Question of the Day: Ted Cruz for President or Supreme Court?

Ted Cruz (courtesy wikipedia.org)

Ted Cruz is the – if not the only – Republican candidate for president who is a strict constitutionalist. As wikipedia.org tells, “Cruz served as a law clerk to J. Michael Luttig of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in 1995 and William Rehnquist, Chief Justice of the United States in 1996.” When he left the Court, he went into private practice, where he worked on cases for the NRA. Under President Bush, Cruz was as an associate deputy attorney general in the U.S. Justice Department. In short he’s uniquely qualified to be . . .

a pro-gun Supreme Court justice. But he’s running for President. Which would be better than anything the Democrats could provide, Commander-in-Chief-wise. Obvs. With Donald Trump leading the polls, a man who currently takes a solidly pro-gun stance, but once favored the assault weapons ban, presidential aspirant Cruz must wait and hope The Donald and the rest of the Fudd field falters. Meanwhile, what do you reckon? Cruz for President, Vice President, Attorney General or Supreme Court Justice? Or, in a perfect world, all – except for Veep.

comments

  1. avatar Lance Manion says:

    The libs in the Senate would burn down the Capitol before allowing him to be confirmed.

    1. avatar Henry Bowman says:

      Fuck them, they always bitch about “compromise” well they are going to get nothing and we will take everything we want.

      Ted Cruz could be the knife in the court for decades to come, he should be on the court if he feels the need to be on it.

    2. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

      Yes, it would not only take a 60% majority, it would take 60 CONSERVATIVE senators, not 60 Republicans. The liberal Republicans hate him as much as the liberal Democrats. Definitely an easier task getting him voted in by the populous than the Senate.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        Actually, it only takes 51. The 60 rule is a gentleman’s agreement that the DNC has already broken. Turnabout is fair play.

        1. avatar Geoff PR says:

          Yep.

          Stick us with ObamaCare using that trick, anything else is fair game…

        2. avatar Anon in CT says:

          Yup – Harry Reid already nuked the fillibuster for judicial nominees, which is how the Dems packed the DC Circuit Court.

        3. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

          Currently it does still take 60 votes to confirm a SCOTUS nominee, although you’re right, turnabout is fair play. However, McConnell has about as much testicular fortitude as a tulip. Reid may have been suffering from acute dementia for several decades now, but you have to admit, the man has balls. Then there’s the fact that there are a lot of establishment Republican Senators who despise Cruz because he didn’t keep his mouth shut and wait a couple of decades before standing up for the Constitution. Seems like a much higher peak to clime than the presidency.

        4. avatar Toasty says:

          I’m predicting that if the GOP wins the presidency in 2016 while maintaining or expanding it’s grip on the Senate, then the filibuster will be abolished completely. Both for legislation and appointments. And it will be just deserts for the Dems when GOP legislation flows through the Congress with little to no effort and there’s nothing they can do about it for years. Keep in mind that the 2018 midterm elections are actually an opportunity to GAIN seats in the senate for the GOP…

        5. avatar 2Asux says:

          Not quite a ‘gentleman’s agreement’. Rules of the Senate, which can be changed by a vote of 51. But McConnell already declared he would not follow Democrat lead and “use the nuclear option” (change the rules) because Repubs are taking the high road, unlike Harry Reid. And…McConnell refuses to battle for legislation he knows cannot survive veto. Principled victories, even though ultimately overturned, are not what the Repub establishment considers good governance.

    3. avatar Ray says:

      SCOTUS!!!!! Life time and we need a 6th pro-2A vote if Ruth Buzzy Windberg does the right thing and CROAKS.

      1. avatar mark s. says:

        WE should all start calling him Teddy , not because Teddy was so great but because the Progressives loved him so dearly and they might not be able to figure out he is one of us .
        TEDDY CRUZ for president , he can pick the next three of four Justices . He is our greatest chance of restoring Constitutional government , the best candidate for president we have seen for 99 years . Maybe our only hope , in my humble opinion . Please support him .
        TEDDY C. FOR PRES.

  2. avatar Sam I Am says:

    Power is in the Congress. We need a devastating majority in both houses. Presidents cannot operate without funding, and a solid conservative majority (veto-proof) handcuffs the president. It is worrisome that so many conservative legislators want to be president, leaving their legislative seat vulnerable to loss.

    A huge majority in Congress can actually cripple the courts, by placing certain matters outside the court’s domain.

    1. avatar styrgwillidar says:

      The majority doesn’t mean a thing if you’re not willing to use it. Current crop of republicans aren’t, it’s failure theater, they say they’re opposed to something than don’t even fight the fight. They even enabled the Iran deal they were supposedly opposed to, passed a rule to lower the threshold to approve it— based on getting the full agreement. Never got the full agreement to review, then let it go forward ….because… they didn’t have the votes to stop it. Which was true, because they changed the rule to lower the number of required votes in the first place.

      1. avatar Henry Bowman says:

        Principals matter, the weak minded Cucksertives we have sent in are proof that “compromise” and “appeasement” will not work in our favor.

        1. avatar mark s. says:

          Out of the 79 or so Tea Party Conservatives that have been sent to Washington in the last 6 years , about 35 of them have stayed mostly uncompromised and are actually having

      2. avatar tdiinva (now in Wisconsin) says:

        Do you know the significance of the numbers 292 and 67 are. If you don’t then you are not conservative.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          No, he has a point. The numbers are germane only if the majority uses the power to promulgate first principles. If the majority is more interested in being “likable”, “serious”, “bi-partisan”, caring”, not “mean-spirited”, etc., the numbers don’t mean much.

      3. avatar Sam I Am says:

        That argument neutralizes a conservative, libertarian, right-wing, constitutionist president (pick you favorite character trait). A “really good president” is powerless with a Congress unwilling to do more than “get along”.

    2. avatar Rokurota says:

      A huge majority in Congress can actually cripple the courts, by placing certain matters outside the court’s domain.

      Like same-sex marriage? Like abortion?

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        Like whatever they like. However…there are recent federal cases where judges overturned attempts at the state level to change the judiciary.

  3. avatar FedUp says:

    But can anybody who served as a feral persecutor in the last 30 years and didn’t get fired in his first month on the job ever be considered trustworthy?

  4. avatar Greg in Allston says:

    First choice: President.
    Second choice: Attorney General of the next republican president. He’s still pretty young. After a stint as AG, then on to the SCOTUS.

    1. avatar rosignol says:

      I’m okay with this.

  5. avatar locke_n_load says:

    Needs to be AG first (take care of a lot of that NFA/BATFE junk from the top), Pres for 2 terms, then live out the rest of his days on the SC (and may it be an extremely long life at that).

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Locke,

      See my comment below. According to all the projections, most of the country will vote Progressive within the next several years. When that happens, Progressives will own the White House from that day forward which means Cruz cannot possibly win a Presidential election after that tipping point. It also means that no one else could win the Presidential election who would nominate Cruz for the U.S. Supreme Court.

      From a professional development standpoint, it would be great if Cruz could make the rounds as you suggested. Unfortunately, given the population trends within the United States, I don’t think we have that much time available.

      1. avatar styrgwillidar says:

        I tend to agree with you. We’re importing a voting bloc that sees a powerful government as a good thing.

        1. avatar Henry Bowman says:

          Which is why we have to reduce immigration, secure the border, deport the illegals and end brightright ciztenship.

          Time for use to secure the blessings of Liberty for ourselves and our posterity.

        2. avatar Gman says:

          The damage is already having their intended effect. It’s not that the illegals are voting, they are congregating in sanctuary cities as intended and induced by Democrats. This changes the census population and thus the number of voting representatives in the Electoral College. They have already increased their count by 7 and at the current rate there is no way we will ever elect a conservative to the White House by 2050. The end game is already afoot.

        3. avatar Ralph says:

          Which is why we have to reduce immigration, secure the border, deport the illegals and end brightright ciztenship.

          Henry, I fear it’s too late. It would be like locking the barn door after the wolves have run in and slaughtered the horses.

        4. avatar Chevelier says:

          Not just that but we are seeing the results of the last 30 years of progressive control of the public schools. These kids coming out now are pre-programmed to not think critically etc. you lose the youth and you lose it all.

      2. avatar Henry Bowman says:

        Which is why we must elect trump, he wants to secure the border as well as send the illegals back, end “refugee” programs, as well as reduce legal immigration.

        If we can not win elections by the ballot, then let us use other methods…

        If the left things they can rig the game with immigrant voters thy are very sadly mistaken.

        1. avatar Cliff H says:

          Any careful and critical analysis of the man and his politics will easily reveal that Trump is a Trojan Horse(e’s ass) planted by the Progressives to derail any possible true conservative (Cruz) from winning the nomination in the primaries, since they know Hillary could not beat a strong conservative candidate in the general.

          Mark my words – Trump in the White House will quickly reveal his true Liberal/Progressive nature and you that support him will be crying in your near-beer.

        2. avatar Paelorian says:

          “If we can not win elections by the ballot, then let us use other methods…

          You’re anti-democratic, and yet you rail against the left for “rigging the game”. Look, you have to win through the ballot, or you’re subverting democracy and the will of the people. Would you want some other group saying “well, we can’t win by the ballot since the people don’t want us to lead, let’s find a way to rule the people even though the majority of them don’t choose us”? We should not embrace evil in order to win. Only a legitimate victory is a victory. We must win hearts and minds and have the people choose justice and liberty for themselves.

  6. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    Wow, that is a really touch choice. I dare say Cruz would be best on the Supreme Court of the United States. Assuming that he remains healthy, he could potentially serve for three decades. Given the projections that our electorate will soon constitute an insurmountable Progressive majority, having a Supreme Court Justice that upholds the United States Constitution and the rule of law for another 30 years would be extremely important.

    Of course all that would do is delay the inevitable downward spiral. Who knows, maybe that 30 years would be long enough for a revival of liberty and respect for our unalienable rights.

    1. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

      ‘Given the projections that our electorate will soon constitute an insurmountable Progressive majority…’

      I wouldn’t put too much stock in those projections. Sure, the white majority might be shrinking, but there’s a lot more to it than that. First, in it’s efforts to woo minorities the Democrat Party has been alienating whites. In their efforts to woo Hispanics, especially the ones who aren’t even supposed to be here, they’ve been harming blacks economically. If not actually convincing them to vote Republican they’ve been doing their best to convince them to at least not vote.

      Second, it doesn’t matter how many Democrat voting Hispanics you pack into California it isn’t going to make the state any less likely to go Republican. And if Idaho goes from 1% Hispanic to 3% Hispanic it’s not going to make them any less likely to go Republican. The Democrat Party is becoming more and more a regional party consisting of the northeast, coastal west, and the islands of Chicago and Hawaii. Since the electoral college gives each state 2 votes just for being a state that puts the Democrats at a disadvantage. They’re much more likely to lose in the EC when winning the popular vote.

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        I don’t know Gov.

        It’s not like Republicans have won their last two trips to the White House by a landslide. Remember all the claims that Gore actually beat Bush in 2000 and the mad scramble to recount the votes in Florida — quite literally with the election hanging in the balance? That was about as thin a margin as you can get. And before that is was Bush Sr. who couldn’t even win re-election.

        And look at the election in 2012. I cannot tell you how many people I heard who were lifelong Democrat voters — who always vote for Democrats — who told me they despised Obama so much they were going to vote for the Republican candidate for the first time in their lives in 2012 … and yet Obama was supposedly re-elected.

        I don’t see all the illegal immigrants settling in California. I see them settling in Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, and Florida. Guess what? All of those states (with the exception of New Mexico) almost always give their electoral college votes to the Republican Presidential candidate. Even more important, Texas and Florida have HUGE populations and command a LOT of electoral college votes. As huge as they are, 10 million illegal immigrants who suddenly get to vote are plenty to turn Arizona’s, Texas’ and Florida’s electoral votes from Republican to Democrat.

        And I haven’t even touched on the fact that more and more people who were actually born in the United States are demanding hand-outs from government. Oh, and I also have not mentioned that a very large portion of the Democrat voting bloc is reproducing exponentially faster than the Republican voting bloc.

        We have to face facts. Adding 10 million Democrat voters to Arizona, Texas, and Florida is enough all by itself to guarantee that Democrats never lose the White House again. Throw in the fact that the population of home grown Democrats are ever increasing much faster than Republicans and it really seals the deal. Mark my words, if the Republicans fail to take back the White House in 2016, President Bush Jr. will be the last Republican ever to hold the Oval Office.

        1. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

          I would concede that the Republican candidate for president has lost the popular vote in 3 out of the last 4 elections. However, the 2000 election only backs up my point about Republicans being more likely to win the presidency despite losing the popular vote. The problem is that in 2008 the Republicans fielded a terrible candidate at a point in time when the nation was tired of the current Republican administration. Then in 2012 they fielded someone who would have made a better president, but 4 million Republicans who voted in 2008 stayed home in 2012. McCain had enough votes in 2008 to beat O’Bama in 2012. In the meantime, the Republicans have built up their greatest majorities in the House and Senate since the 1920s.

          Arizona, New Mexico, Texas and Florida have always had large Hispanic populations, and all currently have Republican governors. W took 45% of Hispanics in both of his elections, it can be done again. Protestant Hispanics already lean Republican and even the Catholics are much closer to the Republicans when it comes to social issues. If you wish to vote for a Hispanic for president you won’t find any running for the Democratic nomination, but you’ve got a choice between 2 Hispanics running for the Republican nomination, as well as a black, and Indian and a woman. Not to mention a fat guy. We need more fat presidents. Meanwhile the presumptive Democratic nominee is an old homely white woman with a grating voice and no charisma at all who will probably be under indictment before the party’s convention.

          Granted, giving 30 million (not 10) illegal aliens the right to vote in our elections will likely swing the pendulum, but that’s not actually a likely event. The Dems are on the wrong side of the issues and are counting on blinding the voters with bullshit. Granted this worked in the last 2 elections, but it won’t work for generations. Most of the immigrants come here to work and make a better life for themselves. It’s the brain dead college grads that I fear from a political standpoint.

        2. avatar mark s. says:

          When you were a kid , did you ever play a board game or a sport with a cheater ? Do you remember how crazy insane mad they got if they still lost ? This is the Al Gore / Bush debacle of 2000 . They pulled every trick they had and still lost that one , well , actually we all lost in that one , but they didn’t get their guy in there , they had to work harder in Congress to get their agenda done than they wanted to . Barry O. 2012 showed me that they had perfected their dirty cheating tricks though so I guess 2000 was a success for them after all .

      2. avatar Model 31 says:

        Maybe not flip a blue state to red, but after a census, a packed California will get more electoral college votes or at least not lose some it would have as wage generating businesses leave.

  7. avatar KMONtang says:

    being that going from POTUS to SCOTUS is HIGHLY unlikely, I’d say AG then SCOTUS. he can make a difference for a lot longer amount of time on SCOTUS, and stop the slow, leftward movement they seem to display.

  8. avatar EJQ says:

    I have to agree with former President Bush. “I don’t like the guy.”

    1. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

      Care to elaborate? What is about him that displeases you? Is it something about his style, his personality, or is it something substantive like his abilities?

    2. avatar Big E says:

      Why, because your brother running against him too?
      As the article states Cruz has the most fidelity to the Consitution of any candidate, IMO.

      That makes him my guy.

  9. avatar dh34 says:

    Cruz for AG, Justice Don Willett for SCOTUS

  10. avatar gsnyder says:

    I like Cruz. Unfortunately he is judged as a bit of a nut I believe from his passionate ties with the Tea Party. In reality he’s a smart fair person and capable to steer the USA in the right direction. I’d support him when possible.

  11. avatar Chip Bennett says:

    Of the two, I’ll go with SCOTUS. I don’t see any path to victory for Cruz in the Republican presidential primary. It looks like that will be a three-horse race (Trump, Carson, Jeb).

  12. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    Here is a much more important question of the day: can Ted Cruz legally hold the office of President of the United States?

    Ted Cruz was born in Canada. His father was born in Cuba, although (apparently) a naturalized citizen of the United States. Only his mother was born in the United States. The United States Constitution clearly says that the President of the United States must be a natural-born citizen. Does he qualify?

    1. avatar styrgwillidar says:

      Yes. He was born to two US citizens, at the time he was born only one of your parents had to be a US citizen for you to be a citizen at birth. I.e a natural-born citizen.

    2. avatar Chip Bennett says:

      Yes.

      Ted Cruz claims his citizenship through his birth, not through naturalization. FULLSTOP.

    3. avatar FedUp says:

      According the the Birthers, if Obama’s mom had been at least 19 when he was born, he could have been born in Kenya and still have been as natural born as McCain. The whole crux of that matter, IIRC, was that a parent who had not been a US citizen over the age of 14 for five years could not confer citizenship to the child at birth and Barack Jr was born less than five years after Stanley’s 14th birthday.

    4. avatar dh34 says:

      Yes…yes…yes. You can be a natural born citizen by birth in the US or by having either one of the parents being a US citizen, regardless of where birth actually takes place.

      As long as one parent is a US citizen, you can be born on Mars and it is considered natural born.

    5. avatar Ragnarredbeard says:

      Well, Obama had an American mother and Kenyan father. That’s no different than Cruz with an American mother and Cuban father.

      If you think Obama is qualified by birth then so is Cruz.

    6. avatar rosignol says:

      Yes. Any child born to a parent who is an American citizen is a citizen from birth. It doesn’t matter in the slightest if the child is born on US soil or the moon.

      Same goes for Obama- the location of his birth is irrelevant. His mother was a citizen, therefore Obama is a citizen.

  13. avatar styrgwillidar says:

    Well, I’d like to see Cruz as president— but thinking about it, he’d do far more good for the country on SCOTUS. Now- would Trump or Carson appoint him?

    1. avatar Phil LA says:

      2 terms of president Cruz could carry more weight than a lifetime of 1/9 of the Supreme Court. I’d like him as President and then Supreme Court.

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        I disagree. If the Republicans win the White House the next election, he/she will almost certainly be appointing two Supreme Court justices. And if one of them is Cruz and the other a Constitutional conservative, the court will have a solid (and dependable) 6 to 3 majority. That will have GINORMOUS ramifications going forward for our nation … much greater ramifications than a Republican in the White House for 4 or 8 years.

  14. avatar Elliot says:

    Ted Cruz is against net neutrality which greatly concerns me, and it should concern everyone else reading this on the internet.

    1. avatar FedUp says:

      There are concerns, and there are deal-killers.
      For me, deal-killers include subversion, especially of the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, or 10th Amendments, and rewards/incentive programs for criminal acts, like illegal entry into the country.

      Example of deal-killing political position:
      If a guy, like John Bush, wants to give illegal aliens an advantage over lawful immigrants, then he can go to Hell, I’ll cheer if he sucks on a Glock and goes there tomorrow.

      1. avatar JSJ says:

        “Strict Constitutionalist” my ass. Cruz was more than willing to give away our 4th amendment rights for the convenience of the government with the USA freedom act.
        I’m not sure what part of “no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause” he’s not understanding.
        That makes him no better than those who forget what “shall not be infringed” means.

    2. avatar Old Ben turning in grave says:

      What concerns me is eventual government censorship of content, even if by indirect means. “Net neutrality” doesn’t do that, but it opens the door for it.

    3. “Net Neutrality” is a trojan horse and an entry way for government content regulation.

      It’s got little to do with “neutrality” and all to do with laying the groundwork for “lawful” content definition and securing the economic positions of the incumbents.

      Once the government can regulate something, politicians can start to extract tribute from it.

      It’s a trap – anyone against it is doing the right thing in my opinion.

    4. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Elliot,

      If Internet capacity were infinite, I would totally agree with you. But our Internet capacity is anything but infinite. As such, the law of supply and demand must apply.

      Think of it this way. Why should Netflix, who pays next to nothing to actually build and maintain Internet capacity in the United States, be able to use more than 50% of our nation’s Internet capacity, cause Internet providers to increase capacity without compensation, and degrade other services?

      Here is another angle. Everyone is excited about getting Gigabit Internet to the home. What happens when 1,000 of those home users engage in intensive activity, whose aggregate activity is 1 Terabit per second, and overload the backbone to their smallish community … all the while seriously degrading performance for the other few thousand homes who use their Internet connection sparingly?

      The only thing that should be neutral about the Internet is that carriers should not be able to charge different consumers different rates for the same amount of capacity.

      1. avatar rosignol says:

        Nonsense. Netflix might not be spending a lot on laying fiber, but the service Netflix offers is a major part of why a lot of people think broadband internet is worth the not-insignificant cost.

  15. avatar Guy in Texas says:

    President of the Republic of Texas.

  16. avatar Kenshinwulf says:

    Rand Paul for President, Cruz as VP. Then pack the Supreme Court with Constitutionalists.

    1. avatar Old Ben turning in grave says:

      Flip that and I’d vote the ticket. We certainly could do worse than Rand Paul, but he’s not the guy we need right now with the Middle East falling apart.

      1. avatar Phil LA says:

        Agreed. Though, I’d go a step less with Paul. He’s a legislator, not an excecutive. I’d like Rand Paul as senate majority leader with President Cruz. Preferred VPs include Rubio (though I’d rather him stay in the senate), Carson or Fiorina as VP, though I favored Rick Perry.

      2. avatar Paelorian says:

        I’d rather the President’s efforts and our tax dollars be focused on the problems of the United States of America falling apart. I don’t think we a good return on all of our money and energy invested in Iraq. If it had been spent here instead, Americans would now have better lives.

    2. avatar Publius says:

      If we could get a conservative super-majority in both houses AND the White House, I say we pull a card from the Democrat’s playbook and we change the laws to add more judges to the Supreme Court (just like FDR did to cram socialism down our throats). They did it before, so it’s only fair play to do it back to them. Even if we only added two more judges, that would mean things like Heller would be 7-to-4 rulings and not 5-to-4.

  17. avatar Jim G says:

    How about C) None of the above?
    He’s unelectable as Prez and unconfirmable (is that a word?) as anything else.
    The Republican “controlled” Congress is irrelevant (am I the only one who hasn’t noticed anything different from a Democrat-controlled Congress?)
    What the hell is “Fudd” that suddenly is such the buzz-word y’all seem to like to throw out there every chance you get?

    1. avatar CTstooge says:

      FUDD: (fuhd) noun, slang: An American hunter who ignores gun control efforts and legislation that will eventually cost him his 870 and crappy beat-up Ruger 10-22.

      Use in a sentence: “After CT passed a law requiring a certificate to purchase any ammunition, I was called by five outraged FUDDs asking what the hell had just happened.”

      1. avatar Jim G says:

        Ahhh, gotcha thanks!
        So basically ALL my hunting buddies who just look at me with a blank stare when I bring up the latest 2A issues or anything to do with politics 🙂

      2. avatar SteveInCO says:

        Except that Fudd isn’t an acronym and shouldn’t be in all caps…it’s taken from Elmer Fudd.

        1. avatar FedUp says:

          When they all-cap it, I have to stop a moment and decide if they made a typo on FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt) or if they’re shouting Fudd.

        2. avatar Grindstone says:

          Fat Ugly Dumb Dude?

  18. avatar Mike R says:

    He is qualified to be either prez or SCOTUS but realistically he has a better chance to be president. No RINO republican would nominate him and the libtards in senate would filibuster his nomination.

  19. avatar Mike Crognale says:

    The bottom line is this: Cruz has made enemies of practically every senator serving. He will never be confirmed for anything. I like him a lot but he will not be President either.

  20. avatar Phil LA says:

    I want him in Washington until he’s corrupted. I’m a big Cruz supporter, but only because he’s a big constitutional supporter.

  21. avatar PeterK says:

    Wow, it would be truly awesome to have him on the supreme court. Can’t say I’d be sorry to see him as the Attorney general, either. His character is wasted in the pack of weasels that is congress, sigh…

  22. avatar CTstooge says:

    FUDD (fuhd) noun, slang: A recreational hunter and gun owner who ignores or disregards gun control efforts that will ultimately cost him his 870 and his crappy beat up Ruger 10-22 .

  23. avatar TravisP says:

    Ted Cruz is the – if not the only – Republican candidate for president who is a strict constitutionalist.

    Uhm what? Rand’s campaign may be minimal, but he adheres to the Constitution

    1. avatar CA.Ben says:

      Exactly. If you want a real constitutionalist, go with Rand. Rand and Cruz have also been polling around the same as well.

  24. avatar tdiinva (now in Wisconsin) says:

    Ted Cruz is far better suited for a SCOTUS seat than for the Presidency. He is ideologically rigid which may tickle his supporters’ itch but him prone to the politics of the futile gesture. He also doesn’t work well with others so will be a political failure as President. He is also the kind A-hole who will be totally impervious to the pressure to grow as e gets older. I think President Rubio would be wise make Senator Cruz his first court nominee. However, there never is going to be a President Rubio because the Trumpsters and Cruzers will stay home like their equivalents did in 2012.

  25. avatar pres stone says:

    i just don’t like putting someone if office that says ” im bringing fundamentalism back..” only doing what a book says and not thinking is NEVER a step in the right direction.

    1. avatar tdiinva (now in Wisconsin} says:

      Yeah, lecountt”s not go back to the bad old days when theocrats like Washington, Adams and Madison ruled the country. Thank Earl Warren for ending the reign of religious terror in America. /sarc

      1. avatar Grindstone says:

        Adams? You mean the same Adams who said “The United States is not, in any sense, founded upon the Christian religion?”

        1. avatar tdiinva (Now in Wisconsin) says:

          I love it how some people take quotes out of context.
          He said “our Constitution was made for a moral and religious people.”

          John Adams went to Church every Sunday. He evoked the name of Gks quite often in the course his life. Even Thomas Jefferson was adamant about the role of religion in public life. He required students at the University of Virginia to attend Church every Sunday. He founded the Unitarian Church in Charlottesville so non Christians could meet the requirement. Doesn’t sound anti-religious to me.

          Militant atheistism is incompatible with republican government. When you declare man is his own God, which is what Progressives do, than the state can do what it wishes. The history of the 20th Century shows that. Republican government requires a people who do not accept individuals or governments as the final arbiters.

        2. avatar Grindstone says:

          I love it how some people take quotes out of context.
          He said “our Constitution was made for a moral and religious people.”

          John Adams went to Church every Sunday. He evoked the name of Gks quite often in the course his life. Even Thomas Jefferson was adamant about the role of religion in public life. He required students at the University of Virginia to attend Church every Sunday. He founded the Unitarian Church in Charlottesville so non Christians could meet the requirement. Doesn’t sound anti-religious to me.

          What was the context of my quote, then? You didn’t even address it.
          And where did I say Adams was anti-religious? He was clearly very religious, yet still didn’t deem the US to be a theocratic nation founded upon his own religion. Your strawman has no power here.

          Militant atheistism is incompatible with republican government. When you declare man is his own God, which is what Progressives do, than the state can do what it wishes. The history of the 20th Century shows that. Republican government requires a people who do not accept individuals or governments as the final arbiters.

          How many “militant atheists” have shot up malls, suicide bombed buses, or fire bombed clinics?
          You wouldn’t know a “militant atheist” if they spilled their double IPA on you.
          The history of the 18th and 19th centuries already showed what you get with theocrats in charge: slavery, racism, civil war, sexism, genocide, crony capitalism, I could go on. None of that is compatible with a Republican government either. By principle, a nation that claims to be based on liberty is not beholden to any religion. Religion is the antithesis of liberty, it demands obedience and servitude to the whims of “clergy”. See: all of history. When you declare that man is beholden to X God, which is what religious right-wingers do, then the state can persecute anyone who doesn’t fall into their arbitrary line, as proven throughout history.
          If you want a theocracy, go to Iran. Leave liberty alone.

        3. avatar tdiinva (Now in Wisconsin) says:

          Once again the guy who cries strawman is the one making the strawman argument.

          To answer your question. Most of then have been. You are dumb as a rock. I’m laughing hysterically at you. The reason we are seeing these killers is that we are no longer a moral and religious people. The Constitution is no longer ours. That is why we are going to have a Clinton-Trump Presidential race. We are breeding Nicolai Stavrogins by the dozens. Perhaps you are one of them.

        4. avatar Grindstone says:

          The reason we are seeing these killers is that we are no longer a moral and religious people.

          Of course, because the great “moral and religious people” who gave us slavery and genocide never would’ve shot-up schools! And further, the reason we are seeing these killers is because of our instant-communications. Bad things happened before the Pony Express. But you just didn’t get them delivered right to the palm of your hand the instant they happened. Mass media exposure has far more to do with mass killers than ‘religious morals’, which never stopped a good mass slaughter of people in the last 5,000 years.
          Talk about dumb as a rock. Hell, mass killings and violent crime in general are on a multi-decade downward trend as it is. Your argument just doesn’t hold water because it’s not even based in reality. Hell, the narrative “there’s more killings now because of X” is directly from the anti-gun playbook. Well done.

  26. avatar Gman says:

    Cruz is hard to read. He talks and acts like an establishment politician yet with a mean conservative streak. But he doesn’t seem to understand the massive damage that these illegal aliens congregating in Democrat strongholds is having on the Electoral College distribution. This may well be the very last opportunity conservatives have at the White House. But we MUST elect someone who understands the dangers involved and is willing to either get rid of the illegals or change the census calculations to only include citizens.

  27. avatar Kirk says:

    Put him in charge of BATFE and watch the organization disappear.

  28. avatar Grindstone says:

    Pro-gun is great, but unfortunately this nation has a habit of hitching theocratic tendencies with that horse. With Cruz, we’d return to Christian fundamental extremism (his own words). Not liberty.

    1. avatar Model 31 says:

      Whether you believe in Jesus, who He is or if He’s real, exactly what problem do you have with what He said or did? How about the 10 Commandments…Which ones do you have a problem with specifically? ooga booga church?

      1. avatar Grindstone says:

        I don’t have a single problem with Jesus, real or imagined. It’s his supposed followers who are the problem.

        BTW; the 10C were a convenient between God and the Jews of Exodus, not gentile Christians.

        Either way, none of that is compatible with liberty. Which is at stake here and what really truly matters.

        1. avatar Former Water Walker says:

          Grindstone-you are really slipping lately. “Convenient?”. Covenant is the word. And JESUS is real as you will soon see…I don’t think Ted would impose anything like a theocracy on the heathen.

        2. avatar Grindstone says:

          Blame auto-correct on that one. You know how editing is a bitch on this site.

          I would say that as a devout religious individual of the Christian persuasion, of course you don’t see Teddy as a threat to religious freedom for all. But that’s only my assumption.

        3. avatar mark s. says:

          I understand peoples tendencies to attach certain historical atrocities that were advanced in Christ name to Jesus ‘ The Christ ‘ . This is not only flawed over reaction to poor human behavior and judgmental in the face of logic , but can lead one down a road of alienation from reason in general . One only read the words of
          ‘ The Word ‘ of God , Jesus Christ , to know that the actions of Religious authoritarians over the millennial are done for earthly gains and not eternal reward and the overall benefit of humanity . We simply would have never had an America or the Bill of Rights and the US Constitution as we know it today if it were not for wise men , well studied and learned of history and the ills of the past reckoned to the knowledge found in the words of Christ Jesus and His disciples and thoughtful considerations that followed His sacrifice . The greatest obstacles to the principles of humanities Devine freedoms enumerated in the founding of our country is now , always was and will always be , Vice ( sin ) , this is a well understood concept by the founders of America and all reasoned thinkers before and since . To ignore this basic understanding is simply folly and will quickly lead us down the road we find ourselves on . No matter where one pulls their morals and values from is not the issue but having them is , in my opinion and the opinion of many of our forefathers that Christianity and the practice of it were the single greatest foundation for a moral society , necessary in holding together the principles of freedom . Without a practicing moral populace practicing the principles of Christian forgiveness and charity , vice will perpetuate and government will find the door open to clamp down for the good of the general , this is natural law .

  29. avatar Steve says:

    I love Cruz and think he would be a great President…. but he has no chance. Progressive have done a “good” job at making even moderates view Ted as a “crazy Tea Party member”.

    Shit, even my parents, who are “registered republican” can’t define what the Tea Party is, despite it being very simple to do so, thanks to the media.

  30. avatar Rambeast says:

    Neither. We don’t need a religious zealot in either position. In fact, abolish both positions. The federal government has outlived it’s usefulness.

  31. avatar SteveInCO says:

    Whoever becomes President can do a bunch of good even if Congress is stacked against him, by rescinding all those asinine import ban executive orders.

    1. avatar Raoul Duke says:

      That would be nice but it won’t happen.

      The establishment does not want it, the NRA and domestic manufacturers do not want the competition, and American super-patriot gun owners don’t want those “commie” guns destroying their perfect, American purity in the gun market with them; if you don’t own an AR, 1911, or Remchesterby you are a traitor!! /sarc

      1. avatar george from fort worth says:

        i agree. keep the ban on re-importing us made guns ! countless lives have been saved because americans cannot buy guns their own government paid for originally.

  32. avatar HP says:

    SCOTUS for Cruz, no doubt. His stance on the 2A is spot on and he’s young.

  33. avatar Roscoe says:

    Absent a likeable, charismatic, witty, resourceful and sensibly compelling communicator as the Republican presidential candidate to head the conservative ticket, the real question is: who is the least objectionable candidate on a Presidential Ballot acceptable to the most undecided middle of the road voters.

    Cruz isn’t it.

    As Attorney General of the United States; yes.

    Supreme Court nominee; it’s questionable that he’d be affirmed.
    He doesn’t have any P.C. attributes going for him.

  34. avatar Mad Max says:

    When one of the SCOTUS justices retires or dies during the Cruz Presidency, he can then nominate himself for the Supreme Court and let VP Ben Carson take over. 🙂

    1. avatar Roscoe says:

      I think Ben Carson is America’s best, most uniting choice among all the presidential candidates (including Biden) in the first place. That is why the Democratic party is so afraid of him.

      Read his first book: America the Beautiful. It’s well worth the time invested.

      1. avatar mark s. says:

        I think Ben is great , I have read his book and I was inspired by his compassion and accomplishments and would vote for him if my choice was he or one of the progressives he will eventually face . My position is simple . While Ben was studying brain surgery and attending medical school , Ted Cruz was studying the Constitution , and arguing it merits before progressives in all manner and form . We don’t need a brain surgeon leading us back to a small constitutional federal government , we need a small government Constitutional expert .

  35. avatar Faultier says:

    If Antonin Scalia goes on day give ted his place and rand paul 4president.

  36. avatar Jim Jones says:

    Supreme Court all day. Somebody needs to set the record straight.

  37. avatar Silver says:

    Doesn’t matter, he nor any other Constitutionalist will ever be in a position of power again. The Republic is lost, the feedleminded slave horde has won. No going back.

  38. avatar Kerry says:

    Ted Cruz is a fundamentalist egomaniac. If you think the country is a mess now wait till president cruz.Read the news you guys

    1. avatar Goosey says:

      But he supports gunsz!1!1!

  39. avatar Me says:

    someone who doesnt understand the separation of church and state shouldnt even be mentioned in the same breath as the words “Supreme Court”.

    1. avatar Grindstone says:

      It really is nice to see others who aren’t theocratic-minded on this site.

      1. avatar Me says:

        yep. Not theocratic at all.

        but most of all… what i AM is a BIG supporter of the constitution. I find it beyond funny that some that are soooooo for one part of the constitution (the 2nd A) and jump up and down about following it, somehow find a way to forget other parts of it.

        1. avatar Grindstone says:

          Because they want to twist it to suit their personal beliefs, ala liberals and ‘well-regulated’. These Dominionists are a relatively new phenomena, though they are stemmed in the religious revivals that sprung from Reconstruction and the depression. Much like the communist take over of the left, these theocrats seeped into the right.

    2. avatar Silver says:

      I’m not religious so I don’t have a dog in this fight, but I’d rather deal with a president who doesn’t crack down on football field praying than a Marxist president attempting to turn the nation into a Stalinist wet dream.

      1. avatar Me says:

        wow… its hilarious, the top tax rate goes up 2-3% and people scream about “Marxism”!!! (which its not).

        and no, its more than just praying at football games. No one has ever said you cant telepathically communicate with your deity whenever you want. Cruz if for things like the government denying rights to citizens based on HIS religion. Pretty fundamental constitutional issues. Again… its funny how people that say they support the constitution can so blatantly ignore the parts of it they find inconvenient.. because Jesus.

        1. avatar Dustin says:

          Just plain old making sh!t up…

    3. avatar Dustin says:

      Why is it that anti-religious fundamentalists insist on throwing the baby out with the bathwater?

  40. avatar American Made says:

    I’m in N.J. I’ve supported Ted Cruz and firmly believe he belongs either leading the GOP in the Senate or as I have suggested elsewhere, sitting on the Supreme Court. I am heartened to see many others feel the same way, there is hope for us yet as a nation.

  41. avatar Former Water Walker says:

    Thanks for the unofficial indorsement of Ted Cruz. I think he would be a great president OR SCOTUS guy. Will it happen? Beats me-but the world is totally going to hell and I can hope. The repub majorities don’t seem to be doing shite about much of anything…I am afeared his oddness will do him in…

  42. avatar lowell says:

    Why does everyone always say “in a perfect world?” In a perfect world there would be no government at all.

    Cruz is NOT a constitutionalist. He’s a CONSERVATIVE. Rand isn’t even a constitutionalist, because he’s been advocating offensive military action with mere congressional resolutions that don’t include formal declarations of war.

    Ron Paul is the only constitutionalist to ever actually hold a job within congress. Even the founding fathers played fast and loose with the rules more than he did.

    Third, the Supreme Nine(men in black dresses) should not be where anything is decided in this country other than whether a specific law is or is not within the bounds of strict constitutional limits.

    But a More Perfect World? Because the constitution has failed. It either specifically authorized what has happened, OR it was too weak to prevent it. The chains of the constitution must be made far heavier.

    1) common law should apply to the people under any and all circumstances, that is they should be considered completely innocent until a high burden of evidence proves otherwise, and should be allowed anything that is not specifically prohibited. Conversely, the government or any of it’s employees or agents should be presumed guilty and any activities not specifically authorized should carry criminal penalties.

    2) The parliamentary rules for the House and Senate need to be scrapped and direct election of senators repealed. A law should have to be introduced in one house where it must pass with a 2/3 majority. Only AFTER it passes can it be introduced in the other house with EXACTLY the same text where it can be voted down with a 1/3 minority.

    3) In the event no budget can be passed all government functions should shut down including military.

    4) the right to vote and hold elected office should be earned via 6- year voluntary stint in the active military, in which you get no say your MOS. It’s ALWAYS voluntary, meaning you can leave at literally ANY time. You can get hurt and come back as often as you want, but quit once and you’re done. You don’t get to be politically active until your discharge after six years. No oaths necessary.

    5)violating the civil liberties of any human being should carry the death penalty for any government agents.

    6)speaking of the death penalty, it should be as follows – the condemned is marched out in leg irons to a cemetery where a hole is already dug, and then pushed to their knees and shot once in the back of the head and dumped in the hole. A tree will be planted above the corpse next to a granite marker with the deceased name and infraction.

    7) the second amendment protects any equipment that may be used by a current technology infantry, including new products that have yet to be adopted. That means the public should have ready access to ALL the equipment used by the standing army. For that matter, it should be a requirement for all military contracts that double the purchase order must be made available on the open market for US civilians.

    8) the paycheck for any elected official should never be allowed to be higher than the median income of the area they represent.

    9) the property tax must go. It is the very foundation of government control, that it may demand tribute from you to keep your property.

    10)likewise conscription is abhorrent – a nation that cannot inspire it’s young men to willingly take up arms in it’s defense is unworthy to continue.

    These are just a couple ideas from Bobby Heinlein along with some of mine.

    1. avatar Grindstone says:

      Ah, yes. The good old Heinlein proxy nazism. You have to be a pawn of the state before you can participate in deciding it’s governance over you.

      Service Guarantees Citizenship! Do you want to know more?

      1. avatar lowell says:

        You mean as opposed to the unchecked crony-nazism we have now? I’d rather reset the government to zero, direct it’s force inward onto itself, and then make it nearly impossible for anything to get done. Right now we’ve seen what happens when we hand literately anybody the ability to commit political violence just because they are 18 years old and have sacrificed NOTHING. Non-us citizens have already affected the country; they gave Al Franken the win, and he became the deciding vote for Obamacare. It’s only going to get worse from here.

        I’d rather restart with a strictly limited government and then strictly limit who can participate in it, because the masses have proven every stereotype about them you could imagine. I’d prefer no government but since the 99% need a government security blanket that’s the best solution I have to offer.

        1. avatar Grindstone says:

          You mean as opposed to the unchecked crony-nazism we have now?

          Did I say that?

          because the masses have proven every stereotype about them you could imagine

          Except, you know, your glorious self knows better than the masses.

        2. avatar lowell says:

          Who said I qualify for the government I’m proposing? Because I don’t. But yes, people are idiots, and because they are going to drag me down with them they need to have freedom forced on them and then have the choice for something else taken away.

        3. avatar Grindstone says:

          If you don’t qualify to decide how the government should be run, then why do you think you know how the government should be run? Kind of got your own Catch-22 going there.

        4. avatar lowell says:

          Considering that their is no human qualified to govern another, I still win, because my way doesn’t force government on them, but instead forces them to govern themselves. Let the masses chase their tails but frustrate their ability to hurt me(or anyone else). Everybody who likes freedom wins, everybody who needs the security blanket has the illusion of one.

        5. avatar Grindstone says:

          i don’t think you understand the extent of your posted theory. Requirement to submit oneself to government service is not freedom no matter how you try to slice it.

          But at least it makes for a cool movie.

        6. avatar Silver says:

          Starship Troopersesque nazism aside, Iowell does make the good point that the masses are the one biggest problem with freedom. Why do you think the left tries so desperately to flood as many people to the polls as possible? People are idiots. People desire control and desire slavery. People are violent and easily led.

          We simply cannot have a lasting free nation because people will always ruin it. That leaves two options. Anarchy, where the price of freedom is a chaotic quality of life. Or freedom by force, in which anyone who attempts to disrupt the rights of others is dealt with harshly. Frankly, either option is better than what we have now.

      2. avatar Roymond says:

        If you can call Heinlein’s concepts naziism, you never understood him. Citizenship in return for service isn’t nazi, it’s free market: you’re buying into the running of the corporation with the only coin sufficient to do that, an investment of a portion of your life!

        Why should mere geographical location bestow the “right” to tell other people what to do? That’s ridiculous: to earn such a privilege, you have to pay. How else to pay, but with service that shows you’re committed to the country?

        1. avatar mark s. says:

          You make his concepts out to be a form of internship . His take on social engineering is not quite Nazism but I wouldn’t simplify it down to internship . My greatest problems with his propositions is his inability to credit God for anything that is good .
          ” Never underestimate the power of human stupidity “.
          Robert A. Heinlein

        2. avatar george from fort worth says:

          and when you look around at your daily life, you find his theory wrong? old instructor used to ask, “what is the lethal range of stupid?”. never forgot that; always aware.

        3. avatar george from fort worth says:

          we are a bit off subject here (heinlein), but RH held some very unconventional and libertarian views on society. his most revealing statement (in a novel) is (approximately) “whenever a society gets around to issuing identity papers, i go somewhere else.” regimentation was not something he supported (even though he was a retired naval officer).

  43. avatar thx855 says:

    It’s funny that folks think it matters who’s elected where, because it’s mattered so much so far…yes? You had your Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Eisenhower, Reagan and Bushes, but somehow things are still a stinking mess, and all got worse under their watch as anyone elses. They’ll tell you what you want to hear and act like you want to see till you elect them and then they’re all quaffing ale and puffing stogies at the same club laughing at you.

    1. avatar Fred Frendly says:

      I like Ike! He deported trainloads of illegals. Last one to do it in any meaningful way. Sadly things have been kind of crappy since then.

    2. avatar mark s. says:

      All the Theocratic fears aside , libertarians , conservatives , liberals , socialist and progressives , be it known now and always , the downward road of America is directly tied to downward morals and values of it’s citizens , caring more for the trinkets of technology , pleasures of the flesh and betterment of their own than the overall good of their fellow man .
      Jesus Christ was and Is the single greatest purveyor of freedom in the known world .
      If you have not read the small excerpt ‘ The Grand Inquisitor ‘ from the Dostoyevsky’s novel ‘ The Brothers Karamazov ‘ , please do so and relate it to our world today . The Progressives are the Pope of this story .

  44. avatar John Franco says:

    Ted Cruz is who I am voting for! He is intelligent, articulate and knows our Constitution like nobody’s business. Hilary Clinton would soil her depends if she had to face Senator Cruz in a real debate. Of course I don’t believe Americans will want a lying, incompetent, scandal plagued moron like Hilary Clinton in the White House anyway.

  45. avatar foo dog says:

    Neither- I want him to get Mitch McConnells job.

    Carson/Fiorina 2016 is the ticket that does the most to destroy Obama’s legacy, simply by example,
    and defeat HRC by comparison.

  46. avatar Fred Frendly says:

    The biggest opponent to Cruz is the GOP. They will do anything to tear this brilliant Reaganesque man down and install their latest NWO puppet from the Bush clan. If Cruz can get past the establishment Republicans he will absolutely destroy Hillary or whichever idiotic communist runs for the Demoncraps.

    Ted Cruz is always the smartest man in any room he enters.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      The GOP leaders made it blatantly clear that the purpose of elected representatives is NOT representing constituents, but being good employees of the leadership; party above all else.

  47. avatar Tim M says:

    “Ted Cruz is the – if not the only – Republican candidate for president who is a strict constitutionalist.” Seriously? Ted Cruz a strict Constitutionalist? That’s a joke right? Ted Cruz like Obama, Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal all suffer from from one problem. None of them are Article II Natural Born Citizens, therefore not eligible to run for or be POTUS. Ted Cruz came up with a new definition for Natural Born Citizen as comprising one American Citizen parent…Sorry Ted, but weasel lawyer pretzel logic does not amend the Constitution. https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2012/07/19/the-constitution-vattel-and-natural-born-citizen-what-our-framers-knew/

    The fact that Ted Cruz was willing to lie, throw the Constitution under the bus for political expediency says the man can’t be trusted and has no respect for the Constitution. Old Ted has supported expanded background checks, Obama’s TPP and an Article V Constitutional Convention, something the left has been dreaming of.

  48. avatar Dustin says:

    He believes in God, so he’s not allowed!

    Oh well. So much for every signature that ratified the Constitution…

    Anti-religious fundamentalists have always proved themselves far worse than religious fundamentalists.

  49. avatar Nelson says:

    Neither. Cruz is hardly a strict constructionist constitutionalist.

    Judge Andrew Napolitano is the only one who’s well known right now who’s qualified; a rarity: he is almost 100% correct in his view of the Constitution.

    Plus Ted’s CFR member GoldmanSUX VP wife practically wrote the American-sovereignty destroying SPP.

    Plus, newsflash: Ted Cruz is absolutely INELIGIBLE to be the POTUS. There is no debate: he is an Alberta born Canadian national who’s been naturalized. He hels dual citizenship up until last year.

    If you’re gonna run, better be an American 1ster with SINGLE citizenship and loyalty.

    That goes the same of those of other dual-citizenship popular among the biofilth infesting CONgress and #MordorOnThePotomac in general, including those with Israeli dual citizenships, a la Rahm Emanuels & Debbie Wassemans of the world.

  50. avatar Roymond says:

    Ted Cruz on the Supreme Court? That would spell the end of the Republic: he would sell the government to the highest bidder with great glee.

    No, for SCOTUS we need people who will do three things:

    1. Throw out all existing gun laws, recognizing them all as infringement.
    2. Overturn the entire “PATRIOT” Act.
    3. Reject the reasoning of the Citizens United Case and restrict political free speech to the only entities capable of speaking: living, breathing (citizen and legal resident) human beings

    1. avatar mark s. says:

      I think most everyone here on TTAG would agree that this is a wonderful list of desires and may even be achievable at some future time but lets not keep putting T. R.’s in office while waiting for C.C. .
      If the builders of the trans-continental RR have had this approach , the tracks would have never left the East coast .
      We must at least agree on a start .
      I support Teddy Cruz .

      1. avatar mark s. says:

        Oh ! , I forgot to ask you . Where do you get the feeling that T. C. would sell anything to any bidder ? Could you please elaborate ? I have looked closely at his record from top to bottom and I would like to know where I missed something that would lead someone to this conclusion .

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email