Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ted Cruz: ‘It makes me sad’ to call for Supreme Court retention elections
The Washington Times ^ | Thursday, July 9, 2015 | David Sherfinski

Posted on 07/09/2015 10:52:14 AM PDT by Isara

...

“I am reluctant to call for retention elections — it makes me sad,” Mr. Cruz, a 2016 GOP presidential contender, said Wednesday evening on MSNBC’s “Hardball.” “But I have done it because I believe that a majority of the justices are not honoring their judicial oaths.”

Host Chris Matthews responded by saying that the Supreme Court seized the presidency in 2000 in halting the recount in Florida and that Mr. Cruz, who wrote in his new book, “A Time for Truth,” about his role in the 2000 recount, did not complain.

“Those are great talking points. How many times did they count the ballots in Florida?” Mr. Cruz said.

“Four,” Mr. Matthews said.

“Four times. How many times did Bush win?” Mr. Cruz said.

“Four times. … They wanted to try one more time,” Mr. Matthews said.

“The Democrats’ strategy was we’re going to keep counting and counting and counting and counting and eventually maybe enough people will cheat and somehow our guy will win,” Mr. Cruz said.

Mr. Matthews said he thought it was an issue of states’ rights, “which you usually champion,” and equal protection.

“I describe how the first time the Supreme Court unanimously vacated what the Florida Supreme Court did,” Mr. Cruz said. “When it came down, you know what the Florida Supreme Court did? It told the U.S. Supreme Court ‘go jump in a lake,’ didn’t even cite its opinion. … It was partisan defiance of the court, and frankly, what the Florida Supreme Court did in the Bush versus Gore recount is the same thing the U.S. Supreme Court did with Obamacare and marriage.”

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: cruz; scotus; supremecourt; tedcruz
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-32 next last
FYI
1 posted on 07/09/2015 10:52:14 AM PDT by Isara
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Isara

Makes me think you are dangerous.


2 posted on 07/09/2015 10:54:06 AM PDT by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Isara

SCOTUS should trade in their robes for clown costumes.


3 posted on 07/09/2015 10:55:14 AM PDT by Navy Patriot (America, a Rule of Mob nation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Raycpa

It’s very dangerous to have judicial elections-—threatens the intent of the judiciary. yet some people around here love it


4 posted on 07/09/2015 10:56:52 AM PDT by bjcoop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Isara
I love this idea.

The thought of those smug marxists on the court who think they have all the time in the world to destroy the nation they hate suddenly aware they may one day soon become just another bitter misfit on the fringes warms my heart.

5 posted on 07/09/2015 10:57:21 AM PDT by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Isara; Kale; Jarhead9297; COUNTrecount; notaliberal; DoughtyOne; MountainDad; aposiopetic; ...
    Ted Cruz Ping!

    If you want on/off this ping list, please let me know.
    Please beware, this is a high-volume ping list!

    CRUZ or LOSE!

6 posted on 07/09/2015 10:57:56 AM PDT by SoConPubbie (Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Isara

I didn’t realize that Chris Matthews was relevant.


7 posted on 07/09/2015 10:59:06 AM PDT by rhubarbk (Crush Hillary in 2016)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bjcoop
It’s very dangerous to have judicial elections-—threatens the intent of the judiciary. yet some people around here love it

The "intent of the judiciary" has already been destroyed, or have you not been paying attention to the Abortion, Obamacare, and Gay Marriage rulings?

That is EXACTLY why Ted Cruz is suggesting this radical change.
8 posted on 07/09/2015 10:59:14 AM PDT by SoConPubbie (Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: bjcoop

So its preferable to have the marxists currently on the court clearly violating their sworn oaths to the Constitution and instead help facilitate a totalitarian leftist utopia?


9 posted on 07/09/2015 10:59:30 AM PDT by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: skeeter

People have already elected Barack Obama twice. What makes you think they’ll pick the right judges? You’re supporting lunacy.


10 posted on 07/09/2015 11:00:32 AM PDT by bjcoop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Isara

retention..

DETENTION......thats what’s needed here!!


11 posted on 07/09/2015 11:00:48 AM PDT by MeshugeMikey ("Never, Never, Never, Give Up," Winston Churchill ><>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bjcoop

You think the status quo is fine, I guess. And thats not lunacy?


12 posted on 07/09/2015 11:01:21 AM PDT by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

He gives another reason too - that Congress is and will remain derelict. Impeachment is off the table, but it shouldn’t be.


13 posted on 07/09/2015 11:02:24 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: bjcoop

The people don’t pick the replacements, they just retire the ones that hand down unpopular decisions (without regard to whether or not the decision was the legally correct one).


14 posted on 07/09/2015 11:03:42 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

You’ll be praising the Court on other matters if you agree with the decisions. hypocrisy abounds


15 posted on 07/09/2015 11:04:24 AM PDT by bjcoop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Isara

Beware of the UK Xulk Nalk men in black hooded robes that make white people very afraid


16 posted on 07/09/2015 11:08:11 AM PDT by Cyman (We have to pass it to see what's in it= definition of stool sample)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Isara

We would have to change the Constitution, would we not?

Unless one wants to interpret the “Good Behaviour” clause to make it subject to voter approval.

“Has Judge Roberts acted with Good Behaviour”? would be on the ballot....

Although that really does NOT seem to be what the Founders intended.


17 posted on 07/09/2015 11:12:18 AM PDT by SoFloFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Isara

What’s needed are gallows not elections.


18 posted on 07/09/2015 11:13:59 AM PDT by LibWhacker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bjcoop
You’ll be praising the Court on other matters if you agree with the decisions. hypocrisy abounds

Doubtful.

The court has not been doing it's job for a long time.

Time for a change-up to the status quo and to the idea that what the Supreme Court does is not checked by any other branch or by the people.
19 posted on 07/09/2015 11:15:34 AM PDT by SoConPubbie (Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Isara

So Chris Matthews didn’t realize that the recounted and recounted in Florida?


20 posted on 07/09/2015 11:20:46 AM PDT by nikos1121 ("The enemy of your enemy is your enemy!" B. Netanyahu)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-32 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson