Posted on 01/25/2016 8:03:19 AM PST by justlittleoleme
Liberals won't like it.
If Ted Cruz is elected president, he has big plans for the Supreme Court -- namely, picking extremely conservative candidates to fill any vacancies among the nine justices.
In an interview with Bloomberg, the Senator and former solicitor general from Texas said that Republicans are generally bad at picking nominees for the high court, and that he'd be different.
"Unlike many of the other candidates, I will be willing to spend the capital to ensure that every Supreme Court nominee that I put on the court is a principled judicial conservative," Cruz said.
As solicitor general, Bloomberg notes, Cruz argued in front of the court on behalf of his state.
Cruz specifically called out Chief Justice John Roberts, appointed by George W. Bush, and Anthony Kennedy, appointed by Ronald Reagan, as bad picks. Roberts has gotten a lot of flack among conservatives in recent years for voting to uphold Obamacare, while Kennedy was castigated by the right for writing the opinion this year to legalize gay marriage.
The next president will likely have a few vacancies to fill. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Antonin Scalia, and Anthony Kennedy will all be over 80 years old by election day, while Stephen Breyer will be 78.
So how would Cruz find truly conservative justices? He said he'd look for candidates with "a long paper trail as principled conservative jurists." This means jurists who've actually made decisions, rather than the sometimes more politically palatable candidates without as much of a record.
The constitution has not protected you from the criminal invasion of our country by committed socialists from South America.
That is the most important issue because the Constitution means nothing to the invaders and once they outnumber us then it is truly over, the Constitution can never survive that.
I don’t think Kennedy is actually gay.
Yeah he cast lots of gay votes, and had that gay buddy back in the day. But I don’t think HE is actually gay.....all the others, yep.
Cruz’s mother went with Cruz’s father to Canada where they worked in the oil business. Cruz’s father became a Canadian Citizen. The question arises DID Cruz’s mother relinquish her American citizenship because she was on the Canadian Voter’s Lists and that requires Canadian Citizenship. IF she became a Canadian citizen, she CANNOT get her American citizenship back. THAT is the question I am raising and it follows, WHY won’t Ted Cruz allow a number of Freedom of Information Requests if he is so lily-white clean? The records are SEALED exactly as Obamas’s are.
True.
However...Roberts did a lot of gay pro bono work as a lawyer. And he was a “confirmed bachelor” for a long time. There’s some photos that folks have posted here that pretty well make the ole gaydar go tilt.
But the fact that Roberts did gay pro bono stuff was eminently knowable. And apparently pretty well known around DC.....
Oh, please! Cruz and Roberts were long time friends! Wake up.
But I DO lay at his feet, the authority of Congress to dictate to the Courts what they can/cannot even take-up and NOT USE THAT ability.
Course, since I have no concept of what a ‘principled conservative’ IS (OK w/ a ‘safety net’, Kelo, taxes [ala O’Care]). I’d rather have him state, clearly, he’d push and FIGHT for “original constitutionalism”. There is NO lawyer-ly wiggle-room in those two words.
Oldie, newbie...doesn’t matter. You’re the one who claimed to “consistently” report the truth. My comment is absolutely valid. You, like Trump, don’t have a very long track record to lay claim to ANY kind of consistency yet. We “oldies” are more than willing for you [both] to put together a record. Until then, wisdom dictates that we “oldies” withhold judgment about your consistency—one way or the other.
You don’t have to like it. It’s just the way that it is.
“So? You were saying Bush picked conservative winners and Reagan losers, as evidence Cruz would not.”
It’s evidence that there is no sue bet to any of this where a Reagan can appoint a lemon, but a Bush could get it right.
Cruz got it wrong on his opinion of Roberts (excuses aside), so he isn’t going to bring a special type of magic either. The truth is that all of these people in the judiciary are suspect, and that’s where the starting point should be.
“Reagan did nominate Bork but faced a dishonest Democrat Senate. “
So? The Senate has the power to confirm or not. I deliberately did not address this, but what will Cruz do with a senate that may put up opposition? If Cruz somehow expects there to not be any, then he is being naive.
“”It’s typical of a Trump supporter....”
So I take it that’s the point that your head explodes and your mouth starts to foam?
I totally forgot about that. Enough skeletons in his closet to make him very susceptible to black mail.
Unless Mitch went nuclear they would never be approved and you know it. In fact we have little information that would lead us to believe we will even retain the Senate. People are angry at all of them and with good reason.
Have you ever been betrayed by a friend? Roberts siding with the liberals no matter the reason was a huge betrayal.
This is a completely dishonest characterization of the Senate Reagan or Bush I faced compared to that today.
So I take it that's the point that your head explodes and your mouth starts to foam?
Looks like yours already did.
The question arises DID Cruz’s mother relinquish her American citizenship because she was on the Canadian Voter’s Lists and that requires Canadian Citizenship. IF she became a Canadian citizen, she CANNOT get her American citizenship back. THAT is the question I am raising”
Is it possible that the Canadian vote rolls made an error...ie, that she should not have been on it? Just a thought.
And...under that scenario...would it follow that Ted was naturalized later through some process?
I don’t know the answer to that. But it occurs to me that it would probably be pretty easy for two Canadian citizens to bring their kid in the country if they had all their work visa/permit stuff lined up. Then if they stayed here, the kid would need to naturalize later.
Cruz’s mother is here in the US, right? If she’s a Canadian citizen, then unless she’s a permanent resident alien, wouldn’t she have to go back for like 30 days every year or something?
(maybe she is a permanent resident alien...I don’t know...I’m just trying to figure out how to get to an answer here).
This is ABSOLUTE PROOF that Ted Cruz has been telling the truth the entire time, and Marco Rubio and his supporters are absolute liars. 2013 interview with Rush Limbaugh, where Ted Cruz submits to America, what Rubio and the Gang of 8 was doing AT THE TIME IT WAS HAPPENING. This was recorded BEFORE IT WAS VOTED ON. So Rubio and his lying supporters can’t claim Ted changed his view, when here he is, live on Limbaugh, in 2013, saying the SAME THING HE IS SAYING NOW. https://youtu.be/sLjBG3EE0G4
Trump will appoint his sister.
.....................................................
How much are you selling crystal balls for? Ouija Boards must cost more!
Cruz specifically called out Chief Justice John Roberts, appointed by George W. Bush,â€
That’s pretty hysterical since the reason we have ROBERTS and Obamacare is TED CRUZ! Handpicked and RECRUITED by Cruz, his old friend John Roberts!
http://www.nationalreview.com/node/214989/print
The Right Stuff
John Roberts should be a quick confirm.
By Ted Cruz - July 20, 2005
.................................................
The problem, AuntB is that the Cruz supporters don’t want to read evidence of the truth. Cruz is always for something before he is against it.
“This is a completely dishonest characterization of the Senate Reagan or Bush I faced compared to that today. “
I didn’t say they weren’t dishonest. I said they have the POWER to confirm or deny. Where is it written that it had to be “for a good reason”? They can do it because they dont like the person’s haircut for all we know.
“Looks like yours already did.”
Not really. I didn’t launch into that “typical (name here) supporter” stuff. You did.
You’re the one who brought it up. Others have tried before you.
From that article, Cruz says this:
“Second, many distinguished jurists, such as Chief Justices William Rehnquist and Earl Warren and Justices O’Connor, Souter, and Thomas, similarly had very limited experience on the federal bench prior to ascending to the Court.”
Interesting how he used Warren, O’Connor and Souter as positive examples of how it’s ok to have unexperienced judges get promoted to SCOTUS. Yes, Rehnquist and Thomas turned out great. But Roberts, at least in the obamacare case, ended up as a Souter.
Still...we all know that appointment exists in the context of what is confirmable. And since Bork, it was generally thought that the more clever strategy was to find a “real conservative” but with no paper trail.
That strategy has proven too clever by half.
Neither did I. I said you were dishonest to imply the situations as analogous. Please learn to read.
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.