This is Ted Cruz's Plan For the Supreme Court

The next President is going to have a lot of Supreme court appointments to make during their tenure.

That's why it is important to elect a "very" conservative President like Ted Cruz.

Donald Trump is a NY liberal and is liberal on social issues.

I don't trust Trump to nominate conservative judges.

This is Ted Cruz's Plan For the Supreme Court

 

Because that's what every country needs - a Supreme Court that represents the 30% of the 30% that are conservative... the ultra-conservative ... yup, let's go waaaay conservative .... that will unify the country for sure ... ye ha!

WTF - just plain old WTF. Does anybody think these things through or do they just throw cr*p on the wall and hope it sticks?

 

Oh no.

Of course what the country needs is some radical ultra leftist judges on the bench.

See then the government will be able to do things like forcing you to install GPS systems on any powered vehicle, which feed data to services which the government has data policy over, allowing them to monitor where you are at any time and also to facilitate a pay-per-mile gas tax.

Oh you think that's just conspiracy theory nonsense?

Yeaaa ...would it surprise you to learn that Team Obama has tried to implement such a law multiple times over the years and the only thing standing in its way is a few non-liberal judges?

You would do yourself well to read up on just how bad things could have been if not for a few reasonable people on the Supreme Court.

It would give you an idea of just how (*)(*)(*)(*)ed you will be if an ultra radical liberal Democrat gets to name judges.

The erosion of States rights, the expansion of federal justice department purview, the expansion of federal powers in general, the absolute abuse of power committed by the Executive branch in regards to national security - the economy - executive nominees - your privacy, and countless countless other cases.

These things have all been attack by the radical leftist Tyrant Obama and so far most of them have been defended by such a marrow margin in the SCOTUS.

 

This is a very good reason to vote for Cruz.

 

So, Cruz wants to pick judges who legislate from the Bench. This is another major reason not to nominate this radical.

 

Teddy is putting the cart before the horse.....

 

Why do you want the government to restrict people's social freedoms and rights?

Let me guess, you want the government just small enough to fit in every bedroom and womb in America, right?

 

Why don't you like the Constitution?

- - - Updated - - -

No, he wants to pick judges who will rule within the bounds of the Constitution.

- - - Updated - - -

Who said anything about restricting rights?

Just the opposite.

We want judges who will rule within the bounds of the Constitution.

 

Ted wants to nominate originalists...you know, the kind who don't think a Canadian is a natural born citizen of the USA

 

Can you name a case where they haven't? It's not the Supreme Court's fault that the Constitution doesn't clearly define its own terms and is open to interpretation.

 

I don't think judges should be political. Conservative interpretation of the constitution isn't political, just principle. On the other hand, I believe that picking judges that will interpret the constitution depending upon their political affiliation to be unethical and bad for the Republic.

 

The Constitution is clearly defined and is NOT open to interpretation.

That's why we can't afford any more extreme left-wing activist judges who want to legislate from the bench.

 

You mean like Scalia who interprets the 2nd amendment to restrict military type arms? Or Ted Cruz who interprets natural born citizen to mean citizens of Canada?

 

Without any interpretation and only using the definition provided in the Constitution, what is the clear definition of "regulate interstate commerce"?

 

Perhaps keeping the government to its enumerated powers is the point. A true supporter of social freedoms and rights would lobby for a complete separation of morality and social activities from government. Using marriage as an example, a decision to exclude the federal government from any involvement in marriage would have been much more supportive of overall liberty.

IMO, marriage should only be recognized as a partnership by government for the sole purpose of splitting assets in case of dissolution.

 

There are documents that express the meaning of the vague terms in the constitution. Ignoring these documents has allowed the vague terms to be exploited. FDR was the beginning of the end of the integrity of the supreme court.

 

The Federal government will be involved in marriage so long as Federal employees like military members can marry independent of any state and so long as states issue marriage certificates under law, thus falling under both the Full Faith and Credit Clause and the Equal Protection aspect of the 14th Amendment.

- - - Updated - - -

Those documents are only interpretation themselves. They are not law and have no more weight than any other legal opinion.

 

Regulation of interstate commerce. The giant rabbit hole that power mongers have used is like a game of six degrees of Kevin Bacon.

 

Changing the wording of a law from mandate to tax is not within the realm of the Supreme's Constitutional authority, just the opposite. Yet, Roberts did it. That's not the role of the SC. He should have ruled against the administration and sent it back to Congress to fix, period.

 

They ruled that the mandate was functionally identical to a tax, which it is.

 

yeah, let's have a Canadian pick our Supreme Court Judges

 

Cruz is now 11 points BEHIND Trump (latest Fox poll) in Iowa......and Iowa is a "Cruz-friendly" state.


So isn't it a bee presumptious for him to planning USSC Nominations, when he currently doesn't look likely to even when his own Party's Nomination???

 

Yes it is. Not defining exactly what they meant in the Constitution was a huge failure in the part of the writers.

 

Conservatives created the Patriot act in case you forgot

 

Got it. We have completely involved government in offering benefits for marriage so we have to involve government to ensure everyone has a right to that benefit. So, which side is it that wants more freedom from government?

Other than they are the expressed written opinions of the authors of the very statements you describe as vague, you are correct. Of course, if you feel bound by the controls these statements make when translating according to the authors, then framing their true meaning as vague is a pretty good tactic to avoid a much more difficult path required to overcome them.

- - - Updated - - -

I am all for a CC to close that gap of understanding. The general welfare clause needs a bit of a restriction as well.