Supreme Court split on Obama amnesty; Kennedy: Policy ‘just upside-down’

The Washington Times ^ | April 18, 2016 | Stephen Dinan

[Cheerio]

The lower court has not ruled on the merits of the case and the appeals court has a preliminary injunction on 0bama’s action..

So if SCOTUS ends in deadlock, the case reverts to the lower case which threw out Obie's over reach as King?

[nathanbedford]

There is nothing on Jim Robinson's bucket list that is not shared by Ted Cruz, in some instances effecting the goals would be done better by Ted Cruz or more enthusiastically by Ted Cruz.

Apart from the issue of trade, there is really no substantial variation. Even concerning trade, the goals are identical only the methods and approach vary between Cruz and Trump. Cruz will be realistic in a technological global age and Trump thinks he can wave a magic wand over the Pacific and simply override the economic interests of 4 or 5 billion people. He will be tragically disabused of his arrogance and we will suffer as a result.

Overall the essential difference is that you can't believe a word of what Donald Trump says but Ted Cruz has proven over and over again that he keeps his campaign promises.

[Jim Robinson]

There’s only one problem. Cruz has been unable to convince the voters and thus is losing in the primary election. And if he gets the GOPe to anoint him at the convention via treachery, he’s going to blow up the party and the country goes down the drain.

[sargon]

Overall the essential difference is that you can't believe a word of what Donald Trump says but Ted Cruz has proven over and over again that he keeps his campaign promises.

No, you can't believe a word that Donald Trump says, and that's your problem, by the way.

Throughout his life and career, Donald Trump has been known as a man of his word.

Those are the facts.

Yours is the slander and spin.

85% of the members of this forum can believe a word of what Donald Trump says. Trump's conservative credentials have been well documented for anyone who cares to check the truth.

So good luck with your unfounded spin. Donald Trump is universally acknowledged for his honesty, thus your smear is impotent.

And , as you've pointed out, his policies are fine, and he's clearly a better leader than Ted Cruz.

Ted Cruz has lost. He will have been mathematically eliminated after the next Tuesday or two. His only hope was to get the nomination at a contested GOP convention, which would irreparably splinter the party, and guarantee a GOP defeat in November.

Simply put, that's not going to happen. Not even the crooked GOPe is that stupid.

Have a nice Tuesday, and have a nice next Tuesday.

Vote Trump

[ObamahatesPACoal]

Kennedy’s “teh gay” and Roberts is butthurt about international adoption immigration laws.

GOP consider only appointing justices like Alito, Scalia & Thomas who have children.

[ObamahatesPACoal]

Not Merkel-Republicans

[nathanbedford]

Since you do not take issue with my conclusion that Trump would well serve your bucket list, I conclude that your objection to Cruz is not ideological but simply tactical. You fear that a contested convention could "blow up the party" and put Hillary in the White House and flush the country "down the drain." That is an eventuality I fear no less than you.

Please note that I have personally committed to support Donald Trump should he become the nominee. That being stipulated, I believe I can say that Donald Trump is utterly detested by a huge part of the party some of whom concededly are establishment but some of whom are honest constitutional conservatives. I presume to put myself in the latter category. Unfortunately, establishment Republicans cast votes which are counted the same way grassroots Republicans' votes are counted or the same way Trump supporters' votes are counted. If they stay home they will have "blown up" the party on election day.

Why is it that we fear Ted Cruz blowing up the party but we do not fear Donald Trump blowing up the party?

To anticipate your reaction, Trump will have had more votes than Cruz but in this scenario not a majority and that somehow, contrary to Gore versus Bush, entitles Trump to the nomination. But Trump's critics and Cruz supporters if they prevail in down ballots will contend that they will have won according to the rules and the rules are more important than mob rule which is a main theory behind our National Constitution. No one argues that if Trump is denied through "treachery" the anti-Trump forces will have committed a real political crime and the result will be illegitimate. The question is, what is treachery?

Clearly you come down on one side of the argument but I think you should not ignore the real possibility that Trump has equal potential to blow up the party. This is not to say that Trump is more or less virtuous than Cruz, it simply is to say that blowing up the party can result either way. I submit that conducting the convention by the rules rather than by the plurality vote in some primaries is a thoroughly legitimate method of picking the nominee. I deny that that method can be rendered illegitimate merely because Trump supporters are more adamant than those who would adhere to the rules. One can say there are more of them, one might be able to the say that they are louder, but it is a debatable issue whether those who have played by the rules have committed "treachery." There are simply too many anomalies in the fifty state primary system of direct primaries, proportional primaries, caucuses, winner take all etc. to make a hard and fast rule that a plurality candidate must prevail. That is reserved with good reason for a majority candidate.

It is Cruz not Trump who from the beginning has teased that he will bolt the party. It is Trump not Cruz who has flitted from Democrat to Independent to Republican. It is Trump not Cruz who declares that he possesses the unilateral power to define "treachery." To the contrary, the rules of the Republican Party are a far more legitimate standard upon which to judge fairness than are the self-serving declarations of Donald Trump. This opinion, of course, is utterly dependent on a honest application of the rules without any distorting or substituting of rules to benefit one candidate over others.

I believe that as long as we FReepers commit to voting for the ultimate party nominee, we should be free in this forum to fight it out on behalf of our candidate.

[Jim Robinson]

Actually, I believe Trump (the successful America-loving capitalist) will do very well against the godless and corrupt America-hating Marxists Hillary or Sanders.

[butterdezillion]

And even the liberals on SCOTUS should take pause at giving that kind of license to a President Trump...