Posted on 12/07/2020 1:12:45 PM PST by kellymcneill
If #SCOTUS grants cert in the PA election case, I have told the petitioners I will stand ready to present the oral argument.
Full statement below...
(Excerpt) Read more at twitter.com ...
Ted was my second. The reason why Freepers hate Ted is because he was shown with obama getting off AF1 after he lost the nomination.
The reason why he was there was obamatard invited him. he could have said “No FU closet tranny” but there was no evidence he colluded with the obamatard’s team. Susan Rice even annihilated him on Twitter afterwards calling him a total loser.
“Prayers up for Senator Ted Cruz (who I used to not be able to stand 😳)
God be with him!“
Ted is a patriot and supporter of the Constitution .
He has had his differences with Trump, but Cruz is the real deal.
He truly believes what he says, and understands the greatness of our nation and the challenges it faces.
Lose the toddler behavior. There is no bandwidth worth it. bye
That may be a blessing in disguise.
Ted went through a primary war and he’ll against Trump 4.5 years ago, and now is showing a living example of turning the other cheek and putting the past behind. Way to go Ted!
One of the few conservatives I trust.
Factcheck is even further left than than far left Wikipedia, which says he won 5 and lost 4:
Appointed to the office of Solicitor General of Texas by Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott,[41][48] Cruz served in that position from 2003 to 2008.[26][39] The office was established in 1999 to handle appeals involving the state, but Abbott hired Cruz with the idea that Cruz would take a “leadership role in the United States in articulating a vision of strict constructionism”. As Solicitor General, Cruz argued before the Supreme Court of the United States nine times, winning five cases and losing four.[44]
Cruz authored 70 U.S. Supreme Court briefs and presented 43 oral arguments.[35][41][49] His nine appearances before the Supreme Court are the most by any practicing lawyer in Texas or current member of Congress.[50] Cruz has said, “We ended up year after year arguing some of the biggest cases in the country. There was a degree of serendipity in that, but there was also a concerted effort to seek out and lead conservative fights.”[50]
In 2003, while Cruz was Texas Solicitor General, the Texas Attorney General’s office declined to defend Texas’s sodomy law in Lawrence v. Texas, in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that state laws banning homosexual sex were unconstitutional.[51]
In the landmark case of District of Columbia v. Heller, Cruz drafted the amicus brief signed by the attorneys general of 31 states arguing that the Washington, D.C. handgun ban should be struck down as infringing upon the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.[49][52] He also presented oral argument for the amici states in the companion case to Heller before the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.[49][53]
Cruz at the Values Voters Summit in October 2011
In addition to his success in Heller, Cruz successfully defended the constitutionality of the Ten Commandments monument on the Texas State Capitol grounds before the Fifth Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court, winning 5–4 in Van Orden v. Perry.[35][39][49]
In 2004, Cruz was involved in the high-profile case surrounding a challenge to the constitutionality of public schools’ requiring students to recite the Pledge of Allegiance (including the words “under God”, legally a part of the Pledge since 1954), Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow.[35][39] He wrote a brief on behalf of all 50 states that argued that the plaintiff, a non-custodial parent, did not have standing to file suit on his daughter’s behalf.[54] The Supreme Court upheld the position of Cruz’s brief.[55]
Cruz served as lead counsel for the state and successfully defended the multiple litigation challenges to the 2003 Texas congressional redistricting plan in state and federal district courts and before the U.S. Supreme Court, which was decided 5–4 in his favor in League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry.[39][56]
In Medellin v. Texas, Cruz successfully defended Texas against an attempt to reopen the cases of 51 Mexican nationals, all of whom were convicted of murder in the United States and on death row.[35][39][41][49] With the support of the George W. Bush Administration, the petitioners argued that the United States had violated the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations by failing to notify the convicted nationals of their opportunity to receive legal aid from the Mexican consulate.[44][57] They based their case on a decision of the International Court of Justice in the Avena case, which ruled that by failing to allow access to the Mexican consulate, the US had breached its obligations under the Convention.[58] Texas won the case in a 6–3 decision, the Supreme Court holding that ICJ decisions were not binding in domestic law and that the President had no power to enforce them.[44][57]
Michael Wayne Haley was arrested for stealing a calculator from Walmart in 1997.[59] Because of Haley’s previous criminal convictions, he was sentenced to 16-and-a-half years in prison under the Texas habitual offender law. After Haley had exhausted his appeals, it became known that Haley’s robbery offense occurred three days before one of his other convictions was finalized; this raised a question about the applicability of the habitual offender statute in his case. As Solicitor General, Cruz declined to vacate Haley’s sentence, saying “I think justice is being done because he had a full and fair trial and an opportunity to raise his errors.”[60] The Supreme Court later remanded the case to lower courts based on Haley’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim. During oral argument, Cruz conceded that Haley had a very strong argument for ineffective assistance of counsel since Haley’s attorney failed to recognize the sentencing error and that he would not move to have Haley re-incarcerated during the appeal process.[60] After remand, Haley was re-sentenced to “time served”.[61]
In 2008 American Lawyer magazine named Cruz one of the 50 Best Litigators under 45 in America,[48][62] and The National Law Journal named him one of the 50 Most Influential Minority Lawyers in America.[63][64] In 2010 Texas Lawyer named him one of the 25 Greatest Texas Lawyers of the Past Quarter Century.[65][66] ]
After all this talk, I am hungry for authentic Tennessee cornbread.
“There’s a stipulation to meet safe harbor requirements, state law must have been followed.”
I would like to see SCOTUS offer guidance on this when they make their decision
Associate Justices have been elevated to Chief Justice:
Three incumbent associate justices have been nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate as chief justice: Edward Douglass White in 1910, Harlan Fiske Stone in 1941, and William Rehnquist in 1986. A fourth, Abe Fortas, was nominated to the position in 1968 but was not confirmed.
I’ll be happy as long as Sekulow is involved in crafting the arguments, whether he presents them or not.
I do think that, as a result of the PAL’s decision to not act, while addressing their concern about a practice of fraud that leaves them unable to act legitimately... is that the controversy has been narrowed to a laser like focus.
This will be the opposite of Florida 2000. No muddle here.
As the case is Kelly’s, though, Cruz’ participation has additional impact for two reasons...
Others already noting the “gravitas” issue that tends to debunk media claims of “nothing to see here”... when a senior sitting U.S. Senator argues the case... and one must naturally assume he does so with the backing of the Republican majority + Pence.
But, also, the FACT that Cruz is a Senator ? Sort of answers the question of whether or not there will be one Rep and one Sen willing to inform the President of the Senate, in writing, and without argument, that there is a dispute over the process applied and the result in selection of the Pennsylvania electors.
It suggests that WHEN Cruz presents that protest... he will do so with the full backing of the opinion of the Supreme Court...
I am hopeful they will get to the root of the issue... and dispose of the argument that MOST dictates that corruption rules us. That issue is the conflict between the appearance of integrity and the fact of it... presented by the left as lying about the fraud being necessary to defend democracy with a grant of the illusion of integrity, rather than requiring the fact of it. SCOTUS debunking the importance of the “appearance” of integrity... to require insistence on the fact of it... would chop through the root of the origin of corruption in politics.
Thank you very much for your reply - What you posted sounds logical and hopefully a majority of SCOTUS sees it the same way. If your son is willing to provide any more detailed analysis of the legal doings in re: the election fraud, PLEASE feel free to post to any of us that could benefit from said info.
FReegards
[Ted went through a primary war and he’ll against Trump 4.5 years ago, and now is showing a living example of turning the other cheek and putting the past behind. Way to go Ted!]
I believe the full, unvarnished total of the nearly extinct species Spinus Republicanus is measured with one hand.
https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/sensible-compassionate-anti-covid-strategy/
Have a look. The most even-handed treatment of COVID policy I’ve seen.
Has Jordan been before SCOTUS in the past?
Did not know this interesting bit of information.
I was talking about Jay Sekulow, and yes, 12 for 12
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.