Ted Cruz Issues Ridiculous Rant Against Judge Who Ruled Texas’ Same-Sex Marriage Ban Unconstitutional

1908959_10152248198242489_2079357480_oThe moment I read the news about a federal judge in Texas ruling that the state’s ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional, I knew it was only a matter of time before Senator Ted Cruz decided to offer up some kind of ridiculous rant on the matter.

And I was right, it didn’t take long.  Cruz said on his website:

“Today’s ruling by a federal judge, invalidating Texas’ ban on same-sex marriage, is a troubling display of judicial activism. Our Constitution leaves it to the States to define marriage, and unelected judges should not be substituting their own policy views for the reasoned judgments of the citizens of Texas, who adopted our marriage law directly by referendum. The court’s decision undermines the institution of marriage, and I applaud Attorney General Abbott’s decision to appeal this ruling to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.”


Judicial activism.  It’s amazing how a judge following our First Amendment is somehow being an “activist.”

Then I love how he goes off on “unelected judges … substituting their own policy.”

Well, our Supreme Court judges aren’t elected either.  Does he think that they shouldn’t have power?  In fact, our Constitution sets up a judicial system for the very reason we’re seeing here with these overturns of bans on same-sex marriage.  So that if laws violate the Constitutional rights of certain Americans, there’s a process by which those citizens can oppose the infringement of those rights.

Simply saying, “federal judges aren’t elected” – implying that they shouldn’t have any impact on the legality of laws – is just stupid.  The point of a judge is to be impartial and rule on these laws to determine whether or not they’re legal.

Cruz, and other conservatives like him, are just upset that once again their ignorance is failing in the face of those who rule based on our Constitution.

Those like Cruz who always use “states’ rights” for their arguments fail to grasp one of the main rules states must following when exercising their “rights.”  States cannot pass laws which violation the Constitutional rights of their citizens.  

Period.

Just because a state passes a law, doesn’t mean that law is legal in the eyes of our Constitution.  Let’s not forget that slavery, denying women the right to vote, segregation and bans on interracial marriage were once deemed “legal” because of “states’ rights.”


This is a simple fact Senator Cruz seems incapable of understanding.

Once again we have another “small government conservative” standing on his pulpit advocating for massive government reach into the private lives of Americans.  They’re absolute hypocrites.  Individuals like Cruz talk about “freedom” and “Constitutional values” yet don’t seem to understand either.  And they’re continuing to fight against something that they stand absolutely no chance at defeating.

Because it’s clear now that the question isn’t if same-sex marriage will be legal in every state in the United States – but when.  

And when that day comes, that’s when “Constitutional values” will have won.

Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.

Comments

Facebook comments

  • buricco

    Sure, they want a small government. Small enough to fit in your crotch.

    • John Pantzer

      Yeah, that’s right, but only a woman’s. They wouldn’t like it one bit if you all started to touch their crotch, with laws.

      • Cathryn Sykes

        Women and gay men…. I’m willing to bet that a lot of these frothing at the mouth “I hate filthy homos!” types dream at night about touching the crotches of gay men.

      • Phil B.

        They sure spend enough time obsessing over gay sex. So you have to wonder.

  • Mike Morrissey

    Ok, Cruz is an idiot, and the ban should be overturned. But how is a judge following our First Amendment (freedom of religion, speech, the press, assembly, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances) by doing so?

    • Gary Menten

      This is not a First Amendment issue, as no 1st Amendment right is threatened. It’s a 14th Amendment issue. “Equal protection of the laws.”

      • Mike Morrissey

        That’s what I thought. Then I saw “Judicial activism. It’s amazing how a judge following our First Amendment is somehow being an ‘activist.'” Must be a typo.

      • Cathryn Sykes

        Mike, there are a lot of people in this country who think the FFs stopped “amending” with the “right to bear arms” clause. They have no knowledge whatsoever about any amendment past the Second.

      • Mike Morrissey

        Yes, and only if they’ve been in trouble with the law do they know about the 5th. How true. And how sad.

      • Gary Menten

        I’ve been saying this for a while. Their understanding of the First Amendment is also deeply flawed.

    • Don Maison

      This decision was based on the 14th Amendment, not the First Amendment.

  • Adam

    also, this ‘overwhelming majority’ from the public referendum had single digit percent of voter turnout

    • Roger Schramm

      Funny how they always feel that they are in the majority and that THEY speak for the american people. Prob for them is, they surround themselves in like minded ppl and thats all they ever see. These are the same people that believed (because they were told so) that Mitt would win in a landslide. We all know how that ended for them !!

  • Brotinn

    I really wish people would review the opinion given by Chief Justice Warren in the Loving v. Virginia case that overturned the ban on interracial marriages. Several comments made there are completely applicable to the current debate on same-sex marriage. The whole “issue” is similar, if not exactly the same.

    • Gary Menten

      Agreed. The 14th Amendment applies in both cases.

    • Edward Krebbs

      I’ve been saying for some time that the arguments we’re having with right-wing extremists seem to be a repeat of arguments made in the 50s/60s about integration and a hundred and 50 years ago about the Civil War.

      • MikeEinspanjer

        My friend Joan Nelson was arrested for sitting in “whites only” restaurants. She says, “these are Jim Crow laws all over again. It’s just aimed at a new group of people they are trying to vilify.”

    • tabaqui

      This, right here, sums it up for me. There is no argument after this.

      Chief Justice Earl Warren: “Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival….”

  • Gary Menten

    Dear Ted,

    When two laws conflict, it is the responsibility of the courts to determine which one applies. When any law conflicts with the Federal Constitution, that law is invalid, period.

    The Federal Courts have the power to decide this. If you don’t believe me, read Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803).

  • ironman2819

    So he really loves the constitution… but only when it suits his purpose… otherwise its burdensome overreaching by the federal government…. ass-hat!

    • Al Lucard

      Slight correction…

      So he really loves the constitution… but only when *he thinks* it suits his
      purpose… otherwise its burdensome overreaching by the federal
      government…. ass-hat! 😉

      • ironman2819

        yes, good catch, well played sir!

      • Robert Scott McKnight

        Kinda the same way his ilk feels about the Bible.

  • Veritas vos Liberabit

    Ted Cruz is a moral absolutist. Moral absolutism is evil. Conservatism is evil. How else can their behavior be described?

  • Bud

    I know this is probably stupid, but I’d like to get rid of all the justices. All of their rulings are political. How is it that when determining the meaning of the language in a law, 4 Supreme Court justices always rule one way and 4 the other way? 99% of the time that’s the case. I think we should be smart enough to write a computer program to parse the meaning of the text in any given law and produce a ruling. As it is now, it’s all a game. Whoever gets the most right-wing or left-wing justices on the bench is the winner. There has to be a fair and honest way to parse the meaning of the laws as written.

    • Ryan Swanson

      You are short 1 Justice. 4+4=8.

      • ironman2819

        I think he meant that many cases always come down to one swing judge albeit it has not always been the same one from issue to issue…

    • Gary Menten

      Laws are very complex things, which is why lawyers make so much money arguing in court as to what they really mean. Also, the Constitution is written in a somewhat oblique manner at times. Thirdly, when judges examine a law, they look not only at the letter of the the law, but also its purpose, its history, how its applied and in the cases of the liberal wing of the court, the consequences of competing interpretations.

      It isn’t enough to simply look at the letter of the law. In order to pass the constitutional test, a law for instance, must have a clear secular purpose. If it does not, which can only be determined by examining those other things, then it is unconstitutional.

    • Cathryn Sykes

      And exactly who is going to programs the parameters of this parsing computer? Sorry, but being a human is always going to be messy.

  • Todd

    Just to clarify, it’s the 14th Amendment, not the 1st.

    • real_world_truth

      Actually, in the case of the reasoning behind these sorts of laws, both or either the 1st and 14th Amendments can be applied.

      • David Saint

        fun fact. the cases that those responsible for that attrocity they called a bill here in AZ cited as a reason for the law, dont even apply to AZ! Meaning, what happened in CO and NM cant even happen here! lol clear proof of a social agenda by the right wing. And make no mistake, we are going to run those cooks out of our Capitol! I am also going to start a website i think that will detail what bills our legislature are debating so the public has more access. They dont like to abide by open meeting laws very much

  • Edward Krebbs

    The definition of judicial activism is when they go against the Tea Party. (And on Cruz’s line of thought, when did we elect the Koch brothers ?)

  • Pipercat

    Referendum, what referendum? 2005, that one…….

  • Joe Benten

    He needs to go back to Canada and learn how to read and understand what he is reading. I know Canada speaks, reads and writes pretty much the same way the US does so it won’t be a big jump for him once he learns what he should have learned before coming to the States. But then the saying that is uttered daily explains it all… “You can’t fix stupid!”

    • ironman2819

      Tea Party must have brain washed him…. or in his case they must have used pine sol!

    • Gary Menten

      Speaking as a Canadian, frankly, we don’t want him back. He’s all yours. Enjoy.

  • Guest

    More uneducated trash from the grotesque, anti-American, anti-freedom, uneducated, mentally diseased, fascist, Tea Taliban Troglodyte TRASH Ted Crud – I mean Cruz.

    Interracial marriage was legalized federally not by an illegal and unconstitutional vote via a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of the people voting to illegally control and interfere in the private lives of others and not through the legislature but by a group of unelected judges on the Supreme Court of the United States, ruling that marriage is a civil right protected under the 14th amendment which they have reinforced in 13 other rulings. They also ruled that LGBT citizens are entitled to 1st and 14th amendment protection as they are (not as anti-gay trash wants, allows, and approves of) in Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas. In 2007 Mildred Loving (RIP) or Loving v. Virginia said herself that she supports marriage between 2men or 2women and approved of her and her husband’s case being used to legalize it.

    Lastly, state law does not trump federal law. LGBT Texas citizens are American citizens first and foremost as are straight citizens in Texas and both from every other state. They pay federal taxes. Therefore federal law applies. The state of Texas has NO Legal right to violate the 1st and 14th amendment rights of LGBT citizens. The United States Constitution is the law of the land in every single state. That includes the minority’s right to sue the government for illegally imposing the tyranny of the majority and illegally interfering in and controlling their personal lives.

    American first, your state second. Civilized, properly educated, REAL Americans understand that.

    Now Ted Crud – I mean Cruz, I know this will go over your philistine head but I’ll end with a quite from the musical Hairspray: “Cause you can’t stop the Motion of the ocean or the rain from above. You can try to stop the paradise were dreamin of, but you cannot stop the rhythm of two hearts in love to stay! Cause you can’t stop the beat!”

    The American Freedom Train is rolling in to Texas and it will not be stopped so step off the tracks or be flattened like a piece of imitation American cheese. Your choice.

  • Richard Harney

    He’s not the only one either. Louie Gohmert and Rick Perry both had meltdowns too.

    • ironman2819

      Funny though… ole Loopie Louie said it properly… but doesn’t realize it… “Gohmert explained that Arizona’s SB 1062 was necessary because the current mindset was, “if you’re not willing to embrace the liberal beliefs that we have then your religious beliefs are not protected.””

      And he is basically right… if you do not accept pluralism, if you do not believe that all people are equal under the law, if you do not accept that other people have rights equal to your rights and your rights do not supersede others. If you don’t believe in those very foundation of our constitution and our nation then your rights are no longer protected.

  • curious

    How is it that the left is ALL ABOUT the constitution on THIS issue, but completely ready to ignore the SECOND amendment?

    • wiredpup

      I love how RWNJs can’t stay in topic, no matter what,

      • Yeah, it’s like everything in the fucking world is about the Second Amendment.

    • Cathryn Sykes

      How is it that the right is ALL ABOUT the SECOND Amendment, but completely ready to ignore the opening clause that sets out the reason for the Second Amendment…the need for WELL-REGULATED state militias?

  • Neen

    just goes to show you how much he thinks he knows…Hey Ted, read the constitution…maybe you will learn something, although, I doubt it very much if you can read!

    • Cathryn Sykes

      And read past the Second Amendment, Ted. Yes, there are actually more than two amendments….honest….I swear. (There’s even one that gives human beings like me the right to vote!)

  • Cathryn Sykes

    Ted, go take a course in civics. We have a three-part government: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Live with it.

    • Dave

      Tea partiers can’t live with anything that doesn’t fit in their little minds.

  • Michael David Barber Moghul

    States Rights = Slavery (of one kind or another); US Constitution is the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, TED.

  • Jeffrey Grimes

    The Feds have NO SAY, PERIOD, BOTTOM LINE. If the State does not want it, then go somewhere that wants it. Agree to disagree and move on; they should make his ruling VOID.

    • Anthony Parello

      Except for the whole mob rule is not the law of the land thing. Did you even read the article?

      • Jeffrey Grimes

        Yes, I did. My opinion stands; I don’t care if people are LGBT, but FFS quit shoving it onto everyone that doesn’t agree. There are businesses that accept it and businesses that will not.

        Instead of pitching sissy-fits and bullying people into giving you what you want, why not talk to them and ask why?

      • MikeEinspanjer

        A lot of people don’t agree with obesity, but you shove that in our faces.

      • Asking a business to serve me the same way they serve my heterosexual sister is “shoving it onto everyone that doesn’t agree?”
        That’s bullshit. The Civil Rights Act already settled this. If your business can’t serve the ENTIRE public, you shouldn’t be in business. Asking for the same rights as everyone else is not “bullying.”
        And yes, the 14th Amendment does trump state law. Whether you like it or not.

      • Jeffrey Grimes

        They will go out of business of their own accord then. Actions speak louder than words yes?

      • TruthIsBeauty

        You know. Nothing is being shoved in your face as a straight man. Gay men would not want to shove anything into a bigot’s face. Got your attention? Good, because straight bigot’s spend an inordinate amount of time thinking about what goes on in gay couple’s bedroom. It’s the same thing that happens in your bedroom, only maybe a bit more because well, you’re without.

        Again, if you don’t like seeing gay men or women hold hands, kiss or hug in public, then don’t look. But I have to say I really hate seeing bigots in public. They should just keep that shyte at home and out of sight.

      • Jeffrey Grimes

        I don’t give a shit about that! BOTH SIDES ARE GUILTY; THAT’S THE POINT.

        Agree to disagree and move forward! Why pitch a fit about it; they are losing out on business you could easily be putting in someone else’s pocket.

        The restaurant owners are only hurting themselves, yet the LGBT community is, once again, making a mountain out of a molehill.

        This isn’t an issue of bigotry; it’s an issue of petty fighting that we are wasting our energies on! There are bigger fish to fry, such as what to do about the asshole King in our White House.

      • Oh, come on. You can’t “agree to disagree” about rights. Either you have them or you don’t. My Constitutional rights are not subject to a vote; that’s why they’re called RIGHTS.

        “This isn’t an issue of bigotry,” my ass. I would bet money that if you’ve been told all your life that since you’re a gay person, you’re also a sinner, a pedophile and an abomination, and you might even have gotten beaten up simply for loving who you love (or imprisoned–see Uganda), you would be singing a different tune. LGBT rights are the issue of our generation (although if we don’t get climate change right, there may not be too many more generations to worry about it), and if you don’t like it, that’s too goddamn bad. Grow up and join the human race.

      • Jeffrey Grimes

        MY POINT IS THIS: SHOW THEM YOUR VOICE WITH YOUR WALLET.

        I have NO ISSUES with LGBT in and of itself. Do I believe they are sinning? Yes. Do I believe it is wrong? Yes. Does it give me the right to make the trip to Hell worse? No, and that is NOT what I am doing.

        My point is, instead of constantly making lame-stream news and pissing everyone off, make a REAL statement and don’t give them your business.

        WHINING GETS US NOWHERE!

      • You are missing the point by a country mile, kiddo. For someone who bleats about the Constitution, you sure don’t seem to believe in it.

        Having to “vote with our wallets” would be a loss in and of itself. We SHOULD NOT HAVE to do this, because businesses SHOULD BE FORBIDDEN FROM DISCRIMINATING IN THE FIRST PLACE.

        This is what the entire struggle for civil rights was all about, for frak’s sake. Ask John Lewis sometimes just how much he enjoyed getting his skull fractured trying to cross the Edmund Pettus Bridge.

        If businesses would OBEY THE LAW AND NOT DISCRIMINATE, they wouldn’t have to worry about people not giving them their money, now would they?

        Also, too: “Does it give me the right to make the trip to Hell worse?” Definitely the words of a non-bigot. [/sarcasm]

      • Jeffrey Grimes

        Hmmm… how quickly liberals forget. I can name off several “gay bars” in Michigan for starters. However I suppose you only use the Constitution when it is convenient hm?

        Two-way street buster; now hit the road.

      • real_world_truth

        I have never once been asked to leave a gay bar, even though I am straight and I have been in many gay bars. Really poor argument on your part.

      • Cemetery Girl

        I have been to a few “gay bars”, in fact there’s one not far from my house that I really enjoy. Being heterosexual, and also married (and I live in a state that does not recognize or allow gay marriage), and I’ve never been asked or told to leave. I was not made to feel uncomfortable. Actually, quite the opposite because I could have a drink or two and dance and not have to deal with a guy figuring that any female out having a good time is actually trolling for a hook up. I wore my wedding ring and at one point (in a joking conversation that was broadcast through a microphone) it was mentioned that I am hetero and have a husband. No one in the bar cared. No one. A “gay bar” is not exclusively for homosexual people. No more than a “country bar” is only for people that live on farms. A “gay bar” will have predominantly homo- or bi-sexual people and it is an environment where they can possibly meet a romantic interest, but they also don’t need to worry that some drunken, homophobic frat boy will harass them.

      • real_world_truth

        So, you see it as ‘whining’ for American citizens to protest an illegal act on the part of a state government? Interesting. I grew up in the South and remember signs on the water fountains in the courthouse square that read ‘whites only’ and ‘coloreds only’. They are gone now and I have no desire to see the 21st century be remembered for signs that say ‘no gays allowed’.

        Wake up, my brother, it is unconstitutional to deny equal protection under the law, no matter the reason, per the 14th Amendment, more it is unconstitutional to make any law respecting the establishment of religion, per the 1st Amendment.

      • Gary Menten

        Wrong again. You have to run your businesses according to not only the laws of the state, but also laws of the country. You cannot simply decide that because you own the business you have a right to ignore the 14th Amendment any more than you can refuse to pay taxes or put rat poison in the food your serve or sell liquor to minors. Dura lex, sed lex.

      • Jeffrey Grimes

        Considering that the Feds are picking the Constitution apart based on what fits their agenda, I’d say where LGBTs cannot eat will be of little importance when we ALL end up detained and/or dead.

        PRIORITIES MAN! We need to stop letting them use this shit to divide us and focus on the task at hand. Once they are out, then yeah, I am all for fixing the problem. Again, I have NOTHING against them; what pisses me off is that the liberals are using it strictly to divide people and fuel their agenda.

        For now, vote with your wallet.

      • Gary Menten

        The Feds are NOT tearing the Constitution apart, and you need to stop getting your news from Fox.

    • Cathryn Sykes

      You know, for the kind of person who supposedly reveres the Constitution….you know nothing about the Constitution. May I suggest you go read it? The whole thing? Including ALL the amendments? Especially the “equal rights under the law” clause of the 14th?

    • DrLRonHoover

      You, sir, are an idiot. You should go back to third grade where you belong and actually study the “Konstitooshyun” you bleat on and on about. I learned in fourth grade that no State can pass a law that violates the Constitution. It doesn’t matter what the knuckle-draggers of Texas think – if they pass a law that violates the Equal Protection guarantees of the 14th Amendment it cannot stand.

      “One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.” West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette,, 319 US 624 (1943).

      • Jeffrey Grimes

        Yet, notice how Christians are being discriminated by LGBTs, Atheists and Muslims? Of course you don’t.

        It is a TWO-WAY STREET. We are looking at a government that only enforces the parts of the Constitution/Bill of Rights they see fit!

      • real_world_truth

        And when, pray tell, did you suffer under the threat of losing your job, housing, or any other right because you are Christian? When were you denied the right to marry the consenting adult you loved because of your religion?

        When were you or your ancestors ripped from your homes and transported to a foreign land to be sold and treated as property because you were Christian?

        When were you treated as chattel, denied the right to determine your own destiny by voting, had your children awarded into the custody of your wife because you had the temerity to choose divorce rather than continue to live in an untenable situation because you were a Christian?

        You do not know what it is to be discriminated against, you and every other privileged white, Christian male are screeching at the top of your lungs because you are being slightly inconvenienced. You shout about being discriminated against because you are no longer the top of the heap. Call the rest of us up when you experience what discrimination truly is. And by any god you wish to name, I hope you never truly know what it is to be on the receiving end of discrimination.

    • Gary Menten

      Wrong. The Feds have every bit of business enforcing the Constitution.

      If two laws apply to a case and conflict with one another, it is the duty of the courts to decide which law applies. Any law that conflicts with the Constitution is automatically invalid. The Federal Courts, ending, but not beginning with the Supreme Court have the power to make this determination.

      Please read Marbury v. Madison, US 137, (1803). This is the Grandaddy of all SCOTUS rulings.

  • charleo1

    Politicians have been going off on the Courts, only since, forever. And some
    times with very good reason. I’m thinking Dred Scott. Where the Supreme
    Court decided an African American could never become an American citizen. And, the Federal Government had no authority to even regulate slavey. That one, hastened the Civil War. But, the Founders knew without a Court, insulated in such a way from the current politics of an issue. Many questions regarding law, the interpretation of the law, and the determination if said law violated any Constitutional tenets, would never be settled. That’s if any of these issues are ever truly settled. Because part of each Presidential contest, is the issue of judges that might be appointed to fill vacancies on the Federal Bench, and the consideration of how many appointments to the Supreme Court, this, or that President may likely make. And how those appointments will for decades effect such issues as Abortion, States Rights, and the distance, if any, that will be kept in the separation between the institutions of Church, and State. It’s interesting, that the Right Wing, having become much more Conservative, are directing hot coals at a Supreme Court, that is much more Conservative than the one that decided such landmark decisions as Brown V. Board of Education, Miranda V. Arizona, or the bane of the Religious Right, in Roe V. Wade. It is also interesting the issue of States Rights is on the minds of these very ideological, and determined, Right Wingers like Ted Curz, and others. They have no problem with a patchwork of laws. Where a marriage is recognized in one State, but considered illegal in another. The new pot laws are an example of this brave new world that may come crashing down on those States, if or when the politics change in Washington. But, in general I think a lot of this State business, on issues that effect everyone in the Country, are probably not going to turn out well.

  • InvisibleZombie

    I love how lately we have another spate of people screaming that sexual orientation is “not the same” as blacks or women. That’s correct, I may not have ancestors that were slaves or a uterus. But what should be “the same” is our civil rights, period. Just because it’s comparing apples and oranges as some people think, that doesn’t negate that despite their differences they’re both fruits! (No pun intended.)

  • AnonymousOne

    Dear Ted,
    1. Shutup.
    2. Get a life.
    3. GO AWAY.
    Sincerely,
    The American People

  • Jerky

    I can’t wait till they find him in a men’s room propositioning a dude for sex.

  • Phil B.

    Predictable as ever.

  • MBDElf

    More than a few people have suggested that Teddy Boy is actually quite intelligent, then wonder what secret agenda he’s pursuing. I maintain that he;s either a blithering idiot or a Machiavellian snake. Either way, he needs to be waterboarded with urine.

  • rossbro

    Get happy, Cruz. Now you and Perry can be married and have little turds together.

  • TruthIsBeauty

    Ted Cruz, get your ass back where you came from. We don’t want you here.

  • Recoloniser

    It’s quite simple. Judicial review of legislature exists to prevent a majority from riding rough-shod over the rights of a minority. Do away with that and you have substituted democracy with a dictatorship of the majority.

    If that is what Cruz wants, then let him say so.

  • Betty Eyer

    Funny how this sounds so much like the reactions to VA v. Loving ruling.

  • Kim Hillstrom

    How can it be “judicial activism” when judges are upholding civil rights? Ted, please go back to Canada.

  • True White Republican

    We kill queers for fun in Alabama.

    • IJR

      Kill yourself, liberal pussy.

      • True White Republican

        I’d gladly start with you. Have you ever seen death, where the gums and tongue turn black after rigor mortis sets in?

      • IJR

        Seen, smelled and tasted. Sometimes I smell it walking the dog or scraping off my birkenstocks.
        You are a big government liberal-socialist just like Obama. Are you a Kenyan Muslim?

      • True White Republican

        Come to Alabama you nigger cocksucking faggot, I’ll personally dispatch you to eternity.

      • IJR

        While your offer is tempting, I think I would rather watch the WNBA while having my skin removed than set foot in your backward, sister humping state.

        Of course you are from Alabama.

        There are a ton of fake conservatives there. They all claim to be conservative, but y’all are big government loving, state’s rights hating liberals, just like Obama.

  • Michael Wiggins

    Funny how the only activist judges in the country are the ones who disagree with idiot boy and his friends.

  • John Cardani-Trollinger

    The judicial system exists, in part, to overturn majority votes when laws or amendments deny justice to minorities. This is not illegal “activism” by judges but rather their constitutional mandate.