Posted on 04/11/2016 5:58:45 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
That’s going a little far.
One is eligible.
One isn’t eligible.
That’s the only comparison.
Cruz is an useful idiot for the RNC
That is a fundamental truth. He would have been long gone, and we’d be fighting over whether refusing to vote for Rubio or Bush or whoever was in front would be a vote for Hillary, same as every 4 years.
LOL. And all this time we are being told he is the big GOPe "insider."
Are you for real?
The so-called conservative champion practices political cronyism just like a friggin Democrat would.
This country needs real change, not fake change.
Mr. Trump represents real change.
All the big guns are aimed at him not Ted Cruz.
You are entitled to your opinion, I don’t agree. I would favor Cruz over Trump, but am flexible enough to like them both. My heart says Trump will kick over the entire sandbox and I love that. My head says Cruz will methodically work to do many good things because he is a “worker”, whereas Trump is a BS artist. He shows none of the characteristics of those he pushes to become “apprentices” on his show. He seems to be born with the silver spoon, and doesn’t have the mettle to know when to take a defeat with grace, while planning for it not to happen again. JMO.... Like I said, I will vote for him if he is the nominee.
Trump for write in. Cruz cannot get anywhere near the White House. He’s the worst liberal running in both parties. I think he is a communist quite frankly.
It's boosting 34 delegates that does not sit well.
There useless at this point.
If Cruz & Trump had won 15 states each were neck and neck and Cruz was stealing delegates to beat Trump on the first vote Ted would look better. Instead he’s just tryign to change the Trump’s win rate since Florida.
Ted Cruz is not a fake, he is a genuine Bush sycophant.
I like how one Freeper puts it:
1. Cruz is the American revolution 2.0
2. Trump is the French revolution 2.0
It is more than obvious to me at this point that facts are absolutely irrelevant to the angry mob supporting Trump. It only makes them angrier. We find out tonight from naps coordinator that Cruz is no longer simply a globalist. Cruz is a communist!
I am quite sure we will find out next week which of his pets Cruz is having sex with from Trump supporters.
It is ideological savagery with no mooring or intellectual foundation.
But trump has been consistent. He has consistently attacked the most conservative rivals: Walker, Carson, Christie, Rubio and Cruz.
He has reserved his most hateful “liar” accusations for those who are most conservative.
He has not attacked Hillary with nearly the venom. Trump is tapping into public anger.
I get it. The French Revolutionary participants were mad as hell at the aristocracy.
It is fascinating and has some rational basis but it is obviously politically counterproductive.
Trump seeks to bully anyone who opposes him into submission.
As always, my thought is:
Come and take it!
Have you actually looked up his supreme court record? It is not nearly as hot and impressive as he makes it out to be. In fact, one could conclude that the guy is just another -surprise, surprise - slimy lawyer.
In his first case Frew v. Hawkins (1996) Cruz argued that Texas was not bound by a consent decree entered into by the Texas attorney general in a class action Medicaid case. Cruz tried to argue that state sovereignty rights afforded by the 11th Amendment barred the appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Needless to say, states are bound, under the US Constitution by their obligations of contract and a consent decree is a contract recorded with the Court. The court ruled against him 9-0.
His next case was just as problematic, Dretke v. Haley (2004). Haley was convicted of stealing a calculator from a Walmart, a misdemeanor with a maximum prison sentence of 2 years. But Texas invoked the repeat offenders act and he was sentenced to 15 years. Some years later an attorney reviewed the record and appealed on the grounds that Texas had misapplied the repeat offenders act. Before the Supreme Court, Cruz argued that the Haley had waived any objection to his sentence by leaving it so long (Really!) and also argued that he was concerned about the impact of an adverse opinion in the Haley matter on other Texas cases.
Here is what transpired at oral argument:
J. Kennedy: You’ve conceded that this sentence is unlawful?”
Cruz: Yes.
Kennedy Well then, why are you here? Is there some rule that you can’t confess error in your state?
Cruz: No
Kennedy: Well, so a man does 15 years so you can vindicate your legal point in some other case? ... I just don’t understand why you don’t dismiss this case and move to lower the sentence.
Those are the values of your constitutional conservative sleezebag Lyin' Ted.
Is that you Jose Medellin?
I regret the time taken to respond to your post 11, because this post is totally foaming at the mouth delusional. A couple too many loanstars under your belt?
I don’t think that is the problem.
Jose Medellin is dead because Cruz defeated the Bush administration before the Supreme Court on the question of whether international law should trump Texas’ legal capacity to execute an illegal immigrant murder.
The Medellin case like so many other cases he won and others he fought for go to the core of a conservative character which ALL other candidates lack.
Cruz was not simply winning bankruptcy cases or some eminent domain case for the state of Texas— hint hint.
Cruz was winning states rights, gun rights, religious liberty cases.
If you want to stake your judicial superiority on the cross examination of Kennedy— go ahead. Kennedy is a lousy supreme court justice who has done little to advance the values embodied by the is forum Andy Jackson.
It is frankly absurd the lengths your side is willing to go to discredit someone who is more conservative than Reagan. I have looked at Cruz’s supreme court record and you are nowhere near putting a scratch in that record.
While I take your point, and it is a good point about power never decreasing once it as been granted, I see why the anti-federalist papers never took off. Brutus is an attrocious writer by comparison with Madison or Hamilton or Jay, whose writing styles were the equal of any man in any time and place. After a grossly grandiloquent introduction Brutus then raises rather abstract objections which lack the crispness, clarity, precision, and concreteness of the Federals authors. The latter you immediately get, wherever you start reading. This is turgid.
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.