Cruz proposes requiring judges to face voters periodically

Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar to the right. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.

In response to this week’s decisions by the Supreme Court, Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) today proposed several laws and constitutional amendments, one of which would require judges to face the voters periodically and be removed if rejected.

Cruz’s analysis here is interesting in that he recognizes the right of Congress to impeach and remove judges, but also recognizes that this Congress, under this Republican leadership, just won’t do it. As he notes,

A Senate that cannot muster 51 votes to block an attorney-general nominee openly committed to continue an unprecedented course of executive-branch lawlessness can hardly be expected to muster the 67 votes needed to impeach an Anthony Kennedy.

He also correctly notes that if something isn’t done, the movement to amendment the Constitution using Article V convention of the states will likely gain momentum, something that we all know carries its own risks, including changing the Constitution in ways that are not beneficial.


  • Willi Kusche

    Convention of the States risky? It’s the only way to halt the way the Constitution is being modified by the Supremes and the inability of a gutless Congress to halt the predations of a Marxist President.

  • You might be right, but be careful what you wish for. Considering that a large plurality of today’s American population agrees with this Marxist President it would be difficult to predict what would happen if the Constitution was open for aggressive and easy changes.

    Remember too that the Democrats in the Senate this year proposed amending the first amendment to give them the right to limit speech. This amendment has also been endorsed by Hillary Clinton. Give them a convention of the states and anything can happen, including things that you and I definitely do not want.

  • Phill O

    It seems that your supreme court is acting like our (unelected) senate. Here it takes at least 10 years to be rid of the senators before the voting parliament actually has power.

    When the pesticide regs down there were modified, (which the chemical industry wanted) it was modified to a worse state.

    What I really wonder, is how much money changed hands to get the supreme court to render such decisions. In every other case, the legal system always interpret what the law is written, not how is was meant to be written. Total lawlessness on the part of the current power in the White House.

  • Willi Kusche

    “Give them” implies that either half of the Congress or the President would have influence over how the Convention of States would be conducted. Even if sufficient State legislatures send participants to a Convention and Amendments to the Constitution are actually agreed upon then such Amendment(s) must be ratified by 34(?) States. The Equal Rights Amendment, proposed by the Congress, which enjoyed lots of popular support, could not pass that test. That goofy Amendment, proposed by Democrat senators and endorsed by Hillary Clinton, wouldn’t even be proposed by a Convention of States, given that it’s likely that the Convention of States delegates would all be sent by legislatures controlled by Republicans. At least, so far.

  • I hope you are right. I remain I think justifiably concerned.

  • PeterF

    A convention of the states has no input from the Congress, the President, or the Supreme court. None of them have veto power either. They may scream and rant and pull dirty tricks to steer the outcome but I will trust in the judgement of a majority of three hundred million free citizens than the self centered rulings of our benevolent federal leaches.
    The state delegates will be much more accountable to the citizens of each state.

  • Cotour

    While a majority of the states are “controlled” by the Republicans lets all remember that the Democrats are more like the Borg than the Republicans and that advantage goes to the community organizer specialists which inhabit the Democrat party and in the end they win as evidenced by B. Obama being president and the events of the last couple of days.

    So they just may be looking for this opportunity to get in the mix and make America “as it should be”. Its a bit of a paranoid view because I truly believe that the vast majority of American people are of the more conservative nature, the wild cards? The young millenials and the potential of the Borg democrats that shape their emotional message so well.

    And making a distinction between the Republican leadership and the Democrat leadership is a distinction without a difference.

  • Cotour

    Just to be clear, if I had to choose one over the other I would choose gay marriage being “normalized” over the further entrenching of Obamacare. At least I can make and reasonable argument for that based on the individual being able to choose for themselves.

    I was listening to Betsy McCoey the other day, she is thee expert on Obamacare and she made the point that I am not hearing being talked about, the further empowering of the IRS by Obamacare. The IRS is being further empowered when it should be being diminished. That should be sending a chill through the population seeing how we can document how the IRS and its executives operate it. (Lois Learner)

    John Roberts and the existence of Obamacare I can not make any reasonable argument that it exists at all considering where it is suppose to be generated from based in the concepts and rules of the Constitution. The Chief judge has been empowered to make law based in his perverted opinion, agenda or beliefs and not in what he is charged with upholding. And that IMO is more than an outrage!

  • pzatchok

    Supposedly the SC also made an inside or outside or sideways ruling about federal agencies.

    Something to the effect that federal agencies like HUD and the department of ED can arbitrarily make up their own rules as they go along as long as they are not unduly restrictive ( I think those are the words he used in the ruling).

    This would further strengthen every federal department. It will turn each and every one into its own little fiefdom of power with no control from the president, congress or the people. We will have even less control that they we now.

    The ATF can make an arbitrary ruling that bullets are now a regulated item and there is NOTHING that anyone can do about it.
    The Department of education can make a ruling that parochial schools are no longer adequate and there is NOTHING anyone can do about it.
    HUD can make a ruling that you cannot sell your home to the highest bidder because there are not enough minorities in the area so you must take the best bid from a minority.

    That is were the real power lays.
    Once a federal agency is headed by an activist liberal they can appoint all the state office holders.
    How many of you have ever noticed that an office soon takes on all the aspects of the head of that office.
    Everyone with any power in the office tends to be exactly like the ruler of the office.

    How many of our agencies are headed by conservatives?

  • Pzatchok

    I think we need a whole new system of appointing federal judges.

    I think districts should be regulated by population size and state boundaries. ( the 9th court would no longer take up the whole of the west coast)

    District judges would be appointed by the governors of their areas and confirmed by the state legislature. Term limits sort of apply. They need to go through a renomination each 5 years.

    The SC nominees can then only be pulled from the federal district courts. And each could go through a renomination every ten years.

    This way every federal judge would go through several vetting steps through out their career. All done by elected officials of the people they directly work for.

    When the SC was started they were not expected to live longer than ten years in office anyways.

  • Max

    Utah is the most conservative state in the nation. The Liberals, gays and lesbians have all been elected by pretending to be Republicans. They were over whelmed with joy of the recent court rulings. They have stated in the past, should there be a constitutional convention, they would right the wrongs of the founding fathers in the negative liberties of the Constitution. They fly back east and meet with other legislators often. The new constitution has already been drafted…

  • Tom

    2/3 of the States (34 ) are needed to call an Article 5 Convention . 3/4(38) of the States need to approve new amendments. I understand Robert Zimmerman’s concerns about a run away convention .However I believe the scope of the convention can be limited to address specific amendments .

  • Cotour

    Polygamy now OK, beastiality only limited by the ability of humans to establish consent ?

    Can CoCo the gorilla who has a vocabulary of over 2000 words and clearly can communicate with humans give consent ? When will technology be able to reliably establish “consent” in lower animals ?

    Ah, the slippery slope has arrived ! We have both moved ahead and backwards in the same moment. An open ended political / intellectual paradox that will keep lawyers well employed for the next several hundred years.

    (Yes, I am having fun with this, but you know eventually it has the potential to become reality)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *