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 book of Judges show nations are judged by their leaders.
The books of Judges and Kings (1 and 2) prove that depending on a leader to gain favor with God is pointless. The people should cry out to God to lead them in faith regardless of who sits on the throne.
God may allow a “Godly” ruler to go astray (and they usually do) or he may create a David from a man who appears to be a secular disaster. God’s ways are not man’s ways.
Roberts didn’t just”vote to uphold” obarry care, he ReWrote the law on the fly!
Frankly, I think Trump is far more of a true Christian than some wish to believe. Look at his personal habits and his children. No drugs, no alcohol, no smoking. He lives what he preaches and his children are not drowning in scandal as so many other children of celebrities and celebrities themselves are. His private beliefs are his alone. Presbyterians don’t go around shouting about salvation nor wearing their religion on their sleeve. Some religions do, but Presbyterians pretty closely adhere to living with kindness and dispensing goodness. Trump has been doing that for many many years. Considering how Cruz uses his Christianity to win votes, I like Trump’s style better...but maybe it’s because I’m a Presbyterian too and so I understand his reticence about parading religion as a campaign factor. He helps people who need help. Who has Cruz helped but himself?
Who has Cruz helped but himself?...
So far I haven’t found anybody saying he has helped them. I have looked.
Trump said his pro abortion sister would be a good SCJ. She’s a judge.
But he is going to “bomb the sh!t out of somebody so it’s all good!
Stories continue to surface about people Trump has helped and been very quiet about. It reflects what I have been saying. Trump doesn’t parade his “goodness,” to win votes. That, to me, speaks highly of the man.
I agree. I haven’t heard any “goodness” stories about Cruz.
Yes, to me it speaks very highly of Trump. He does not speak about his kindness or his giving, he does not tout his Christianity.
That is to me the sign of a real Christian as opposed to one who tells me constantly how great a Christian he is. That is a lot like a Pharisee.
Totally agree. I also think about the “Priests” who condemned Christ to the Cross, although Pilate tried to save him.
The Freepers here that are now for Trump also used to agree with Cruz on how important the Supreme Court picks are.
The most recent name that Trump is praising is Laurence Tribe. Yesterday on Fox Media Buzz with Howard Kurtz, Trump referred to Tribe as...exact words “ THE WONDERFUL PROFESSOR FROM HARVARD”
A week or so ago he called Tribe “Brilliant”
Trump has to find court picks that are for Eminent Domain and that are pro life Christian Conservatives.. Will that not be tough? He has no legal philosophy as Cruz and Scalia etc, Trump will be all over the place
.. if you believe he has actually had a conversion.. on Christianity, he is only missing one thing, that being a Christian testimony, I am waiting to hear it.
Does he remember the day he asked Jesus into his life... oh no he does not know if he is a sinner, so how can he thank Jesus for dying for his sins?
Here's the thing: Cruz may want a more conservative, more traditionalist nominee than Trump. However, once that person gets on the Court history tells us it's a complete coin flip on whether that person remains conservative, remains traditionalist.To borrow your analogy, we may have a better chance at getting a traditionalist ONTO the Court with Cruz. History says once that person is on the Court, they have a 50/50 shot at REMAINING that way.
That's why using this as a litmus test is silly. We don't care about what they say to get onto the Court. We only care about what they do when they're there.
Logical and brilliant post. Hope some people noticed it. I've been meaning to comment about this, so this is as good a place as any. Please pardon the length!
A lot of folks are ( perhaps rightfully ) saying I simply trust Cruz to make court picks ..., but that is an expression of faith, the results will arrive from a combination of BOTH skill and luck.
The point is that there really is no way to predict what any of our guys will do, we only know for certain what the enemy will do. Therefore, the smart play is to make sure it is our guy picking the next 4-6 Justices rather than the enemy, and even if we bat .500 or less, that is still better than .000.
So that brings up the 800 pound gorilla in the room. If you nominate what you consider the great selector and in the election he does the same or worse than McCain/Palin 2008 ( 173 electoral votes ) or Romney/Ryan 2012 ( 206 ) then you not only get to select ZERO Supreme Court Justices, but you lose the entire executive branch all in one shot. That means all judges and all cabinet departments and well, everything.
There is some irony that many people criticize Trump for having been in the casino business because many of themselves are gambling on boutique issues and esoteric appointment scenarios. The old saying: Do You Feel Lucky? certainly applies.
Your point seems to be that a non Conservative might have a better shot at appointing Conservative Judges? Thats how it came across.
I am not going to condemn Trump on something that is his business alone. If there was a great problem, why aren’t his former wives screaming loudly against him. Why, when someone said he raped Ivana a few months ago, did she come to his defense and deny it?
I knew a great American Artist well...a great authority on Hemingway by the way, who had five wives. I attended his 90th Birthday party where all were present with all the children and they were one loving great big happy family. Should I stand in judgement on Trump? No, I don’t think so.
There are two kinds of citizens: Born citizens, and Naturalized citizen. Cruz is not a NATURALIZED citizen because he did not immigrate into the country and become naturalized. He was already a citizen by virtue of his birth to an American Citizen mother. The location of his birth did not matter due to the fact that his mother was already a US citizen and had lived in the US for a number of years before he was born. There is actually a statute that defines all this. According to the statute, he IS a citizen by virtue of his birth, therefore a "natural born citizen".
It is NONE of MY BUSINESS. I am certain he will have advisers on necessary decisions.
Your snow white Cruz touted Tribe at length in his recommendation of Roberts for immediate approval.
. But, as a jurist, Judge Roberts’s approach will be that of his entire career: carefully, faithfully applying the Constitution and legal precedent. He is a mainstream judge, respected across the ideological spectrum. Thus, he’s earned praise from liberal icons such as Harvard Law Professor Larry Tribe, and Chicago Law Professor Cass Sunstein, as well as from Clinton Solicitors General Walter Dellinger and Seth Waxman, and Carter and Clinton Counsel Lloyd Cutler, the latter two of whom both described Roberts as a man of “unquestioned integrity and fair-mindedness.†As Professor Tribe observed Tuesday night, “[i]t is clear that in the absence of some serious objection that is not now visible . . . he is very likely to be confirmed.†The Senate should confirm him swiftly. –Ted Cruz is the solicitor general of Texas. Did you like this?
Your point seems to be that a non Conservative might have a better shot at appointing Conservative Judges? Thats how it came across.
Nope. Please re-read my FRiend.
Point 1 ... no evidence that ideology of Prez determines how great the Justice is.
Point 2 ... you must be elected President before you get to pick any Justices at all.
Not so. There has never been an Article 5 amendment to the constitution about what is a natural born citizen. Therefore, the law stands as written IMHO. All originalists believe it takes both parents and born on the soil to be a natural born citizen. That was the definition when the constitution was written.
Sorry, but since the term was not defined when the constitution was written, then neither you nor any other "originalist" can say what the definition was when the constitution was written. But since the constitution specifically gives congress the authority "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization," (Article I, Section 8), then statutory law passed by Congress and signed by the President that defines citizenship by virtue of birth is in fact the law that stands as written on the matter. To argue otherwise is to argue that a judge can insert his own opinion as the definition into the constitution to override the duly enacted law of the land. (Not a very originalist position.)
Everybody thought Roberts would be great, I remember the day he was appointed and almost immediately after told he would also be Chief Justice... I was here then, and across the board I recall everybody thought it was terrific, then shortly after Alito was named.
People that were down on GW Bush at the time were saying, well I dont agree with everything Bush has done, but most conceded that this would be the Bush legacy.
So Roberts disappointed but at the time approval was pretty wide spread.
Cruz was trying to do whatever he could, to get who we all thought was a good pick at the time on the court.
Yes I also remember well that Bush had first tried to get his own lawyer on the court, her name slips my mind this moment, so after that they all looked pretty good you will recall.
His behavior doesn't appear to be any more "Christian" than his theology. We won't talk about the fact that he's a serial adulterer who abandoned his family (twice) to shack up with younger women. We won't get into how his ex-wife once alleged that he ripped out chunks of her hair and violated her. We won't delve into how the great Christian Trump sent his lawyer to intimidate and censor journalists who write about those accusations, and how his attorney recently told The Daily Beast, "I'm warning you, tread very f**king lightly, because what I'm going to do to you is going to be f**king disgusting. You understand me?" (Is that what you call "servant leadership," Mr. Falwell?)You'll never find any stories [like the above and the following] about Santorum, Huckabee, or Jindal, and yet, these god-fearing men were at the bottom of the polls. It's SAD.
http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/dear-christians-if-you-vote-for-a-godless-man-you-are-asking-for-tyranny/
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.