Replies

"This is the same mandate that John Roberts called a tax. You know, the same John Roberts put in place by the evil Ted Cruz." - kik5150

Accusing Cruz of supporting Obamacare via his recommendation of Roberts to the USSC is dishonest. It's a half-truth, a misrepresentation of history at best. Why would you say this?

The facts: John Roberts had a conservative track record, and had argued 39 cases before the USSC. He had excellent conservative credentials. He clerked for USSC Chief Justice William Rehnquist. He was appointed by Ronald Reagan as a special Assistant to the AG. He was appointed to the Federal Court of Appeals by GHW Bush. The Senate held at 55 GOP 45 Democrats, but Democrats had the filibuster available to block any G.W. Bush nominee.

Roberts was the best, most conservative Jurist that Bush could get past the Senate. NOBODY IN THE GOP-c or GOP-e DISAGREED WITH THAT ASSESSMENT IN 2005. So, why the new standard now, for Cruz?

So, Roberts fooled us all, when he all activist on Obamacare. He's considered a reliable conservative otherwise. He infuriated the four conservative dissenters, and just about everyone else in the GOP.

Of course, you DO know this history, correct? Marco Rubio knows this history, too. So, why are you and he trying to hold Cruz responsible for Robert's Obamacare decision? Reagan nominated Sarah Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy, widely considered court "moderates", and with a far greater history of progressive jurisprudence than Roberts. Does that mean Reagan should never have been elected President? And if you're recall, Bush, not Cruz made the nomination.

If conservatives beat other conservatives in the primary by distorting and/or rewriting history, plus a generous allotment of foul mouth, grade school, guttersnipe insults, who benefits?

Do you really think conservatives will support the eventual nominee if they perceive him to be an illegitimate candidate due to his conduct (or his supporters, representing him) during the campaign?

As conservatives, "relative moral values" people, we ain't. Alinsky doesn't define our tactics. You're better than this. Marco is better than this. Cut this stuff out.

FReegards.

I was fooled by Roberts as well.

He turned out to be very unreliable :-(

Cruz did NOT support Obamacare.

To all of the Trump haters: If Pat Buchanan is for him, then I’m for him.

As for lying and flipping, you should love him since he’s sounding more like the politicians you want to elect.

The facts: John Roberts had a conservative track record, and had argued 39 cases before the USSC. He had excellent conservative credentials. He clerked for USSC Chief Justice William Rehnquist. He was appointed by Ronald Reagan as a special Assistant to the AG. He was appointed to the Federal Court of Appeals by GHW Bush. The Senate held at 55 GOP 45 Democrats, but Democrats had the filibuster available to block any G.W. Bush nominee.

Roberts was the best, most conservative Jurist that Bush could get past the Senate. NOBODY IN THE GOP-c or GOP-e DISAGREED WITH THAT ASSESSMENT IN 2005. So, why the new standard now, for Cruz?

http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2005-07-20.html Ann Coulter smelled a rat with Roberts back in 2005. Read it and weep because what she wrote about him panned out. And there was a Republican Senate so GW Bush did not have to nominate a blank slater like Roberts. You do this when Dems have Senate control. So blame cuck Bush for this wimping out and (again) Anne was so perceptive on this.