Posted on 01/17/2016 11:50:22 AM PST by springwater13
I’m making note of these so I definitely appreciate it.
I heard Trump's remark. When chatting with a reporter he said with brotherly pride and a smile that his sister would make a good justice, then in the same breath he said she's not interested in the job at all.
I have a picture of any POTUS of ANY political party putting forth a relative's name before the U.S. congress as a potential SCOTUS appointee.
You may live in your own fantasy world where that may happen, but don't invite us in for your floundering and unfounded attempts at spin.
Leni
Watch the clip again. He said she'd be phenomenal, one of the best ever.
any POTUS of ANY political party putting forth a relative's name
The point is not her in particular, but his judgement on what would be a good appointment. With her record on partial birth abortion and his previous support of it...
But that is the best thing about Trump. He doesn’t lie and he doesn’t “distance” himself from anything or anyone.
I can’t see into his heart and its not my place to judge so I have no idea if he truly is pro life but he is running as pro life.
With him running as pro life I know without a doubt he will serve his term as pro life. He will de-fund PP and he will sign any pro life legislation put in front of him.
I have read most of Trump’s books, read books and articles about him and his family, listened to almost every one of his speeches and I know without a doubt his strongest attribute is loyalty. He will not go back on his word to his voters.
I started out as a Cruz supporter and didn’t pay any attention at all to Trump. He didn’t even register as a candidate to me.
After his speech on illegal immigration and the media started having such a fit about him I thought I should do a little research and find out what he was all about.
I read his book “Time to Get Tough - Making America #1 Again” (published in 2011) and I was shocked to see he was saying things I thought too.
In it he talked about illegal immigration and the harm it is doing to our country.
He has a whole chapter on the disaster that is Obamacare.
He has a chapter on taxes that is very similar to the tax plan he released for this campaign.
He talks about welfare and says it should be a “safety net and not a hammock”.
He talks about the damage the Iraq war did to our country and says we should have taken control of the oil and taken 10% of it for ourselves and our allies for repayment for what we did for them. He also said we should have used part of it to pay medical expenses for soldiers that were injured in war and given money to families that lost loved ones.
He talks about waste and fraud in government and how schools should be run locally instead of at the federal level.
Then I read his earlier book, “The America We Deserve” (published in 2000). In it he talked about single payer healthcare. That is where all of the misinformation is coming from because he did support in in 2000 but since Obamacare was passed he saw what damage it has done and will do and is totally against it now.
Also in this book he talks about his family, his school years at a military school, his dad, and his start in business.
I learned that he spent summers and every weekend working for his dad cleaning garages, laying brick, clearing building lots, and anything else his dad needed him to do. While he was privileged, he was not spoiled.
It could be that his “rough edges” come from doing hard work along side working people.
He raised his children the same way. They were working in the family business and started at the bottom.
I also started “Art of the Deal” but haven’t really gotten into it yet.
Anyway, in all of my reading from him and about him I learned that he is a blue collar billionaire.
Everyone that knows him says he is loyal and honest. His business success shows his intelligence and creativity, and his outstanding children show the type of person he really is.
In his speeches he says,”I’m not working for special interests. I’m working for you” and I believe him when he says it.
And as our own Jim Robinson said of Trump, “God works in mysterious ways”.
Anyway, I didn’t mean to write a book but do your own research and if you have an open mind about him, join us on a Trump Live Rally thread sometime and watch him give a speech. They are totally different than his interviews and debate appearances. He speaks to people instead of at them and you can get a better idea of who he is.
How anyone can toss stones at Trump after Cruz assuring us Roberts was every bit the Constitutionalist he was, is beyond me.
Cruz proved once and for all right there that I DO NOT want him in charge of picking future SCOTUS justices.
Not no. Hell no!
Thanks very much for your thoughtful reply.
I’ve followed Trump also, though likely longer than you, since “The Art of the Deal” came out.
I’ve followed him through his WWE, USFL, Atlantic City, Apprentice and more days. I think he’s a great promoter. That’s how I see him, a promoter.
Here’s where I disconnect with your view:
>>With him running as pro life I know without a doubt he will serve his term as pro life. He will de-fund PP and he will sign any pro life legislation put in front of him.”
I know he can change on a dime; he’s already changed on PP this election cycle. He can promote something and then... not.
So when he promotes “building a wall,” same thing. I don’t believe him, not in the long term. I don’t think he has integrity. I think he sells, whatever will sell.
But he is a great promoter.
I really do appreciate your reply, even though we differ. Thanks again.
Well we do agree on one thing.
He loves his country and I think he will promote it.
uuuuuu - Roberts. That (fill in the blank). Oh boy, I hav e no idea what can be done, but surely something someday. That guy is one of the top five on my list along with Obama as the ones who have hurt America like it isn’t even funny. More than “bad”.
Go Trump
>>”Well we do agree on one thing. He loves his country and I think he will promote it.”
Well, close. He will promote himself. That’s the constant with Trump.
:)
Ann Coulter was the lone conservative talking head “warning” people about Roberts back in 2005. I blasted her for it at the time. Ironically, by the time I had to eat crow, her fan club here had disappeared due to her worship for Chris Christie.
I agree with you?
Trump kept playing that nice guy routine, claiming that he wouldn't go after Cruz.(”I really like him”)
But when Cruz was above him in the Iowa polls getting close to that primary Trump went after him on the birther stuff.
Sunday on a network show Trump said that Cruz is a really nasty guy whose co-workers in the Senate hate him.(McCain, McConnell, Grahamnesty,....)
How does Levin ignore that? Or Rush? Or Hannity?
The "office" that Roberts holds is "Chief Justice of the United States." Demoting him to "Associate Justice of the United States" (a separate office) would end his tenure in this office, and would thus require impeachment.
Look, if you want to blame Roberts on Cruz to help talk yourself into voting for a man who praised Obama. A man who clearly voted for Obama, and if not running for the Republican nomination, would most likely vote for Hillary, that is fine with me. Just be honest with yourself. Trump praised Obamas stimulus, his plan to nationalize the banks. After the election of Obama in ‘08 and the rise of the TEA party. Trump did not support them, or speak about the corruption in the IRS that allowed the political attacks on those seeking to register as 501c3 status. He didn’t talk about the Democrats ramming through the ACA, he gave the maximum donation to Harry frickin Reid. Trump is not a conservative, he is the 32 oz hammer that will drive that final nail in the coffin of the conservative movement though.
Here’s something been overlooked and nobody paid attemtion.
On January 14th. 2009, one week before our traitor illegally stole the W.Hut, SCOTUS had a good “old” fashion “Chicago-Godfather-Thug” visit with eight of the black robed Justices. From that date on the whole nation was “castrated” about touching the sealed records, including the NBC issue.
Soon later on the member of SCOTUS were publicly intimidated at a SOTU address with huge DNC-rats’ standing ovation resulting on how they voted on obamaScare, etc.
It ALL trickled down to lower courts decisions as well and STILL do.
INTIMIDATION or bribery in the making. Even Sheriff Arpaio/Zulo have been “Gagged” !!!
I wondered what happened...wow...do you have a link or something to google...I have some friends that have been saying almost the same things that you just said....
That is Ted Cruz’ job and he is on track to do it quite well.
And you are the reason with a lot of other people here that are turning away from Cruz to vote for Trump....
You people have been on here for weeks, going into the Trump rally threads, whenever anything is mentioned about Trump, you go into ‘an unhinged’ state of insanity...
Right there you are the reason that people are not voting for Cruz...people are fed up with your juvenile attacks...
Don’t get too worked up over this guy. He’s like this on every thread. I have never seen him post a rational thought. Sometimes I think he’s a teenager just screwing around on the forums.
Cruz later criticized Roberts, but it was too late.
Read who brought him on board the Bush team.
Read the praise he had for him during the nomination process.
See if you recognize any catch phrases in there. These are the exact terms Cruz uses to describe himself, and my inclination is to consider the terms probably about as accurate.
Constitutional Expert / John Roberts / Really?
Here’s a glowing article CRuz wrote about Roberts’ nomination, back in 2005....CRuz glowingly references Prof Lawrence Tribe, as well......
http://www.nationalreview.com/node/214989/print
The Right Stuff
John Roberts should be a quick confirm.
By Ted Cruz — July 20, 2005
In 1995, while clerking for Chief Justice William Rehnquist, I and my two fellow law clerks asked the chief whom he thought was the best Supreme Court lawyer currently practicing. The chief replied, with a twinkle in his eye, that he thought he could probably get a majority of his colleagues to agree that John Roberts was the best Supreme Court advocate in the nation.
This week, the president announced his intention to nominate John Roberts to be a Supreme Court justice.
His nomination has been met with widespread praise, from left and right. Nevertheless, there are some who have raised complaints that his two years on the bench provide insufficient record for them to assess (and attack) his jurisprudence.
That complaint misses the mark for three reasons. First, his judicial record would have stretched 14 years, had Senate Democrats not delayed its consideration twice, in 1991 and again in 2001. When his nomination did finally make it to the Senate floor, in 2003, he was confirmed by unanimous consent.
Second, many distinguished jurists, such as Chief Justices William Rehnquist and Earl Warren and Justices O’Connor, Souter, and Thomas, similarly had very limited experience on the federal bench prior to ascending to the Court.
And third, although two years on the bench provides a limited number of opinions, he has a far longer record that is relevant: his professional career as a Supreme Court litigator.
At the outset, Judge Roberts is brilliant. A summa cum laude Harvard graduate, Roberts began by clerking for two giants of the bench, Judge Henry Friendly, and Chief Justice Rehnquist.
He then argued 39 cases before the Court, more than all but a handful of lawyers ever. And he has earned a reputation as a balanced, scholarly advocate.
>Snip<
In November of 2000, I had spent the past year and half as domestic-policy adviser on the Bush campaign, and was part of the team assembling the lawyers to help litigate Bush v. Gore. We needed the very best lawyers in the country, and I called John and asked him to help. Within hours, he was on a plane to Florida.
Humble and soft-spoken, he was happy to be behind the scenes, writing and editing the president’s Supreme Court briefs. Midway through the recount, on November 28, John started heading out to return to D.C. Distraught, I asked where he was going-we were in the middle of enormous legal battle. Quickly, he replied, “I know, but I’ve got a Supreme Court argument tomorrow morning.”
He flew back to D.C. Tuesday night, argued a complicated trademark case Wednesday morning, and returned immediately to Florida to continue helping us represent the president.
Few, if any, other lawyers could have accomplished such a feat.
Judge Roberts is a lawyers’ lawyer. And that matters immensely, especially for the U.S. Supreme Court.
>Snip<
The mainstay of Supreme Court justices’ work consists of complex, non-ideological cases, where rigorous analysis of precedent is at a premium.
With judicial nominees, the charge of “judicial activism” is much bandied about. Depending upon one’s perspective, what precisely constitutes activism is subject to debate. The simplest definition is whether a judge will substitute his own personal policy views for the clear dictates of the law.
>Snip<
As his opposing counsel, Harvard Law Professor Larry Tribe, observed, “I like [John Roberts] a lot. I even liked him when he defeated me in [Rust], 5-4.”
As an individual, John Roberts is undoubtedly a principled conservative, as is the president who appointed him. He clerked for Chief Justice Rehnquist, worked in the Reagan White House, and served as the principal deputy solicitor general in President George H.W. Bush’s Justice Department.
But, as a jurist, Judge Roberts’s approach will be that of his entire career: carefully, faithfully applying the Constitution and legal precedent.
He is a mainstream judge, respected across the ideological spectrum. Thus, he’s earned praise from liberal icons such as Harvard Law Professor Larry Tribe, and Chicago Law Professor Cass Sunstein, as well as from Clinton Solicitors General Walter Dellinger and Seth Waxman, and Carter and Clinton Counsel Lloyd Cutler, the latter two of whom both described Roberts as a man of “unquestioned integrity and fair-mindedness.”
As Professor Tribe observed Tuesday night, “[i]t is clear that in the absence of some serious objection that is not now visible . . . he is very likely to be confirmed.”
The Senate should confirm him swiftly.
-Ted Cruz is the solicitor general of Texas.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.