We don’t need another John Roberts on the Supreme Court.
Is there a RAT PROBLEM there for the
CuboCanadian globalist?
At least he’s probably eligible for that.
Unacceptable.
We don’t need another lying, manipulative scum on the Supreme Court, who would be bought by the highest bidder.
Can’t imagine why...
He is not a legal expert.
I could go for this.
If Cruz would stand down about the presidential nomination, I could support this.
But Cruz needs to stand down.
Bang of Eight for the Gang of Nine?
Well, that’s one way to hide him away; mainly so the RNC doesn’t have to deal with him and all his law knowledge; heaven forbid that Cruz would expose their lawlessness.
He doesn’t want to be on the Supreme Court.
Before you start shoving people into other positions, maybe it might work better if you knew what they wanted .. just a thought.
At this point, I suggest someone truthful may make a better choice on the Supreme Court.
Those who oppose Cruz need to look at his actual positions, his actual votes, and his actual words. He has a 97% to 100% conservative rating for a reason. If you don't like him, fine. Don't have a beer with him, but don't destroy America in your rejection of Cruz. Can anyone who objects to Cruz on the Court name a better choice? Four better choices (Trump's likely number of nominees)? Can you name a constitutional issue on which Cruz has been wrong even one tenth of the time?
I seriously doubt that Hillary Clinton will be nominating Ted Cruz for the SCOTUS.
No. Cruz should see if he can finish term as senator.
They’re kidding, right?
I use to think that but no more.
No way.
As they would say in Newspeak - he’s ethically challenged.
Easily blackmailed.
Just look what it did to John Roberts.
Absolutely not!!
He’s a liar and a narcissist with a Messiah complex. That is NOT Conservative. That is lunacy.
Cruz told us the following unanimous decision didn't apply to him:
At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.The citation is to the never-reversed case Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 163, (1875). Remember, or better, reade the decision, that the context of the statement above is the law before the passage of the 14th Amendment. Cruz, had he been born on U.S. soil, and subject to our jurisdiction, would have been naturalized at birth. But he wasn't born on our soil. It wasn't until 1934 that Congress passed a bill based upon the 14th Amendment to naturalize him because his mother was a citizen.
Cruz also intentionally misinterprets the 14th Amendment, a naturalization amendment built upon Article 1 Section 8, ...shall create an Uniform rule for Naturalization, whose author Congressman John Bingham explained to Congress in 1866:
I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen….Judge Bingham, in 1866, is confirming the Vattel, Hamilton, Washington, Paine, Marshall, Pufendorf, .... definition for who are natural born citizens, and pointing out that it was "never doubted". He is explaining that this is common law, not English Common Law, but American common law, defined in our first legal textbook, Vattel's law of Nations.
Ted Cruz, as his (and Obama's) constitutional law professor, Larry Tribe explained in the Boston Globe on Jan 11, argued the Minor v. Happersett, Wong Kim Ark, Perkins v. Elg, Washington, Hamilton, Paine, Jay, Marshall, position as a student. Now he takes the "Living Constitution" position, the opposite of originalism. His actions deny the validity of dozens of Supreme Court decisions. Larry, an honest "living Constitution" proponent told us that Ted is a hypocrite. He depends upon the ignorance, not just of the average citizen, but of a remarkable number of attorneys who never learned much about constitutional law. He is a liar who is pretending for expedience to be a conservative.
The Supreme Court has "original jurisdiction" for all cases including law and equity arising under the Constitution, Article II Section 2. Ted Cruz is violating the Constitution for which he claims to be a conservative originalist. At least Barack Obama never claimed to be a natural born citizen. He told us he was born a Subject of the British Commonwealth. Obama told us that he considered the Constitution an interesting historical artifact which needs a new bill of positive rights to become relevant. Barack was kept in the white house by a political power, perhaps arguing that Barack's color was more important than the Constitution, and that riots would result if the law were honored. Ted tells us that the 14th Amendment made him a natural born citizen at birth, a blatant lie. The 14th Amendment had never, and cannot make anyone a natural born citizen. It defines who are citizens using Article 1 Section 8, an "uniform rule for naturalization".
Words in the Constitution cannot be presumed to have no meaning. Cruz' interpretation would make the King of Jordan eligible, after 14 years residence, to be president. Ted counts upon confusion around the precision presumed by Supreme Court justices and by our framers.