And your point is?
My point is that there is no need to change the consitutional system by which we have selected presidents in 57 straight elections. More specifically, I oppose the notion that it would be a good idea to create a new "candidate screening" role for the Supreme Court, a role which isn't provided for in the Constitution and a role which the Court has never even hinted is among its constitutional powers.
The constitutional age, residency and citizenship standards are set forth in the Constitution. "As you said, "Nothing can be added to the text, it must be taken as it is." A majority of electors are at least as capable as a majority of Supreme Court justices to apply the constitutional eligibility standards to candidates. As far as I am concerned, a majority of electors selected by the people are a lot more trustworthy than a majority of very political Supreme Court justices who have been chosen by politicians to further a political agenda while wearing creepy-looking robes.
But, what's important is not my opinion, but the opinion of the founders who delegated to electors the power to choose presidents and created no role in the process for the Supreme Court. Obviously, our Supreme Court appreciates this limitation. If some folks cannot accept this country's historical commitment to republicanism and believe that everything must be decided by courts, well, those folks are just bound to remain unhappy because after the next election, the score will be 58-0.
Ted Cruz - 2016