Patterico's Pontifications


Ted Cruz Op-Ed: Not Until The People Have Spoken

Filed under: General — Dana @ 6:01 pm

[guest post by Dana]

Ted Cruz, in a marvelously straightforward Wall Street Journal op-ed, neatly lays out his reasons for supporting the Senate Judiciary Committee’s decision to not take up a nominee to fill the current vacancy on the Supreme Court until after the election.

He launched his persuasive argument by illustrating how the Democrats’ and Republicans’ basic view of the Constitution is in direct opposition to one another:

Republicans and Democrats are deeply divided over the proper role of the Supreme Court. President Obama and Democrats favor justices who see the Constitution as a potter sees clay—something that can be molded to achieve their desired results. This has led the Supreme Court to invent rights that are nowhere in the Constitution—like the right to an abortion or to same-sex marriage—and ignore or restrict rights that even nonlawyers can’t miss—like the First and Second Amendments.

Republicans view things very differently. We believe the Constitution has a fixed meaning and a judge’s task is limited—to discover what that meaning is, not to make it up.

From there, Cruz informs readers exactly what is at stake if a Democratic nominee fills the seat:

If Justice Scalia is replaced by a Democratic nominee, many long-cherished rights will be jeopardized.

The court would be poised to allow the banning of movies and books criticizing political candidates like Hillary Clinton, to mandate that states permit the barbaric monstrosity known as partial-birth abortion, to force the religiously devout to provide abortion-inducing drugs, and to allow the confiscation of guns by holding that the Second Amendment doesn’t include an individual right to keep and bear arms.

After providing history about the last vacancy on the Supreme Court to arise before an election, Cruz reminds us that President Obama’s view of the Constitution has its roots in the views of another progressive who also sat in the Oval Office:

Most important, the deep disagreement that divides the political parties today over constitutional interpretation didn’t exist in the 19th century. This rift emerged in the early 20th century as American progressives began to question the Constitution’s merits. Woodrow Wilson—a Democrat and progressive leader—was the first president to have openly declared that the Constitution, with its separation of powers, was outdated. And Democrats have been subverting the Constitution ever since.

To overcome what he perceived to be the Constitution’s defects, President Wilson invoked the idea of a living constitution, which changes as society changes. “Government,” Wilson said, “is not a machine, but a living thing” and “is accountable to Darwin, not to Newton.”

That view has remained a foundational principle of the Democratic Party. In “The Audacity of Hope,” then-Sen. Obama wrote that the Constitution “is not a static but rather a living document, and must be read in the context of an ever-changing world.”

Cruz concludes:

Do the American people want a justice who adheres to the unchanging text, history and structure of the Constitution, or do they want a justice who thinks the Constitution should evolve with the personal beliefs of unelected lawyers? Voters deserve the opportunity to speak on this subject through the next president.

That is why I will oppose any attempt by the Democrats to deny the American people their say. There should be no hearing on any nomination that President Obama makes, and if any confirmation vote is attempted, I will filibuster it. Notably, this approach was advocated by Vice President Joe Biden when he chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1992, and as recently as 2007 by the man now slated to be the next Democratic leader in the Senate, Chuck Schumer.

I strongly support Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley and my fellow Republicans on the Judiciary Committee, who have drawn a line in the sand on behalf of the American people: We will not consider any Supreme Court nominee until the people have spoken and a new president is inaugurated.

This op-ed comes a week after President Obama met with McConnell and Grassley in an effort to discuss filling the vacancy. To their credit, and to the utter irritation and disdain of Harry Reid, McConnell and Grassley steadfastly refused to budge on their decision to not consider a nominee until after the election.

While there is an eloquent simplicity to this op-ed, it is nonetheless profound. Not unlike the candidate himself.


171 Responses to “Ted Cruz Op-Ed: Not Until The People Have Spoken”

  1. Hello.

    Dana (86e864)

  2. many long-cherished rights will be jeopardized

    because a good harvardtrash R sits on their ass with a stupefied look on their face when the butt-ugly berobed failmerican supreme court sluts take away their rights

    but if you like the way they judge that much then Teddy you can go and eff yourself

    happyfeet (831175)

  3. Well, I can only imagine the kinds of people that Bragging Lying Orange Toupee (BLOAT) would nominate.


    Nihilism is a sickness, really.

    Folks can disagree with Cruz, but at least he has a plan, and is straightforward about it. Plus, he isn’t a stalking horse designed to elect HRC by counting on base instincts of angry people.

    Simon Jester (2708f4)

  4. i got your nihilism right here

    it’s blushing pink – the spitting image of good health

    happyfeet (831175)

  5. i got your nihilism right here

    happyfeet (831175)

  6. Yes you do. And you have for a long, long time.

    Simon Jester (2708f4)

  7. This is indeed a gem of an op-ed. But I think the sub-text — directed to establishment GOP leaders and voters — is just as significant.

    Ted Cruz just went out of his way to signal a willingness to support and work with his Senate colleagues. Never mind that it’s on something they were already hanging pretty solid on.

    It’s signaling. And it’s surely the public tip of the public-relations iceberg he’s trying to thaw.

    Note well: No compromises, but an enthusiastic search for common ground. This is also very characteristic of Ted Cruz — and not at all of Donald Trump.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  8. yes yes folks can disagree with cruz

    he’s a snuffleupagus!

    where “upagus” means “kim davis’s moneymaker”

    country girl shake it for me yeah

    happyfeet (831175)

  9. Huh. Beldar, I think someone is a little bit worried about BLOAT. Or drinking heavily.

    I think it is a great editorial, myself.

    Simon Jester (2708f4)

  10. I think Rubio would be a great Supreme Court Justice.

    nk (dbc370)

  11. 4.i got your nihilism right here

    That’s not nihilism happyfeet, that’s imagination. 🙂

    Rev. Hoagie™® (eb7063)

  12. This is somewhat laying the groundwork for a prolonged stalemate – if Sen. Clinton is elected President, but the Republicans retain majority control of the Senate, there’s a strong rationale for an argument that “the American people decided, by re-electing a Republican Senate, that they want us to reject any Justices put forward by President Clinton”.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  13. is not a gem Mr. Beldar

    no gem no way no how

    We believe the Constitution has a fixed meaning and a judge’s task is limited – to discover what that meaning is, not to make it up.

    well ok, maple leaf, what *DO* we believe when they make it up like berobed slut John Roberts did?

    what I’m getting from this silly oped is all we can do is wait for a fresh crop of ivy league trash to come along and do it more better to where our freedoms are either restored or taken away somewhat more slowly

    we’re setting sail

    (you gonna pay tomorrow)

    happyfeet (831175)

  14. The people did speak. Twice. They elected Obama.

    joe (aabd1a)

  15. Beldar,

    I was think the same thing and originally wrote the post with a portion discussing his “signaling” but I felt like it distracted too much from the heart of the piece, so I deleted the portion. Almost as if the politics dirtied it. Which of course makes no sense, but there you have i

    Dana (86e864)

  16. The people did speak. Twice. They elected Obama.

    everyone take a shot

    happyfeet (831175)

  17. Eh… There you have it…

    Dana (86e864)

  18. aphrael (e0cdc9) — 3/7/2016 @ 6:30 pm

    I guess that is up for debate, yes, many conservatives would prefer to block another Ginsberg, Kagan, or Sotomayor forever and lose the next election cycle if necessary than give away the nation.

    There is a Constitution that means something. It gave instructions as to how it was to be “fundamentally transformed”, called amendments. I’m all for that process, and if the procedure ends up with an amendment that marriage is an antedated construct and outlawed, then that is the law of the land, and people will no longer have legally recognized marriages, and those who think marriage still means something will do their own version, underground or not.

    But the repubs got into the situation they are now in by rolling over, so they might do it again, and in 2018 a reelected incumbent will be an endangered species.

    MD in Philly (at the moment not in Philly) (deca84)

  19. And if we get a Cruz as president but a Dem Senate, you don’t think that would be just as protracted?

    MD in Philly (at the moment not in Philly) (deca84)

  20. Clear, concise… descriptives that are in short supply these days. Cruz has my support and that of my wife.

    Contrast this with Clinton’s contention that what David Petraeus did was much worse than her innocent, classified info on a private server felonies.

    Colonel Haiku (d1ec67)

  21. If Justice Scalia is replaced by a Democratic nominee, many long-cherished rights will be jeopardized.

    it’s ok, then, for “many long-cherished rights” to “be jeopardized” says harvardtrash Ted, if we are so foolish as to elect a Democrat (not harvardtrash Ted)

    cause of the supreme slut court, comprised of superlatively un-photogenic ivy league trash, will have spoken

    well, maybe, Ted, this freedom-threatening court you admire so so goddamn much is just highly dismissible trashety trashety trash trash?

    ever think of that?

    i have

    happyfeet (831175)

  22. I pointed out in the other thread, how 4 senators seem likely to endorse him.

    Otoh, the virtue signaling re one of those who were in his ads seem to have backfired

    narciso (732bc0)

  23. Indeed, clear and concise,
    even if you want to disagree with him, you can at least know what you are disagreeing with and be clear about it.

    MD in Philly (at the moment not in Philly) (deca84)

  24. SCOTUS is a very good issue for Cruz to press Trump on. At the next debate, I hope Ted Cruz quizzes Trump about the two names he mentioned as possible SCOTUS nominees at the GOP debate on the night after Justice Scalia’s death.

    One of them — former Alabama attorney-general Bill Pryor, now on the Eleventh Circuit after a long and contentious nomination process — actually has a great deal in common with Ted Cruz, in that both were involved in prominent fights involving public displays of the Ten Commandments. I wrote about Judge Pryor’s involvement in 2004, after Dubya recess-appointed him to the Eleventh Circuit (to which his regular-course nomination had been blockaded by senate Dems). Given their respective positions in their state governments in the middle part of the Oughties Decade, I’m virtually sure that Ted Cruz and Bill Pryor would have had direct and extensive interaction.

    The other name that Trump threw out was Seventh Circuit Judge Diane Wood. Since that GOP debate, I’ve seen Trump, speaking at rallies, twice refer back to his mentioning of their names at that debate. On both of those occasions, though, Trump could only remember Judge Wood’s name.

    That’s interesting, because Judge Wood was a Clinton appointee. Indeed, she was publicly recognized to have been on Obama’s short list in 2010 for the nomination that ended up going to Justice Elena Kagan. She’s also 65 now, far older than most presidents want to appoint to a lifetime seat. No GOP president could possibly consider nominating her to Scalia’s seat, but Trump has said he would.

    I’ll bet you that Ted Cruz could challenge Trump to name both of those judges again. He could demand that Donald give one reason specific to that judge — something personal and unique to that judge — to explain why Trump thinks either one might be a good SCOTUS appointment.

    Trump would be left huffing, puffing, and trying desperately to change the subject.

    Cruz could then say something like, “I’ve worked with Bill Pryor, and let me tell you why I know he’d be a good choice, even though when you mentioned him, Donald, you were just repeating a name someone else has told you that you couldn’t even bother to remember.” He could then do a similar drill with Diane Wood.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  25. I really wish we could see, in the general, Cruz vs. Sanders. It would be the clearest distinction possible between a strong Constitutional Conservative and dietard liberal Socialist.

    But, they say people tend to elect the government they deserve, so my guess is it will be Trump vs Shrillary.

    arik (02de93)

  26. BAH. I hit “Submit” there way too soon, and I’ve made a major mistake as a result.

    In that comment (#23), I confused Diane Wood with Diane Sykes — both of whom are on the Seventh Circuit. But Trump actually mentioned the latter, another Bush-43 appointee. Now that I’ve got them straight in my head, I must retract the part of the comment about Trump & Diane Wood. Judge Sykes actually would be a plausible nominee for a GOP president, so I’ve done her a disservice here; I suspect I’m not the first to have made the mental error, though.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  27. Nice article that mostly preaches to the choir. I hope he gets around to publishing something people in swing states might actually care about. A base election will not be won by Ted Cruz.

    SAZMD (f107a7)

  28. Ted Cruz surely wouldn’t have made the mistake I just did. 😀

    And of course, the notion that Trump might have known the names of two Seventh Circuit judges well enough to confuse them is ludicrous.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  29. Actually beldar it was Diane sykes, some other figure entirely.

    narciso (732bc0)

  30. Yup, mea culpa maxima, narciso, thanks. I caught the mistake moments after I hit “Submit Comment.”

    Beldar (fa637a)

  31. #11 aphrael,

    Come on, man, a “stalemate” is precisely the intention of the Founders.
    They didn’t want easy, flexible change.

    If Hillary wins, yet there remains a GOP Senate, that’s the will of the people. You lefties are all for executive orders and presidential authority—but only when your person is in office. When the shoe’s on the other foot, you guys are all for deferring to the Senate. The examples are endless.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  32. Hey it haopens, even I don’t remember everything, seriously.

    narciso (732bc0)

  33. A base election will not be won by Ted Cruz.
    SAZMD (f107a7) — 3/7/2016 @ 7:30 pm

    I’m not so sure,
    if people were able to get a good look at Cruz and understood him a bit, I think he could rally a lot of support,
    especially if he would get the nomination without totally alienating the Trump people
    Cruz v Clinton?
    Cruz v Sanders?
    you don’t think people would fly out of the non-dem woodwork for that?

    Kasich seems to think he will do good in a few states and no one will win on the first ballot then everyone will realize that “he is the most qualified candidate and the only adult in the room, and he cares about people and can work across the aisle” (yes, he says that…) and everyone will vote for him
    I don’t trust him, for some reason/s (like expanding Medicaid and confusing NT teaching for individuals with a socialist leaning govt., and his reminding us that he is the nice guy, the only adult in the room, and he cares about people; those are all things it is good when others say it about you.)

    MD in Philly (at the moment not in Philly) (deca84)

  34. MD in Philly

    They will get a good look at him through the lens of the Media, and they will understand him in the worst way because of it. He is very susceptible to caricature. The Media will prop Clinton up big time. Look at the swing state primaries so far. VA – Cruz a distant 3rd, OH polling the same, FL likely to be third as well. NH – forget it. CO – not enough data. These are the states he must win, and I just don’t see it happening. People hoping that Clinton will be toxic underestimate the Media and the Clinton Machine. Cruz doesn’t expand the map.

    SAZMD (f107a7)

  35. @ SAZMD: We’ve had this discussion, I think. The “focus on swing-states and pander to win them” was pretty much the Romney and McCain strategy; Bush-43’s strategy in 2000; and Bush-41’s strategy in 1992. In all of them, the GOP candidate thought he was being clever and strategic, but instead, big chunks of the base stayed home, and they lost in states they would have been predicted to have won. With the exception of Bush-43 in 2000, and that exception by only a whisker, all those have been losing elections for Republicans.

    The electorate is more angry than it has been at any time since 1980. The electorate is ripe for a wave, a mandate election. The Dems are going to cooperate by putting up the most ethically compromised and unattractive candidate of modern political history.

    This is exactly the time to swing for the fences, not to play swing-state small-ball.

    I am curious, though, SAZMD: What issues do you think Cruz should be writing about in order to attract voters in states that you consider to be swing states?

    Beldar (fa637a)

  36. You may be right
    No matter who the candidate is, the press will trash them,
    But Cruz has shown he is good live, even with hecklers, I’m hoping some of that will get through
    Republican turnout has been record, Dem turnout down, I’m hoping it stays that way

    But, I’ve said before, with an electorate that elected Obama twice, and takes seriously an old socialist and someone who should be in jail…
    It will be a miracle if Cruz or any rational choice wins, and I mean it literally.

    MD not exactly in Philly (deca84)

  37. I also don’t agree that Cruz is particular susceptible to caricature. He’s susceptible on a very superficial level — a big, loud, Texan in cowboy boots. But that was also true of Dubya; he penetrated that with charm, but Cruz penetrates it with simple incandescent intelligence.

    His winning states like Maine and Iowa tells me that superficial caricatures of Ted Cruz can be, and to a very considerable extent already have been, dispelled. He’s really got pretty minimal political baggage.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  38. Let me re-phrase that: Cruz has minimal political baggage as measured by voters. If you’re talking about floor-of-the-Senate baggage, yeah, he has that. Feature, not bug.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  39. @Beldar

    I’m a big believer in taking the fight to the enemies turf. Give conservative solutions to “liberal” problems – poverty, education, health care, corporate welfare, etc. Make them defend their own turf. Cruz is doing the “more conservative than thou” dance and the Media will throw that back at him in the general. It also helps to be likable as a candidate. The guys at Powerline have described Cruz as Nixonian – which I think is apt. (And no the the type of Nixonian that won the landslides, the other one). That can’t be fixed. If Romney – one of the most decent men to run for office, couldn’t bridge the gap, how is a smug Harvard lawyer going to do it?

    SAZMD (f107a7)

  40. We’re not winning Maine or Iowa in the general. Just a hunch.

    SAZMD (f107a7)

  41. Romney played conventional small-ball and spoke conservative as a second language. He did indeed try to bring solutions to problems that Democrats like to focus on, but they were uniformly the wrong damned solutions, viz: RomneyCare! That is why he lost, despite being a very decent man. The base stayed home, and if that happens it doesn’t matter about swing states, which is why Romney got blown out, not defeated in a swing-state squeaker.

    I thought Hindrocket’s tantrum about Cruz and Nixon was the most childish thing I’ve ever read of his, and I’ve followed that site for a long time, and collaborated closely with its then-three principals on RatherGate in 2004. Making a serious argument that Cruz is like Nixon because of their noses? Please, Hindrocket should be very ashamed; that was just pathetic.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  42. I disagree, emphatically, about whether the GOP can win Iowa in the general! Wow, you really have limited perspectives. Even if you don’t have clear personal recollections from 1976-1980 and the elections that brought the Reagan Revolution, have you forgotten 2004?

    Beldar (fa637a)

  43. Romney couldn’t hold his own in a debate even when he was right,
    I don’t think Cruz will do that
    The challenge for Cruz is that when he destroys his opponent in a debate to do it so the average voter gets it

    I thought the same as most of the replies at Powerline, what a bunch of crap with the Nixon comparisons, with friends like that, who needs enemies

    MD not exactly in Philly (deca84)

  44. I would also point out that Cruz is offering solutions on “poverty, education, health care, corporate welfare, etc.” But they’re not weak imitations of Democratic “solutions,” which inevitably involve new federal programs, more spending, more taxes, more bureaucracy, less federalism, and more statism. Want to end corporate welfare, for example? Ted Cruz will do that by taking a meat-axe to the tax code and by abolishing the IRS and the Departments of Commerce & Energy.

    I’m guessing you don’t take him seriously on these promises. That’s where you’re mistaken, and where you underestimate both Cruz and the American public.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  45. Remember when Cruz stepped back and repeated all of the ridiculous questions back at the moderators? That is what he can do, not stammer when the moderator pulls a fast one.

    MD not exactly in Philly (deca84)

  46. I’m not saying Iowa can’t go GOP, I just don’t think it will. 2004, as you noted earlier, was a mandate election with an incumbent. I don’t think it compares, honestly. W won NM too, think we’ll do that this time?

    Regarding Romney, he opposed Obamacare during his run, it’s just that conservatives (unfairly IMO) didn’t believe him. My point is to offer conservative solutions to “liberal” problems. W came closest to doing that in recent times.

    I agree the nose thing was a cheap shot by Powerline, but that was far from the only comparison they made. I found the argument not too far fetched. I guess we just disagree on that one.

    SAZMD (f107a7)

  47. I didn’t think the noses part was nearly as bad as accusing Cruz of being incredibly power hungry.

    MD not exactly in Philly (deca84)

  48. I don’t underestimate Cruz, but I definitely underestimate the American Public. See 2008 and 2012. 🙂

    SAZMD (f107a7)

  49. cruz can do it he can do it if he puts his mind to it


    O! K!

    happyfeet (831175)

  50. and his mentally unstable goldy sacky hooch wife can halp!

    happyfeet (831175)

  51. not sure where this gets us though, you and I

    happyfeet (831175)

  52. Many of us don’t indeed trust what someone says unless their actions are consistent (except those smitten with Trump because they are too busy not trusting GOPe)
    Romney had the poor sense to get Gruber in the first place

    I don’t know how it will go, by God’s mercy it will be a huge conservative turn out and mandate
    But we could elect Hillary and Sanders as VP….😩

    MD not exactly in Philly (deca84)

  53. I would also point out that Cruz is offering solutions on “poverty, education, health care, corporate welfare, etc.” But they’re not weak imitations of Democratic “solutions,” which inevitably involve new federal programs, more spending, more taxes, more bureaucracy, less federalism, and more statism. Want to end corporate welfare, for example? Ted Cruz will do that by taking a meat-axe to the tax code and by abolishing the IRS and the Departments of Commerce & Energy.

    You know, I agree that his policies would do these things, but he does not present his solutions in that way. Have you talked to moderate or swing voters about Cruz? They don’t see him this way, as someone who cares about them. For all the derision “compassionate conservatism” got (some deserved) it resonated with people. I never get that kind of vibe from Cruz. Guys like you and I appreciate intelligence and coherence. The average voter does not (see Donald Trump!).

    SAZMD (f107a7)

  54. god has eff all to do with any of this nonsense

    happyfeet (831175)

  55. oh for the love of all that’s holy did i tell you?

    i finally had that adele cd inflicted on me

    someone needs to get that hooch on some mood stabilizers like yesterday

    happyfeet (831175)

  56. God brings down the arrogant and wise in their own eyes, and raises up the humble
    He just often does it on a longer time scale than we want

    MD not exactly in Philly (deca84)

  57. The rest of Hindrocket’s tantrum, besides the nose comparison, consisted of ad hominem conclusions about Cruz for which Hindrocket had the thinnest possible support.

    Dirty trick? Oh, please. Seriously, are we going to compare the “voter violation” bulk mailing — a stupid mistake by (or under the direct responsibility of) a communications director who’s been fired and already forgotten — to Watergate?

    It was childish, and Hindrocket should be ashamed. I’d tell him so directly, but I don’t comment there — don’t want to do the Facebook login.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  58. chop chop God I know groupons don’t technically expire but jesus

    you really need to live a lil bit more “in the moment” as they say

    happyfeet (831175)

  59. wtf is a hindrocket

    i’m starting to think this is all some convoluted marketing tie-in for the new cloverfield movie

    happyfeet (831175)

  60. Beldar (fa637a) — 3/7/2016 @ 7:29 pm

    In that comment (#23), I confused Diane Wood with Diane Sykes — both of whom are on the Seventh Circuit. But Trump actually mentioned the latter, another Bush-43 appointee….Judge Sykes actually would be a plausible nominee for a GOP president, so I’ve done her a disservice here; I suspect I’m not the first to have made the mental error, though.

    In an earlier comment, last week, you actually had the name right and said they would both be good appointments (but Trump probably got the names from someone else, and soon forgot one of them)

    Trump, by the way, hasn’t bothered trying to refresh his memory, or asking again. He delivers all of his speeches off the cuff, so he may not realize, or remember, that this is something he needs to know, and/or could find out.

    He showed a reporter on his airplane, all the stuff somebody wants him to read and indicated he couldn’t do it or wasn’t interested enough, then the plane started taxi-ing, or something (it’s a private plane – you don’t need to wear seatbelts) and all the stuff fell on the floor in spite of Trump’s attempts to prevent that with his body.

    Sammy Finkelman (936567)

  61. I will admit to having a very atypical introduction to Ted Cruz. Most people in the U.S. first learned anything about him when he got to the U.S. Senate and started throwing hand-grenades there. But I became a fan way back in 2003, purely on the basis of reading his legal briefing, and watching his direction of the litigation strategy all the way to a successful SCOTUS decision, in the Texas redistricting case.

    So I knew him as the man who’d managed to flip Texas from a state with a majority of Democratic congressmen, despite its overwhelmingly Republican majority, to a state in which the GOP did indeed hold almost as many congressional seats as Republicans’ proportionate representation in the population would justify. (The Dems still have a built-in advantage via the Voting Right Act of 1965’s permanent thumb on the scale, guaranteeing that a magically specified number of racial-minority majority districts be maintained.) I knew this guy was a brilliant lawyer, federalist, constitutional scholar, conservative, writer, and thinker — before I ever so much as saw a photo of him.

    His looks would have been considered movie-star handsome in the 1930s, but they’re currently out of style. One thing he shares with Romney is that they’re both incredibly corny, with a humor range that only moves one or two notches in either direction from “Dad Joke Central.” And while I don’t think he’s smug as such — indeed, he suffers fools better than most people in his position manage to do — he’s so obviously brilliant that he does probably trigger some defensive insecurity in some people.

    Well, yeah, mostly among Trump people.

    But no one is going to be able to ever make a movie about Ted Cruz like the ones that have mocked Dubya. Saturday Night Live could never base a skit on the idea of Ted Cruz mangling words like “misunderestimated.”

    Beldar (fa637a)

  62. Mr. Feet, “Hindrocket” was the longtime nickname that John Hinderocker used as his blogging handle when he co-founded the PowerLine blog.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  63. “Trump people” or as we used to call them


    i remember i really do

    happyfeet (831175)

  64. omg there’s inside baseball and then there’s hindrockets i show up every day I put my gameface on and … what?


    i’m in a funky way

    happyfeet (831175)

  65. actually now that you say that i do sorta remember

    happyfeet (831175)

  66. President Obama’s view of the Constitution has its roots in the views of another progressive who also sat in the Oval Office:

    Progressive sounds somehow so innocuous and even rather noble or charming. The word “leftist” or, less so, “liberal” evokes a less innocuous, less charming quality.

    One of the reasons today’s political arena is full of so much dishonesty and disingenuous rhetoric — so much political correctness — is because the basic descriptions of people and ideas are treated as though everyone is attending an afternoon soiree, where subtlety and discretion are required.

    There was an article posted to the Drudgereport today penned by a columnist for the Financial Times. It was about how the US’s current presidential race, particularly as it pertains to Donald Trump, is — to paraphrase — undoing all the wonderful, loving, tolerant, non-racist, non-bigoted characteristics of the current president and (again, to paraphrase) taking us back to the era of cross burnings and Bull Connor. The author’s essay contained words encompassing only race and ethnicity while totally avoiding the words of liberal/leftist and conservative/rightist. However, I imagine the writer fancies himself as very sophisticated, very progressive.

    Mark (fe2e4b)

  67. Mark, Ronald Reagan and Thomas Jefferson were liberals. Anyone who believes we were all created equal before the law is a liberal. You are talking about disingenuous rhetoric, but I think the word ‘liberal’ used the way you’ve used it is a symptom of our culture that is less educated than it should be about western civilization.

    Progressive is the perfect word for the modern left, which believes every inch they gain on any controversy is a holy right never to be revisited or reconsidered, but every inch their opponents gain is a scandal. They simply do not understand that there is a different and valid point of view (and that’s what some who are on the right have in common with the left).

    Trump’s success is from this tendency today to refuse to respect another point of view. Understanding others is so beta. But look where that’s led him. He has no real positions on anything because he doesn’t really understand any of the issues. It’s all just a game.

    Dustin (2a8be7)

  68. Progressive is the perfect word for the modern left,

    Dustin, you’re talking intellectually, while I’m talking viscerally. I have a hunch most people perceive “progressive” as endearing and generally non-negative, while “leftist” will make many of those same people wary or suspicious. Therefore, today’s liberal or progressive really does deserve to be labeled “leftist.”

    Mark (fe2e4b)

  69. Mr Happyfeet,

    Mr Ted might have a John Bolton on his NSA team.
    Whereas Mr Donald might have a Michael Bolton on his NSA team.

    After one does the analysis, the choice is clear.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  70. SAZMD
    Romney was a below average 1 term govna. that gave us Gruber care.
    The elite will repeat the same mistakes over and over. YO- Nice guys finish last in this game.
    Mittens built the fire. Trump lit it up. I pray Ted will clean it up.
    So sad that Ted is doing this on his own.
    Shame on team republican, shame on.

    mg (31009b)

  71. i dunno Mr. Supporter i think Mr. T’s capturing the moment way more better

    whereas Mr. Cruz is going all out to get a deeper whiff of the fragrance what waffs twixt the buttcheeks of hillbilly bigot Kim Davis

    advantage: Mr. The Donald

    i got yer three-legged stool right here, nestled in my nihilisms

    happyfeet (831175)

  72. Here’s a good description of what constitutes “classical liberalism”… you can see how different it is from today’s progressivism:

    Liberty is the primary political value. “When deciding what to do politically — what should the government do — classical liberals have one clear standard: Does this increase, or does it reduce the freedom of the individual?”

    Individualism. “The individual is more important than the collective.”

    Skepticism about power. “Government, for example, often claims ‘we’re forcing you to do X because it’s in your own interests to do so.’ Whereas very often, when people with power do that, it’s really because it’s good for themselves. Classical liberals believe that the individual is the best judge of their own interests.”

    Rule of law.

    Civil society. Classical liberals believe that problems can be dealt with best by voluntary associations and action.

    Spontaneous order. “Many people seem to assume that order requires some institution, some body, to manipulate and organize things. Classical liberals don’t believe that. They believe that order can arise spontaneously. People through their voluntary interaction create the rules by which people can live by.”

    Free markets. “Economic exchange should be left to voluntary activity between individuals. … We need private property to be able to do that. … History show us that leaving things to free markets rather than government planning or organization, increases prosperity, reduces poverty, increases jobs, and provides good that people want to buy.”

    Toleration. “Toleration is the belief that one should not interfere with things on which one disapproves. … It’s a question of having certain moral principles (“I think this action is wrong”), but I will not try and force my opinions — for example through government — to stop the things I disapprove of.”

    Peace. Through free movement of capital, labor, goods, services, and ideas, we can have a world based on peace rather than conflict and war.

    Limited government. “There are very few things the government should do. The goal of government is simply to protect life, liberty, and property. Anything beyond that is not justifiable.”

    Colonel Haiku (d1ec67)

  73. ladies with an attitude colonels that were in the mood

    don’t just stand there let’s get to it

    happyfeet (831175)

  74. Mr Happyfeet,
    Kim Davis is not my cup of tea, either, but Mr Donald still won Kentucky, didn’t he?
    Americans tend to be attracted to someone who’s a big talker and makes them lots of promises. That’s why Woody Allen’s movies will never break any box office records.
    It’s why Americans embrace Mr Donald. It’s also why Americans do more downloads of Kanye West than that Mozart guy.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  75. @Beldar

    I appreciate that somewhat personal perspective on Ted Cruz. You can certainly see that Cruz on those one on one conversations he has with voters. Of course, he cannot have that with every voter, so that creates a problem. Perception is reality. Which Ted Cruz will the Media show – the Cruz awkwardly trying to give his uninterested daughter a kiss, or the one who played with his daughter during the debate break? (Any doubt how Obama would be portrayed in a similar scenario?). Will we see the bomb thrower in the Senate, or the legal scholar? I actually think Obama is truly a Nixonian figure, but the general public doesn’t know that, mostly due to the media (and some rose colored glasses). Cruz is a fighter, but he will be fighting a media image and Hillary at the same time. I’m pessimistic he can break through. Again, I really want to be wrong. I hope I am.

    SAZMD (f107a7)

  76. americans embrace Mr. The Donald cause of Mr. The Donald

    Mr. The Donald is an American



    none of the other candidates share this quality

    happyfeet (831175)

  77. Cruz: i have a (mentally unstable) white wife who works for a prestigious american firm for the bankings plus she let me breed her twice

    Rubio: i have a white wife with jiggly tits what used to be a cheerleader plus she let me breed her twice

    Trump: I want to help make America great again

    advantage: Mr. The Donald

    happyfeet (831175)

  78. Mr. Happyfeet, why are you mentioning ‘white’ when describing the wives of Cruz and Rubio?
    You forgot to mention that Mr Donald has had three wives and four bankruptcies. And made several political contributions to that Hillary woman.

    Disadvantage: America.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  79. I really need that comment blocker so I don’t have to read the deranged fscker’s fsckwit crap. Such as the comment at 944pm today.

    John Hitchcock (07eaec)

  80. why indeed

    happyfeet (831175)

  81. I want to thank you coronello. My go on Bing and it asks me you’re looking for “sex in the shower.”

    Steve57 (1ace39)

  82. The abortion crap by Cruz is particularly indefensible, unless his supporters are complete morons. Evangelicals have been voting for Republicans since 1980 and all they have to show for it is this ugly trucker hat.

    The Trump candidacy has accomplished one useful thing: It dispels the myth that Republicans need to pander to the Christian right. Trump isn’t pandering, supports abortion rights and Evangelicals are supporting him anyway. In 4 years, an honest (r) candidate can tell Evangelicals to f**k off and still win the nomination.

    carlitos (c24ed5)

  83. Somehow it doesn’t do the Enzo Ferrarri. My Bing.

    Steve57 (1ace39)

  84. I agree. Being pro-abort is completely indefensible. I will never vote for such a diseased person.

    John Hitchcock (07eaec)

  85. I still feel bad about the stripper I didn’t tip heavily enough in El Paso.

    Steve57 (1ace39)

  86. MD in Philly, at 18: you may very well be right, and that would be tragic. The Judiciary needs to be staffed in order to function, and in a lot of ways the Judiciary is more important than the legislature. (I’m a lawyer, though, so of course I’d think that. :))

    Cruz Supporter, at 30: you don’t know me very well if you’re imputing to me the notion that i’m “all for executive orders and presidential authority”. I mean, I’ve said in comments *on this blog* *within the last month* that I think the Senate would be within its rights to openly reject a judicial nomination because it disagrees with the views of the nominee. My objection to not having hearings is fundamentally *procedural* – I think the Senate should have hearings and then vote down the nominees if they don’t like them. 🙂

    That said, if we end up going an extended period without *any* nominee being confirmable, it’s terrible for the judiciary and therefore terrible for the Republic. That’s true whether it’s President Obama with a Republican Senate, President Cruz with a Democratic Senate, or President Trump with anyone.

    aphrael (3f0569)

  87. Square knees was asking for a reason
    How can I go sleeping in a car
    I got red hot tires my tires are smokin’
    I’m so broke I don’t wanna stop
    My gears are crying
    My gears are crying
    I got the ha hamburger
    Ha hamburger
    I got the ha hamburger midnight blues
    Got a grease mother she’s a holder finder
    Keeper of the scooter gas
    You gotta lift your tail and seal you fate
    Snort the crank your old man stashed
    And ride a tin can
    Ride a tin can street machine

    Square knees was asking for a reason
    How can I go sleeping in a car
    I got red hot tires my tires are smokin’
    I’m so broke I don’t wanna stop
    My gears are crying
    My gears are crying
    I got the ha hamburger
    I got the ha hamburger
    I got the ha hamburger midnight blues

    Colonel Haiku (d1ec67)

  88. The people have spoken they don’t want canada turd crud! He is nixon without nixon’s charm.

    trump 1 (f5ce6a)

  89. Therefore, today’s liberal or progressive really does deserve to be labeled “leftist.”

    Mark (fe2e4b) —

    I think that’s the most accurate way to put it. I really dislike it when they are called liberal, particularly when in service of some illiberal policy.

    I also don’t know what conservative is supposed to mean. I know no conservatives who want to maintain ‘the status quo’ that my poli sci professors insisted we wish to maintain. We want a lot of reform and change, actually. And when you think about the general scope of our government today, it’s the progressives who want to maintain that status quo.

    I used to think folks generally want the same stuff, and have different priorities for which good ends they choose over others. Balanced budget versus security versus safety net. I think things are much worse than that, and folks have been divided into teams that are played off eachother. Trump sees that.

    Dustin (2a8be7)

  90. 20. it’s ok, then, for “many long-cherished rights” to “be jeopardized” says harvardtrash Ted, if we are so foolish as to elect a Democrat (not harvardtrash Ted)

    happyfeet (831175) — 3/7/2016 @ 6:54 pm

    Mr. T wants to argue with happyfeet, names Harvard as #1 “best college”:

    TRUMP: “So, we do need highly skilled, and one of the biggest problems we have is people go to the best colleges. They’ll go to Harvard, they’ll go to Stanford, they’ll go to Wharton, ….. ”

    Obviously Mr. T isn’t treating happyfeet fairly. Should happyfeet run independent now?

    Luke Stywalker (33f010)

  91. Hey Johnny Law

    Late Model Suspension Cam

    Steve57 (1ace39)

  92. Read where all the high tech traitors and Rove and Traitor ryan are getting ready to screw the people. Paul

    ryan is a classless man. In 13 years in congress, do you ryan lovers know what 2 bills he has passed, you should be ashamed of yourselves if you do.
    Naming a post office after himself, which sounds rather kasich. and adding a tax to arrows. Some conservative, eh losers.

    mg (31009b)

  93. Donald Trump is not the candidate I want to see Republican voters select, but I do love the fact that he’s raised a giant middle finger two inches from the face of the Republicans who prefer to mock, ignore and alienate those of us who put them into power rather than fight for God, country and conservatism.
    John Hawkins.

    mg (31009b)

  94. Maybe pro-life people should have taken the long view on abortion, right from 1973. Argued against it only privately; and permitted it legally unrestricted and subsidized it with both government and private grants. Two generations of baby-killers would have removed themselves from the gene pool, and we wouldn’t even be talking about it now. (Not to mention the reduction in the crime rate and in the welfare rolls.)

    nk (dbc370)

  95. The Trump candidacy has accomplished one useful thing: It dispels the myth that Republicans need to pander to the Christian right.

    One of the more disgusting things about American INGSOC is its perversion* of the language. Appealing to Christian ideals is not pandering. Welfare and food stamps and libertinism is pandering, which is what Wilson’s and FDR’s apostles do.

    *Among its many other perversions.

    nk (dbc370)

  96. 91. In October party affiliation numbers will be assessed by the pollsters.

    But the percentages can be ball-parked today: Republicans 25%, Democrats 33%, Independents 42%; of whom perhaps 55% will vote.

    Most of you see the Republicans winning. WTFU.

    DNF (755a85)

  97. Beldar,
    I read that hindrocket post. The only thing that came to mind at the end was, “That poor chicken.”

    Random Numbers (94a91b)

  98. carlitos,

    Evangelicals are no different than ethanol, right?

    DRJ (15874d)

  99. Ted Cruz is an opportunist, he’s also a fine Senator and he’d make a good nominee for the Supreme Court if he wasn’t trying to pass himself off as eligible for the presidency. Cruz is eligible for the US Senate, and for nomination to SCOTUS, but the Constitution restricts eligibility to US natural born citizens.

    Cruz was born in Canada to a Cuban father. Ted Cruz is thus ineligible.

    That’s how Hillary expects to beat Cruz easily in a presidential election. She’ll disqualify him on constitutional grounds.

    ropelight (ed50d3)

  100. …but the Constitution restricts eligibility for the presidency to US natural born citizens.

    ropelight (ed50d3)

  101. Sigh. This again?

    It’s clearly a plot by the Illuminati.

    Simon Jester (348f4a)

  102. ropelight,
    Most Americans already shrug their shoulders at the Constitution. How many voters are actually going to say, “Oh, I’d really like to vote for Ted over Hillary, but apparently his Mother was living in Calgary at the time of his birth, so I’ll vote for Hillary instead.”

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  103. All I know is Miley Cyrus said this about Trump being elected:

    This makes me so unbelievable scared and sad…. Not only for our country but for animals that I love more than anything in this world…. My heart is broken into a 100000 pieces ….. I think I may vomit …. That picture on the right is so disturbing…. YOU are not destiny! It is not your job to decide when a living things life is over …. & YOU DT ARE NOT GOD NO MATTER HOW MUCH YOU THINK YOU ARE!!! (& if he doesn’t think he is “God” he thinks he is the fucking chosen one or some shit! We’re all just fucking jam between his rich ass toes! Honestly fuck this shit I am moving if this is my president! I don’t say things I don’t mean! )

    Just so you know, Miley Cyrus’s net worth is $160 million. Yet she has the nuts to call Trump out for being rich. Wow! these leftists really do have tunnel vision. The more idiots like this hate Trump the better he looks to millions of ordinary Americans. He should advertise these folks who “will leave”: Al Sharpton net worth $10 million, Whoopi $5 million salary and $45 million net worth, Raven Symone $45 million net, Samuel Jackson $150 million net, Cher $305 million, John Stewart *$80 million, Rosie O’Donnell $100 million.

    There just is no limit to the hypocrisy of the left. The funny thing is the guy they should be afraid of is Cruz. He’s the Constitutionalist, he’s the original intent guy and he’s the one that would pick the SC judges that would put a stop to the “creative interpretation” rulings of the court and put law making back into the hands of the law makers not judges.

    Rev. Hoagie™® (eb7063)

  104. Ignore the issue now at your peril, but it will be front and center in any election between Hillary and Ted Cruz. You can face up to it now, or get bushwacked by it after it’s already too late.

    A natural born citizen cannot be naturalized. They are born US citizens and cannot be individuals entitled to citizenship at birth because of a statute that confers citizenship on an individual born abroad to an American citizen parent.

    Ted Cruz was not a natural born US citizen, at birth – his potential US citizenship was conferred on him by statute. He is thus ineligible for the presidency.

    ropelight (ed50d3)

  105. Oh, dear Lord.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  106. A natural born American is one who was born American and not naturalized. My wife is Korean , she was naturalized. Cruz’s mother was American, he’s a natural born citizen. Did he have to get naturalization papers? No. He’s American.

    Rev. Hoagie™® (eb7063)

  107. ropelight,

    I would like to clarify a point (for you and others) in a way I don’t think I have before,
    and at the same time explain why your persistence has drawn so much ire.
    You demand (yes, demand, in effect) that we all agree on your framing of the question,
    which is that everyone agrees to the “obvious” meaning of “natural born citizen”,
    but many of us don’t care and are eager to override what the Constitution says.
    And you repeatedly use a particular quote and claim it obviously means what you claim it means,

    But many of us disagree on your point, we think there are only two types of citizens, those who were born citizens (and naturally are citizens)
    and those who needed to be naturalized after birth.

    Now, even in the event the term was meant to be what you and a minority claim it to be, it appears that the usage of it has been accepted to be as I explained in the “2 type of citizen” view. In fact, attempted lawsuits based on your argument have been tossed out (true, only in some jurisdictions has it come up).

    So, it is not so much the point that is irritating, it is the way you frame it and accuse others of arguing in bad faith.

    MD in Philly (at the moment not in Philly) (deca84)

  108. Cruz is a citizen by nature of birth, hence a natural born citizen by the plain meaning of the words. One must twist, turn, fold, spindle, and mutilate the language to come out with any other conclusion. If one cannot do that for “Right of the People” one should not do so for “Natural Born Citizen.”

    Random Numbers (d5cd81)

  109. I keep that stock answer in a notepad file. I have yet to see anyone refute it.

    Random Numbers (d5cd81)

  110. Hoagie, I’m not arguing Cruz isn’t an American – I’m arguing Cruz isn’t a natural born US citizen. Natural born citizens obtain their citizenship not by any naturalization process or as a consequence of statutory law.

    Since Cruz was born in Canada, his place of birth did not entitle him to US citizenship, not did his father’s Cuban citizenship entitle him to US citizenship. Cruz obtained his US potential for citizenship from his mother by virtue of US statutory law. Cruz thus became a US citizen after his mother filed the necessary documentation – an administrative process – not a natural process.

    Cruz is eligible for the US Senate and for SCOTUS, but not for the US presidency.

    ropelight (ed50d3)

  111. Ropelight – So you are saying only men can transfer citizenship to their children? I’d like to see a court – any court – make that kind of ruling.

    Random Numbers (d5cd81)

  112. 99, 100. We’ve suffered a man-chile poseur for near two terms I think Cruz would be a decided upgrade.

    Nonetheless absence of any Economics or Foreign Policy experience or demonstrated interest makes for a less than optimum fit.

    Nobody around here does any hiring so ‘What us worry?”

    DNF (ffe548)

  113. MD, I don’t demand others agree with me, nor do I accuse others of arguing in bad faith, even when they do. I’m trying to get through to Cruz supporters that a deadly trap has been set for their candidate, it’s been well baited, and waits silently to ensnare its victim in the general election.

    Above all, I don’t want to see a Hillary Clinton presidency and I fear if Ted Cruz gets the GOP nod the trap will be sprung and Hillary will win the White House.

    I’m not condemning Cruz supporters or blaming them, I’m trying to warn them of impending doom.

    ropelight (ed50d3)

  114. 110. His mother was a citizen at the time of his birth, end of issue.

    DNF (ffe548)

  115. 113. “I’m trying to warn them of impending doom.”

    We’re wasting our breath, they are wise in their own eyes.

    “We played the pipe for you, and you did not dance; we sang a dirge, and you did not mourn.”

    DNF (ffe548)

  116. Ay dios mio, the zpg agenda wasn’t understood as well back then, as we see they decided on a Fabian approach, although by now it’s become the sacrament of molich’s minions, and the rationale behind amnesty 24/7

    narciso (e628d4)

  117. Bork was probably agnostic, but he was sympathetic to life arguments, that’s why the swimmer and the solon doubleteamed him.

    narciso (e628d4)

  118. Ropelight – prior to the 14th amendment being adopted, what did ‘natural born citizen’ mean in your book, and what did it derive from?

    aphrael (3f0569)

  119. #113, DNF, no, not the end of the issue. Had the proper paperwork never been filed Ted Cruz would never have become a US Citizen. He could have lived out his life in Canada and unless the US Consulate was notified of his mother’s US citizenship no one would have ever known that he was eligible for US citizenship.

    Cruz became a US citizen not as a birthright, but according to applicable statutory law.

    ropelight (ed50d3)

  120. Ropelight,
    I think the Dems will try all kinds of tricks to maintain power. I don’t fear this trap any more than another dozen things they’re thinking of that I can’t imagine.
    I think this will be my last comment on the subject.

    MD in Philly (at the moment not in Philly) (deca84)

  121. Unless there was a birth certificate filed for me, nobody would have known I was a US citizen either.

    MD in Philly (at the moment not in Philly) (deca84)

  122. 105. God does not spare us the consequences of our actions and inactions.

    I am now divorced after false arrest, visitation with my daughter 16 mo. and counting, my lawyer cutting and running at the end facilitating the other side’s use of a pension to payout my equity via a new, for me, retirement account which I cannot use for a year and a half and in any case must pay tax on when I do.

    You people think because you haven’t directly wronged your neighbor God should bless your plans.

    Sorry, Pilgrim.

    DNF (755a85)

  123. 122. “no visitation”

    DNF (755a85)

  124. Well, DNF,
    I am under no illusions that trying to be good saves one from trouble.
    Jeremiah found that out the hard way.

    the country deserves a mess, but we can still hope and pray for mercy.

    MD in Philly (at the moment not in Philly) (deca84)

  125. But I am very sorry for your situation. Lots of sad situations involving people who comment here.

    MD in Philly (at the moment not in Philly) (deca84)

  126. We are not Sodom and even if we were I bet I could find ten good men. A hundred even.

    nk (dbc370)

  127. Call no man fortunate before he is dead. (Or maybe it’s “happy”. Stupid Greek uses the same word.)

    nk (dbc370)

  128. aphrael, I’m not a lawyer, but I’ll do my best. Initially, natural born citizen meant born within the territory of the US. However, as more and more Americans went abroad in service to the new nation, the need to include the children of US citizens born abroad became obvious. So statutes were passed by Congress conferring US citizenship on the children of American citizens living abroad, subject to proper notification to US authorities. These, individuals are US citizens, not natural born citizens.

    As for the origins of natural born citizen:

    On June 18, 1787, Alexander Hamilton submitted to the Constitutional Convention a sketch of a plan of government. At the close of the Convention, Hamilton’s draft Constitution was submitted to James Madison and circulated for comment to knowledgeable individuals. It carried only the weight of the personal opinions of Hamilton, and it contained only a citizenship requirement for the presidency. (a notion now being pressed)

    Article IX, section 1 of Hamilton’s draft constitution provided: No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.

    Upon consideration of Hamilton’s draft John Jay (future First Chief Justice of the US) wrote to George Washington, presiding officer at the Convention on July 25, 1787:

    Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.

    The Constitution does not specify the meaning of natural born. However it should be considered to go well beyond mere citizenship acquired by subsequent statute and for the purposes of recognizing the citizenship of children born abroad to US citizen parents.

    ropelight (ed50d3)

  129. Trump is a loser.

    DRJ (15874d)

  130. One opinion,
    Not agreed upon by many.
    Repeating it does not make it so.

    MD not exactly in Philly (deca84)

  131. We may not be Sodom, nk,
    But millions have been sacrificed to Moloch.

    MD not exactly in Philly (deca84)

  132. Let it. The ****. Alone. Ropelight.

    Cruz is a natural borne citizen.

    Steve57 (1ace39)

  133. DRJ @129, tell me something else I don’t know.

    Steve57 (1ace39)

  134. Ropelight – thank you. So here’s the next question: prior to the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, what was the *basis* for the definition of natural-born citizen? Was it operation of state statute which made someone a citizen of the state (and therefore of the country)? Or was it traditional British custom?

    If it was traditional British custom, then why does America not use the same definition of natural-born citizen as was in use in British law in the 1700s, which declared children of citizens born abroad to be natural-born citizens?

    Furthermore, since the *first Congress* declared children born abroad to US citizens to be natural-born citizens, why should we not take that as indicative of what the framers meant when they used the phrase?

    aphrael (3f0569)

  135. apharel, how did I know there’d be a next question?

    ropelight (ed50d3)

  136. Ropelight – you’re arguing that natural-born citizenship arises from something other than operation of statute. So i’m wondering what it arises *from*. It’s not traditional British common law, because your definition conflicts with that. So what is it? 🙂

    aphrael (3f0569)

  137. aphrael, it arises from the US Constitution and was understood at the time to mean born within the US to citizen parents. Gradually, that definition was expanded to include those born withinn the jurisdiction of the US to US citizen parents.

    Of course it has little or nothing to do with British common law. Brits are subjects of the Crown, not citizens who chose their leaders. British common law is irrelevant on this topic.

    ropelight (ed50d3)

  138. Bernie Sanders was born a red diaper baby. He did his best not to hold a job in his youth and young adulthood. He declared himself a conscientious objector to avoid Vietnam service (but now claims he is not a CO and therefore can run the military), he was a community organizer with the Congress of Racial Equality and the Student Non-Violent Coordination committee and he honeymooned in the Soviet Union. Now why are we wondering about Cruz’s American status?

    Rev. Hoagie™® (eb7063)

  139. 131.

    3 Then the word of the Lord came to Jonah a second time: 2 “Go to the great city of Nineveh and proclaim to it the message I give you.”

    3 Jonah obeyed the word of the Lord and went to Nineveh. Now Nineveh was a very large city; it took three days to go through it. 4 Jonah began by going a day’s journey into the city, proclaiming, “Forty more days and Nineveh will be overthrown.” 5 The Ninevites believed God. A fast was proclaimed, and all of them, from the greatest to the least, put on sackcloth.

    6 When Jonah’s warning reached the king of Nineveh, he rose from his throne, took off his royal robes, covered himself with sackcloth and sat down in the dust. 7 This is the proclamation he issued in Nineveh:

    “By the decree of the king and his nobles:

    Do not let people or animals, herds or flocks, taste anything; do not let them eat or drink. 8 But let people and animals be covered with sackcloth. Let everyone call urgently on God. Let them give up their evil ways and their violence. 9 Who knows? God may yet relent and with compassion turn from his fierce anger so that we will not perish.”

    10 When God saw what they did and how they turned from their evil ways, he relented and did not bring on them the destruction he had threatened.

    I think you can guess the bad news.

    DNF (755a85)

  140. > and was understood at the time to mean born within the US to citizen parents

    OK, what’s the basis for your claim that that’s how it was understood *at the time*? The first Congress, which contained many people who attended the Constitutional Convention, didn’t define it that way. The standard legal treatises of the time didn’t define it that way.

    So what *did*? What’s the evidence that the people at the constitutional convention meant something different by the phrase ‘natural born citizen’ than the first Congress, and British law of the era, did?

    If you can’t produce that evidence then it looks a lot like you’re just making shit up because it aligns with your political preferences.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  141. #138, Because, Hoagie, if Cruz gets the GOP nod, the all forces of evil will rise up from the ooze demanding the courts settle the natural born citizen issue prior to the November elections.

    As soon as that meme takes root, the target will have been frozen. Next, he must be mocked, humiliated, ridiculed, physically attacked, called names, accused of monstrous crimes, smeared in every conceivable way. (Useful idiots will be told repeatedly they’r doing something untoward for the best of reasons – to save the Planet, or put the first woman in the White House, to bring about social justice and fairness, to usher in Socialism, to escape student debt, anything and everything to excuse mob violence and political wrongdoing. Volunteers will be taught one set of rationals, middle managers and supervisors will have rationals conveyed by designated leaders.

    The main objective will be accomplished, enough mud and accusations to render Cruz Damaged Goods things will have proceeded well down the path to victory exactly as the Emperor has foreseen.

    Since the impediment of Justice Scalia has already been removed, the Roberts court is now free to disqualify Ted Cruz on the eve of the election. Hillary will rein in DC and if Ted Cruz returns to the Senate after his loss, he’ll have to shut-up and take it when ever Hillary wants to jerk his chain.

    ropelight (ed50d3)

  142. PS: I’m calling the notions contained in my concluding paragraph @140: The Blue Quail Conspiracy, (BQC).

    ropelight (ed50d3)

  143. rain = water from the sky
    rein = what you use to pull on one side of a horse’s bridle to turn his head
    reign = what King Trump would like to do in DC

    rational = what the person who left comment #140 is not
    rationale = a reason for believing something, which said commenter wholly lacks

    Some moron is wasting our host’s bandwidth here with paranoid fantasies, deliberate lies, bad spelling, and worse constitutional interpretation.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  144. I remember the big uproar in 2008, when the SCOTUS, led by Justice Scalia, disqualified John McCain from the presidential ballot in all 50 states because he was born in the Canal Zone. Man, I’ll never forget that. It was epic.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  145. 142. And if you think you’ll out number the morons you’re a damn’d fool.

    DNF (755a85)

  146. Some moron wrote (#140): “Since the impediment of Justice Scalia has already been removed, the Roberts court is now free to disqualify Ted Cruz on the eve of the election.”

    The same moron has previously expressed, over and over again, his very broad admiration for Justice Scalia in the comments on this blog since Justice Scalia’s death.

    For Justice Scalia to have been an “impediment” to the hypothetical disqualification of Ted Cruz, however, that means Justice Scalia would have to believe Cruz is constitutionally qualified to run for and serve as POTUS.

    The moron who left the comment at #140 therefore simultaneously believes, and passionately argues, that:

    * Justice Scalia is wonderful; and
    * Justice Scalia would have found Ted Cruz eligible; but and
    * Ted Cruz is ineligible.

    This might cast doubt upon the moron’s assertion that Cruz is ineligible. Cognitive dissonance: You haz it, author of #140. Get psychiatric help.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  147. Beldar, it’s not quite as bad as you make it out to be. Yep, I misspell often, my defense consists of suffering from dyslexia, submitting comments without adequate proofreading, and having been to college. Any one of those shortcomings is well known to result in poor spelling. Take your best guess and I’m sure you’ll catch my meaning.

    The unhappy circumstances of Justice Scalia’s untimely death in no way alter my respect and admiration for the man and his work. To suggest otherwise is wrongheaded. Are you quibbling over the description of Scalia as an impediment to leftist nostrums? Or have you got something else up your sleeve?

    A lawyer’s trick, perhaps?

    Touche! Well done Beldar. You’re a damn good lawyer. With your presumptive assumption linking my reference to Scalia as an impediment to the eventual hypothetical of a Cruz disqualification, you’re able to point out an apparent flaw in my argument while concealing your deception. Nicely done. You’re one tricky dude. And you hold a grudge.

    ropelight (ed50d3)

  148. #138, Because, Hoagie, if Cruz gets the GOP nod, the all forces of evil will rise up from the ooze demanding the courts settle the natural born citizen issue prior to the November elections.

    Ropelight is right about that. I mean, Hillary is the original birther. If she’d do it to Obama, she’ll do it to Cruz. But it doesn’t matter who we nominate. They will come out swinging hard.

    Personally, I’m convinced the birther issue is satisfied already. Even today a judge tossed one of these lawsuits out. Cruz is hispanic, and while that means nothing to me, it will be tricky for the democrats to otherize an hispanic.

    And Cruz has handled this issue well. Trump has brought it up hundreds of times, and his supporters believe any number of conspiracies ranging from assassinations to voter fraud, so it hasn’t been a light touch. Thanks to Trump, we know Cruz can handle this issue pretty well.

    Can Trump handle his dirty laundry? Personally I’m so biased against him I doubt I’m the one to say, but there’s no question his treatment of veterans (which I find disgraceful) and his treatment of business deals would definitely come up harshly too.

    But even if we nominate Jesus, the democrats will invent sins and the media will insist they are true.

    Dustin (2a8be7)

  149. I guess an easier way to say all that is that it’s not about nominating someone who the democrats won’t attack. It’s about nominating someone who can take the heat.

    Dustin (2a8be7)

  150. What Dustin said.
    What deception did Beldar make? I thought his point was clear and in the open.

    MD not exactly in Philly (deca84)

  151. Any time MD agrees with me is a good day!

    Ropelight, you know I have no hard feelings about your views and I’m glad you’re willing to discuss them to a difficult audience, like I appreciate Aphrael and Leviticus. Primaries are difficult, but you probably are enjoying this one more than you enjoyed the last couple (same here).

    Dustin (2a8be7)

  152. Beldar is right. Your argument has a logical flaw, ropelight.

    DRJ (15874d)

  153. For those interested, here is the code:


    I had to omit one character (less than sign) from the code because it was causing problems.

    Just add the names of the commenters you wish to filter, to the list in parenthesis that begins with “troll” and add separators as needed. Then open your browsers bookmark sidebar and create a bookmark (I named mine “cleaner”)and enter the code as the “location.” Now replace the one character (less than sign) I took out. It goes right after :”length,i,el,v,p;for(i=0;i” and right before “end;i++){el=$(aa[i]);v=el.text” with no spaces.

    Use: activate the bookmarks sidebar in your browser where you placed the new bookmark. while in the comment section, click on the new “cleaner” bookmark. All the comments are now filtered and you can read troll-free.

    felipe (56556d)

  154. This is what Crowder has to say:

    Rev. Hoagie ™ (eb7063)

  155. Dustin, I’ll settle for the Republicans nominating someone the Republicans won’t attack. By the time we get to the general election there’s gonna be so much seething hatred between Republican camps nobody’s gonna vote for anybody else’s candidate.

    I wish the damn democrats were stupid enough to refuse to vote democrat if their candidate lost.

    Rev. Hoagie ™ (eb7063)

  156. By the time we get to the general election there’s gonna be so much seething hatred between Republican camps nobody’s gonna vote for anybody else’s candidate.

    Hoagie, I won’t deny this is a serious problem. It’s a reflection of how fractured the party is, and a reflection of Obama’s skill as a politician. We have had wedge issue after wedge issue pressed hard by the press, day and day out, for years, with no clear victories. We’re all feeling the pressure to fix things, and don’t trust other factions to do it correctly.

    We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately. Ropelight often points out that if Cruz is nominated he will support him, and hopes that if/when his guy Trump is picked, that we support him. Tough to do for a lot of us, but a good point.

    Hillary’s behavior with our national security has been atrocious on many fronts. But Trump’s choices over the years, such as supporting Hillary, make supporting him kinda feel like supporting a democrat who conned the GOP.

    At any rate, I am not with you on this. I don’t consider myself a Republican at all anymore, even though I used to drive voters to polls, man phone banks, even monitor election sites in swing states. The party is my political opponent much in the way it is Cruz’s, and if they nominated Romney, for example, there is no question I wouldn’t vote. I would argue it is deeply short sighted to reflexively vote for whoever opposes the democrat. It’s called enabling. The GOP became what it is today, its useless form, because all it needs to be is better than quasi socialist. That’s why people hear Trump disrespect the party and identify with Trump (even if I think they are being tricked).

    I think the party should have learned that lesson with Mccain. It did not, so I kinda got bent out of shape with Romney, who surely would lose and of course was crushed. Has the party learned? Yes, I think it has. Rubio is losing support because the lesson has been absorbed. Either the esatablishment loses the primary or the GOP loses the general.

    Dustin (2a8be7)

  157. the thin line between the ruling class and the people, is indeed thin,

    narciso (732bc0)

  158. Beldar is right. Your argument has a logical flaw, ropelight.

    DRJ (15874d) — 3/8/2016 @ 2:01 pm

    Only if you assume that my use of impediment refers to Scalia’s possible future ruling that Cruz is eligible: How could I praise a man who disagrees with my position on presidential eligibility?

    Which is beside the point, Scalia was an impediment to keeping the records of Obama’s participation in Fast-n-Furious, Behghazi, and emailgate under wraps till the election is over. Scalia was almost always one of the 5 votes that ruled most 5-4 SCOTUS decisions. With him gone the court is all but nutralized, 4-4 is now the new normal.

    Nothing political gets decided till after the elections and a new SCOTUS justice is nominated and approved. With Scalia dead, the courts can’t function, all disputes will now be resolved in the political arena. Now, that’s locic for ya.

    ropelight (ed50d3)

  159. Well, Dustin if you don’t consider yourself a Republican any more then there is no reason for you to agree to my point. But, I’ no longer a Republican either I am only a conservative. I will only vote for whoever I believe to be the most conservative candidate and no matter how bad the Republicans are it’s gonna be them. And that’s why if I have to I’ll vote Trump in the general election if he’s the Republican candidate. It is difficult. I don’t have that deep loathing for Trump a lot of you have but he ain’t no conservative. Thing is, if he’s running against Hillary! the socialist liar/grifter or Sander’s the commie he’d be the most conservative candidate running.
    I know it ain’t sayin’ much but that’s truth as I see it.

    Rev. Hoagie ™ (eb7063)

  160. Thanks, felipe, but I’m so inept that I can’t accomplish that javascript task. Can’t make the bookmark.

    John Hitchcock (794fe0)

  161. @ Dustin,

    The party is my political opponent much in the way it is Cruz’s…

    Yes. Absolutely yes. I see that as a feature, not a bug. It’s astonishing to see how many Republicans the party has lost and are no longer willing to call themselves “Republicans”. And yet they continue to trot out the Mitt Romneys to convince us they are the only true option. Why, it’s as if they think we are little more than dumb sheep. And they don’t see that maybe, just maybe, that disdain and lack of respect for the intelligence and commitment to Conservatism just might have something to do with the mass abandoning of ship.

    Dana (86e864)

  162. Dana, the GOP has fed us crap candidates since GHWB. In fact I hold him responsible for the collapse of the party as a viable national force since he reneged on the “Read my lips, no new taxes” pledge. That was the beginning of thirty years of BS from the party hacks. GHWB got in bed with the stinking democrats to raise taxes after he looked us in the eye and said he wouldn’t do that. And they’ve done nothing but lie to us since. That’s why I like Cruz. He’s a Renegade and I love renegades. Trump is just a boorish load mouth in my opinion. The real renegade go-getter is my man Cruz.

    Rev. TrusTED Hoagie ™ (eb7063)

  163. *loudmouth Sorry

    Rev. TrusTED Hoagie ™ (eb7063)

  164. Hoagie,

    It’s true. They’ve fed us crap because we’ve not demanded something other than crap. We may have made noises here and there, but never loudly enough, and never in the wallet enough. They are what we’ve allowed them to be. And now with Cruz, we have a solid change of ending that 30 year spree of faux-Conservatism. Unfortunately, the powers that be are so entrenched and have benefited so greatly from our lack of will, that it’s going to be easier to indict Hillary than taking back the reins. That’s how tough it is, and will be.

    Dana (86e864)

  165. I must say Dana, it is so much easier to be a leftist. All the powers that be need to do is promise to steal more of your neighbors money to give you free stuff and you’re in the bag. Or tell you that you’re a victim of white privilege or homophobia and they get your vote. And the LIV democrats keep buying it. The left has all but destroyed the black family and they have totally destroyed every major city where they’ve been in power since the 60’s. We on the other hand actually expect visible, measureable results. That ain’t too easy so they hoodwink us. I have seen nothing of value from the government since The Contract With America. That’s what we need today. A game plan, a message and a way to promote and accomplish the goal the way Newt did way back when.

    Rev. TrusTED Hoagie ™ (eb7063)

  166. When I was typing my last comment it reminded me of this Whittle piece:

    Rev. TrusTED Hoagie ™ (eb7063)

  167. 137. aphrael, it arises from the US Constitution and was understood at the time to mean born within the US to citizen parents. Gradually, that definition was expanded to include those born withinn the jurisdiction of the US to US citizen parents.

    No. If that’s what the framers meant they would have used the term “native born.” That was the term for someone born on a nation’s soil. But they didn’t.

    Of course it has little or nothing to do with British common law. Brits are subjects of the Crown, not citizens who chose their leaders. British common law is irrelevant on this topic.
    ropelight (ed50d3) — 3/8/2016 @ 9:31 am

    Oh, I guess they got their understanding of the term “natural born” from Mongolia then.

    Steve57 (79ea4f)

  168. I have the same question for you I’d like to ask Donald Trump.

    Do you, ropelight, actually believe what you’re saying?

    Steve57 (79ea4f)

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1502 secs.