That's the logic, here.
I know no one who picks well 100% of the time. (Otherwise, the Donald would never have had to say "You're Fired!".)
Some are easier to fire than others.
Cruz was just one of a herd of people who approved of Roberts, otherwise he would not have been appointed to the bench. But Ted gets the blame for things which were arguably out of character for Roberts (which is the reason for the still incredulous disappointment over the Obamacare vote).
I thought we didn't hang people for other people's actions.
My point was Cruz is always lauded as the one who would make the best SC appointments. The article proves that even he can be wrong, and isn't infallible like his supporters like to think. This perfectionist doctrine applied to Cruz is what is concerning. As for me, I am happy with good ol Trump and all his foibles, misspeaks, and human failings.
ps what does mmmmmmmkay mean? Just started seeing it yesterday.
As for Roberts, Cruz, Ronald Reagan, etc., they are all human.
The last person who was without flaw was a couple thousand years ago, and we saw how that turned out (at least in the earthly courts).
I don't expect perfection from any candidate, but I do expect core values, I expect the guts to stand up for those, and I expect them to stand up for the Constitution, not subvert it.
IMHO, Cruz has met that, even if one of the appointments he supported did not (Roberts makes his own choices, Cruz doesn't make those for him.)
I would expect Cruz to carefully study anyone he appointed and select candidates who would be most likely to uphold those core values and the Constitution. After that, there is always an element of risk that those candidates would not live up to that expectation.
So I don't hold Cruz up to be perfection, just who I consider best in the field.
The one thing Trump supporters so often seem to forget is that he is not only a businessman and negotiator, but a consummate salesman, too. Better kick the tires and slam the doors...