(From July 20, 2005) Cruz OpEd: John Roberts Should Be A Quick Confirm

nationalreview.com ^ | July 20 2005

[Helicondelta]

This week, the president announced his intention to nominate John Roberts to be a Supreme Court justice.

His nomination has been met with widespread praise, from left and right. Nevertheless, there are some who have raised complaints that his two years on the bench provide insufficient record for them to assess (and attack) his jurisprudence.

That complaint misses the mark for three reasons.

[Radix]

Ann Coulter (who has an account on FR) was quite vocal about her objections to the Roberts nomination at the time. She even wrote a column about her concerns.

She was not alone.

Ann also wrote objecting to the Harriet Myers nomination which shortly following, was retracted.

I suppose that one fact to be gleaned from those episodes is that no one person speaks for all on Free Republic.

[jpsb]

Cruz lied? Again? Wow, he certainly is “truth challenged” isn’t he.

[jimbo807]

Is there documentation that he had that position back then? It’s easy to have been for anyone now.

[SeekAndFind]

When W Bush nominated John Roberts, I myself thought, based on his record, writings, and answers to the Congressional judicial panel, that he would be a constitutionalist in the mold of at leas a William Rehnquist.

In other words, I was quite enthusiastic about Roberts.

Who would have thought that he would morph into this judge/legislator when it came to Obamacare? Did anybody really think he/she could predict that?

Heck, even the Sainted Ronald Reagan thought that Anthiny Kennedy would be a good Justice. Who woulda thunk back then that over two and a half decades later, he would give us gay marriage?

One can NEVER know how a person would change.

[SeekAndFind]

When W Bush nominated John Roberts, I myself thought, based on his record, writings, and answers to the Congressional judicial panel, that he would be a constitutionalist in the mold of at least a William Rehnquist.

In other words, I was quite enthusiastic about Roberts.

Who would have thought that he would morph into this judge/legislator when it came to Obamacare? Did anybody really think he/she could predict that?

Heck, even the Sainted Ronald Reagan thought that Anthiny Kennedy would be a good Justice. Who woulda thunk back then that over two and a half decades later, he would give us gay marriage?

One can NEVER know how a person would change.

[servantboy777]

Humans are human. We can be honest, yet decepetive all at the same ol time.

This is why we should be absolutley certain the person nominated has a “long” record in which to verify their leanings.

[magglepuss]

Where is the oped saying that Luttig should be the nominee?

---

I am in agreement with you. He wrote up glowing praise for Roberts, and when called on it, claimed he was for his former boss Luttig. He said the same to JEB during one of the first debates. Cruz blamed W for the Roberts nomination, and JEB said that Cruz had agreed with the nomination. Cruz then states that he wanted Luttig all along. Where is the evidence to support his Luttig claim?

[WhiskeyX]

“When the pick was announced, everyone here at FR, gave it thumbs up. No one thought Roberts would become a turncoat that he is, so your little hit piece on Cruz is BS.”

It directly demonstrates Ted Cruz lied in the debate last night when he claimed no part in getting John Roberts appointed to the Supreme Court by he Bush Administration. I and many others did not approve of the John Roberts nomination when it occurred.

[jimbo807]

I understand the “had I known then what I know now” argument. Ted seems to be making the “I knew all along argument”. The hard copy is not quite backing that up IMO.

[Sideshow Bob]

Ah, the Trump boiler room Topic du Jour!

[nclaurel]

You can sling your axe at people for being newer here than yourself and even state that everyone here supported him, but the fact is Cruz knew him personally. He should have been able to discern his values whereas how many on FR had personal relationships with Roberts. You are comparing personal knowledge of someone with the peripheral knowledge others get from the media. Far from the same.

[servantboy777]

>>One can NEVER know how a person would change.<<

Ben Carson had a great point during the debate. The life expectancy back during the formation of the constitution was around 45 years. Lifetime appointments were perceived much differently back then.

There should be term limits for justices just as there should be term limits in congress. Sitting in office or on the bench for forty years is asinine.

[PghBaldy]

That is probably true, but see this from the OpEd: “distinguished jurists ... Earl Warren and Justices O*Connor, Souter”

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/214989/right-stuff-ted-cruz";

[PghBaldy]

I worried abot Roberts in 2005, but I was not here, so there is no record. I don’t trust people like him that are a blank slate, and that was what he was. Bush wanted an easy pick/

[justlittleoleme]

From 2012:
In the below article it says Seven years ago...

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?

[DJ MacWoW]

John Roberts appointed 2005

Ted Cruz wins Senate seat 2012.

Nice try though.

[Axeslinger]

{Humans are human. We can be honest, yet decepetive all at the same ol time.
This is why we should be absolutley certain the person nominated has a “long” record in which to verify their leanings.}

You mean like with Presidential candidates?

[NKP_Vet]

I would suspect young Rafael supported Roberts because he worked long and hard for the homosexual “couple” before the Supreme Court. How much money has Rafael taken from homosexual same-sex “marriage” advocates? Millions, and Trump should have brought it up last night.

[miss marmelstein]

Don’t count me in with Freepers who supported Roberts. I have never taken a position on most supremes because I don’t know enough about them. I just hope and pray that a Republican prez will nominate good people. We got a real pig in a poke with Roberts.

Cruz DID, however, push him.

[newfreep]

But, as a jurist, Judge Roberts’s approach will be that of his entire career: carefully, faithfully applying the Constitution and legal precedent.

He is a mainstream judge, respected across the ideological spectrum. Thus, he’s earned praise from liberal icons such as Harvard Law Professor Larry Tribe, and Chicago Law Professor Cass Sunstein, as well as from Clinton Solicitors General Walter Dellinger and Seth Waxman, and Carter and Clinton Counsel Lloyd Cutler, the latter two of whom both described Roberts as a man of “unquestioned integrity and fair-mindedness.”

- Ted Cruz (july 20, 20015 op ed) http://www.nationalreview.com/article/214989/right-stuff-ted-cruz