Let's have at a few loosed ends involving Ted Cruz from the debate (transcript).
First, Hablo Espanol? Here was a crazy scene where Rubio said Cruz doesn't speak Spanish:
CRUZ: You know, the lines are very, very clear. Marco right now supports citizenship for 12 million people here illegally. I oppose citizenship. Marco stood on the debate stage and said that.
But I would note not only that — Marco has a long record when it comes to amnesty. In the state of Florida, as speaker of the house, he supported in-state tuition for illegal immigrants. In addition to that, Marco went on Univision in Spanish and said he would not rescind President Obama’s illegal executive amnesty on his first day in office.
I have promised to rescind every single illegal executive action, including that one.
(MIX OF APPLAUSE AND BOOING)
CRUZ: And on the question...
(CROSSTALK)
RUBIO: Well, first of all, I don’t know how he knows what I said on Univision, because he doesn’t speak Spanish. And second of all, the other point that I would make...
So what did Ted say and how did he say it? Over to The Blaze:
Translation: "Dude/man if you want to tell them now, tell them now in Spanish, if you want." – @pychavez https://t.co/hiiTdszrs2
The Associated Press characterized Cruz’s response as “halting and heavily accented” and “hard to understand — even for bilingual listeners.”
Rubio speaks fluent Spanish while Cruz has for years freely admitted that his Spanish is “lousy.”
And from Fusion, which ranks Rubio and Bush as excellent Spanish speakers:
A second Cuban-American in the Republican race, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, is unlikely to venture into Spanish. Back in 2012 he told Fox News he’s uncomfortable with what he described as his “lousy” Spanish. He says he never fully learned the language of his Cuban-born father.
As to the substance, per the NY Times Cruz was being lawerly:
Carefully worded this time.
Senator Ted Cruz is referring to an interview with Senator Marco Rubio on Univision in April.
In that interview, Mr. Rubio said in Spanish that he would not immediately undo President Obama’s program that gives deportation protection to young undocumented immigrants who came to the United States as children. (The program is not an amnesty; it does not provide any lasting immigration status.)
Mr. Rubio did say, however, that the program “will have to end at some point” and “can't be the permanent policy of the United States.”
This is not the first time Mr. Cruz has brought up what Mr. Rubio said on Univision.
We looked into Mr. Rubio’s comments when Mr. Cruz cited them while campaigning in Iowa shortly before the caucuses there. In that case, Mr. Cruz’s claim was not quite right, because he said Mr. Rubio had pledged that he “wouldn’t rescind amnesty."
This time, he spoke more precisely, referring to Mr. Rubio’s first day in office.
[TO BE FAIR: Same transcript, opposite conclusion - Breitbart says
Interview Transcript Proves Rubio Promised Hispanics en Español He’d Keep Executive Amnesty in Place
But this is what they excerpt from the transcript:
According to the Univision transcript, Rubio said in Spanish:
Well, DACA is going to have to end at some point. I wouldn’t undo it immediately. The reason is that there are already people who have that permission, who are working, who are studying, and I don’t think it would be fair to cancel it suddenly. But I do think it is going to have to end. And, God willing, it’s going to end because immigration reform is going to pass.
Which is what the Times said. Rubio will keep it in place until he ends it because DACA "is going to have to end at some point" and we need an orderly transition. Unless by "at some point" he means the end of the United States or the final expansion and collapse of our sun.]
Cruz also got into a dustup with Trump about Chief Justice Roberts, and was lawerly again (uncut for full flavor):
TRUMP: Ted Cruz told your brother that he wanted John Roberts to be on the United States Supreme Court. They both pushed him, he twice approved Obamacare.
DICKERSON: All right, gentlemen.
BUSH: My name was mentioned twice.
DICKERSON: Well, hold on. We’re going to — gentlemen, we’re in danger of driving this into the dirt.
DICKERSON: Senator Rubio, I’d like you to jump in here...
BUSH: He called me a liar.
DICKERSON: I understand, you’re on deck, governor.
BUSH: Also, he talked about one of my heroes, Ronald Reagan.
Ronald Reagan was a liberal maybe in the 1950s. He was a conservative reformed governor for eight years before he became president, and no one should suggest he made an evolution for political purposes. He was a conservative, and he didn’t tear down people like Donald Trump is. He tore down the Berlin Wall.
TRUMP: O.K., governor.
BUSH: He was a great guy.
(APPLAUSE)
DICKERSON: Senator Cruz, 30 seconds on this one.
CRUZ: I did not nominate John Roberts. I would not have nominated John Roberts.
TRUMP: You pushed him. You pushed him.
CRUZ: I supported...
TRUMP: You worked with him and you pushed him. Why do you lie?
CRUZ: You need to learn to not interrupt people.
TRUMP: Why do you lie?
CRUZ: Donald, adults learn...
TRUMP: You pushed him.
CRUZ: Adults learn not to interrupt people.
TRUMP: Yeah, yeah, I know, you’re an adult.
CRUZ: I did not nominate him. I would not have nominated him. I would’ve nominated my former boss Liberman, who was Justice Scalia’s first law clerk. And you know how I know that Donald’s Supreme Court justices will be liberals? Because his entire life, he support liberals from Jimmy Carter, to Hillary Clinton, to John Kerry.
In 2004, he contributed to John Kerry. Nobody who cares about judges would contribute to John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid.
Of course Cruz did not nominate Roberts; he was not President. But this 2005 NRO column was very supportive.
What has bothered me about Cruz is that he thinks, probably correctly, that he is smarter than me, and flaunts that. But the fact that he could win a debate arguing in favor of "A" and then win again arguing against "A" does not make me trust him or think he has conviction and thoughtful answers. And these word games - "I did not nominate Roberts", or "Rubio won't repeal it on his first day" are what I expect from Bill and Hill, not my guy.
Then again, he at least didn't talk about carpet bombing ISIS in Syria last night, so he had that going for him. Regardless, if Cruz gets the nomination I will be all-in foursquare behind him. Even if, as now seems possible, the Democrats bail out Hillary by nominating Trump.
THE DIVERSITY PARTY: from the Fusion piece linked above:
Among the Democratic candidates, it will be sólo inglés. Senator Bernie Sanders reportedly doesn’t speak a word of Spanish. And neither does Hillary Clinton...
How hard could it be for them to learn the Spanish for "The Republicans are racist haters"? Or "I'm for more free stuff"?
uno
Posted by: BB Key | February 14, 2016 at 05:02 PM
OK... net:
A. Trump is an ass.
B. Cruz was playing word games
C. Rubio still needs to say he was wrong to trust Schumer or he will be open to word games on his softness on immigration -- which is fair game.
Posted by: henry | February 14, 2016 at 05:05 PM
halting and heavily accented :)
Posted by: BB Key | February 14, 2016 at 05:05 PM
I could care less who wins in November if Obama can pack the court this week and sweep all the 2016 cases his way.
Posted by: Old Lurker | February 14, 2016 at 05:06 PM
couldn't care less...
Posted by: Old Lurker | February 14, 2016 at 05:06 PM
OL, my understanding was appellate judges do not rule on cases they haven't heard. All the 2016 cases that have been argued are safe from the new CommieSupremo but still subject to the 4 to 3 + Kennedy voting pattern. Since the lower court decision rules if Kennedy* stays conservative, ties are the problem for AA etc.
* If Kennedy votes left (as in gay marriage), nothing has changed.
Posted by: henry | February 14, 2016 at 05:12 PM
'could care less' and 'couldn't care less' mean the same thing, one with implied irony.
Posted by: Thoroughly understood both ways. | February 14, 2016 at 05:15 PM
Wonderful post, TM!
Posted by: Threadkiller | February 14, 2016 at 05:18 PM
Obama is not getting a SC judge in
This is one area where I trust the GOP
Otherwise it makes no difference who wins in 2016
Posted by: maryrose | February 14, 2016 at 05:19 PM
Cruz tells the truth about Trump and Rubio and gets called a liar because they can't admit their past positions or denounce them
Posted by: maryrose | February 14, 2016 at 05:20 PM
What was Cruz's past position on Roberts, maryrose?
Posted by: Threadkiller | February 14, 2016 at 05:23 PM
Thanks Henry.
But is that "generally do not", or "cannot by law"?
Posted by: Old Lurker | February 14, 2016 at 05:25 PM
Isn't it pathetic that so mucvh rides on a single judgeship in a Republic? Actua;;y. reviewing the Administrative state we find ourselved in the heads of the various agencies should be vetted just as hard and long. Head of the EPA has a lot more power than a single justice IMO.
Posted by: Clarice | February 14, 2016 at 05:26 PM
OL, I wish I knew.
Posted by: henry | February 14, 2016 at 05:27 PM
Head of the EPA has a lot more power than a single justice IMO.
Think about HHS after Obamacare. I always hear "1/6 of the US economy."
Romney did himself no favors with the "replace" terminology. He wanted that control for himself.
Posted by: Threadkiller | February 14, 2016 at 05:30 PM
There is something grandly comical about Trump complaining about other people lying.
I have been trying to think of a simile that fits, and here's the best one I have come up with so far: It's like Kim Kardashian complaining about other people being publicity seekers.
No doubt some of you can come up with better similes.
Posted by: Jim Miller | February 14, 2016 at 05:30 PM
I know. If we have learned anything under Obama, traditional rules and traditions (eg filibuster) which must be changed, will be.
Posted by: Old Lurker | February 14, 2016 at 05:31 PM
How about a simile for Cruz telling the truth about supporting Roberts?
Posted by: Threadkiller | February 14, 2016 at 05:33 PM
Don't forget that when the Burning Times come, Beasts can teach y'all how to speak Southern really well, so that you're not identified as an interloper. First lesson is free:
Mississippi: mih'SIPPI
Posted by: Beasts of England | February 14, 2016 at 05:34 PM
Do you use "all you all," Beasts?
Posted by: Threadkiller | February 14, 2016 at 05:35 PM
I think the senate needs to expect the worst case scenario from O as that is his history.
Yet they never do.
Posted by: Jane | February 14, 2016 at 05:36 PM
TM has identified what I find off-putting about Cruz. He is smarter than me and wants to make sure I know it.
Contrast this with the late Justice Scalia, and the difference is easily seen.
I am sure Justice Scalia was much smarter than I am. I am also sure he would have not made me feel like a moron if I asked a question.
Posted by: Miss Marple | February 14, 2016 at 05:37 PM
On a business trip to Texas a clown from Arkansas taught us how to say "you want to," as in "you want to go to the nudie bar?" It sounded like "you unt to" or "you ont to."
Posted by: Threadkiller | February 14, 2016 at 05:39 PM
Not really, TK. Y'all tends to cover it for me. ;)
Posted by: Beasts of England | February 14, 2016 at 05:39 PM
More ont he question of a recess apptment--(NO WAY if McConnell doesn't want it) H/t:Instapundit: http://reformclub.blogspot.ie/2016/02/a-quick-thought-on-presidential-recess.html
Posted by: Clarice | February 14, 2016 at 05:41 PM
Bonus lesson: ya'ONT to
Posted by: Beasts of England | February 14, 2016 at 05:41 PM
Here is that lawerly clip again of Cruz being warm and genuine to a 17year old soon to be 1st time voter:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gh2dsf-Y_aY
Kid should have asked in Canadian.
Posted by: Threadkiller | February 14, 2016 at 05:42 PM
Thanks, BOE!
Posted by: Threadkiller | February 14, 2016 at 05:43 PM
I think it is unfair to tag Cruz with the Roberts thing: who knew he would cave on Obamacare?
Posted by: _peter | February 14, 2016 at 05:48 PM
MM and TK
Do you like Trump because he is stupid and he lets you know it?
Posted by: Truthbetold | February 14, 2016 at 05:52 PM
We don't say "all you all" in Ga. either. It's either just y'all as in "are y'all coming on Sunday?"... or if a big group is in question you might ask, "are all y'all coming on Sunday?"
:) We can teach y'all to talk - come on down!
Posted by: Momto2 | February 14, 2016 at 05:53 PM
Cruz thinks enough of it to try to wash his hands of Roberts after the fact.
He could have easily said what you just said, peter.
Posted by: Threadkiller | February 14, 2016 at 05:53 PM
I like him because he is a birther, TBT.
Posted by: Threadkiller | February 14, 2016 at 05:54 PM
tbt, that's why we like you.
Posted by: henry | February 14, 2016 at 05:55 PM
henry FTW!
Posted by: Threadkiller | February 14, 2016 at 05:59 PM
A actual review from my most recent customer:
Success!!
Posted by: Beasts of England | February 14, 2016 at 06:00 PM
MM-Is he smarter then you? He's certainly smarter then me and I'm glad because I want a President who is smarter then me. You seem to take it personally and resent that he's smarter then you and are projecting onto him your feelings of inadequacy, Or my 3 glasses of wine could be talking!
Posted by: Texas Liberty Gal | February 14, 2016 at 06:02 PM
Is proficiency in Spanish now all-important for a Republican candidate?
Ask Bernie questions in Yiddish and Hillary! questions in her native tongue: thieves’ cant.
This is really worse than last time. Did it help/matter that Romney is said to be fluent in French?
Pfui! I will check back later and see if *all* Republican candidates have been fatally savaged here. I swear it wouldn't surprise me to find out that Trump came to destroy our chances of victory.
Re: Antonin Scalia...I haven't felt this sad since PUK died.
Posted by: Frau Kreuzi Teifi | February 14, 2016 at 06:05 PM
Cruz's problem is that he isn't smarter than most, TLG.
Now he is getting caught.
Posted by: Threadkiller | February 14, 2016 at 06:06 PM
TLG,
Lots of people are smarter than me and I don't take it personally. I don't take it personally that Cruz is smarter than me.
However, humility is definitely something which he lacks.
I officially have no candidate now, in case you and others haven't kept up. So when I make a comment about Cruz (as the host of this blog did) it's nothing personal, just an observation. If I am one of a minority who feels this way, it certainly won't hamper Senator Cruz.
Posted by: Miss Marple | February 14, 2016 at 06:08 PM
Insty links to Althouse who links to some hack at NYT who writes that Dems "are dancing a jig" on the news of Scalia's death. Jerk stole my stuff: I wrote that phrase on this board 24 hrs ago. Of course the hack is claiming that if the GOP doesn't confirm BOzo's appointee then they risk alienating the...oh crap, you can fill in the rest.
Posted by: lyle | February 14, 2016 at 06:10 PM
TK
I remember him helping Roberts through the process
But as he stated his first choice was some one else
Your derogatory comments only increase my support for him
I know he is the most conservative and he is smarter than me as are all of the candidates
Carson is smarter and everyone seems to like him
It is a personal preference
Bush is nice enough, just not strong enough
Posted by: maryrose | February 14, 2016 at 06:10 PM
Threadkiller - "Cruz's problem ..smarter then most." Based on what?
Posted by: Texas Liberty Gal | February 14, 2016 at 06:11 PM
"Re: Antonin Scalia...I haven't felt this sad since PUK died. " Sums up the whole day, Frau!
Posted by: pagar a bacon, country ham and sausage supporter | February 14, 2016 at 06:11 PM
Trump is strong but not nice
Rubio goes any way the wind blows
Posted by: maryrose | February 14, 2016 at 06:12 PM
lyle,
While I will not be overcome with grief when certain public officials shuffle off this mortal coil, I hope that I have enough taste to keep my comments to myself and pray that God, in his infinite mercy, allows them entrance into Purgatory.
I increasingly feel like we are surrounded by barbarians, if not ghouls.
Maybe OL could find me a little cubby hole out on that ledge. I could hole up there and not bother anyone. I only require a few glasses of wine and a piece of cheese.
Posted by: Miss Marple | February 14, 2016 at 06:13 PM
"http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-02-14/road-world-war-iii-turkey-shells-syria-second-day-saudi-warplanes-arrive
And we are stuck with John Kerry!
Posted by: pagar a bacon, country ham and sausage supporter | February 14, 2016 at 06:14 PM
Lyle
Let the Dems squeal like stuck pigs
We got the Senate or in Obama's words "We won" in 2014
He can't do jack--it
Posted by: maryrose | February 14, 2016 at 06:14 PM
TLG, our host believes Cruz went lawerly because he didn't have a defendable position to take on Roberts.
I agree.
Is going "lawyerly" an attempt to appear smarter?
Did he get caught?
Posted by: Threadkiller | February 14, 2016 at 06:17 PM
I'm not trying to stop you from voting for the Canadian, maryrose.
Posted by: Threadkiller | February 14, 2016 at 06:19 PM
I am not ready for the ledge yet
Doom and gloom are not my style
This election is a game changer
We need our wits about us
Going to a corner with our tail between our legs is not a strategy or a strategy that
Now is the time to fight tooth and nail
I feel like Belushi in "AnimalHouse"
Posted by: maryrose | February 14, 2016 at 06:19 PM
TK
Working overtime to find fault in Cruz is funny at best coming from a Trump supporter.
Posted by: Truthbetold | February 14, 2016 at 06:22 PM
Threadkiller = your calling Cruz the "Canadian" makes me discount any arguments you might make against Cruz.
Posted by: Texas Liberty Gal | February 14, 2016 at 06:23 PM
How's that truther stuff working out, TBT?
Posted by: Threadkiller | February 14, 2016 at 06:24 PM
What arguments of mine have you taken seriously, TLG?
Posted by: Threadkiller | February 14, 2016 at 06:25 PM
TK
Bad news. No one on this comment board takes you serious.
Posted by: Truthbetold | February 14, 2016 at 06:32 PM
http://dcwhispers.com/barack-obama-thrilled-over-justice-scalias-death/
Who Knew?
Posted by: pagar a bacon, country ham and sausage supporter | February 14, 2016 at 06:34 PM
Then why do you always ask me questions, TBT?
Dope.
Posted by: Threadkiller | February 14, 2016 at 06:35 PM
TK- Good point! But only on the trutherstuff. Other arguments you make on non-truther crap I take seriously .
Posted by: Texas Liberty Gal | February 14, 2016 at 06:37 PM
TK
I enjoy watching you flounder.
Posted by: Truthbetold | February 14, 2016 at 06:40 PM
Thanks, TLG.
I will lighten up.
:-)
Posted by: Threadkiller | February 14, 2016 at 06:40 PM
In front an audience that isn't impressed? How Cruzian of you, TBT.
Back to ignoring you.
Posted by: Threadkiller | February 14, 2016 at 06:41 PM
TLG, quick clarification. I am a birther loon.
TBT is the anti-Bush truther purist.
Posted by: Threadkiller | February 14, 2016 at 06:42 PM
...front of...
Posted by: Threadkiller | February 14, 2016 at 06:43 PM
TK-Lightening up is always good!!!
Posted by: Texas Liberty Gal | February 14, 2016 at 06:43 PM
TK-loon? Isn't that some type of duck?
Posted by: Texas Liberty Gal | February 14, 2016 at 06:44 PM
TK
Of course their not impressed. No great shakes exposing your ignorance
Posted by: Truthbetold | February 14, 2016 at 06:45 PM
We have room for you MM. Wine and Cheese served promptly at 6pm each day.
Posted by: Old Lurker | February 14, 2016 at 06:50 PM
Thank you, OL.
I will be happy to earn my keep by mixing dry martinis for those so inclined, or giving on-the-spot appraisals for those who wish to dispose of antiques.
Posted by: Miss Marple | February 14, 2016 at 06:53 PM
We can raid my cellar first for The Ledge™. It's a modest ~600 bottles but that's a good start for toasting the end of the country...
Posted by: lyle | February 14, 2016 at 06:56 PM
It's the Times (and Rubio fans) who are playing hide the ball on the interview. He announces that the executive amnesty has to end sometime... but that sometime turns out to be when Rubio gets the permanent, legislative amnesty that he has planned passed. He expresses no intention of ending it before then.
Posted by: someone | February 14, 2016 at 06:59 PM
lyle,
600 bottles!
(Gasp.)
My cellar is at Kroger, 5 minutes away.
You can probably tell I am not a wine expert. I usually drink the cheap Chilean wines.
However, my maintenance at OL's Ledge will be inexpensive, so there's' that.
Posted by: Miss Marple | February 14, 2016 at 07:00 PM
http://patterico.com/2016/02/14/does-the-senate-have-to-give-obamas-nominee-a-vote/
Posted by: Dave (in MA) | February 14, 2016 at 07:02 PM
Clarice - Thanks again for yet another wonderful "Pieces" for our Sunday reading.
One of the saddest things about the passing of Justice Scalia is that we can no longer look forward to, as you wrote, the hope that "Justice Antonin Scalia gets to write the majority opinion, and not merely contribute a biting concurring opinion."
Posted by: Michael (fpa Patriot4Freedom) | February 14, 2016 at 07:04 PM
MM, I think Cruz is plenty humble. What he isn't is personable. That was Reagan.
Since I don't expect the next president to spend a lot of time with me, that isn't a quality I'm looking for.
Cruz is a constitutionalist and we really really really need a constitutionalist.
Posted by: Jane | February 14, 2016 at 07:08 PM
I have a question about the docket/calendar for the Supreme Court. Since the Justices decide what cases will be heard can't Roberts as their leader have influence over the docket for the year? Similarly, since decisions by Justice Scalia not made public are moot would cases he decided to hear also be up in the air? Maybe a new docket? I'm obviously not a legal scholar and I did not stay in a holiday inn express last night.
Posted by: Gentlejim | February 14, 2016 at 07:09 PM
And a constitutionalist is the last thing the DC cartel wants.
Posted by: Truthbetold | February 14, 2016 at 07:10 PM
600 bottles of some of the finest juice in the land, best I can tell...
Posted by: Beasts of England | February 14, 2016 at 07:11 PM
I just wet my pants.
Posted by: Truthbetrolled | February 14, 2016 at 07:12 PM
Jane,
I have no doubt he's a Constitutionalist and would do well with anything relating to that.
However, voters aren't usually interested in that, viewing voting as "who is going to do the most stuff for ME".
His lack of personable traits, as you describe it, is going to hamper him in the primaries and (of he gets there) the general election.
My opinion is based n talking to blue collar types, my sisters, my son, and assorted people in the community.
I could be quite wrong, and am willing to vote for him without any objection if he gets the nomination.
Posted by: Miss Marple | February 14, 2016 at 07:14 PM
Bill H. at Patterico suggests that this is a hill to die on. Of course, I agree, but I've tried too many times to kick that damned football.
Posted by: Beasts of England | February 14, 2016 at 07:16 PM
MM
You have been brainwashed by the Rove types.
Posted by: Truthbetold | February 14, 2016 at 07:18 PM
Go Ted Cruz.
Anyone know if his Spanish is better than John Kerry's French?
Posted by: daddy | February 14, 2016 at 07:19 PM
TM, did you mean the Republicans would bail out Hillary by nominating Trump. You wrote Democrats in your thread starter.
I wonder whether Rubio is setting Cruz up for a challenge to a Univision Spanish speaking debate in a future primary. Perhaps Rubio feels he has already made his point with Spanish speaking voters that he has a better command of Spanish than Cruz. In any event, it's a sad commentary on what used to be the melting pot country that who speaks better Spanish might be an issue.
Posted by: Thomas Collins | February 14, 2016 at 07:23 PM
Speaking of brainwashed. And irony...
Posted by: Beasts of England | February 14, 2016 at 07:24 PM
well it's not about that, it's about what one's true sentiments are,
Posted by: narciso | February 14, 2016 at 07:29 PM
Its like Washington is a big Ferris wheel. What goes around comes around.
http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/14/flashback-in-2007-schumer-called-for-blocking-all-bush-supreme-court-nominations/
Posted by: JeepersCreepers | February 14, 2016 at 07:34 PM
MM, I've been sodomized by Geo Soros!!!
And I liked it.
Posted by: Truthbetrolled | February 14, 2016 at 07:38 PM
OK, I think I get this now. If Obama appoints, say, Kamala Harris, McConnell can engineer an end to the current Senate session. Justice Harris gets to serve a few days with no vote on any cases.
Posted by: Thomas Collins | February 14, 2016 at 07:39 PM
Prediction: Trump gets his hat handed to him on Saturday, sees he can't recover and drops out of the republican primaries to run as an independent. Never mind what the guy said about GWB, in case you missed it, he went out of his way last night to insult South Carolina's republican senator.
Posted by: Try Hang Gliding | February 14, 2016 at 07:41 PM
So what's the problem with what Cruz said?
It's just like the 17 year old kid who kept interrupting Cruz.
Cruz first pointed out he didn't nominate Roberts which I took to be a reference to Trump talking about how Cruz told W he wanted Roberts on the court.
He then said "I supported..." which I'm guessing was acknowledgment he supported Roberts like every single other Republican Senator did, but he was interrupted by Trump who derailed the conversation by calling Cruz a liar.
Apparently a guy is a liar if the questioner cuts his answer off before he's done. Neat trick.
Posted by: Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki | February 14, 2016 at 07:43 PM
The Kelo dissent. O'Connor is the author (is that the correct term?) but there are a few Scalia jabs intermingled. RIP.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/04-108P.ZD
Posted by: Beasts of England | February 14, 2016 at 07:47 PM
The attacks on Cruz by Trump re Justice Roberts' ruling on Obamacare (the ACA) are just evidence of Trump's limited number of targets wrt Sen. Cruz.
Aside from the personal attacks he makes on Cruz, there are virtually no substantive attacks he can make, so he has to resort to creating controversies where none truly exists.
So he alleges, out of whole cloth, that Cruz 'nominated' Roberts to the Supreme Court. Trump *has* to know that is false, and he knows that he (Trump) is trying to deceive the voters when he makes that claim.
The facts however, tell a different story:
Sen. Cruz did not advance or promote the nomination of John Roberts to the Supreme Court when Pres. GW Bush was considering potential candidates for the nomination.
Sen. Cruz preferred the nomination go to Mike Luttig, who was a Court of Appeals judge, and Justice Scalia's first law clerk. Once Pres. Bush nominated Roberts, however, Cruz supported Roberts as a matter of course, seeking to support Pres. Bush's choice for the vacant seat.
Among the facts of Roberts' history that made him an acceptable choice of many for Chief Justice was his reputation across the political spectrum. That is why it is neither unusual, nor surprising, for Cruz to have mentioned the support that Roberts had from lefties such as Prof. Tribe, Walter Dellinger and Lloyd Cutler.
This whole 'story' of Cruz's support for Justice Roberts is a big, old nothin' burger, imo, by those who cannot find something more serious about which they can attack Cruz.
Posted by: Michael (fpa Patriot4Freedom) | February 14, 2016 at 07:48 PM
actually, Cruz did pretty good at that cage match,
graham has to earn our respect, and on many occasions he has failed to do so,
Posted by: narciso | February 14, 2016 at 07:49 PM
However, voters aren't usually interested in that, viewing voting as "who is going to do the most stuff for ME".
I thought you were talking about your own opinion. My mistake.
Posted by: Jane | February 14, 2016 at 07:50 PM
THG-I pray you are right. And that Cruz wins outright with a sizable majority
Posted by: Texas Liberty Gal | February 14, 2016 at 07:51 PM
Does Cruz's op-ed suggest that he "pushed" for Roberts, Ig?
Posted by: Threadkiller | February 14, 2016 at 07:53 PM
the real history of the last 15 years has yet to be writtenm
http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2016/02/14/donald-trump-dumb-doesnt-know-wmd-found-iraq/
Posted by: narciso | February 14, 2016 at 07:54 PM
So he alleges, out of whole cloth, that Cruz 'nominated' Roberts to the Supreme Court.
Where did you see that?
Posted by: Threadkiller | February 14, 2016 at 07:55 PM
From the Kelo link:
"...the Public Use Clause would amount to little more than hortatory fluff."
Priceless.
Posted by: Beasts of England | February 14, 2016 at 07:55 PM