Chris Christie criticizes Supreme Court's same-sex marriage ruling

US Republican presidential candidate Chris Christie said if he had "Christie-type justices" on Supreme Court, then the court would not have legalized same-sex marriage nor pass a key provision in Affordable Care Act.

Mary Schwalm/AP
Republican presidential candidate New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie reaches out to shake a hand as he walks in the Fourth of July parade with his wife wife Mary Pat, Saturday, July 4, 2015, in Wolfeboro, N.H. Christie said if he had "Christie-type justices" on Supreme Court, then the court would not have legalized same-sex marriage nor pass a key provision in Affordable Care Act.

U.S. Republican presidential candidate Chris Christie said on Sunday Supreme Court justices of his liking would not have legalized same-sex marriage and would have struck down a key provision of a national health care law.

The two landmark rulings last month angered many conservative Americans and several Republican presidential candidates have condemned the decisions.

Christie, who announced last week he was joining the Republican field in the 2016 presidential election, said the Supreme Court's justices were not conservative enough, and cited his record nominating state judges who oppose "meddling in the business of the executive and legislative branch."

"If the Christie-type justices had been on that court in the majority, we would have won those cases in the Supreme Court rather than lost them," he told "Fox News Sunday" in an interview.

Supreme Court decisions play a perennial role in U.S. elections. Justices on the high court are nominated by the president and must be approved by the Senate. They serve life terms.

Some Republican candidates, including former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, have struck a more conciliatory tone on the gay marriage ruling, criticizing it while also urging the country to move on.

Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, however, has been strongly critical, telling CBS's "Face the Nation" on Sunday that the court's decision was a "nail in the coffin" for the institution of marriage.

Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, another Republican presidential hopeful, also criticized the court for what he said was interference in politics and redefining the meaning of marriage.

"It will be destructive," he told CNN's "State of the Union."

Texas Senator Ted Cruz repeated his call that the constitution should be amended so voters could recall Supreme Court justices. Cruz said the court was wading too deeply into policy decisions, including its ruling that upheld the way Washington provides subsidies under President Barack Obama's signature health care law.

"They shouldn't be rewriting Obamacare," Cruz told NBC's "Meet the Press."

Reporting by Jason Lange; Additional reporting by Krista Hughes; and Bill Trott

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.