Ted Cruz is Nuts: SC should be held accountable to voters?

1. 81

   Credence2posted 9 years ago

   Ted Cruz and much of the Conservative community have been sore losers, after 2 recent Supreme Court Decisions "threw them under the bus". See brief article below:
   
   http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/2 … lp00000592
   
   Accusing the court of judicial activism, he says that he believes that Supreme Court Justices can and should be voted out.
   
   But, I thought that we had three independent branches making up our Government. The judiciary is the most important as it cannot be coerced and otherwise subject to politics when it makes its rulings and I want that independence sustained.
   
   For him and other conservatives, "strict intepretation" of the Constitution means interpretation in their favor and "judicial activism" is just a word they use when they lose.....
   
   Thoughts?

   replyreport
   1. 0

      PrettyPantherposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      To suggest that Supreme Court justices should be voted out indicates that Ted Cruz:
      1) doesn't understand the purpose of the three branches of government, which is scary; or
      2) understands the purpose of the three branches of government but wishes to subvert the independence of the Supreme Court in favor of his own personal beliefs, which is scary; or
      3)  understands the purpose of the three branches of government  but makes such a statement to pander to his intellectually limited base, which is scary;
      
      The fact that Ted Cruz is considered a serious candidate for President is scary on so many levels, but it ultimately doesn't matter because most people are smart enough to see it and he won't make it past the primaries.

      replyreport
      1. 72

         rhamsonposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         What is even more scary is the Clown Show Trump. He has risen quite significantly in the polls and is espousing the same old rhetoric he did in his previous attempts. What a great foreign policymaker he would make with Mexicans being rapists and murderers as a start with Mexico. What would he do with Merkel? Let's just start with Nazi and see how good those relations would fair.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            PrettyPantherposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            It's sad that the GOP is such a joke right now.  They did it to themselves by jumping on the crazy train to secure the votes of the basest (er, I mean base).

            replyreport
         2. 81

            Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this

            Trump is ridiculous, the clown with the largest of the big red noses, being allowed in to consideration by the RNC, right under their noses.
            
            He will be the source of comic material for all the late night panel shows for months to come.
            
            Even though even the GOP acknowledges he has little chance for the nomination, the issue of the 'bull in the china shop', the danger in  his abrasive style and big mouth, soiling the Repubican brand just that much more.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               PrettyPantherposted 9 years agoin reply to this

               While I cringe at the thought of The Donald participating in a debate, I can't help but  wonder what divinely entertaining tirade will emerge from his angry, red face.

               replyreport
               1. 81

                  Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this

                  Within 5 days of his declared candidacy, Trump he has made an enemy of Univision and subsequently a large part of the Hispanic electorate that the GOP must improve its outreach to if it hopes to win.  If he can do that in 5 days, what will happen in a month, or over the coming year?
                  
                  The "Dump Trump" movement will have to get underway before the big white tire on the clown car has a blowout and all its occupants are thrown out.

                  replyreport
      2. 81

         Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this

         Presidential Timber? No, more like just a rotten piece of wood.

         replyreport
   2. 85

      Don Wposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      People only criticize SCOTUS when decisions do not fit their politics. Did Cruz suggest this after Citizens United? Of course not, because that decision benefitted him. Now there is a decision he doesn't like, suddenly there is a need to be able to "vote out" justices. Interestingly electing justices speaks directly to the Citizens United decision, because it means those who have the greatest financial resources will be able to influence the political leanings of the court, which I'm guessing is the real reason Cruz is suggesting it. Can't gain influence through reasoned public debate? No problem, just buy it by pouring money into election campaigns for the Justices you want to see on the bench. This is effectively putting SCOTUS up for sale to the highest bidder. If this happened you may as well add "This message was brought to you by Koch Industries Inc." to future rulings. When will real Republicans claim back their party from these odious little men?

      replyreport
      1. 81

         Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this

         Cruz' proposal is absurd, it reveals either:
         
         a. A candidate that knows too little about the structure of our government to be president.
         
         or
         
         b. A shameless panderer who placates a constituency dumb enough to believe that he could actually challenge the foundation of the Constitution and its tenets in this fashion.
         
         As you say of the danger that undergirds the Citizens United Decision, we move toward a  slippery slope of interest groups attempting to buy elections and if we take Cruz seriously, buy the judiciary as well.
         
         But what they do not count on is the ballot, people and their vote. Consequently, voter intimidation and suppression is another leg on the stool to their gaining control of electoral outcomes outside the standard democratic process.
         
         Cruz is just another flavor/variety of DoNUT in the assortment box, take your pick and choose your flavor.
         
         The problem is that it is difficult to distinguish the Republicans from the  odious little men.

         replyreport
2. 79

   wildernessposted 9 years ago

   Sounds like Huckabee.  So far there isn't a single candidate I would consider voting for, on either party.

   replyreport
3. 68

   maxoxam41posted 9 years ago

   Who appoints those "justices" if not the president? Now, in what way can they be independent?

   replyreport
   1. 72

      rhamsonposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      True statement and is what sets up a prejudiced court and not impartial as it should be.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         PrettyPantherposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         Did you forget that while they are appointed by the President, they must be confirmed by the Senate?

         replyreport
         1. 68

            maxoxam41posted 9 years agoin reply to this

            Is the senate independent?

            replyreport
            1. 0

               PrettyPantherposted 9 years agoin reply to this

               No, but they are elected by the people.  No process is perfect.  The fact that they are appointed for life explains why some, such as Kennedy and to a lesser extent Roberts, turn out to be less partisan than hoped for by their those who favored their appointment.  They actually take their role seriously and rule accordingly.
               
               May I ask how you would ensure complete independence?

               replyreport
            2. 81

               Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this

               They, the Senate, are held accountable by the voters. Why would any of them propose anything as unpopular and unsupported as Civil Rights? If they wanted to be reelected they stayed away from controversial issues.

               replyreport
   2. 81

      Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      I speak of independence where once the President appoints his choice and it is confirmed by the Senate, these justices can make decisions based on their interpretation of the law and can step down or be removed as the result of commission of crimes. As I have said, there are many Presidents who have appointed SC Justices, who rendered decisions not to their desire or liking. They are free to focus on the law and not the political ramifications of a decision that they have made. Some of the monumental decisions regarding American life and law have come from this source, Civil Rights, Miranda, etc. Principles that the Executive and Legislative Branches  would never have to courage to go near

      replyreport
4. 65

   Alternative Primeposted 9 years ago

   The entire conservative party is NUTS period ~ I've suggested the GOP is not only insane but obsolete and should be removed from the political arena ASAP ~ Recent monumental shifts for the betterment of society here in the United States proves my point ~
   
   To continue on with significant progress for the MAJORITY of Americans, fortunately we have 3 intelligent, strong, compassionate Progressive Democrats pursuing the nomination ~ Bernie Sanders, Hillary, and Joe Biden ~ 2 of the 3 should and probably will be on the ticket ~

   replyreport
   1. 79

      wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Removing freedom is for the betterment of society?
      Removing rights is for the betterment of society?
      Government forcing citizens to buy specific products is the betterment of society?
      Increasing government debt is for the betterment of society?
      Borrowing from our children to pay for something we refuse to pay for ourselves is the betterment of society?
      
      You need to re-think your entire premise, I think.  Particularly that Clinton is compassionate or progressive (unless "progressive simply means ANY change, good or bad).

      replyreport
      1. 65

         Alternative Primeposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         Wilderness, I’m not so sure what country you’ve been living in but FYI, Freedom has never ever been ABSOLUTE and that‘s a fact ~ If you think it has been, you are sadly mistaken ~
         
         When you live in a “United”,Nation, as we do here in America, certain actions, non-actions, purchases, participation etc are mandatory and you are compelled to act for the good of the entire country, EXAMPLE mandatory insurances which you were apparently unaware of ~
         
         Hence, the “United” States of America ~
         
         If you wanna’ live like a regressive, lost Drunken’ Hillbilly with no indoor plumbing that refuses to walk into the present that’s fine, you can roam around with a freshly carved toothpick betwixed your moonshine soaked lips & a half devoured squirrel hangin’ out your rectum, but please, don’t try to drag all the normal patriotic Americans into that dreary world with you ~
         
         Someday, if we are successful in removing Texas & Alaska from our union, two states who share an utter disdain for American values and adhesiveness, maybe that would be a perfect world for you ~

         replyreport
         1. 79

            wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            That's right - freedom is never an absolute.  It is always limited, but that's not a reason to continually take more and more away, or so I see it.
            
            Your picturesque description is exactly where we'll all end up in this country if we don't quit spending what we don't have, or if we don't quit encouraging people to live off government charity.  Something liberals don't care about any more than conservatives don't care about separating church and state as both buys votes to keep them in office and power, but it will absolutely destroy the country.
            
            Don't forget: "Progressive" does not mean "better".  It is a spun political term used to confuse the gullible into providing votes and nothing more.

            replyreport
            1. 65

               Alternative Primeposted 9 years agoin reply to this

               In the last few days we as a PROGRESSIVE nation have realized Gargantuan PROGRESS ~
               
               Obamacare was ratified in unanimous fashion by our Supreme Court ~ If you read the contents of the law it begins to "Whiddle" (It's a Hillbilly Term") away at CORPORATE CONTROL of your healthcare ~ That's critically important news, unless of course you actually trust an insurance company to look out for your best interest above pleasing Wall Street Cohorts ~ Not to mention over 6 million Americans now have health insurance as a direct result ~
               
               Additionally, The Supreme Court rendered another common sense verdict stating that you nor I have the RIGHT to interefere with another individuals right to legally bind with another of their choosing, regardless of gender and regardless of Antiquated Conservative Definitions ~ A HUGE common sense resolution ~
               
               We still have a very long path ahead, but the Progressive Tide has Shifted one GIANT STEP FORWARD for human-kind ~

               replyreport
               1. 79

                  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                  The term is "whittle", not "whiddle" and means to cut with a knife at a stick.  Yes, it's a hillbilly term, something I'm rather proud to claim. 
                  
                  But Obamacare forces us all into corporate control, not the other way around.  We are now forced to purchase a corporate product whether we want to or not, and depend on that corporation for our health care.  A rather important distinction, don't you think, rather than claiming a faceless bureaucrat somewhere has our interests at heart?
                  
                  Yep - the recent SCOTUS decisions were great.  THAT decision really was a progressive one, while the decision that government would force us to buy something we didn't want, or with money from someone else, is not.  Progress does not include such slavery, although I do realize that liberals everywhere will disagree.  They always will - any additional government control is always a good thing to the liberal as individuals are not competent to run their own lives.

                  replyreport
                  1. 65

                     Alternative Primeposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                     Wilderness, I’m not sure I understand your discomfort or even disdain with the fact that 6 million more Americans were able to attain critically important health insurance under Obamacare ~ Health Insurance that now CANNOT be cancelled at WILL by the insurance company ~ A practice that happened much too often in the past, Pre-Obamacare ~
                     
                     Pre-Obamacare, behind closed doors, Greedy Corporate Execs decided at will who to drop and who to keep in an effort to trim costs to ensure profits for investors, a filthy business it is and was ~ Appalling, ruthless, deplorable behavior to say the least by greed driven corporate criminals ~ Now it’s time to fix this problem once and for all ~ A new beginning to take the “Profit” out of caring for those who need it ~
                     
                     We live in the “United” States, not Texas or Alaska ~ FYI Wilderness, you are also “Forced” to do the following for the good of the community ~
                     
                     1. Join the Armed Forces when drafted
                     2. Stay indoors when a curfew is in effect
                     3. Purchase homeowners insurance if your house is mortgaged
                     4. Refrain from Committing Fraud
                     5. Purchase auto insurance in some states
                     6. Conserve Resources
                     7. Get a vaccination

                     replyreport
                     1. 79

                        wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                        If you don't understand the discomfort or disdain, then re-word it to indicate truth instead of just sounding good.  As in "I don't understand discomfort in being forced to purchase worthless insurance" and "I don't understand discomfort in being forced to buy something for a stranger I'll never meet.
                        
                        As for your list:
                        1. There hasn't been a draft in this country for decades. 
                        2.  Never been in a curfew situation, or where one was enforced, but if it happens it won't be for long and won't cost me a dime.
                        3.  The "if" makes a huge difference, and is due to your choice and the mortgage company, not some idiot politician that thinks it's a good idea.
                        4.  Have to refrain from murder, theft, and a whole raft of things that hurt other people.  Whether you have health insurance has no effect on anyone but yourself.
                        5.  No state requires auto insurance...UNLESS you voluntarily choose to operate your vehicle on public roads.  A little different that buying health insurance because you choose to be alive, don't you think?
                        6.  Tell that to Obama, Clinton, or any other politician.  None show any desire or effort to conserve resources.
                        7.  You are not forced to be vaccinated unless you choose to expose others to a disease you might get, as in kids going to public school.
                        
                        So it all comes down to having to pay for your choices...except for buying insurance from a private company.  There, we are all forced into making a purchase, and the poorer (but not poorest) are forced into spending a limited health care budget for insurance they can't use.  I know - I have one.

                        replyreport
                  2. 0

                     PrettyPantherposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                     The true liberal position on health care is Medicare for all.  We will eventually have it.  Unfortunately, in order to get past conservative opposition, (that includes scaredy-cat conservative Democrats) a compromise was crafted.  Actually, the ACA was modeled after Mitt Romney's Massachusetts plan.    And the mandatory purchasing of health insurance was originally a conservative idea.  You know, that old "personal responsibility" mantra.
                     
                     But, yeah, we know.  An idea that was originally introduced by conservatives, but accepted by liberals as a compromise, suddenly becomes a progressive plot to take away our freedom.

                     replyreport
                     1. 65

                        Alternative Primeposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                        Well said PP ~
                        
                        Medicare with a "Single Payer" component for ALL Americans issued at birth, and retroactive to cover everyone else will be the ultimate solution for a "United" Nation ~
                        
                        Bernie Sanders, Hillary, Joe Biden have all articulated a desire & support for this change while Regressive, idotic republicans such as Jed Bush, Ron Paul, Ted Cruz et al have continued with their insane, adamant "Let insurance companies control the market" mantra ~ It's old, tired and obsolete retoric, just like the GOP ~

                        replyreport
                     2. 79

                        wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                        Can we get free water, sewer, electricity, heat and cooling, car gas, phone and internet service, college and postgraduate studies, satellite TV or cable as well?  Some are absolutely necessary to live (more than health insurance) and some people will say they all are, so can we get them all for free?
                        
                        The liberal stance is one step at a time, but we WILL eventually provide cradle to grave care for all.  I get that but I don't have to like it - I'm a big boy and can take care of myself.  I do NOT need a bureaucrat somewhere telling me how to live.

                        replyreport
                        1. 0

                           PrettyPantherposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                           None of it would be "free."  We choose what we, as a society, want to provide for our citizens.  One of those items you mentioned, in particular, would be a great investment:  free college to those who cannot afford it and qualify based on ability.

                           replyreport
                        2. 65

                           Alternative Primeposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                           And you would actually be opposed to "Subsidized Necessities of Life"? or "Nationalized Renewable Energy"? ~ Why should a company and Wall Street make a profit from selling you the things you need? Why should insurance companies make a profit at the expense of your health?
                           
                           No No please, don't give me anything, let's not pool our resources or produce energy using a central resource, I just wanna work forever until my ass falls off so I can just barely pay for what I need to survive while making some corporate execs filthy rich ~

                           replyreport
                        3. 65

                           Alternative Primeposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                           Apparently Wilderness, you have absolutely no idea how Wall Street Operates ~ If you did, I think you'd flip to the Progressive side immediately ~

                           replyreport
5. 85

   GA Andersonposted 9 years ago

   Oh my! I started to reply to a comment... and then thought I would read the thread first. Glad I did...
   
   "...intellectually limited base..."
   "... DoNuts..."
   "...Clown Show Trump..."
   "...votes of the basest (er, I mean base)."
   "...the clown with the largest of the big red noses..."
   "....odious little men..."
   "...entire conservative party is NUTS period..."
   "...regressive, lost Drunken’ Hillbilly..."
   
   ... because I don't think I would have anything appropriately intellectually snobbish or judgmental  to offer.
   
   Geesh! I don't have a problem criticizing Ted Cruz, or Trump. And I certainly do agree that there are voters that cast their vote with less than the best information, (or intentions), but name calling and belittlement?
   
   Is this the norm for progressive thinkers?
   
   GA

   replyreport
   1. 65

      Alternative Primeposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      If the Alcohol Dipped Corn Cob Pipe Fits, Wilderness should wear it ~ ~ I mean C'mon, he must live way way off the Grid where REAL information other than fox snooze talking points is a rather scarce commodity ~

      replyreport
   2. 79

      wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      I do believe it is, GA, or at least the rabid far left.  A mouthful of insults designed to raise emotional levels rather than actual facts. (http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/131437#post2746423)

      replyreport
      1. 81

         Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this

         When you understand the actual facts behind these two, Trump and Cruz, emotional levels in anyone  that can still take a breath are going to naturally rise sharply.

         replyreport
   3. 0

      PrettyPantherposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Guilty as charged.
      
      I can't speak for all progressives, but only myself.  Here is the way I see it.  We are still suffering mightily from the right's failed economic policies, costly and inhumane wars, and constant push to insert Christan and conservative social values into legislative and educational policy.  We, progressives, were right about the Iraq War, right about trickle down economics, right about the Patriot Act, and we are on the right side of civil liberties issues (as usual).
      
      We haven't forgotten that we were called traitors and unpatriotic for not supporting the invasion of Iraq.  But, we were right.  We haven't forgotten that Cheney said the war would pay for itself while racking up trillions in war debt, not to mention ruining hundreds of thousands of lives through death, dismemberment, destruction of infrastructure, and lingering PTSD.
      
      How can we not feel disdain for those who continue to espouse the same old tired conservative philosophy, seemingly ignoring how ridiculously wrong conservatives have been?  How can we not?

      replyreport
      1. 65

         Alternative Primeposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         In addition PrettyPanther, one of the greatest divides between Progressive Democrats & Conservative Republicans is a simple basic unwavering philosophy ~
         
         Progressives believe we are ALL in this together, and as a tight knit community we are compelled help each other, while conservatives believe in the "Loner" philosophy, I look out for myself and that's it period ~

         replyreport
   4. 81

      Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      GA, so you drop by...
      
      When it comes to Ted Cruz and Donald Trump, my choice of words to describe them is far more charitable than either of them deserve. I could have used 'tyrants' or 'fascists', but those are overly charged words. And again, there are those descriptive terms that are not appropriately used amongst mixed company.  We did not go there. One thing for sure,  they both are blood red in affiliation and represent the worst of "the other side". Oil and water do not mix.

      replyreport
      1. 65

         Alternative Primeposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         Credence 2 ~
         
         You can add Jed Bush, Rand Paul & Just about ALL other Conservatives to that list, then add the term "Racist", "Corporate Greed Faciltators", "Antiquated", "Obsolete", "Dimwitted", "Anarchistic", "Gay Bashers" and a few other factual descriptive adjectives, verbs, etc ~

         replyreport
         1. 0

            PrettyPantherposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            Okay, that's even too much for me.  While I'm not a big fan of either of those men, they are not dimwitted nor do I believe they are racist or gay bashers.   Anarchistic?  Nah.
            
            Of course, you're entitled to your opinion.  I don't think you can call these "factual descriptive adjectives."

            replyreport
            1. 65

               Alternative Primeposted 9 years agoin reply to this

               You are wrong Pretty Panther ~
               
               The vast majority of Conservatives have tried to move the proverbial “Mountain” in a concerted, coordinated effort to SUPPRESS Human (Gay) Rights citing biblical passages etc ~
               
               If you don’t believe these men are racists, bigots, and inclined to treat those of color in a different way, a state of denial for whatever reason might be the cause ~ It’s a well known fact the conservative base which is located primarily in the south has a very long history of racism toward minorities, I’m sorry if the truth agitates you, but facts are facts ~ How many centuries did it take for some in the south to take removal of the Confederate Flag a little more seriously, even if it might be done for purely political reasons ~
               
               Sorry, but the more Jed Bush opens his mouth, the more you’ll find the “Idiot” apple really doesn’t fall that far from the tree ~ His brother was and still is intellectually challenged, a sibling who presided over one of the worst presidencies in history, and his father is also the proud owner of a failed attempt at leading this nation ~ Shall we go for a trifecta? Can this country really survive another inept bush occupying the White House? ~

               replyreport
            2. 65

               Alternative Primeposted 9 years agoin reply to this

               Even Ultra-Conservative Bobby Jindal admits the truth ~ The only sane verbiage I've heard uttered by a conservative in decades ~ He recently said the following in paraphrase ~
               
               "Republicans need to stop being STUPID" ~

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  PrettyPantherposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                  Agree.  Some republicans need to stop being stupid.  No doubt about it!

                  replyreport
                  1. 65

                     Alternative Primeposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                     Unfortunately for our country, I don't think being stupid is a choice for most ~

                     replyreport
         2. 81

            Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this

            You are darned tootin' , but I have been trying to be 'nice'. I could add to the descriptive verbage, you can pick 2 to 3 of your terms for any one of them and you would still be 'spot on'  But if I smell a rat,  I am certainly not going to describe the 'fragrance'  as 'Chanel No. 5".

            replyreport
6. 89

   My Esotericposted 14 months ago

   Sadly, this is as true today as it was 8 years ago.

   replyreport