Ted Cruz Says SCOTUS 'Clearly Wrong' to Legalize Gay Marriage

[Stann]

Please continue

Still no reply. Typical

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Still no reply. Typical

He is busy eating potatoes on the couch

 

[Stann]

He is busy eating potatoes on the couch

You have a good day. Two fish were swimming up River, they hit a wall. The one fish turns to the other fish and says, " Dam ! " . I've got a pretty busy day I'll check in later on this evening just to see if he ever answers.

 

[Matt National]

I haven't read the thread but Cruz is right for the same reason the SCOTUS ruled on Roe v. Wade. The court does not have the power to create new rights. Congress doesn't either; unless a convention of states is called and a new amendment codifying such a right is ratified. So, nothing he said is wrong. The SCOTUS over the past half century has made a series of serious oversteps that passed by the boundaries of their authority. Ultimately, it's a states rights issue. I am not opposed to creating a gay rights amendment as long as it is done in the proper way - a convention of states.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

You have a good day. Two fish were swimming up River, they hit a wall. The one fish turns to the other fish and says, " Dam ! " . I've got a pretty busy day I'll check in later on this evening just to see if he ever answers.

You have a good day too. I feel like that fish sometimes, especially when dealing with some of the knuckheads here

 

[Rye Catcher]

Ted Cruz says Obergefell was 'wrong when it was decided' - Google Search

Ted Cruz Says SCOTUS 'Clearly Wrong' to Legalize Gay Marriage

"Obergefell, like Roe v. Wade, ignored two centuries of our nation's history," the Republican senator said.

www.newsweek.com

-------------------------------------
I just knew it would come up soon.

A Marriage is a contract. Cruz is an attorney and knows better; he seeks to get votes from the bigots.

 

[GMCGeneral]

A Marriage is a contract. Cruz is an attorney and knows better; he seeks to get votes from the bigots.

No. Marriage is a covenant between G-d and the couple.

 

[AsherN]

No. Marriage is a covenant between G-d and the couple.

A religious marriage is. The civil marriage that accompanies it is a contract between 2 people and the state recognizes it and confers certain rights to the couple.

 

[Stann]

No. Marriage is a covenant between G-d and the couple.

If you cannot distinguish the difference between the many, varied religious rites of marriage and the government's secular marriage. Then you shouldn't even be in this conversation.

 

[Stann]

I haven't read the thread but Cruz is right for the same reason the SCOTUS ruled on Roe v. Wade. The court does not have the power to create new rights. Congress doesn't either; unless a convention of states is called and a new amendment codifying such a right is ratified. So, nothing he said is wrong. The SCOTUS over the past half century has made a series of serious oversteps that passed by the boundaries of their authority. Ultimately, it's a states rights issue. I am not opposed to creating a gay rights amendment as long as it is done in the proper way - a convention of states.

So roe versus Wade was settled precident for almost 50 years. The three supreme Court judges sworn in under trump under oath swore that it was settled precident. Yet when it came down to the vote, they voted against it. So we now have three judges on the supreme Court that are untrustworthy, that are liars. I guess it goes with the territory you have a president that lies all the time why not have supreme Court judges that do nothing but lie. The whole reason Roe versus Wade came to existence was because states were passing such egregious laws women were killing themselves left and right. The federal government stepped in because of the abuse of the states on this issue. Now several states are passing laws that are even more egregious. Like saying you can't have an abortion after 6 weeks. Or even trying to say you can't have an abortion at all. Or saying the exception for saving the woman's life depends on what the state decides like they know better than the medical doctors treating the woman. And several States say no exceptions for rape or incest. Boy is that going to negatively impact the intelligence levels of those States over time. These laws will be disposed of quickly. All abortion laws are essentially illegal. It is a medical procedure best decided by the doctor and the woman involved in the situation no one else needs to get involved especially the state or the courts. If the supreme Court had any balls they would have said this to begin with abortion is a personal issue and best decided by the doctor and the woman involved. As far as gay marriage goes, the federal government was again obliged to take action because several states were passing laws saying it was illegal. Our country does have a quality and justice under the law as part of its model. Not just a motto, it's actually supposed to happen. Just like when the Mormons practice polygamy and the federal government told them it was illegal to do so so they moved to territories not fully governed by the laws of the United States. The long-standing practice of denying gay people the right to secular marriage was absolutely wrong. Right now in the state of Michigan they're putting it to a vote of the people and I'm sure they're going to vote out abortion laws entirely. That's what this current act of stupidity is during to the nation. Getting people against people, wasting more time correcting the situation. Each and every state will go through this process. How has that helped anything what good has it done none.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I haven't read the thread but Cruz is right for the same reason the SCOTUS ruled on Roe v. Wade. The court does not have the power to create new rights. Congress doesn't either; unless a convention of states is called and a new amendment codifying such a right is ratified. So, nothing he said is wrong. The SCOTUS over the past half century has made a series of serious oversteps that passed by the boundaries of their authority. Ultimately, it's a states rights issue. I am not opposed to creating a gay rights amendment as long as it is done in the proper way - a convention of states.

Really?? Well, you are stating just one view of how the constitution should be interpreted, while presenting it as the only view. The fact is that your view – relying on elements of textualism and originalism, both of which deny the existence of any rights beyond those that are enumerated. That however is the minority view among constitutional scholars embraced by the likes of Scalia and Thomas .

Most take a much more expansive view of the constitution and believe that many other unenumerated rights may flow from the basic rights of the bill of rights and the 14th Amendment

They also understand that rights, including states rights and the 10th Amendment are not without limitations and must be excercised in a way that does not violated rights, enimerated or not , that the constitution provides . If you think that Obergefell was a bad decision, you would also have to believe that Loving v Virginia was also flawed. Hoever, Thomas did not want to touch that with a ten foot poll. I wonder why

Textualism refers to the literal interpretation of language of the Constitution and of its scope, whereas the originalist resorts to non-lexicographic criteria (primarily history and the Founders' political writings) to purport that certain proposition is in line with what the "Founders" of the nation had in mind.

us supreme court - Textualism and originalism - Law Stack Exchange​

law.stackexchange.com/questions/32190/textualism-and-originalism

There is also the concept of Penumbra of the constitution:

Penumbra is the implied rights provided in the U.S. constitution, or in a rule. Literally, the term penumbra was created to describe the shadows that occur during eclipses. The term penumbra is used in legal sense as a metaphor describing implied powers of the federal government.

Penumbra Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc.​

I find that most of those who take your position are not really constitutional wonks but have a political and idiological agenda and use that interpretaion of the constitution to that end.

You may or may not really be in favor of a gay rights amendment but you know damned well that is unlikley to happen in our lifetime, so at best, you are indifferent to gay rights. How long would you be willing to wait for your rights if the tables were turned?

 

[Matt National]

So roe versus Wade was settled precident for almost 50 years. The three supreme Court judges sworn in under trump under oath swore that it was settled precident. Yet when it came down to the vote, they voted against it. So we now have three judges on the supreme Court that are untrustworthy, that are liars. I guess it goes with the territory you have a president that lies all the time why not have supreme Court judges that do nothing but lie. The whole reason Roe versus Wade came to existence was because states were passing such egregious laws women were killing themselves left and right. The federal government stepped in because of the abuse of the states on this issue. Now several states are passing laws that are even more egregious. Like saying you can't have an abortion after 6 weeks. Or even trying to say you can't have an abortion at all. Or saying the exception for saving the woman's life depends on what the state decides like they know better than the medical doctors treating the woman. And several States say no exceptions for rape or incest. Boy is that going to negatively impact the intelligence levels of those States over time. These laws will be disposed of quickly. All abortion laws are essentially illegal. It is a medical procedure best decided by the doctor and the woman involved in the situation no one else needs to get involved especially the state or the courts. If the supreme Court had any balls they would have said this to begin with abortion is a personal issue and best decided by the doctor and the woman involved. As far as gay marriage goes, the federal government was again obliged to take action because several states were passing laws saying it was illegal. Our country does have a quality and justice under the law as part of its model. Not just a motto, it's actually supposed to happen. Just like when the Mormons practice polygamy and the federal government told them it was illegal to do so so they moved to territories not fully governed by the laws of the United States. The long-standing practice of denying gay people the right to secular marriage was absolutely wrong. Right now in the state of Michigan they're putting it to a vote of the people and I'm sure they're going to vote out abortion laws entirely. That's what this current act of stupidity is during to the nation. Getting people against people, wasting more time correcting the situation. Each and every state will go through this process. How has that helped anything what good has it done none.

The problem being something settled by someone without the authority to settle something cannot become a settled precedent. Just because you catch an error 50 years later doesn't make it any less of an error; and an error cannot be allowed to stand regardless of society's feelings. If we want to make such a change there is a proper way to do it and we are free do it that way. I appreciate the rest of your post but the buck stops with the error. The SCOTUS exceeded their authority, plain and simple, and that doesn't get a pass because some people are upset. If you're upset go do something about it. Go ask your representative to propose a convention of states. Words < Actions.

 

[Couchpotato]

Please continue

We have to enact societal/legal change within the bounds and framework of our system. Even if that means it may take longer (and sometimes much longer) than we might like. In this specific case (gay marriage) the Federal Government involving itself IMO is outside that framework and we would have been better off allowing the individual states to figure it out. The same can be said of Roe v Wade. It's arguable that had that happened we would be farther along in the overall general acceptance of gay marriage across the board. Forcing the issue without allowing for the societal debate to conclude, only causes people to retreat to their ideological corners. (which is where a large part of the country is now) At least in the past we (the country) debated/aruged about these things and eventually came to some consensus on issues. Now for the most part all people do is stand on either side of a wall and scream obscenities and throw stones at each other neither side bothering to even listen to what's the other is saying.

To continue your evolutionary example you cant jump from single celled organism straight to one that has numerous complex systems with specialized cells all working together you'll end up with a broken organism.

 

[Stann]

The problem being something settled by someone without the authority to settle something cannot become a settled precedent. Just because you catch an error 50 years later doesn't make it any less of an error; and an error cannot be allowed to stand regardless of society's feelings. If we want to make such a change there is a proper way to do it and we are free do it that way. I appreciate the rest of your post but the buck stops with the error. The SCOTUS exceeded their authority, plain and simple, and that doesn't get a pass because some people are upset. If you're upset go do something about it. Go ask your representative to propose a convention of states. Words < Actions.

I don't agree with your opinion. And the American public doesn't either.

 

[Couchpotato]

So roe versus Wade was settled precident for almost 50 years. The three supreme Court judges sworn in under trump under oath swore that it was settled precident. Yet when it came down to the vote, they voted against it. So we now have three judges on the supreme Court that are untrustworthy, that are liars. I guess it goes with the territory you have a president that lies all the time why not have supreme Court judges that do nothing but lie. The whole reason Roe versus Wade came to existence was because states were passing such egregious laws women were killing themselves left and right. The federal government stepped in because of the abuse of the states on this issue. Now several states are passing laws that are even more egregious. Like saying you can't have an abortion after 6 weeks. Or even trying to say you can't have an abortion at all. Or saying the exception for saving the woman's life depends on what the state decides like they know better than the medical doctors treating the woman. And several States say no exceptions for rape or incest. Boy is that going to negatively impact the intelligence levels of those States over time. These laws will be disposed of quickly. All abortion laws are essentially illegal. It is a medical procedure best decided by the doctor and the woman involved in the situation no one else needs to get involved especially the state or the courts. If the supreme Court had any balls they would have said this to begin with abortion is a personal issue and best decided by the doctor and the woman involved. As far as gay marriage goes, the federal government was again obliged to take action because several states were passing laws saying it was illegal. Our country does have a quality and justice under the law as part of its model. Not just a motto, it's actually supposed to happen. Just like when the Mormons practice polygamy and the federal government told them it was illegal to do so so they moved to territories not fully governed by the laws of the United States. The long-standing practice of denying gay people the right to secular marriage was absolutely wrong. Right now in the state of Michigan they're putting it to a vote of the people and I'm sure they're going to vote out abortion laws entirely. That's what this current act of stupidity is during to the nation. Getting people against people, wasting more time correcting the situation. Each and every state will go through this process. How has that helped anything what good has it done none.

And for how many years before that it was "settled law" that it was illegal? This idea that once a decision is made that future courts can never overturn that decision is insane. If that were actually the case, we'd still have slavery and segregation. That shit was "settled law" around the world for millennia.

 

[Couchpotato]

I don't agree with your opinion. And the American public doesn't either.

Then why is it an issue that the States (in accordance with the Constitution) pass laws that reflect what their populations want? If the country overwhelmingly wants unfettered access to abortion on demand it should be really easy to get those bills passed through the State Legislatures.

 

[Stann]

We have to enact societal/legal change within the bounds and framework of our system. Even if that means it may take longer (and sometimes much longer) than we might like. In this specific case (gay marriage) the Federal Government involving itself IMO is outside that framework and we would have been better off allowing the individual states to figure it out. The same can be said of Roe v Wade. It's arguable that had that happened we would be farther along in the overall general acceptance of gay marriage across the board. Forcing the issue without allowing for the societal debate to conclude, only causes people to retreat to their ideological corners. (which is where a large part of the country is now) At least in the past we (the country) debated/aruged about these things and eventually came to some consensus on issues. Now for the most part all people do is stand on either side of a wall and scream obscenities and throw stones at each other neither side bothering to even listen to what's the other is saying.

To continue your evolutionary example you cant jump from single celled organism straight to one that has numerous complex systems with specialized cells all working together you'll end up with a broken organism.

If a Creator entity exists at all; and I believe it does. ( Viewing GOD in man's image is very tribal and insult to the real GOD. ) The plan for mankind was seated in genetic material in the oceans millions of years ago. ( Time is irrelevant to GOD. ) And yes you are correct in a fashion. It's been stepped after step with us as the final outcome of a very,very long process GOD created called evolution. That's it in a nutshell. You get minimal points for your minimal effort.

 

[Matt National]

I don't agree with your opinion. And the American public doesn't either.

I agree that you don't agree with my opinion but you don't speak for the American public.

The situation is what it is regardless of emotions or wants. You have the power to ask your elected official to call for a convention of states. If you don't, then we see how much you really care for this.

To me, this is petty. This is like arguing about the color of the sky. No matter how much you berate someone it will not change the facts of the situation. I only wish Twitter would learn that as well.

 

[Stann]

I agree that you don't agree with my opinion but you don't speak for the American public.

The situation is what it is regardless of emotions or wants. You have the power to ask your elected official to call for a convention of states. If you don't, then we see how much you really care for this.

To me, this is petty. This is like arguing about the color of the sky. No matter how much you berate someone it will not change the facts of the situation. I only wish Twitter would learn that as well.

Correct I do not have the right to speak for all Americans but I agree with the majority of Americans that wanted Roe versus Wade to stay in place. The enactment of more egregious abortion laws is just starting to backfire on the anti-abortion crowd I think it will end up with the nation declaring all abortion laws are illegal.

 

[Stann]

I agree that you don't agree with my opinion but you don't speak for the American public.

The situation is what it is regardless of emotions or wants. You have the power to ask your elected official to call for a convention of states. If you don't, then we see how much you really care for this.

To me, this is petty. This is like arguing about the color of the sky. No matter how much you berate someone it will not change the facts of the situation. I only wish Twitter would learn that as well.

You talk about emotions. The whole argument about abortion is all emotional. Not practical at all.