CREDIT: AP
In the likely event that the Supreme Court brings marriage equality to all 50 states this summer, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) wants to strip the entire federal judiciary of its power to hear cases brought by same-sex couples seeking the right to marry, according to the Dallas Morning News.
Cruzs remarks came during a speech in Sioux City, Iowa, where the tea party senator also praised the original, more discrimination-friendly version of Indianas new religious liberty law, and claimed that a cabal of liberals and big business endorsed a radical gay marriage agenda which says that any person of faith is subject to persecution if they dare disagree with marriage equality.
Jurisdiction stripping is a controversial idea that has occasionally been proposed by social conservatives seeking to neuter court decisions that they disapprove of. In 1981, for example, lawmakers introduced a total of 22 bills seeking to remove the Supreme Courts power to hear cases involving prayer in the schools, abortion, school busing, a males-only draft and state court rulings. Reacting to Sen. Jesse Helmss (R-NC) proposal to eliminate the Courts authority to hear school prayer cases, Sen. Barry Goldwater (R-AZ) claimed that the bill was akin to outlawing the Supreme Court.
Yet, while successful court-stripping proposals are extraordinarily rare, and legal scholars disagree on whether stripping the Supreme Court of its full authority to hear an issue is even constitutional, there is a plausible legal argument supporting such proposals. The Constitution provides that [t]he 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. Thus, because lower federal courts are creations of Congress, federal lawmakers have the power to define the scope of these courts power, and a bill stripping lower federal courts of their authority to decide a question would most likely be constitutional.
Attacks on the Supreme Courts jurisdiction are more controversial, but they also have a plausible basis in the Constitutions text. According to Article III of the Constitution, in most cases, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make. Proponents of jurisdiction-stripping claim that this power to make exceptions to the justices jurisdiction includes the power to eliminate their power to decide certain questions.
Congress actually did engage in jurisdiction stripping on at least one occasion, and the Supreme Court upheld its decision to do so. During Reconstruction, a military commander jailed a newspaper publisher accused of publishing incendiary and libellous articles. Though the publisher sought an order from the Supreme Court requiring his release, Congress stripped the justices of jurisdiction to hear the matter in March of 1868. That December, a unanimous Court held in Ex parte McCardle held that this jurisdiction stripping bill bound the Court.
Yet, while Congress may have the technical legal authority to take up and pass Cruzs proposed bill, there are two reasons why Cruz may want to rethink his proposal. The first is, as I lay out in my book, Injustices: The Supreme Courts History of Comforting the Comfortable and Afflicting the Afflicted, the justices have historically been a great ally to men who think like Senator Cruz. If Cruz sets a precedent for using jurisdiction stripping bills to resolve a modern constitutional debate, he should not be surprised if a Democratic Congress invokes this precedent in the future to revive the Voting Rights Act, prevent enforcement of the Citizens United decision, restore access to birth control and, if necessary, insulate the Affordable Care Act from judicial challenge.
The second reason why lawmakers should be cautious of jurisdiction stripping generally is that such legislation could potentially cast the law into chaos. Suppose that the Supreme Court sides with marriage equality this June, for example, and that Congress responds by enacting Cruzs bill. If the Court loses jurisdiction over marriage equality cases, that will mean that it does not even have the power to rescind its previous decision supporting equality, which will mean that every judge in the country will remain bound by a decision of the highest Court in the land, even if that Court can no longer enforce its own decision.
Some judges are likely to decide, as Alabamas supreme court has suggested that it would, that they are free to go their own way from the Supreme Court of the United States. Other judges are likely to believe, correctly, that they are still bound by a higher Courts decision. In some states, lower court judges will be forced to decide between contradictory rulings from their state supreme court and the federal justices. In others, local officials will disagree, leading to a situation where a same-sex couples access to a particular right will hinge upon who runs the office that administers or enforces that right. Eventually, statewide officials may step in to resolve these conflicts, but it may not be clear who within the state the governor? the attorney general? the states highest court? has the power to do so. And even if one official does emerge as the dominant player in this struggle, their resolution of the issue could change if they are replaced in the next election.
In the likely event that the Supreme Court brings marriage equality to all 50 states this summer, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) wants to strip the entire federal
Republicans And A Christian Nation Ted Cruz Threatens ...
Republicans And A Christian Nation Ted Cruz Threatens To Take Away The Supreme Courts Power To Decide Marriage Equality Cases Have you ever
Ted Cruz and Kim Davis, true love forever: The right-wing ...
It is time for someone to explain the Constitution to Ted Cruz. The right-wing theocracy that threatens the to the Supreme Court,
Cruz To Take Away Supreme Court Decisions On Marriage Equaity
Cruz To Take Away Supreme Court to remove the Supreme Courts power to hear cases Ted Cruz on Recent Supreme Court
Ted Cruz - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Rafael Edward "Ted" Cruz (born December 22, 1970) is an American attorney and politician; he was elected in 2012 as the junior United States Senator from Texas
Sen. Ted Cruz Slams Obama Over Foiled Power Grabs
Sen. Ted Cruz Slams Obama Over Foiled Power The president also sought to take away property owners Cruz said. Another unanimous Supreme Court ruling
Ted Cruz: A Liberal Supreme Court Would Mean Sandblasting ...
Ted Cruz: A Liberal Supreme Court Would Mean want the Second Amendment taken away, it would take far more than five justices to nullify its power.
Ted Cruz: Regulating the Internet threatens ...
Ted Cruz: Regulating the Internet threatens if the government doesnt take those opportunities away in the form is a Washington Post
Lawbreaker Kim Davis and the lawless Ted Cruz - The ...
What Ted Cruz did was downright alarming. Our system of government gives the Supreme Court final say over Joe Davis threatens violence. When you lose
Cruz And Rubio Sign Amicus Brief Urging Supreme Court To ...
Republican presidential candidates Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas and Cruz And Rubio Sign Amicus Brief Urging Supreme Court repeatedly to take away