|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Posted on 04/13/2015 3:03:40 PM PDT by SoConPubbie
WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) on Friday joined an amicus brief on behalf of 57 members of Congress in support of the right of states to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The brief was filed in four cases that the Supreme Court will jointly hear on April 28, 2015, in which same-sex couples challenge the marriage laws of Ohio, Tennessee, Michigan, and Kentucky, all of which were upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The Supreme Court will decide whether the Fourteenth Amendment requires states to license marriages between two people of the same sex and to recognize same-sex marriages licensed and performed in another state.
The brief states: “As Members of Congress, amici have a compelling interest in defending the principles of federalism and the separation of powers implicated in these cases. Federalism and the separation of powers provide critical structural guarantees of the liberty of all American citizens, including amici’s constituents. Amici thus have an interest in defending the division of authority between the federal government and the States, and in preserving the separation of powers between this Court and the political branches. Amici believe that a judgment of this Court imposing a judicially mandated revision of state laws defining marriage would circumvent the proper resolution of these profound and divisive issues through state democratic processes. Such a decision could damage the rights of a self-governing people. It would set an unwarranted precedent, with effects far beyond this case, of federal encroachment into a traditional area of state concern, and of judicial pre-emption of an area that the Constitution allots to democratic process.”
Sens. Steve Daines (R-MT), James Inhofe (R-OK), James Lankford (R-OK), Mitch McConnell (R-KY), and Tim Scott (R-SC) joined Cruz in the brief along with 51 members of the U.S. House of Representatives. The cases are Obergefell v. Hodges, No. 14-556; Tanco v. Haslam, No. 14-562; DeBoer v. Snyder, No. 14-571; and Bourke v. Beshear, No. 14-574.
A copy of the brief is available here.
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
CRUZ or LOSE!Ted Cruz Fighting The Fight!!
What a mensch! He’s a real warrior!
Ted Cruz fighting the good fight. Thank you for another great article.
Since Reagan, when I want someone to win so bad I can taste it, it's usually the kiss of death for that person.
Bold move!
Note to the liv’s the Federal govt doesn’t marry people...
The strongest argument is not being said. The 14th does not apply as marriage is not and never was a right or a privilege. Want proof? Try to marry your sister.
With no 14th Jurisdiction there is no federal court authority.
I’m thinking that things like this are why Cruz decided to jump in early. He’s sucking the air out of the room and leaving less of a bully pulpit for dear leader and PIAPS.
Can’t you develop a taste for Hillary Clinton?
He's already "caught fire" - it's called speaking the truth to 50 million people who are fed up with calculating mind manipulators and have waited 20 years for someone to stand up for what he's saying. It's your juvenile FUD tactics that are doomed with the kiss of death. Crawl back to DU.
God bless this man!
I intend to pray that God will not give us what we deserve, but instead show us (undeserved) mercy, and allow him to be our leader.
Cruz is strongly differentiating himself from the other candidates.
Those candidates that have not joined this Amicus Brief will be removed from my list.
This is a very easy litmus test.
Patriot Cruz is the antiRomney, antiObama.
No wonder Mr. RomneyCARE dismissed Patriot Senator Cruz
on FOX “News” for his little rats nest of toady RINOs.
Oh, you have no idea. I just left a thread where about a dozen people were moaning that it’s useless, we can’t win, Hillary is a shoe-in. etc.
WTH?
Every time homosexual marriage is mentioned in the courts, there needs to be a recitation of how *few* are those who are forcing it on us. These people think their opinions are greater than what the people of these states want. (This is not an inclusive list)
Perhaps a blanket impeachment of every one of these judges might persuade the others to rule on the law, not make it.
U.S. District Judge Orlando L. Garcia (Texas)
U.S. District Judge John G. Heyburn II (Kentucky)
U.S. District Judge Arenda Wright Allen (Virginia)
U.S. District Judge Terence Kern (Oklahoma)
U.S. District Judge Robert J. Shelby (Utah)
U.S. District Judge Timothy S. Black (Ohio)
U.S. District Court Judge Joseph Bataillon (Nebraska)
U.S. District Court Judge Karen E. Schreier (S. Dakota)
U.S. District Court Judge Callie V. S. Granade (Alabama)
U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman (Michigan)
U.S. District Magistrate Judge Candy Dale (Idaho)
U.S. District Court Judge Michael McShane (Oregon)
U.S. District Court Judge John E. Jones III (Pennsylvania)
U.S. District Court Judge Barbara Crabb (Wisconsin)
U.S. District Court Judge Richard Young (Indiana)
U.S. District Judge Robert L. Hinkle (Florida)
U.S. District Court Judge James C. Mahan (Nevada)
U.S. District Judge Timothy Burgess (Alaska)
U.S. District Court Judge John Sedwick (Arizona)
U.S. District Court Judge Daniel Crabtree (Kansas)
U.S. District Court Judge Richard Mark Gergel (S. Carolina)
U.S. District Judge Brian Morris (Montana)
U.S. District Judge Kristine Baker (Arkansas)
U.S. District Judge Carlton Reeves (Mississippi)
LOL, they're terrified of Cruz. They can't out-argue him, so they're just going for the subconscious command programming: "give up, all is lost, no point, already over, give up, give up, give up..."
They've become whispering ghosts, souls lost while still in their bodies.
It's a magnificent display of total weakness. I love it!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.