That settles it: Ted Cruz is my least favorite of the 100 men and women who serve in the U.S. Senate.
Why the additional scorn? Well, the freshman Republican from Texas said this about the Supreme Court’s decision to refuse to review state laws banning same-sex marriage:
“This is judicial activism at its worst.”
OK, he said some other stuff too in criticizing the high court. He accused the justices of “abdicating its duty to uphold the Constitution.”
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/10/ted-cruz-supreme-court-gay-marriage-111655.html?hp=l7
Judicial activism, eh?
I think I can come up with at least one greater example of judicial activism perpetrated on this nation by the Roberts Court, one of the more so-called “conservative” courts in the nation’s history. Let’s try the Citizens United case.
Remember that one, Ted? That’s the case that determined that corporations are people, too — to borrow Mitt Romney’s (in)famous phrase during the 2012 presidential campaign. The court decided to let corporations spend all the money they wanted on political campaigns, just like regular folks. It determined that multi-zillion-dollar business interests have as much say in determining who gets elected as poor schleps like me who might want to write a $20 check to the candidate of my choice.
So, if you’re a candidate who then gets elected, who are you going to listen to more intently: the mega corporation or the individual contributor?
That, Sen. Cruz, is how I would define judicial activism.
This label often is used by conservatives to rip apart liberal judicial rulings. These critics, such as Cruz, ignore at their peril their own brand of judicial activism.
The Roberts Court showed it can be as activist as, say, the Warren Court was in the 1950s.
Cruz surely knows this.
A dear friend of mine who visited my wife and me this past weekend served in government and journalism for more than 40 years. He said of Cruz, who he described as “smart as they come”:
“Intelligence is inherited. Wisdom must be earned.”