Ted Cruz's Own Hometown is Embarrassed of Him

[drillsgt]

Of course you're entitled to your beliefs, but belief alone doesn't matter whatsoever in the legal sense unless you take it up as a case in SCOTUS, and have a legal ruling made. Don't believe something is Constitutional? Then challenge it in SCOTUS, but in the end it is SCOTUS that determines Constitutionality.

The Court and Constitutional Interpretation - Supreme Court of the United States
"Madison had written that constitutional interpretation must be left to the reasoned judgment of independent judges, rather than to the tumult and conflict of the political process. If every constitutional question were to be decided by public political bargaining, Madison argued, the Constitution would be reduced to a battleground of competing factions, political passion and partisan spirit."

Good luck finding one of those anymore.

 

[cobber]

Of course you're entitled to your beliefs, but belief alone doesn't matter whatsoever in the legal sense unless you take it up as a case in SCOTUS, and have a legal ruling made. Don't believe something is Constitutional? Then challenge it in SCOTUS, but in the end it is SCOTUS that determines Constitutionality.

True, except for the fact that the SCOTUS created their power of constitutional review out of whole cloth.


I'm not totally convinced the founders viewed the Court anything like the way Marshall interpreted it. As Justice Hughes stated:

While the function of judicial review is not explicitly provided in the Constitution, it had been anticipated before the adoption of that document. Prior to 1789, state courts had already overturned legislative acts which conflicted with state constitutions. Moreover, many of the Founding Fathers expected the Supreme Court to assume this role in regard to the Constitution; Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, for example, had underlined the importance of judicial review in the Federalist Papers, which urged adoption of the Constitution.

The use of the passive construction "it had been anticipated" is hardly convincing, and if the principle was recognized by Hamilton and Madison, why didn't they define judicial powers as encompassing both original and appellate jurisdiction. This reasoning smacks of the penumbras of 1972.

Furthermore, if the courts were intended to be an equal player with Congress, empowered to void acts of the Legislative and Executive branches, then why would the Founders have provided that:

The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

Why would the inferior courts not have been established by the Constitution, along the lines of existing State systems, if the concept of judicial power truly mirrored the State courts as claimed by Hughes (for one example).

Prior to 1789, state courts had already overturned legislative acts which conflicted with state constitutions.

The necessity of the function was manifest in 1789, and there were extant structures. So why would the Founders NOT have explicitly spelled this out, if this had been their intent?

Too many inferences, deductions and WAGs here, considering we're talking about the fundamental law of the US.

Marbury v. Madison is not in my top ten of SCOTUS decisions. A position I think Andy Jackson might agree with.

"...the decision of the Supreme Court has fell still born, and they find that they cannot coerce Georgia to yield to its mandate"

 

[Blackhawk2001]

I did notice on television yesterday that Sen. Cruz got a warm reception from what looked like a sizable throng of supporters in Texas. Kinda belies the (false) supposition of the OP, doesn't it?

 

[jamil]

I did notice on television yesterday that Sen. Cruz got a warm reception from what looked like a sizable throng of supporters in Texas. Kinda belies the (false) supposition of the OP, doesn't it?

But narrative is so much more imortant than reality.

 

[KG1]

I did notice on television yesterday that Sen. Cruz got a warm reception from what looked like a sizable throng of supporters in Texas. Kinda belies the (false) supposition of the OP, doesn't it?

You mean something like this?

speaking to a crowd of about 750 people in a packed downtown San Antonio hotel ballroom. Cruz was greeted with an eight-minute standing ovation in an appearance organized by the Texas Federation of Republican Women.

Yahoo News Canada - Latest News & Headlines

 

[88GT]

You mean something like this? Yahoo News Canada - Latest News & Headlines

That's the standard Texas "We're embarrassed by you" ovation. The "We love you" ovation is 15 minutes long, you know, Texas-sized.

 

[KG1]

That's the standard Texas "We're embarrassed by you" ovation. The "We love you" ovation is 15 minutes long, you know, Texas-sized.

Yeah. I wonder how many people turned their backs to him while they were giving him the ovation?

 

[UncleMike]

WHEW!!!!
That took a while but I read all 23 pages of this thread.
I've made the following observations.
The number of lefty trolls on this site has grown at a pace commensurate with the increasing fear of the likes of Ted Cruz and Sarah Palin as the 2014 Elections draw nearer.
Strong people are the ultimate fear of the weak minded Democrats and their Liberal masters.
Any one self confident enough to challenge the "Establishment", in this case McCain et al, are a threat to the continues ability of the Left to manipulate the weak minded voters who put them in office.
Arguing with the troll types here just gives their already overinflated egos more food to grow on.
SO.....
I am taking the following steps to insure that my time isn't wasted by any more of these types of counter productive threads.
All of the obvious followers of the Liberal path here will be placed on my Ignore list.
If I'd wanted to read crap from uninformed people I'd subscribe to Wa/PO, LA times, or any of the other rags that claim to be news media when in fact they are nothing but propaganda tools for Ms Jarrett and her puppet President Barry Soetero.
I urge my fellow Conservative INGO Members to do likewise.
If no one answers the trolls they will soon tire of talking among themselves and go away.
Think of it as ignoring them to death.

 

[CarmelHP]

Yes, that would be Impeachment. However my comment that you quoted refers to ".. the power of removal is incident to the power of appointment, ..." Myers v. United States. This addresses issues of less than good judicial behavior that do not rise to the level of High Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Impeachment is the only removal option specified, and the only used, for federal judges. "Misdemeanor," in this context, means "misdeed," its old definition. Judges have been impeached, and convicted, for "bringing the judiciary into disrepute, (Judge Ritter, 1933) even after being acquitted of criminal charges by the Senate. Judge English (1926) was impeached for "abusive treatment of lawyers and litigants," but resigned before his Senate trial. Judge Bruin (1808) was charged with "neglect of duty and drunkenness on the bench." The definition is expansive.

 

[CarmelHP]

WHEW!!!!

The number of lefty trolls on this site has grown at a pace commensurate with the increasing fear of the likes of Ted Cruz and Sarah Palin as the 2014 Elections draw nearer.
Strong people are the ultimate fear of the weak minded Democrats and their Liberal masters.

Don't you wonder why Democrat Underground is so focused on INGO? It must be some threat to garner so much attention and effort. They come here, announce their disdain for the Hoosierdom's great unwashed and gun owners in general, and expect some different reception?

 

[UncleMike]

Don't you wonder why Democrat Underground is so focused on INGO? It must be some threat to garner so much attention and effort. They come here, announce their disdain for the Hoosierdom's great unwashed and gun owners in general, and expect some different reception?

It's not surprising.
They've been here since the 2008 election campaign when they posted that they were going to infiltrate Conservative sites, especially those with a Second Amendment leanings, and sow dissent among the Members in order to attempt to destroy the site.
Having no shame, morals, or pride in Country they can't possibly understand our desire to keep this nation free of the slimy claws of Socialism.
They continue to argue because they expect us to cave in and kowtow to the weak kneed Liberal/Rhino Politicians who don't give a rats behind for those of us who do the working, paying, living, and dying in America.
Fortunately they also underestimate the resolve of Conservatives.
The Tea Party, and the Representatives elected by them, are a threat to the Socialists and they will stop at nothing to belittle and demean them.
Their rantings and a sure sign of their desperation to remove that threat.
It's not gonna happen.......

 

[Bummer]

Impeachment is the only removal option specified, and the only used, for federal judges.

Yes it is. It is not, however, the only means conceivable. "the power or removal is incident to the power of appointment,..." (Myers v. United States) Since the Congress is authorized to pass laws required to accomplish those things they are authorized to do, they may obviously create other means to deal with an errant judiciary. Of course that would only be necessary if they wanted to handle issues of bad behavior in a single chamber.

In the end, I don't care how they do it. I also don't think they will do it, since they benefit from the bad behavior of the Supreme Court. So much for checks and balances.

"Misdemeanor," in this context, means "misdeed," its old definition.

I do love looking up the original meanings. They don't so much change the meaning of the Constitution as explain it. Look at the clarification of the "Commerce Clause" possible when one looks at the original meanings.

Judges have been impeached, and convicted, for "bringing the judiciary into disrepute, (Judge Ritter, 1933) even after being acquitted of criminal charges by the Senate. Judge English (1926) was impeached for "abusive treatment of lawyers and litigants," but resigned before his Senate trial. Judge Bruin (1808) was charged with "neglect of duty and drunkenness on the bench." The definition is expansive.

I'm surprised you left out Justice Samuel Chase. Was that because he was impeached, but not convicted?

It seems to me that since Chase's impeachment is said to have led to a period wherein the judiciary as a whole were much more cautious about showing political partisanship we could stand to have that happen again.

 

[Rhoadmar]

Of course you're entitled to your beliefs, but belief alone doesn't matter whatsoever in the legal sense unless you take it up as a case in SCOTUS, and have a legal ruling made. Don't believe something is Constitutional? Then challenge it in SCOTUS, but in the end it is SCOTUS that determines Constitutionality.

The Court and Constitutional Interpretation - Supreme Court of the United States
"Madison had written that constitutional interpretation must be left to the reasoned judgment of independent judges, rather than to the tumult and conflict of the political process. If every constitutional question were to be decided by public political bargaining, Madison argued, the Constitution would be reduced to a battleground of competing factions, political passion and partisan spirit."

"whether or not being required to purchase a product solely because I am a citizen"
How is this constitutional?

 

[Hohn]

Nope, I just felt like showing just how little support he has, bearing in mind that there's more than a few on here who seem to think people are in love with him right now.

The editorial of the Houston Chronicle is your measure of popular support for the man?