Posted on 11/18/2016 10:58:14 AM PST by reaganaut1
...
Earlier this year, Trump released a list of eleven potential Supreme Court nominees, later adding ten more names. He has said he will definitely choose his first nominee from those individuals. They are all known as conservative in outlook, but the vetting should go much deeper into their judicial philosophy.
In his November 17th Wall Street Journal article, Georgetown University law professor Randy Barnett points out that there should be two crucial desiderata for Trump’s Supreme Court nominations. One is whether the individual adheres to an Originalist view of the Constitution. That is to say, trying to find the meaning of our basic law by asking what the drafters of the articles and amendments intended.
That is the most obvious fault line between “liberal” and “conservative” jurists. The former often ignore original intent in favor of a “living Constitution” approach that yields the results they favor. All of the people on Trump’s announced list are there because they have shown their preference for Originalism.
But Originalism shouldn’t be enough, Barnett argues. Trump’s team should also look for a nominee who isn’t wedded to the legal concept known as stare decisis, which means “let the decision stand.” Judges who follow that maxim are not inclined to overturn precedents. While there is much to be said for stare decisis in most fields of the law – stability and predictability are important after all – that isn’t the case when it comes to constitutional rights. Erroneous decisions of the past should be reexamined whenever called into question.
Judges who blindly adhere to stare decisis help to cement in place the vast federal administrative and regulatory state that often sacrifices individual rights on the altar of collectivist and authoritarian policies.
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
That means that if General and Mrs. MacArthur had had a child while he was in Australia during WWII, that child would not have been eligible for the presidency.
I’m not sure that’s what the founders intended.
What in Cruz’ Senate career shows that he could be another Roberts? Your inability to separate a personal dislike of Cruz with what he has shown is his political ideology is disappointing, to say the least.
Many here don’t like Cruz for what he did, especially at the convention, but most would acknowledge his conservative bona fides. If you’re that intellectually dishonest to yourself that you let your dislike of Cruz to cloud your judgment, it would be best for you to contribute to the birther blogs than Cabinet and Supreme Court picks.
Voted for cloture on TPA enabling TPP. Wrote an op-ed with Ryan supporting it. Before he acted like he was opposed to it.
Voted for the Corker bill, flipping the Constitution on its head requiring 2/3’s to reject the Iran “deal” instead of 2/3’s to pass.
Was very non-committal on illegal alien enforcement early on in the campaign until he was forced to match Trump.
What he did at the convention was just more evidence that everything about Cruz is about Cruz.
He is not what he has pretended to be.
We know when he stopped being a Canadian citizen, we still do not know when or how he became a US citizen.
Those records are sealed. Why?
You can’t cherrypick votes without context to determine ideology. Political opponents do that when they try to mislead (specifically Democrats).
Much more reliable to go to rankings by Club for Growth, the National Taxpayers Union, and American Conservative Union. Often Cruz is ranked the #1 Conservative in all three of these most years, and if not at least almost always in the top 3.
I’m not concerned about some theoretical law case about birthright citizenship which almost certainly will never bring a case to the Supreme Court. Stop arguing like a liberal.
.
>> “Was very non-committal on illegal alien enforcement early on in the campaign until he was forced to match Trump.” <<
Total lie.
Trump carbon copied Cruz’ position paper from 2011.
It was the only one that made any sense. The employers have to be prosecuted for victory to be possible.
.
.
.
He’s not a liberal, he’s a troll.
You can tell when he’s lying; its when he posts.
.
Club for Cheap Labor
NTU is associated with Grover Norquist, open borders advocate, same with ACU
Not convincing evidence that he is what he claims.
Why are his records sealed as pertaining to when and how he got US citizenship?
Looking in a mirror again?
Sorry, I have zero interest in his citizenship. He’ll never be president. Being a Supreme Court justice doesn’t require birthright citizenship. Also, name a perfect group that is perfectly conservative on all issues.
So again, please stop arguing like a liberal.
Your namesake wised up about him, maybe it’s time you did.
So you couldn’t name one group? Resorting to attack by other people’s opinion based on a non-related issue?
Stop arguing like a liberal.
When I was a child back in the fifties the term natural born was in common use. I recall seeing it in comic strips even and I mean it was used without reference to the constitution. For example someone might be referred to as a natural born hunter, fisherman, golfer or whatever. It was understood to mean that you were born to be that and whatever else you might be could not be in conflict with that. Hank Williams Jr. recorded a song titled “Born to Boogie”, he could just as well have titled it “Natural Born Boogier” but it would not have the same flow and would not have made as good a lyric.
This country and FR are now home to a lot of people who only imagine that they know what the term natural born means. It really means that there is no way that you could be any kind of citizen than an American citizen, there can be no question of whether you can claim some other citizenship, if you can then you CANNOT be a natural born American even if you are born an American citizen.
Clarify the true original status of the 14th Amendment.
It was written in the mid-1850’s and it was ONLY meant for the slaves & their children to get citizenship.
IT was NEVER meant for people from other countries to come into the USA when they were in labor & drop their child on American soil to get that child citizenship.
The use of the 14th Amendment has been totally twisted. It needs to stop. Those who are ‘citizens’ due to the 14th Amendment need to be sent back to the country of origin of their mother.
Honest question? Trump said gay marriage was “settled law”, and he was fine with that. Shouldn’t that speak for itself on his nominees?
Both have had their law licenses stripped from them. Also Bill & Michelle...
What a waste of a seat at college.
Lol ... It was satire .... Unless you believe that conservatives would zealously support them for the Court.
Seems like only people of a certain age know that. ;)
you to contribute to the birther blogs
*************
You are the one who argues like a liberal.
Alinsky all the way.
I consider our conversation done. Good luck with your life.
Why not, you want foreigners serving in the US for any public office?
Being a Supreme Court justice doesn’t require birthright citizenship.
No, but it requires some kind of citizenship. So does US Senator. Does he have even that? Shouldn't you know?
The shenanigans of his parents cast plenty of doubt on his bona fides. She appears to have been a naturalized British and then a Canadian citizen at the time of his birth. She voted in Canadian elections, either illegally, or as a citizen.
Both may have been bigamists. Raphael divorced both wives in the same year.
None of the Cruz family will now talk, there is a Breitbart interview which casts much controversy on his complicated and shady family history.
BUT HE'S REALLY REALLY CONSERVATIVE!!!
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.