QUOTE:
Judicial retention elections have worked in states across America; they will work for America. In order to provide the people themselves with a constitutional remedy to the problem of judicial activism and the means for throwing off judicial tyrants, I am proposing an amendment to the United States Constitution that would subject the justices of the Supreme Court to periodic judicial-retention elections. Every justice, beginning with the second national election after his or her appointment, will answer to the American people and the states in a retention election every eight years. Those justices deemed unfit for retention by both a majority of the American people as a whole and by majorities of the electorates in at least half of the 50 states will be removed from office and disqualified from future service on the Court.
[By: Ted Cruz, June 26, 2015]
[source:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/420409/ted-cruz-supreme-court-constitutional-amendment]
:UNQUOTE.
Senator Cruz makes this proposal since he knows that the Constitutionally provided method of impeachment won't work against members of the High Court. He might well be right about this, since I haven't heard of even one single GOP member of the House having introduced an impeachment measure against (say) Justice Kennedy.
Cruz's proposal might fire up his supporters but surely has no chance of being ratified. It sounds too much like a measure intended to pass the buck to the voters, so that Congress won't have to immerse itself in a messy impeachment proceeding. However, that's its job - or one of them. If Cruz is saying, in effect, that Congress won't do its job - even in the face of undeniable judicial tyranny - then we're in worse trouble than generally imagined.
Cruz will get a lot of mileage out of his proposal. But I think he could get a lot more mileage from a proposal I'd posted just yesterday:
http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2015/06/open-letter-to-gop-candidates.html
However, I doubt Cruz will change his mind. It's hard to change one's mind about an amendment one had proposed only a few days ago. Maybe he'll change his mind about one very important thing: Using his real name - which is Raphael. He was named after his father but presents himself as Ted. Even though he never had his name legally changed. Since he abandoned the name of his father, I think he's really a self-hating Hispanic.
A man who won't go by his own name is not a man to be trusted - but I guess you already knew that.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Steven Searle, just another member of
the Virtual Samgha of the Lotus and
Former Candidate for USA President (in 2008 & 2012)
Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com
