Yesterday the USSC declined to hear a number of, appellate level, cases all affirming the right of same-sex couples to be legally married in certain parts of the country. They passed no ruling stating a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, nor did they pass a ruling saying there was no such thing. They did nothing. It was a complete lack of activity on their part, no action was taken. Yet to Senator Cruz this was "judicial activism": http://www.cruz.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=1777 "This is judicial activism at its worst. The Constitution entrusts state legislatures, elected by the People, to define marriage consistent with the values and mores of their citizens. Unelected judges should not be imposing their policy preferences to subvert the considered judgments of democratically elected legislatures." ?? They didn't do anything. There was no "activity" therefore no "activism". They didn't impose any kind of policy. I can understand maybe Louie Gohmert saying something like this in passing as he read it off the side of a cornflakes packet but Sen. Cruz is supposed to be some kind of Princeton educated legal wunderkind and he has so far been given a pass by the press. I blame standards of journalistic integrity more than blaming Cruz for knowing he can state, get away with and potentially profit politically from this kind of nonsense. In many parts of the world with a free press a statement like this would be another "career ender" to go along with his other list of "triumphs"!
???? Whether it is a lowly district court or the Supreme Court of the US, both are equally capable of judicial activism. I dont think you comprehend the term.
I don't think you comprehend what happened here. The SCOTUS did not make a ruling they refused to take the cases, meaning the lower courts rulings stand. Each of those rulings started in state courts and worked up the chain of appeals. This is the essence of state rulings.
Cruz is just trying to pander to the Social Cons for his 2016 Presidential bid. If Rand Paul gets the libertarians....and Jeb Bush/Scott Walker get the Big Business Cons (and likely Neo-Cons).... then the only place for Cruz to draw votes from is Huckabee's Homophobes.
"judicial activism"- an interpretation of the U.S. constitution holding that the spirit of the times and the needs of the nation can legitimately influence judicial decisions (particularly decisions of the Supreme Court) Hmmm... Broad interpretation that could mean specific actions are activism or that no action at all could indeed be activism.
One thing Cruz sure knows how to do well is to pander to right-wingers with his own brand of 'activism' designed to marginalize Gay and Lesbian American citizens. Never mind trying to work to fix the real problems this nation is facing. As long as Cruz has a political agenda to destroy Equal protections for LGBT citizens that is his First and Only Priority next to having a government shutdown.
In all fairness, few in the GOP consider Cruz a serious player, ewe generally accept him as a pointless and often detrimental scourge.
You guys are assuming that Cruz is playing to a national audience and he isn't, he is playing to his constituents and they happen to want to hear this type of thing. I doubt that Cruz cares one iota what republicans in California think about his comments or anyone else for that matter. I highly doubt that Cruz is even considering running for the presidency so until and if he does, it should be remembered that he is simply securing his own job first.
I understand it better than you think. There was no opposing, appellate level, case to consider. If there had been, there might have been a question to review. Many would consider ruling on the cases without an opposing ruling to be real judicial activism.
I think we all get that but my point is why does this statement go unchallenged by the press? It would be an understandable mistake if he was previously a baker or an opera singer but he's a Princeton graduated mega-lawyer? He could have expressed dissatisfaction with the outcome without resorting to what is, essentially, a professional lie.
Such strong opinions regarding matters you don't have a clue about. Every one of them was a FEDERAL court decision
That's nice, regardless, whether its a lowly district court or the Supreme court, both are capable of judicial activism. That's the part you cant comprehend. Seemingly believing that judicial activism is only possible in the supreme court.
Because unlike you, most in the press know judicial activism can occur at all levels of the judicial process.
Yes they are. Yes I can, you're wrong sorry. I never said that. Ted Cruz saying that the Supreme Court's decision to pass on review was "judicial activism" is what I'm discussing here. "The Supreme Courts decision to let rulings by lower court judges stand that redefine marriage is both tragic and indefensible, said Sen. Cruz. By refusing to rule if the States can define marriage, the Supreme Court is abdicating its duty to uphold the Constitution. 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. This is judicial activism at its worst." I don't believe they had a clear choice. There were no opposing opinions for them to consider. Stepping in at this point would have been "judicial activism" IMO. If, in a few weeks, the 5th or 6th circuit offers a contradictory opinion then, no so much.
No he is not. The lower courts decision was the judicial activism that the supreme court just allowed to stand. Like he actually said.
...But it is totally fine for Cruz to push his brand of "legislative activism"...who is Cruz to define the role of the US Supreme Court?
