Posted on 02/14/2016 4:43:56 AM PST by Alas Babylon!
Donald made more friends than enemies attacking the Bush family last night. A lot of us have less than fond memories of Dubya. Trump did not hurt himself at all in SC.
I can understand why Trump may have made a mistake regarding Bush. I, personally, would have a hard time just accepting the multi-million dollar add campaign to take me down in the 3 primary States thus far. I know that I would respond to defend my honor. I also once held Bush in esteem but the way he burnt down the financial markets and never defended his decisions against rat ridicule, totally turned me off. His spending nearly destroyed our Country and his ideas regarding public education sucked. For him to jump in at this point to prop Jeb up is ok but now he is fair game.
Me
The supreme court work ought not be political.
Maybe, the remaining 8 can demonstrate they are worthy of Citizen respect by staying in their sandbox and evaluating the judical merits of a case.
You
Good grief.
Can you point out for me anything in this current state of affairs that is not only patently political but bordering on all-out war? (and please note that I’m being charitable to the point of foolishness when I say “bordering”....)
Me
The merits of a legal dispute should be judged against a legal backgrop, not what the mob of SJW`s are bleating about
You
Lovely non-answer.
You seem to be itching for a food fight.
I am not interested in your need to fight
SJW=Social Justice Warrior
I have lost a lot of respect for the Courts.
The Courts can regain my trust if the Judges stick to decisions based on Law.
The Courts will remain in my doghouse should they continue to legislate from the bench.
Please, do not respond to my posts!
Ok, Trump said a bad word, let’s not elect him on that issue alone
Do you realize that Rome is burning? Do you understand that if the establishment gets one more purchased Prez, we’re toast?
None of this other stuff matters this election, not language, not education, not gay rights. The only thing that matters is stopping the Washington coup and that means getting someone from the outside in. None of the others, not Cruz, Rubio, Kasich, or Bush are outside the sphere of donor influence. Therefore none of them will fight for us.
Put the pearls down and slowly back away.
He says it at his rallys.
I’m only going to make two points, you can take ‘em or leave ‘em as you choose.
1) Some may call this an election campaign, but it’s really a war.
2) The only “nice” things about a war are the Victory Parade and meeting The Guys for a beer at the Legion Post afterwards.
Well said!
+1
And flying around trying to keep him under wraps led to Islamic Kook outrage about us in the so-called Holy Land of Saudi Arabia (not our holy land, theirs). Thus the first World Trade Center bombing, Khobar Towers, Nairobi and Tanzania bombings, many more here and there, and finally 9/11...
At that point Dubya had no choice. You don't mess with the US.
However, after it was over, it was the nation building crap, the Islam is the Religion Of Peace nonsense that wore me down. And the democrats played Bush on this for political gains, the bastards. While Bush and Powell instituted it (Powell's "You break it, you own it" dictum), the dems would have screamed bloody outrage if we just walked away and left behind chaos and a vacuum Iran could walk into, even though, 5 years later, that was exactly what Obama did.
Religion of Peace. SPIT! Islam is WHY Bin Laden attacked us. Leaders of Muslim nations can be our friends but their religion calls us all INFIDELS, and their Holy Book DEMANDS they make war on us. Let us call a spade a spade.
After the disaster of (post-Saddam) Iraq, Libya, Egypt and Syria, I realized that brutally strong but weakly Muslim dictators are NEEDED in these countries to keep the rabid religionists on a tight leash.
We should have just replaced Saddam with an equally mean dictator, but one that was OUR dog.
TIL--Things I Learned--about Middle East Secular Tyrants.
This going after George W. Bush ... all because Trump got hurt feelings from Jeb. Soooo ridiculous and self-defeating. It’s not as though Jeb can hurt him.
People like and admire George W. Bush and there’s a reason for that. He may not have been a perfect President but he was a good president and he loved our country.
Trump supporters were so ecstatic about Trump’s veteran fund raiser. Well, Trump USED veterans ... veterans he had hardly supported in the past ... to get back at Fox and escape the Mean Lady.
George W. Bush supported veterans every day of his presidency and has continued to support them to this day.
Trump supporters seem to think being a nice guy is a bad thing. I don’t.
With the comments about the Democrats taking the Senate back in November, I’m surprised there are no comments about which candidate in the Republican primary race has the most useful coattails. Can’t wait to see the arguments the most strident believers will have about that...
Totally disagree.
People are tired of both the Bush’s and the Clinton’s.
History already proves that George HW Bush made a blunder by not letting Swartzkopf’s forces continue for another 48 hours and George W’s belief in Islam being a Religion of Peace got us much more entangled then we should have been.
And Clinton—he could have SHOULD have stopped 9/11 by getting Bin Laden, who the Sudanese were happy to turn over to us. Instead, he concentrated on getting little Willie satisfied, and having Janet Reno get all those kids at Waco!
I’m a veteran. Actually retired military. I think Trump is on our side more than any other candidate running.
Perhaps. So what?
"classy" is a subjective term. It is like beauty in the eyes of the beholder.
The President can select but it is up to the Senate to consent (approve). In reality, it is the Senate who gets the final say under the Constitution. The Supreme Court is not the President's personal little fiefdom to preside over like his personal advisors. The two branches have to agree. If the Senate doesn't want to either vote on a SC nomination or accept one of the President's choosing it is their Constitutional prerogative. He can choose another. Or just pound sand.
He said he was against Kagan but voted for her anyway.
Goober is a moron - a weak, dangerous moron.
He said if a compromise nominee was presented by Obama, then he would support it.
Goober is a also a boot-licking moron, probably one with a very thick blackmail file.
Ted Cruz’s appearance on This Week today:
http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/video/sen-ted-cruz-death-justice-scalia-2016-presidential-36930642
He was also on Meet The Press today:
CHUCK TODD:
Well, moments ago I spoke to Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, and I began by asking him how he might go about replacing Justice Antonin Scalia in the court.
(BEGIN TAPE)
CHUCK TODD:
Let me go to litmus tests. Do you have them for potential Supreme Court justices?
SEN. TED CRUZ:
Well, my litmus test for any Supreme Court justice is whether he or she will faithfully apply the constitution of the law. It’s not a specific issue. It is rather a jurisprudential approach. And the only way to determine that is if they have a proven record. If they have spent years demonstrating they’ll be faithful to the law. That’s the job of a justice.
It’s what liberal activists don’t do. Liberal activists want to instead legislate from the bench. And, you know, a perfect example of that is Justice Scalia. Justice Scalia was a lion of the Supreme Court. He’s one of the greatest Supreme Court justices in history. He spent three decades on the court. But before he was on the court, he was a law professor for many, many years, he was a court of appeals judge, he had a long-proven record so that you knew exactly what you were getting with him. I knew Justice Scalia for 20 years.
CHUCK TODD:
Yeah, is this a mistake you think that was made with John Roberts? Because you were a big supporter of him.
SEN. TED CRUZ:
Of course it is.
CHUCK TODD:
But in hindsight, you’re not. Is that because you think that he didn’t have a track record?
SEN. TED CRUZ:
He didn’t have a track record. And I would not have nominated John Roberts. Once George Bush nominated him, I supported the nomination as a Republican nominee. But I would’ve nominated Mike Luttig, my former boss, who was a court of appeals judge, who was Justice Scalia’s very first law clerk, and like Justice Scalia, had a long-proven track record. And Chuck, just as Ronald Reagan was to the presidency, so Antonin Scalia was to the Supreme Court. He had that big an impact.
CHUCK TODD:
No doubt.
SEN. TED CRUZ:
And I think his passing yesterday really underscores the stakes of this election. We are facing our fundamental rights in a balance.
CHUCK TODD:
Let me ask you, does the United States Senate have an obligation to at least consider a nomination that President Obama puts forward? I understand that you guys don’t want it, and you would prefer to let the elected... but doesn’t the United States Senate have an obligation to at least go through the process and have an up or down vote?
SEN. TED CRUZ:
Not remotely.
CHUCK TODD:
Why?
SEN. TED CRUZ:
It has been 80 years since a Supreme Court vacancy was nominated and confirmed in an election year. There is a long tradition that you don’t do this in an election year. And what this means, Chuck, is we ought to make the 2016 election a referendum on the Supreme Court. I cannot wait to stand on that debate stage with Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders and talk about what the Supreme Court will look like depending on who wins.
If Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders wins, or for that matter, if Donald Trump wins, whose record is indistinguishable from them on a great many issues, then we will see the Second Amendment written out of the constitution. And another thing we’ll see, and this is very relevant for conservatives in South Carolina. If Donald Trump is the nominee, or if Hillary Clinton is the president, we will see unlimited abortion on demand throughout this country, partial-birth abortion, taxpayer funding, no parental notification. And we’ll also see our religious liberty torn down, our basic rights.
CHUCK TODD:
All right, but I want to go back to the United States Senate here. So you believe the presidency is only three years long in each term? I mean, if we go down this road, we’re cutting off a presidency with a year to go. And more importantly, Senator Cruz, the risk here for conservatives is that if you have all these four-four ties in the court, then the more liberal leaning circuit will then have, you know, their rulings will take precedent.
SEN. TED CRUZ:
Look, the consequence of a four-four tie is that the judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed by an equally-divided vote. This has happened many times in history that there have been vacancies, sometimes on a closely-contentious case. They’ll hold it over for the next term, when the replacement justice arrives.
In an election year, we have a long tradition that a lame-duck president doesn’t get to jam a Supreme Court nominee through on the very end. L.B.J. tried that and the Supreme Court rejected it. And particularly when the court is five-four, is balanced, an Obama liberal nominee would dramatically shift the U.S. Supreme Court.
CHUCK TODD:
Okay, I understand that. But why not go through the process? Shouldn’t the United States Senate do its duty and go through the process? Reject it, Senator, but go through the process.
SEN. TED CRUZ:
By the way, the Senate’s duty is to advise and consent. You know what? The Senate is advising right now. We’re advising that a lame-duck president in an election year is not going to be able to tip the balance of the Supreme Court.
That we’re going to have an election, and if liberals are so confident that the American people want unlimited abortion on demand, want religious liberty torn down, want the Second Amendment taken away, want veterans’ memorials torn down, want the crosses and stars of David sandblasted off of the tombstones of our fallen veterans, then go and make the case to the people.
I don’t think the American people want that. I’m very happy to take that case directly to Hillary Clinton, directly to Bernie Sanders. And I would note, look, how do we know Donald Trump’s record on this is going to be bad? He has supported liberals for four decades: Jimmy Carter, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer, Harry Reid.
Anyone who cares about judges would not be supporting Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer and John Kerry and Hillary Clinton. And the consequence is, if either Hillary or Bernie or Donald Trump is the president, we will see the Second Amendment written out of the constitution. This is a basic question, who will defend our liberties?
CHUCK TODD:
Senator Cruz, I have to leave it there this morning. A lot more to get to. I look forward to hopefully having you on perhaps next Sunday, and we can get to more of that. Thank you, sir.
SEN. TED CRUZ:
Excellent.
If the Senate caves to Obama, Republicans could lose the Senate.
And they should be recalled from office for dereliction of duty.
Just say NO. None of this we have vetted his recommendation and that person will be impartial. Yeah, just like his last two ....
But if a candidate wanted to appear and told them, and they refused, that would be a whole other story. Hopefully worth telling by someone.
Do you have any insight or knowledge about it?
My evidence for this is your spreadsheet. IIRC, many candidates who have dropped out have had more appearances than Cruz, who won Iowa and is running second in most national polls.
As to why he does not complain, my theory is that he does want to come out looking like a whiner.
Thank you for that transcript.
Perfect.
Chuck Todd unable to trap him at all.
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.