Replies

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.

Historically the President has never really been a significant factor in how the picks turn out. One only has trust that they will select who you desire, but even if they fulfill that trust, they still need to get them past the Senate.
The makeup of the Senate is an enormously significant variable here, so are the people in leadership of that body. These names have shaped the court: Byrd, Mitchell, Dole, Lott, Daschle, Reid, and coming soon, McConnell. Some are fighters, others unconditionally surrender. The relationship between the President and the Senate is quite important, and we really need to consider that Cruz might have a BIG problem over there where by all accounts they despise him. Another ugly side is Horse Trading, which would necessarily occur whether you want to believe it or not. No slam dunk that Cruz ever gets his picks past them like Clinton and Dumbo did unscathed.
Then we have the enemy media which plays a giant role depending if that month or year they are on a politically correct Jihad to destroy the President ( Bork, Thomas ). I think it's pretty safe to say that Ted Cruz would become their favorite chew toy since Joe McCarthy, or maybe Nixon.
One great unknown is the person doing the advising behind the scenes. That fat troll Sununu drove David Souter's worthless ass into town, and every single other appointment has someone's fingerprints on them. Truthfully we cannot predict if Trump's sister would select appointments for him any more than Beck or Levin selecting for Cruz. This one is behind closed doors and out of our sight.
Practically every Justice has surprised us at some point. Even the ones we think we wanted but who never made it surprised us. Bork was definitely an original intent Constitutionalist and to our chagrin was famously blocked, yet later he turned out to have been every bit the Second Amendment lightweight that all the liberals are. Were he on the Court we would have been in very serious trouble because had he lived long enough to help decide Heller, we might be in Civil War II at this very moment. Predictability? There is no such thing.
And then there is the overall Constitutional batting average of Justices once they clear all those hurdles ...
- Eisenhower ... 1 for 4 ... Warren, Harlan, Brennan, Stewart.
- Nixon ... 1 for 4 ... Burger, Blackmum, Powell, Rehnquist
- Ford ... 0 for 1 ... Stevens
- Reagan ... 1 for 3 ... O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy
- Bush41 ... 1 for 2 ... Souter, Thomas
- Bush43 ... 1 for 2 ... Roberts, Alito
Man, our guys really suck at this ( if only this was baseball where batting .500 is awesome and .300 is great ). Arguably the greatest Justice ever has to be the mighty Clarence Thomas and was appointed by the wussiecrat Bush41, who uncharacteristically did NOT fold under relentless pressure. I would place Scalia as 2nd overall. How would Cruz fare in that scenario? Trump?

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.

Thanks for the compliment - yours was good too.

“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.”

While obvious, this needs to be restated often and loudly.

“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...”

Not sure what you’re getting at here?