I have 5,000% more confidence that President Cruz would nominate constitutional conservatives to the Supreme Court than would Trump--Trump, who said his pro-abort sister the judge would make a "phenomenal" Supreme Court justice.
I am fully satisfied that Ted Cruz is the social and constitutional conservative that I am looking for. So why would I be interested in supporting a sketchy, "unpredictable" wild card like Trump?
You get serious questions as to your ministry and you avoid them (at least you don't respond).
Are you the Reverend Charles Henderson...or are you like the Reverend Al Sharpton?
What kind of reverend are you?
Because Trump WILL be able to get Congress to do his bidding and I have grave doubts that Cruz can.
Because whether you like it or not/will acknowledge it or not, at this time Trump is the better choice to be president.
But who can ever be counted on?
I have 5,000% more confidence that President Cruz would nominate constitutional conservatives to the Supreme Court than would Trump--Trump, who said his pro-abort sister the judge would make a "phenomenal" Supreme Court justice.I am fully satisfied that Ted Cruz is the social and constitutional conservative that I am looking for. So why would I be interested in supporting a sketchy, "unpredictable" wild card like Trump?
Regardless of your confidence interval, as I have demonstrated you just never know how any of these appointments end up. Nixon, Reagan, Bushes, it is hit or miss who they select, and who they can get through the Senate.
One thing I am sure we agree on is that Ted Cruz is the most Constitutionality astute politician on the scene aside from Scalia and Thomas, and with possible exception of Thomas Sowell, and definitely the great Alan Keyes and Janice Rogers Brown ( imagine them all getting on the Court! ).
So if we stipulate that this is our Constitutional genius, why on Earth would you want him in the one office that would prevent him from getting to the Court? If he was Vice President or AG or anywhere else he can be nominated, but a President cannot nominate himself, well, that I am aware of.
Secondly, someone as Constitutionally astute would be positively wasted in the Oval Office. The last time we had Constitutionally astute Presidents were the three Democratic-Republicans ( including the principal author of the Constitution itself ) who continually vetoed bills on the basis they were not enumerated in the Constitution and not Constitutional, using those exact words in the vetoes, yet it was all for naught as the Congress began its path to centralized government DESPITE the author himself telling them so.
Ted Cruz, unlike Madison, is not an author of that document and would make even less of an impact on unConstitutional laws than Madison and Jefferson did, and he would face an even more established central government.
Why did you skip over my brilliant suggestion to get Ted Cruz in the job he was born for? Cruz as Justice or better yet, Chief Justice, would impact America for decades. Had Jefferson or Madison been appointed to the Court we would be far better off today ( especially Madison who survived all the way out to 1836 ). Ted Cruz ( and Brown and Keyes ... ) are desperately needed on that bench.
There really is far too much investment into the office of the President, and expectations of what they can accomplish. It's the silver bullet syndrome. People say they will be disappointed by a President Trump, but fail to imagine the disappointment by a President Cruz. That office no longer lends itself to Constitutionality, nor did it even in Madison's day, and it's far worse now with continuing resolutions. That thorough Constitutional knowledge will not get put to proper use. It's not like he gets line items to approve or veto like in the old days. And if he started his lecturing as he is prone to do he would be even more ineffective.
Finally, you know he has no chance to get past the general electorate. They are not clamoring for a Constitutional Conservative, never have been, despite what Rush still says. The electorate is fickle, lots of sheeple, and is deeply divided just as it was at the Founding with one third patriots, one third traitors, one third who can't decide.
Even if he were somehow nominated, what are you gonna do when the enemy points out he was born in Canada? They will cite Shillary as a natural born citizen while hypocritically pointing their boney little fingers that were in their pockets when the natural born muslim ran eight years ago. I'd say it's best to face the reality that he will not be President, but focus on the positive that there is a position he was literally born to occupy.