Posted on 10/06/2014 3:22:22 PM PDT by jazusamo
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) on Monday slammed the Supreme Court for declining to hear appeals on lower court rulings that overturn same-sex marriage bans, calling the justices’ move “tragic and indefensible.”
“By refusing to rule if the States can define marriage, the Supreme Court is abdicating its duty to uphold the Constitution,” he said in a statement. “The fact that the Supreme Court Justices, without providing any explanation whatsoever, have permitted lower courts to strike down so many state marriage laws is astonishing.”
On Monday, the Supreme Court decided not to hear challenges to lower court rulings on same-sex marriage during its upcoming term. That effectively marked the end of the road for cases from five states: Indiana, Utah, Virginia, Oklahoma and Wisconsin. Without a Supreme Court challenge, the lower court rulings that allowed gay marriage to become law in those states.
Similar ramifications are likely to be felt in six other states that fall under the same circuit courts.
“This is judicial activism at its worst,” Cruz said. “Unelected judges should not be imposing their policy preferences to subvert the considered judgments of democratically elected legislatures.” Cruz is often vocal on legal issues. As the former solicitor general of Texas, he argued cases in front of the Supreme Court and, before that, he clerked for former Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist. He is also a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
The freshman Texas senator is a favorite among many Christian conservatives because of stances based upon his religious convictions, including a staunch opposition to same-sex marriage. In September, he won the presidential straw poll at the Value Voters Summit in Washington after a speech in which he repeatedly talked about his religious faith and said that Republicans should stick to socially conservative values.
Cruz included his own brief legal rationale for why he believed the court had erred and said that he will introduce a constitutional amendment to “prevent the federal government or the courts from attacking or striking down state marriage laws.” He also touted a bill he introduced in February that would force the federal government to follow an individual state’s definition of marriage.
In response to Cruz’s statement, the Democratic National Committee emailed out the entire text of his statement to reporters, along with photos of two female couples that were just married in Virginia and Utah.
This is a states rights issue and the SCOTUS should have ruled it that way.
Absolutely
Go Ted Cruz!
Isaiah 5:20 applies.
When time comes to an end, this sin will not be applauded or celebrated.
See: Genesis 19.
Ping
The SCOTUS is just as corrupt as the rest of the Federal Government, maybe more so.
Well!Congress funds the Judiciary.Why don’t they send the Chief Justice a message by cutting his budget?
This crap has to stop somewhere.
Less talk(complaining)and more action would be beneficial to get the courts attention.
The Senate, kiddies, the Senate being elected since the 17th Amendment rather than handled the way the Constitution originally intended is the root of all these bad judges and the decisions that flow from them. Far more so than the President.
Enjoy the fruits of early twentieth century progressives and their victory over the Constitution.
States have no more legitimate authority to define marriage than the courts do. Marriage is what God defined it to be, in the very beginning.
Did Cruz call for impeachment?
they should, however, be releasing the write-up and an explanation of their actions for the record.
The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.Article III, section 1
“Did Cruz call for impeachment?”
I believe he has before if memory serves me right.
Imagine the hand wringing if he got real vocal right now about it.
To the GOPE it is a third rail topic.
The Supreme Court has discretion to take this kind of case. The parties had a trial, and an appeal. Sometimes a justice who objects to denial of certiorari will pen a dissent. That is an unusual step.
I seem to recall a lot of polygamy in the Bible. Does that comport with your view of "what God defined it to be"?
I don't think that is a standard that we can craft our laws on. The founders could probably have created a theocracy, but their experience led them in a different direction.
I’m afraid the American people don’t believe Genesis or Isaiah or any of the other sixty-four books of the Bible come to think of it.
Every thing is a third rail topic to the GOPe.
They base their whole future on just going along to get along and the hope that enough people are disgusted with Obama enough to vote.
Obama is not running.
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.