Posted on 01/03/2016 5:07:32 AM PST by Greetings_Puny_Humans
Riiight. You won't actually listen to the man who is accused. You take it for granted that the OP is truth.
It doesn't bother you that there are HUNDREDS of hours of Cruz preaching available to anyone, yet ~ALL~ the accusations are derived from one eight-minute segment. If he were truly preaching dominionism, don't you think the proofs would come from many of the available sources, instead of only one highly edited one??
Doesn't that smell like a hack job at all?
This isn't about truth. this is about gleefully smearing the character of the man in order to damage his son.
Fraud.
Hilarious.
"Do you know neither of their opinions mean cr@p, since neither of them serve on the court?
--------
Ahh! Sorry. I see the source of your confusion. Let me explain.
You see, the U.S. Constitution gives the President the power to appoint Supreme Court (and other federal) judges. Specifically, Article 2, Section 2 reads in pertinent part as follows:
"He (the president) shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law....â€
Since the President appoints the Supreme Court judges, it strikes many of us that his judicial philosophy (to the extent that he has a coherent one) might just be relevant. Now granted, it isn't 100% predictable. But I think it's reasonable to assume a president will try to appoint someone as close as possible to his philosophy, don't you?
And by the way: couldn't you say the same thing about Trump's promise to "build a big, beautiful wall." Something like that will have to be passed by Congress. So wouldn't it be equally true to say that the President's opinion of such a wall "doesn't mean crap" because he isn't a member of the House or Senate? Hell, at least the President appoints judges. He doesn't appoint congressmen.
Hank
And yet they have the force of law because everyone seems to obey them.
tell you what....re: your earlier post and list of bullshiite...I have no desire to answer a jackass who can’t even take the time to read the thread where most of your questions have already been answered.
And yep....if a private charitable group wants to provide some distractions to children until they are deported....no problem at all. I wouldn’t do it, but it’s their money and it’s not the govt. but their asses should ultimately be deported, just like Cruz has advocated.
Don’t bother to reply... I know you won’t actually digest any of what I’ve said.
=^)
Hypocracy is another thing running deep, on this thread, isn’t it?
Funny how no one is barking at Ted Nugent, who was right there with them. But that wouldn't sound as good would it, because Nugent is another hard-core border guy.
Thank you.
I'm appalled at the number of irrational people on this board.
Do you write for Salon, Robert Kennedy’s Ring of Fire or PoliticusUSA?
Some do legitimately have the force of law, because they are within the proper ambit of the executive’s power.
His Establishment mission is accomplished.
You have a point there, but I really mean with respect to Church Teaching.
That is future Hank this is now. In any case we have a century or so of experience in republicans appointing conservative justices. In Biblical terms the mouth reveals the heart, but politicians are trained liars and are very good at not telling you who they are. Castro was financed and trained right here under the Eisenhower administration and yet Ike was aghast that Castro was a commie.
Judges that have the Supreme Court on their mind will try to avoid any decision that might reveal the truth about them which explains why so many off them are major disappointments.
Does it really matter if the government and citizens obey them as if they were legitimate laws? A Rose by any other name.
Quite disappointing Cruzers simply ignore the record of their “messiah” including supporting Corker/Iran Nukes...and so much more.
Cruzers defend with emotional rants not unlike a 5-year old child...and Alinsky trained “organizers” ala “When facts can’t support your agenda, attack the person”.
Did you work for the Dewhurst campaign?
Also, FReditorials are not front page news.
Trump- adulterer, pro-abortion supporter, single payer supporter,gambling casino owner, multiple divorces, donator to leftists & admitted never asking forgiveness for God for his sins....
meanwhile
Cruz is cultistist says Trumpsters desperate to attack a Conservative Christian
Please, keep up this tactic trumpsters!
Read the damn thread. I, for one, answered those questions among others. All you’re doing is showing your rear end.
Typical trumpeter....think they’re entitled to their own facts.
It matters if we elect a constitutional conservative who endeavors to govern within the limits of the Constitution. If we elect someone who it is not certain if he’s even read the Constitution, then not as much.
But then, we will no longer be a Republic. Following the lawlessness of the kenyan anti-christ with another fellow unconcerned with the restrictions of a limited government under a constitution giving the executive limited powers will probably bring us into an age of empire.
Cruz or lose. America.
Fascinating. Thanks for writing this. I’m going to digest it for awhile before forming an opinion, but I appreciate the time that went into writing it.
FReepers can provide better articles on a subject than the LSM and I wish more FReepers would write editorials.
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.