![](http://i.imgur.com/BT1tY7T.jpg"; "â€source:")
Posted on 02/04/2016 1:18:48 AM PST by WhiskeyX
The senator's comments also marked a sharp reversal for his support of Roberts in 2005, BuzzFeed reports.
The report cites Cruz's support for Roberts' nomination in a 2005 op-ed piece for the National Review and an internal memo he wrote as Texas Solicitor General praising Roberts' skill as a litigator.
"I’ve worked with John and seen him argue numerous cases, and, to my mind, there’s not another appellate advocate who’s even close," Cruz wrote.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
You mean like Trump did with Hillary and her senate run?
Roberts fooled a lot of people.
Hillary fooled Trump and who else?
I did also.
I originally thought Roberts was an excellent choice but after the “ObamaCare” ruling I have reversed my opinion of him.
I’ve often wondered if the whole NSA data mining project that is ongoing hasn’t dredged up “something” that is being held over Roberts’ head.
Winner post 3.
When you have a multimillion dollar international empire on the line and 22,500 employees counting on you to keep things rolling along, get back to me.
Well that was a complete non answer completely avoiding the question.
Straw man much?
So Bill Gates would be even better then. Trump’s pretty small in comparison.
Or maybe the CEO of McDonald’s would be best, that “empire” has about 1.7 million employees...
Oh, wait, that has exactly what to do with the subject being discussed?
“Cruz didn’t flip flop, Roberts did.”
WELL SAID!
Moron much?
Who did you ask about?
The fact still remains that Trump had the responsibility to protect his business interests and that of over 22,500 households of his employees.
That is reality.
That is a tremendous amount of time for things to change... Roberts either has been corrupted or blackmailed.
Regardless. I think it is fair to say he hasn't lived up to what Cruz thought of him.
It is quite silly to blame Cruz for not being able to predict the future.
John Roberts is No Longer Appearing on Conservative Merit Badges
Seven years ago, during the confirmation hearings for John Roberts, Texas Solicitor General Ted Cruz penned a gushing op-ed for National Review.
-snip-
Not anymore. When Roberts helped save "Obamacare," Cruz immediately blasted the Court for having "abdicated its responsibility to safeguard the Constitution." He didn't mention Roberts by name, but he insisted that the decision was more proof that Republicans needed to reject Cruz's opponent, Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst. "My opponent is, by nature and by over a decade of political office, a conciliator. Now is not a time for conciliation."
So here is the condensed timeline:
1995 - While clerking for Chief Justice William Rehnquist, I and my two fellow law clerks asked the chief whom he thought was the best Supreme Court lawyer currently practicing. The chief replied, with a twinkle in his eye, that he thought he could probably get a majority of his colleagues to agree that John Roberts was the best Supreme Court advocate in the nation.
2000 - Cruz recruits Roberts to assist Bush team in Florida Recount for about a week.
July 20, 2005 - Roberts Nominated For Supreme Court
July 20, 2005 - Ted Cruz writes article support roberts
August 4, 2005 - Drudge says new york times is investigating Roberts adoption papers
Apparently when the Democrats realized they could control a Supreme Court Justice’s vote through blackmail over his having committed a number of international crimes the Times pulled back and dropped its investigation. The Democrat paper of record pulled back because it didn’t want to ” break the seal of an adoption case” – as if violating laws ever means anything to Democrats in their quest for power. Keep in mind Barack Obama’s violation of his opponents “sealed” divorce records propelled him to a US Senate seat.
September 12, 2005 - Senate confirmation hearing began for Roberts. I have found no mention whatsoever of Roberts possible adoption problems, being brought up in the confirmation
September 30, 2005 - John Roberts Confirmed. All 55 Republicans, hallf of the Democrats and an independent voted Yes.
now skip forward 10 years later in the year 2015
June 20, 2015 - Chief Justice John Roberts broke with his three conservative colleagues on the Supreme Court and voted to uphold a key provision of the Affordable Care Act
June 29, 2015 - Texas Sen. Ted Cruz says ......Roberts “put on an Obama jersey” in writing the majority opinion in the last two landmark court cases on Obamacare.
June 30, 2015 - “Mr. Cruz was so enraged by the health-care ruling — as well as last week’s decision, not supported by Mr. Roberts, upholding gay marriage — that Mr. Cruz is calling for a constitutional amendment that would require Mr. Roberts and other Justices to stand for election every 8 years.
How well do you know anyone you have briefly worked with?
Looking at the above timeline, how was Cruz supposed to know when he wrote his article of support that Roberts had possibly secret illegal adoption of children from Ireland, and that the Democrats had leverage for blackmail?
This is a reasoned revoke of support, not really a flip flop.
It was Robert’s own actions on the bench that caused Cruz to reconsider.
Well, in the case of John Roberts and his own flip flops, I would say that this was one situation that deserves a change of mind. I know that my mind has changed concerning Roberts, given his strange opinions. How about yours?
Just what DO they have on “our” Judge Johnney????
Inquiring minds would like to know.
BTTT
But Roberts very well may be a souter.Souter was beat up in fag trolling park back in the day.
Flip flop, flip flop, flip flop Teddy; he flips and flops more and faster than a flag in a tornado!
_____________________________________________________________
Roberts had a sterling record PRIOR to going to the USSC. Since then his record has been terrible. Cruz is man enough to admit that supporting him for the court urned out to be a mistake.
COntrast this for example to someone like Trump who won’t admit that even his bankrupt companies were a mistake and never felt he had to ask God for forgiveness after a history of adultry and running strip clubs on his properties.
“Eveybody thought John Roberts was going to be good in 2005. Remember the whole Harriet Myers thing? I don’t remember anyone who thought Roberts would go back. Find someone who did. And he mostly was until the whole ACA thing. Since then, it’s been a different story.”
I was opposed to John Roberts before his confirmation, and so were some others who debated the issue at the time.
“But I don’t know of a single conservative who was warning about Roberts. He had a solid track record. I thought Janice Rogers Brown would be better, but there was nothing negative about Roberts.”
Now you do. On the contrary, Roberts was playing the whole issues questions too close to the vest. Even then he was trying so hard to maintain and appearance of impartiality, he could not necessarily be counted upon to stand up to a Democrat controlled Congress and/or Administration on the more political cases. Many of warned about this potential problem with John Roberts, just as we had warned about the elder and junior Bush candidates for President. Unfortunately, people who claimed to be conservatives were just too over confident and brushed aside these concerns when Senator Hillary Clinton and other Liberal Democrats came out in opposition to the confirmation of John Roberts. Even John Roberts warned what he was going to be doing in the future while testifying at his confirmation hearing. See:
“I am not an ideologue,” Roberts said at the hearings. He underlined the point yesterday in his brief White House speech after Justice John Paul Stevens, the most senior member of the court, administered the oath of office. “Judging is different from politics,” Roberts said as his wife, Jane, their two children, the president and dozens of administration supporters looked on.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/29/AR2005092900859_2.html
Here we are yet again with two ineligible candidates, who also do not live up to the standards of conduct of a non-corrupt conservative; and the mob clamors to anoint them as their conservative saviors despite any and all evidence that should give them cause to pause and reconsider such candidates.
We have entered the spin zone...
From the article:
The senator's comments also marked a sharp reversal for his support of Roberts in 2005, BuzzFeed reports.
Nope...Cruz flip flopped...Again...Cruz has flip flopped more in the last few years than Trump has...
That's a nice philosophy but you have nothing to back it up with...The article says it is Cruz who flip flopped, not Roberts...
The article claims there was no real paper trail on Roberts so no one publicly knew he was a liberal Republican (except Cruz)...
"They didn’t have a paper trail, they wouldn’t have a fight," he said. "Whereas, if you actually nominate a conservative, then you gotta spend some political capital. Then you gotta fight."
Apparently Cruz knew Roberts wasn't a conservative...
"Now in both instances, it wasn’t that they were looking for someone who wasn’t a conservative, it’s that it was easier," Cruz said, according to BuzzFeed News. "Neither Souter nor Roberts had said much of anything
It's crystal clear Cruz knew Roberts wasn't a conservative...And unlike Congress or the rest of the world, Cruz was all to familiar with Roberts...
The report cites Cruz's support for Roberts' nomination in a 2005 op-ed piece for the National Review and an internal memo he wrote as Texas Solicitor General praising Roberts' skill as a litigator.
"I’ve worked with John and seen him argue numerous cases, and, to my mind, there’s not another appellate advocate who’s even close," Cruz wrote.
Since you were not here in 2005. you missed the pretty near unanimous support expressed here for Roberts' appointment.
But, have fun beating your dead horse.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.