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.
“You’re the one who brought it up. Others have tried before you.”
Uh, no:
Your post #101: “I consistently tell the TRUTH! Like it or lump it...”
May want to check out that hubris, too, while you’re at it...
Cruz still more likely gets us there, no matter your endpoint or metric. He more likely gets us a Scalia, Alito or Thomas. Trump more likely gets us a Roberts or Kennedy. I even think Trump is capable of a Souter.
Convenience.
Actually Fox it is up to the candidate to submit their qualifications and then up to the party to approve or disapprove. Of course you can always go the Pelosie route and just resubmit certification papers with offensive parts removed.
That’s the question I am asking. Please note I did NOT say she HAD relinquished her citizenship, I asked the question WHY she was on the voter’s rolls and WHY Cruz’s records are SEALED and he has not given permission to open them to a Freedom of Information scrutiny.
My late husband was a permanent resident alien and he was not required to go back every year.
If Ted was naturalized, he is not a natural born citizen under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5. He claims to be an originalist, yet by the original Constitution which means as it was written, he is clearly not a natural born citizen.
We both want answers. Perhaps it lies in Ted’s records which are sealed. Only he knows.
Also rather disturbing, why did Cruz’s father wait until 2005 to become an American Citizen and why did Ted Cruz wait until 2014 to renounce his
Canadian citizenship?
“Neither did I. I said you were dishonest to imply the situations as analogous. Please learn to read”
Your juvenile snarkiness aside, I DID read your comment:
“Reagan did nominate Bork but faced a dishonest Democrat Senate.”
Ok? And Bork got.....borked. Now what does that have to do with the guy they picked next?
They picked this guy, for whatever reason, that turned out to be a fail, that we are still dealing with today. Why? Because the Senate , dishonest as they are, executed their right to confirm or deny the pick. Period, end of story.
In the end, someone got real lazy with that 2nd pick.
Not hubris, pure FACT!
So you believe him. I don’t. I believe that’s called a standoff. So be it.
http://www.hughhewitt.com/senator-ted-cruz-on-scotus-and-the-justices-hed-appoint/
HH: Now let me, this is the hardest question of all. I love talking to Ted Cruz about the Constitution, because it is an elected official speaking about his area of greatest expertise. You know both the Chief Justice, and you know Judge Luttig, as I do.
TC: Yes.
HH: Judge Luttig was the 4th Circuit justice judge who was in the room, and you know, the other one.
TC: Right.
HH: George Bush decided between Luttig and Roberts. If Luttig had been the Chief Justice and not Roberts, does Ted Cruz think that Michael Luttig would have decided the Obamacare decisions and the marriage decisions differently?
TC: Absolutely. There is no doubt in my mind that if J. Michael Luttig were the chief justice that Obamacare would have been struck down three years ago.
This is who Cruz wanted on the court instead of Roberts. When Roberts was chosen to be the nominee, yes Cruz supported him. Nothing in Roberts past suggested that he would make the error he did on Obamacare.
yes, you were very precise in your question and it is appropriate and relevant to ask how she got on the vote rolls. maybe she became a citizen, but maybe not. but it’s relevant.
your experience with regards to permanent resident aliens comports with mine as well. it’s also consistent with a fact pattern that she was a US citizen, a Canadian citizen, and then a permanent resident alien.
when the original story came out about Cruz relinquishing his citizenship my thought was that as a lawyer, he was clearing this up, sort of belts and suspenders...not because he actually WAS a Canadian ciizen, but that because he was born there, he might technically be called a Canadian citizen. just sort of making sure. I didn’t think anything of it at the time, even though it was obvious he was running for prez.
but now I am wondering if Ted actually went through a naturalization process when he was like a tween or a teen.
if neither of his parents were citizens, and he was born out of the country, it seems that is possible.
And no one thinks that a naturalized citizen is natural born.....
Alas. This is all very sad. And it was very avoidable.
No actually it means the Homeland Security just has to say it is done. Of course they say it is already a done project so.......
The next president will likely have to replace at least one justice, and there are four or five who could go any time.
Scalia might trust Cruz enough to bow out for a younger conservative replacement, and Ginsburg is rumored to be frail. Thomas is also quite old.
It would take two conservative replacements of liberals to really swing the court, which would likely take two presidential terms. But there is a risk of several coming due. It could easily swing the other way, if two conservatives are replaced by leftists.
No candidate is better suited to make excellent Supreme Court picks than Ted Cruz. I fear that Trump would pick friends or use the appointment as a trading chip in negotiations (no doubt tempting offers will be made). Trump is untested in this regard, but no candidate in the modern era comes with a better track record to support judicial picks than Ted Cruz.
Kagan and Sotomayor will likely be with us for decades. Although Sotomayor is firmly liberal in inclination, from the most heavily Democrat leaning county in the USA (Bronx. N.Y.), Kagan is a red diaper baby, raised by communist collaborators, who is a total hack at the beck and call of the hard left.
Anyone who is not a firmly grounded, principled conservative, will be seduced and bribed to the left over time.
The future of the court could well determine the future of the Republic.
Scalia - Reagan
Roberts - Bush 43
Alito - Bush 43
Thomas - Bush 41
Stevens - Ford
Like I said above, the ideological bent of the President doesn’t necessarily translate into the ideological bent of the Justice.
Of the three conservatives on the Court, Scalia came from a conservative President. Alito and Thomas came from big-government RINOs.
Reagan also gave us Sandra Day O’Connor and Anthony Kennedy. So there’s that too...
Yes, yes. I know. I know. Fact. Consistent fact. Since 2015!
In a statement to Breitbart News—the full text of which follows this article—Jason Johnson, chief strategist for Cruz for President, said that “the document itself does not purport to be a list of ‘registered Canadian voters.’ All this might conceivably establish is that this list of individuals (maybe) lived at the given addresses. It says nothing about who was a citizen eligible to vote.â€
Johnson added: “Eleanor was never a citizen of Canada, and she could not have been under the facts or the law. In short, she did not live in Canada long enough to be a Canadian citizen by the time Cruz was born in 1970: Canadian law required 5 years of permanent residence, and she moved to Canada in December 1967—only 3 years before Senator Cruz’s birth.â€
The document is a “preliminary list of electors,†and not a record of those who actually voted. Such lists were also prone to error, according to Breitbart News sources.
Such lists were also prone to error”
That does ring true. Not unlike US census. Probably works generally for its basic purpose. But names, etc., are going to contain a lot of human error.
Pure sophistry on your part. What Trump liked was his opinion on the NBC requirement as do many freepers. In fact before Obama I doubt you could have found more than a handful of people that would have declared Cruz was NBC.
Trump is pro-abortion, so why wouldn’t he put his sister on the bench?
Actually he became a Canadian citizen first and it is a matter of conjecture whether Cruz's mother did as well.
If they renounce it, yes it is.
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.