As has been widely discussed and observed these past eight years, for better or worse, social issues have received a great amount of attention on the GOP platform with disastrous results: two lost presidential elections. Instead of seeing this ruling as an opportunity to focus on other issues, many continue to beat this dead horse. To quote Ted Cruz (via TPM):
"Today is some of the darkest 24 hours in our nation’s history"Yes you read that right. Ted Cruz just lumped the rulings on gay marriage and Obamacare in with some of the darkest moments in American history. Be it Washington having to grapple whether this great republic he fought so hard for might be torn asunder amidst the Shays and Whiskey rebellions, or Madison having to yield the White House to the destruction wrought by advancing British troops during the War of 1812, or the country reacting to the casualties of America's bloodiest day at Antietam, or you know, that whole "date which will live in infamy" thing that Roosevelt talked about. Indeed, gay marriage being announced as legal across the United States is truly the harbinger of doom that was Antietam, Pearl Harbor, September 11th and whatever other dark or troubled day in American history you can recall from your 10th grade history class.
The main issue with Cruz's comments are that they are hyperbole to an absurd degree and for a serious presidential candidate with a strong following, this is cause for concern. If the Republican Party cannot grasp what an opportunity this is, it will be another loss in 2016. Sadly, Cruz did not stop there in his criticism with the ruling and even went so far into posing constitutional changes to ensure something like this does not occur again (via The National Review):
"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."Having such an extreme reaction to a ruling comes off as petty and childish. The main problem with Cruz's remarks is that he, like his Republican cohorts, often invoke the mantra of upholding the constitution in their rhetoric to the masses. From Cruz's own website:
"As a member of the Judiciary Committee, Sen. Cruz is dedicated to upholding the rule of law and preserving the Constitution."I find it ironic that someone who is so dedicated to "preserving the constitution" is more than willing to change it after a ruling from the Supreme Court. It is hypocrisy at its finest as, you can't harp on preserving something and then later wanting to change it on a whim.
In his very long diatribe, Cruz labels the justices as "individual lawless judges." This choice of language is amusing as one of these "lawless judges" who appears to be bearing the brunt of the criticism for this ruling and for writing the opinion on it, Justice Kennedy, has made very many rulings that Cruz has naturally agreed with.
Kennedy voted in the majority for the Hobby Lobby ruling, Citizens United, and against Washington DC's gun ban. Also, just this week, he voted in the majority to rule against the EPA. So this is a judge that rules for religious freedom in Hobby Lobby, freedom of speech in Citizens United, and for the Second Amendment in District of Columbia v. Heller, all conservative talking points, and he gets labelled as one of the "individual lawless judges?" The Hobby Lobby and Citizen United rulings were also contentious, but those on the right such as Cruz held their tongues as these now "lawless judges" ruled in their favor.
Naturally Ted Cruz had no issue with any of the aforementioned rulings (the Hobby Lobby ruling is also specifically mentioned on his website) and now he wants to completely change the nature of the Supreme Court over a ruling or two that didn't go his way? Such is a reaction of a child smashing their failed science project, not of a grown man, a former attorney general of Texas (the current one doesn't fall far from the tree, either), and one of our nation's 100 Senators. Someone who speaks so passionately about the constitution shouldn't be so willing to change it, especially when many recent rulings have gone his way.
Even more absurd, there is no guarantee Cruz's harebrained scheme would even work. It would just subject the judges to the political whims of the time and going with the GOP's recent track record on the national stage, it is safe to say things wouldn't change much at all. There is also an ebb and flow with public sentiment and the political climate that Cruz is conveniently forgetting about. A conservative leaning judge would be at the behest of a liberal majority and vice versa. All it would do is to further politicize our justices and as has been proven on the local and state levels, politicizing the judiciary creates dubious and often questionable scenarios.
Perhaps the best illustration of just how absurd the reactions are to the ruling on gay marriage is the current phenomenon of county clerks now refusing to issue marriage licenses to gay couples on the grounds of religious freedom. In 2008, an appeals court struck down the appeal of Muslim cab drivers in Minnesota to deny service to any customer carrying alcohol, on the grounds of religious freedom. So we have small town conservatives sharing the same logically shaky ground as Muslim fundamentalists. I guess it is as they say, politics does make for strange bedfellows.
I do not remember conservative Christians marching arm-in-arm with Muslims down main street in St. Paul shouting for the right to discriminate derived from religious freedom. Because it didn't happen. We know this because the same Christians invoking the religious freedom argument to deny gay couples a marriage certificate definitely don't support the cause of Muslim cab drivers using the same argument to discriminate against largely Christian Americans carrying alcohol.
Much like that of Cruz, these reactions are petty. If Republicans, be it a serious 2016 contender like Ted Cruz or many of the rank-and-file such as these county clerks, cannot move along on an issue like gay marriage, one that has no affect on the economy, tax reform, ensuring sound markets, or other conservative tenets, it poses major questions for the party's viability in 2016 and beyond.
References:
http://www.salon.com/2015/06/29/the_6_most_hysterical_right_wing_responses_to_scotus_same_sex_marriage_ruling_partner/
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ted-cruz-hannity-darkest-days-scotus
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/420409/ted-cruz-supreme-court-constitutional-amendment
http://www.cruz.senate.gov/?p=issue&id=32
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burwell_v._Hobby_Lobby_Stores,_Inc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2015/06/29/paxton-state-workers-can-deny-marriage-licenses-same-sex-couples/29456745/
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/03/judicial-elections-fundraising-115503.html#.VZYZyvlVhBd
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/religion/2008-09-09-muslim-taxis_N.htm
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/07/republicans-gay-marriage-angry-119711.html#.VZaPa_lVhBd
