Posted on 08/31/2015 12:43:37 AM PDT by Behind the Blue Wall
It’s sad to see a “battle of idols” going on....
Well, I didn’t specify you, did I? So I’m not sure why you yelped.
But...full of themselves....is that anything like appointing oneself Free Republic’s unofficial spiritual authority, and going around scolding and correcting others from a perch of self-righteousness?
I think it might be.
Might as well, LOL!
Why do you call it a perch of self righteousness? Are you viewing in a mirror?
Perfection I do not claim. Speaking the best I can about the Perfect One I do claim.
I don't see it. I see some/many supporting what they call a "populist" while others are supporting conservatism.
You are kind of imperceptive, then.
It worked out pretty well in Bush v Gore.
As for O’Connor and Kennedy getting to the SCOTUS, you obviously don’t know your history. Mark Levin has discussed this numerous times that he was on the team that was apart of the vetting process with Ed Meese in which they reviewed every nook and cranny decision that the two had ever done. And when concerns about some of Kennedy’s past statements were raised, Kennedy “assured” them that his legal mindset was one of originalist intent to the point Levin has now called out Kennedy for flat out lying and that if Kennedy had been truthful in those interviews about his real beliefs he would have never been nominated.
In other words, people lie.
As for O’Connor, she supposedly evolved, but again that decision was made based on the best information they had available at the time.
As for who Trump would nominate, who the Hell knows? He’s proven in his previous statements he doesn’t have a clue about the out of control judicial lawlessness of the courts and has stated his own pro-abortion sister would make a “phenomenal” justice. Trump gets a D- on the Constitution. If he doesn’t understand what the real role of the judiciary is, he will get it wrong.
Said the poster who doesn't see that Donald Trump is a flaming leftist and a fraud.
It seems to me a pragmatist is ever alert to opportunities. On that basis, Trump as pragmatist should, if anything, be embracing Kim Davis, not suggesting that as a public official she should "follow the law."
The problem here is The Donald evidently is not a student of the Constitution. As a businessman, he only has to deal with the "surface" of the law and how it tangibly affects his business affairs; probably he has not invested much time at all in explicating the philosophical foundations of the American rule of law. Which is why I would so welcome more collaboration between him and that master of the Constitution, Ted Cruz.
Cruz is coming out with guns blazing in defense of Kim Davis. The Donald should do likewise. And I don't mean merely on First Amendment freedom of religion grounds; but on basic constitutional grounds more generally.
The SCOTUS gay marriage decision is simply not valid constitutional law. Valid constitutional law is the product of Article I, not Article III.
The Supreme Court has zero constitutional warrant to enact laws. Thus such actions are null and void from inception on constitutional grounds. And in the understanding of the Framers, the citizen is under no obligation to comply with such a "law." Especially if it constitutes a usurpation of powers reserved to the states and the people under the Tenth Amendment.
Kim Davis is standing up on behalf of such understandings. For her, it is primarily a matter of religious conscience — which the federal government is required to respect and even guarantee. But she is in jail, owing to her noncompliance with a non-law passed by a tyrannical court that seems to want all national power — which the Framers were very careful to separate as between the national government, the governments of the several states, and the people thereof — all national power consolidated in Washington. Under this scenario, the U.S. Constitution is both mute, and moot. Thus all security of individual liberty is gone.
It is here that the religious and constitutional issues completely dovetail. This is of passionate concern to social conservatives, who have received nothing but the back of the hand from the establishment GOP. The GOPe appears to be thoroughly embarrassed by these people who, historically, have constituted their more-or-less permanent electoral base.
So, social conservatives are, in a sense, political orphans. I very strongly doubt that The Donald can win the GOP nomination or the general election without their votes.
So, I think The Donald should just come right out and officially "adopt them."
By "them," I mean the Tea Party, and also non-GOP-affiliated social conservatives among Independent and Democrat voters.
The Donald would be on eminently solid historical, philosophical, cultural, and policy grounds in so doing. Though maybe he would need The Ted to explain to him the "whys and wherefores" involved....
Your last paragraph was chilling; I suspect you are right. 'Nuff said for now.
Thank you ever so much for writing, dear marron!
> “The problem here is The Donald evidently is not a student of the Constitution. As a businessman, he only has to deal with the “surface” of the law and how it tangibly affects his business affairs; probably he has not invested much time at all in explicating the philosophical foundations of the American rule of law. Which is why I would so welcome more collaboration between him and that master of the Constitution, Ted Cruz. .... //.... Cruz is coming out with guns blazing in defense of Kim Davis. The Donald should do likewise. And I don’t mean merely on First Amendment freedom of religion grounds; but on basic constitutional grounds more generally.”
You have just perfectly illustrated why Ted and Donald need each other. I’ll say it again: together, they will win most assuredly; individually, it’s a roll of the dice.
Trump and Cruz complement each other better than any other combination of 2 candidates.
One has knowledge of constitution, other has knowledge of real world main street economy.
One can draw huge crowds, other can give eleoquent speeches.
One has his own money, other is able to get money from supporters, for the campaign.
The sooner these two declare a ticket, the better. That will vanquish all opposition quickly. No one can accuse the ticket of lacking conservative principles, lacking popularity and resonance with voters. JMHO.
I so agree with this assessment, dear Hostage. THANK YOU!
"I so agree with this assessment, dear Hostage. THANK YOU!"
**************************
I could not agree more!
I, too, am a pragmatist. I cannot in one week say I realize Trump is no politician and no constitutional or foreign policy guru, and then the next week completely reject him because his is no politician, nor a constitutional or foreign policy guru.
As a pragmatist, I have to acknowledge that Huckabee was actually the first candidate on top of the Kim Davis issue. And some credit goes to Rand Paul, who as senator of Kentucky could be working behind the scenes on this.
Cruz gets great credit.
Trump has stumbled on this issue.
As a pragmatist, I believe all candidates should be compared on a fair system and not decided upon based on the emotion of the moment. Cruz is the candidate most in line with my conservative Christian beliefs. Trump is the candidate with the greatest access to both money and media access. Huckabee is a well-spoken, Christian conservative who ventures sometimes too far into the establishment farm system.
I have maintained throughout that Cruz is my first choice. I have maintained that I support Trump because of his ability to be a spoiler of the GOP-E, a system that truly needs to be demolished. Huckabee is a fall back position for me if those two are sidelined for some unforeseen reason. Who else would I go with in a primary if I had none of those choices? (Donning flame protection) Walker, Santorum, Fiorini, Perry, Rubio, and Carson.
I really do not want the socialists to have the presidency again.
I so agree! THANK YOU!!!
Might I point out that Jeb! is lacking on all three points: conservative principles, popularity, and resonance with voters. But he is the "fair-haired boy" of the GOPe. More to the point, he is flush with donor cash; he can stay in the race to the bitter end, even if his election effort is futile from the get-go....
Catering to illegals - a disaster beyond what Trump says...
NOT for the squeamish:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE
I so agree with this assessment, dear Hostage.
Trump and Cruz complement each other better than any other combination of 2 candidates.
I also agree.
The mere fact that Trump teams with Cruz would relieve most of my misgivings about him, it would be a solid indicator the kind of president he wants to be.
The only place Cruz is weak, in my eyes, is on immigration. Teaming with Trump would similarly relieve my doubts on that score.
I do agree with you, Betty, that Trump needs to step up in defense of Kim Davis. This would seal the deal for a lot of people, maybe me included.
I think they could make a very good team. Eight years with Trump will probably turn Cruz's hair grey but it will be well worth it.
Amen.
Ted Cruz needs Donald Trump like a hole in his head... Like Reagan did not need George Bush Sr. on his ticket either.. Look at mess that caused.. (Sr. Jr. And now Jeb)
AND a plethora of other things..
Ted Cruz NEEDS Mike Lee as VeeP.. not Trump...
AND should NEVER agree to be TRUMP's VeeP.. they are white and black, sweet and sour, up and down.. conservative and liberal
AND I believe Ted Cruz knows exactly that..
Ted Has principles, Trump does NOT..
BUT; the Contest has barely begun.. not time for Cruz to strip Trump naked YET...
Can he do it?.. Cruz is the man.. fast on his feet brilliant debater and able to draw brilliant pictures in peoples minds..
Just look at what he did to Mitch McConnell.. at the right time in the right words with right impact at the right moment..
He can do the same to TRUMP easier.. because there is far more evidence to USE.... Cruz is a brilliant prosecutor..
Trump vs Cruz is like: Perry Mason against Hamilton Burger TRUMP's bombast will not work on Cruz..
The Dog and Pony Show has just begun... Cruz is raising the most money too.. The smart had better HOPE Cruz wins because D.Trump is for building THE WALL this week..
Did I mention that Donald Trump is against the 2nd amendment.. what else is he against?.. he flip flops quickly and frequently on ISSUES..
You know like a liberal.. or a RINO..
Am I against TRUMP?... Well NO I am not.. I am just against him being PRESIDENT..
LOL
Cruz has never needed the help of a liberal Democrat and that's not going to change now.
Trump donated $25,000 to Terry McAuliffe's Virginia gubernatorial race. Thanks in part to Trump, McAuliffe now sits in my governor's mansion.
Let me make myself clear to you. You can pass me by with that crap about Trump "adopting" social conservatives. He might try it, but I'm not one of the suckers who will fall for it.
He's a liberal sleazebag and I won't vote for him under any circumstances.
And you need not ping me to anymore of your nonsense.
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.