opens up. it is just payback for what they have done before. and payback style of eye for an eye is nothing they should really object to on the far right side since that is how religion tells us is the right way to do things when we get hit by wrong doing.


But we can solve this problem by making sure we have a super majority of liberals in the senate and a liberal president than we can fix all problems the country is facing so make sure you vote PROGRESSIVE in all elections and you will soon fix your country forever.

[Dch48]

It wasn't legislating from the bench, they ruled on the constitutionality of the laws. States are allowed to make their own laws based on the 10th Amendment. However, those laws cannot be unconstitutional. In the case of the 14th Amendment, people are guaranteed equality under the law. The bans on gay marriage were a clear violation of the 14th Amendment freedoms of the people within those states.

Once again, ANY marriage laws are NOT constitutional issues. The Chief Justice was very clear and entirely correct when he said so.

[Cyberowl]

I am very much anti-gay marriage and anti-abortion. That however has nothing to do with the fact that neither one is a Constitutional issue.

So would you have supported a ban on same sex marriage on a federal level?