Cruz: Disagreeing With Me is Not ‘Good Behavior’

The Constitution requires that federal judges be appointed for life, the only restriction being that they serve “during good behavior.” We have virtually never impeached a federal judge in this country, but Ted Cruz seems to think that “good behavior” means agreeing with him.

CRUZ: The other check that the framers put to judicial tyranny was the power of impeachment. Under the Constitution, judges and justices serve during good behavior. By no measure is this good behavior. But here is the sad reality, a Senate that is willing to confirm Loretta Lynch, an attorney general who told the Senate she won’t follow the law and won’t follow the Constitution, there’s no universe in which this United States Senate, with this leadership, would be willing to marshal 67 votes to impeach Justice Kennedy.

HANNITY: I think you can add [Chief Justice] John Roberts to the list, myself. But that’s my own personal opinion. He’s the one that promised to call balls and strikes isn’t he?

Oh yes, it’s right there in the footnotes of the Constitution: “Ruling in a way that Ted Cruz disagrees with does not constitute good behavior.” He’s like a parent scolding a child for defying him. And hell no, there aren’t 67 votes in the Senate to impeach him, nor should there be. The entire purpose of appointing judges for life was to insulate them from this kind of political backlash so they could be beholden only to the Constitution and not to elected officials trying to score political points.

And then there’s this ridiculous claim:

HANNITY: Senator Ted Cruz is with us. How are you, Senator?

CRUZ: Sean, how are you doing? Today is some of the darkest 24 hours in our nation’s history.

Yes, of course. When gay people achieve one small measure of equality after decades, centuries, of oppression and brutality, that is a very dark day, but only for bigots like Cruz. He actually thinks it ranks up there with the burning of the White House, the bombing of Pearl Harbor, 9/11, the Civil War and other terrible events. That speaks volumes.

"Keeping Nazis from having sex is a laudable goal"

Cernovich: Charlottesville was Government Plot to ..."
"Cernovich the ladies’ man “Those torches—why do they want you to carry torches? So they ..."

Cernovich: Charlottesville was Government Plot to ..."
"Trump read someone else’s words The young men and women we send to fight our ..."

Breaking Down Trump’s Afghanistan Speech
"I can think of a lot of worse uses for my tax dollars than keeping ..."

Cernovich: Charlottesville was Government Plot to ..."
Follow Us!
POPULAR AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • http://www.facebook.com/jim.g.phynn Jim Phynn

    When did Lynch say she wouldn’t follow the law and the constitution? I must’ve missed that part of her hearings…

  • RickR

    Ted Cruz and Sean Hannity: Who has the most punchable face?

    [ X ] Sean

    [ X ] Teddy

    Yes, it’s a trick question.

  • John Pieret

    When did Lynch say she wouldn’t follow the law and the constitution?

    It is the wingnut version of the law and Constitution, which basically says if I don’t like it, then it is neither legal nor constitutional. It’s one footnote down from the one that says it is an impeachable “high crime or misdemeanor” to rule in a way that Ted Cruz disagrees with.

  • http://artk.typepad.com ArtK

    @Jim Phynn,

    That’s the Conservative Constitution™, the one that Jesus handed down to George Washington on Mount Ararat. The laws are the ones in Ted’s head.

    Which leads me to this, Ed: You’ve said, repeatedly, that Ted Cruz is a “brilliant constitutional scholar” (or words to that effect.) His professors at Harvard have said similar things. I have to ask, though, what good is that when he constantly bleats nonsensical and unconstitutional things like this? At what point does his current behavior wipe out any honor he might have earned as a student?

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    ArtK “Which leads me to this, Ed: You’ve said, repeatedly, that Ted Cruz is a “brilliant constitutional scholar” (or words to that effect.) His professors at Harvard have said similar things. I have to ask, though, what good is that when he constantly bleats nonsensical and unconstitutional things like this?”

    Well, sure, but Harvard professors have precious little overlap with Republican party primary voters. Here, let me draw you a Venn diagram…

  • D. C. Sessions

    At what point does his current behavior wipe out any honor he might have earned as a student?

    Long ago — but we’re not saying he’s brilliant to honor him, we’re saying it as a warning that he might act stupid but it would be really, really, foolish for us to act on that appearance.

  • theDukedog7 .

    Lying about the constitution is very bad behavior for a supreme court “justice”. The SSM ruling is a lie–there is no constitutional right to gay marriage.

    The five “justices” should be impeached and removed, and then criminally prosecuted for violation of section 242 of title 18 of federal law–deprivation of rights under color of law. The constitutional right of American citizens to democratic government has been blatantly violated by these bastards, and there is recourse.

    http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/crm/242fin.php

    These “justices” are criminals.

  • http://twitter.com/#!/TabbyLavalamp Tabby Lavalamp

    Oh, I don’t think the burning of the White House was all that terrible! Heck, it’s my patriotic duty to remember that fateful day in 1814 and shout “HURRAH! God bless the Queen!”

  • RickR

    Then you’d better get busy with that, Egnor.

  • http://twitter.com/#!/TabbyLavalamp Tabby Lavalamp

    So, Dukedog… You’re saying that according to your constitution, some people born or naturalized in your country are more fully citizens than others?

  • D. C. Sessions

    The SSM ruling is a lie–there is no constitutional right to gay marriage.

    Technically correct: the Constitution doesn’t address marriage at all. Among a very, very long list of things it doesn’t address, in fact. Electronics, for instance.

    So?

  • StevoR

    @ Duke’s Dog’s Shit – LOL :

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rX7wtNOkuHo

    Your side lost and lost bad. Sore loser much?

  • Rowan vet-tech

    Dukedog… is there a constitutional right to marriage at all? Can you please link me directly to where it says we have a right to marriage?

  • Rowan vet-tech

    I’m asking that honestly… if a bit lazily. I’ve got kittens with ringworm to deal with, as well as a massive headache.

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    theDukedog7’s right. These “justices” are criminals. Roberts “lost” a bunch of evidence related to my trial for me. I get my pot from Alito. Plus, Ruth Bader Ginsburg killed a guy after I asked her to. Didn’t even ask for money for doing it, either. She’s like The Littlest Hobo with a Shotgun.

  • http://Www.metalmischief.com YOB – Ye Olde Blacksmith (Social Justice Support Person)

    there is no constitutional right to gay marriage

    FTFY

    You’re welcome.

    Asshat.

  • http://Www.metalmischief.com YOB – Ye Olde Blacksmith (Social Justice Support Person)

    Derp. Borked the blockquote. Moar coffee, stat!

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    Rowan vet-tech “I’ve got kittens with ringworm to deal with, as well as a massive headache.”

    Don’t leave us hanging! The kittens have ringworm, what’s the massive headache got? Also,

     

    “…kittens with ringworm…”

    Band name!

  • D. C. Sessions

    It appears that Egnor feels — but won’t admit that he feels — that Loving v Virginia was wrongly decided and all nine of the Justices of that Court should have been impeached and prosecuted.

  • thomasmorris

    I’ve had quite a few Mormon friends and family members freaking out on Facebook and declaring that June 26th will be remembered as one of “the darkest days in American history” (and even noting its proximity to June 27, the day Joseph Smith was killed.) When slightly cooler heads brought up genuinely awful things like, you know, Pearl Harbor and Vietnam and 9/11 and suggested that the “worst day ever” rhetoric might be a bit hyperbolic (and offensive), the original commenters doubled down and declared the Supreme Court’s decision even worse than those atrocities because (I kid you not) “Jesus wasn’t a pacifist.”

    (To be fair, some of my other Mormon friends have reacted much more reasonably, and a surprising number of them are even in favor of it.)

  • Hoosier X

    dukedog,

    I read the whole Constitution and I couldn’t find “it’s Adam and EVE. not Adam and STEVE!” anywhere,

    I did find this:

    We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States of America.

    Most relevant clauses are in bold.

    I’m trying to remember the last time a liberal called for the arrest or impeachment of a conservative Supreme Court justice just because he issued a controversial decision.

  • Rowan vet-tech

    Modus… the headache has nothing, other than massiveness. It’s just there, occupying half my house! I can’t even reach the kitchen because the blasted thing is in the way!

    Maybe if I give it ringworm, it’ll go away?

  • theDukedog7 .

    Loving v Virginia was certainly the right moral outcome–I detest racism and anti-miscegenation laws, which are an affront to human dignity. That is why I detest the Democrat party, which is the party of slavery and segregation and anti-miscegentation laws. The Democrat party uses race and hatred to gain political power. It’s still using it, just in a somewhat different way. If racism and fear and hate went away, Democrats would never win another national election. They need to keep the racial fear and hate ginned up, which is what they’re doing in Fergusen and Baltimore.

    It seems clear now the Loving decision, although it was absolutely morally right, lacked solid basis in the constitution. Anti-micegentation laws do apply to all races, and therefore don’t violate the equal protection clause. The fact that they are motived by racism–which is despicable– does not make them unconstitutional, just abhorrent.

    News to Democrat assholes–“unconstitutional” does not mean “everthing I don’t like”.

  • D. C. Sessions

    So, yes, you feel that Loving was wrongly decided and that the entire Court should have been impeached and imprisoned.

    All the rest is just smokescreen for that fact.

  • Rowan vet-tech

    News to DukeDog: same atcha.

    So, I went and looked up the constitution myself. I searched for the words ‘marry’ and ‘marriage’. Neither of which appear.

    Because there is no constitutional right to marriage at all, therefore there is nothing unconstitutional about homosexuals being able to marry.

  • Hoosier X

    I believe that if you really detested racism, you would have better information on its history and causes.

  • theguy

    LieDog –

    “I detest racism and anti-miscegenation laws”

    No you don’t.

    “That is why I detest the Democrat party”

    No, you hate the Democratic because you are a bigoted piece of shit.

    “The Democrat party uses race and hatred to gain political power”

    You just suggested impeaching and convicting the Justices who voted for gay marriage. Hatred – it’s the only emotion you feel, isn’t it?

    “They need to keep the racial fear and hate ginned up, which is what they’re doing in Fergusen and Baltimore.”

    No, it’s the Repubes who use racial hate to justify the killing of unarmed black men in Ferguson, Baltimore, and a hundred other cases.

    “Anti-micegentation laws do apply to all races, and therefore don’t violate the equal protection clause.”

    You’re wrong, you racist piece of shit. Anti-miscegenation laws restrict everyone’s freedom to marry a person of a different race. Also, learn to spell, dumbs hit.

    “‘unconstitutional’ does not mean ‘everthing I don’t like’”.

    Again, dipshit, learn how to spell. You clearly do believe that everything you don’t like is unconstitutional, given your psychotic plan to impeach and convict Justices who rule the way you don’t like, merely because they didn’t conform to your bigoted religious views.

  • Hercules Grytpype-Thynne

    @Modusoperandi

    “…kittens with ringworm…”

    Band name!

    Was “Massive Headache” already taken?

  • http://Www.metalmischief.com YOB – Ye Olde Blacksmith (Social Justice Support Person)

    ensure domestic tranquility

    Mandatory divorces for all! It’s the only way to be sure (and constitutional).

  • D. C. Sessions

    You just suggested impeaching and convicting the Justices who voted for gay marriage. Hatred – it’s the only emotion you feel, isn’t it?

    Don’t overlook fear. If anything, the larger influence.

  • marcus

    I’m just going to enjoy this moment of schadenfreude at Dumbassdog’s expense.

    Ahhhh,,, So. Nice,

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    Hercules Grytpype-Thynne “Was ‘Massive Headache’ already taken?”

    No, but Kittens with Ringworm Meet the Massive Headache was Mordecai Richler’s working title for Jacob Two Two Meets the Hooded Fang. True story.

  • tfkreference

    Hey dukey, I suggest getting a new set of encyclopedias – the southern Democrats left the party circa 1964. Any guesses on where they went?

  • Trebuchet

    Just a thought: Perhaps everytime Egnorant posts, we should link to http://medicine.stonybrookmedicine.edu/. Where he’s apparently a tenured professor. Maybe Google will pick it up.

    Here he is: http://www.stonybrookchildrens.org/content/pediatric-neurosurgery#ourTeam

  • whheydt

    Actually…even if Ted lined up all 100 Senators in favor of impeachment, it still wouldn’t work. He needs to convince 218 members of the House of Representatives to impeach anyone. Cruz appears to be rather fuzzy on the distinction between “impeachment” and “conviction”. (FYI…two Presidents have been impeached by the House. *Neither* was convicted by the Senate.)

  • Holms

    CRUZ: […] Today is some of the darkest 24 hours in our nation’s history.

    As if the content of his statement was not saddening already, there is also his idiotic grasp of the english language :(

  • Hoosier X

    As if the content of his statement was not saddening already, there is also his idiotic grasp of the english language

    I keep hearing he’s brilliant but I’ve yet to see any evidence of this. (Hint to mainstream media: A general statement repeated over and over doesn’t magically come true.)

  • Doug Little

    What I don’t get is if these brilliant legal scholars (they aren’t) had a valid groundbreaking argument (they don’t) why didn’t they present it to the Supreme Court, or the state’s lawyers when this thing was before the court. You don’t just get to say that the decision was wrong and unconstitutional and get away with. Why is it wrong and unconstitutional, please explain.

  • D. C. Sessions

    You don’t just get to say that the decision was wrong and unconstitutional and get away with.

    Politicians do it all the time. I don’t see how you can claim that (unless, of course, you’re a politician. Then you won’t get called on it.)

  • abb3w

    @33ish, tfkreference

    Hey dukey, I suggest getting a new set of encyclopedias – the southern Democrats left the party circa 1964.

    That’s pretty inaccurate.

    The heyday of the democratic KKK was probably circa 1926 — just prior to the KKK hold in Indiana imploded over the murder scandal there. That regional embarassment weakened their hold on the national stage, and may have helped cost McAdoo the 1928 nomination. The next major step in their political decline was circa 1948, with Humbert Humphrey’s address to the DNC effectively calling them out as a pack of bastards. The segregationist elements increasingly split from the Democratic party and ensconced themselves into the GOP; if you control for region — whether a politician was from a loyal Union State or a former Confederate State — in both the Union and the ex-Confederate states the Democrats were more supporting that act than the Republicans. Strom Thurmond is probably the most prominent politician who changed parties after the 1964 Civil Rights act, and there were others; however, many more were replaced by attrition. The change continued gradually through the 1960s (EG: the rise of Goldwater), the 1970s (EG: the disappointment of southern Democrats with Carter’s stance on pulling tax exemptions for segregated religious schools), and onward. Even into the 1990s, white democrats were more likely to favor miscegenation laws than white Republicans; but the GOP has remained relatively constant in its racial composition (over 90% white) over the last 40 years, while the Democrats have dropped to only 60% white. (This is compounded by the aging of the GOP; within generational cohorts, attitudes have only shifted negligibly.) The change is mostly via attrition, generational replacement, and change in racial composition of the Democratic party.

    Nohow, pretending the change hasn’t happened seems to mark astounding disingenuousness or imbicilic naïveté.

  • EnlightenmentLiberal

    @theDukedog7

    The SSM ruling is a lie–there is no constitutional right to gay marriage.

    @Rowan vet-tech

    Because there is no constitutional right to marriage at all, therefore there is nothing unconstitutional about homosexuals being able to marry.

    And others.

    Please see the 9th amendment and the 14th amendment. There’s totally a “right to marry” in the constitution. There’s also a right to be free from hatred and bigotry, which means there’s a “right for gays to marry other gays” in the constitution; again please see the 9th amendment and the 14th amendment.

    Of course, all of the associated tax benefits, etc., are not guaranteed by the constitution, but a right to declare oneself as married is totally a constitutionally protected right.

    PS: Of course, the justices will almost certainly never use the 9th to make any important ruling, but if we’re going to use the Republican approach of originalism, then in that context, what I wrote is clearly right.

  • Doug Little

    D. C.

    You have a point.

  • marcus

    EnlightenmentLiberal @ 41 Thank you. Well said.