What Fresh Hell Is This?

April 6, 2016

Rafael Edward "Ted" Cruz On Abortion, Marriage Equality

Now that the Canadian-born Rafael Edward "Ted" Cruz won the Wisconsin primary, we might want to take a closer look at how the leading non-Trump in the race on the GOP side deals with some of our nation's issues.

For example, this one:
Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz told Fox News host Megyn Kelly on Monday that he did not support abortion rights even in the case of rape or incest because it was not “the child’s fault.”
And this one:
In an interview with influential social conservative commentator Robert George on the Catholic television network EWTN last month, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, said that the president should defy the Supreme Court’s “fundamentally illegitimate” decision striking down bans on same-sex marriage, which he compared to “Nazi decrees.”

George, the co-founder of the National Organization for Marriage and a mentor of Cruz’s, likened the court’s “tragic mistake” in Obergefell to infamous Supreme Court decisions including Dred Scott, asking Cruz, “Was Lincoln right to defy the court on [Dred Scott] and would you, as president, do that with the Obergefell decision?”

“Lincoln was absolutely right, I agree with President Lincoln,” Cruz responded. “And courts do not make law. That is not what a court does. A court interprets the law, a court applies the law, but courts don’t make law.”

Saying that it is “profoundly wrong” to refer to the gay marriage decision as the law of the land, Cruz said, “I think the decision was fundamentally illegitimate, it was lawless, it was not based on the Constitution.”
Except that the Supreme Court said it was.  And they should know.  They're the Supreme Court.

This is the guy that's gonna save the GOP from the oncoming Trump trainwreck. 

8 comments:

Omega Supreme said...

Except that the Supreme Court said it was. And they should know. They're the Supreme Court.
Except in the Cases of Citizen's United and Heller/McDonald.

Appeal to Authority

Ol' Froth said...

Please point to examples where Democratic elected official or candidates is advocating for governmental defiance of Citizen's United or Heller. Sure, you can find advocating for Constitutional amendments or possible repeal in the future by a more liberal court, but not defiance.

Omega Supreme said...

Not only advocating but actually doing it
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/03/21/supreme-court-zaps-massachusetts-stun-gun-opinion/
"Today, in Caetano v. Massachusetts, the Supreme Court vacated a decision by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts that had concluded that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms does not apply to stun guns. The Court’s per curiam opinion scolded the Massachusetts court for its failure to apply the proper legal tests under D.C. v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago, and quite rightly so."

Washington, D.C., defies the Supreme Court's Second Amendment ruling.
http://reason.com/archives/2008/07/23/excuse-me-while-i-get-my-gun
HYPOCRISY from the Left- Contempt for Davis but Not DC?
http://www.cardenchronicles.com/2015/09/hypocrisy-from-left-contempt-for-davis.html

Ol' Froth said...

Ummm, how is that defiance? The Caetano decision is the first time the Court ruled that the 2nd Amendment applied to stun guns. Try again.

Omega Supreme said...

"scolded the Massachusetts court for its failure to apply the proper legal tests under D.C. v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago"

Just ignore the actions of Washington DC.

Ol' Froth said...

Again, that is not defiance. Defiance, in the context of Cruz's comments would be the President ignoring the Court's ruling, not a lower court misinterpreting the higher court's decision. I haven't read the Heller decision in its entirety, but Heller dealt with the possession of firearms. How a court is supposed to reason that it also applies to electronic stun/compliance weapons isn't entirely clear. As I typed, show me a Democratic politician advocating that the President ignore a court ruling.

Omega Supreme said...

How a court is supposed to reason
The Common use test of Miller.
But Ignorance of law does not apply to Government agents.

OT Rant
"electronic stun/compliance weapons"
compliance weapons? compliance weapons? more like torture weapons to show the citizen/subject command presence.
Tell a cop he is wrong about the law and get tased.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/texas-officer-fired-video-tasing-76-year-old-man-article-1.2066895

Ol' Froth said...

Ummmm..its not about the police use of these weapons (although, I fully agree that too many officers are far to quick to use them, but remember, the alternative to the taser is to strike with a baton)its about the publics use of them. Also, passing a law that fails to meet Constitiutional muster is not defiance. Defiance is the failure to comply with a decision once rendered. The example you give simply doesn't fit. And why are you bringing Miller into it? Tasers are not in "common use" by the public. http://uknowledge.uky.edu/law_facpub/265/ Try again.