It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The next member of SCOTUS should be Ted Cruz.

page: 2
5
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 18 2016 @ 05:49 PM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker
Such a warm man, his kid even hates him.


edit on 18-2-2016 by ugmold because: typo




posted on Feb, 18 2016 @ 05:52 PM
link   
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Well said, sans the scared of Trump implication. For me, neither scare me. The current mess does......



posted on Feb, 18 2016 @ 06:01 PM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker



Sigh. You mark the culture battle we face pretty well. I, of course, see your position as 'extreme'.


Battle? You might want to take a look around the country, because you guys lost the "Culture War", any future battles are just mop-up Ops.

The country doesn't want to hear from these uber religulous whackaddoldles who believe god speaks to them.
Jesus H.Christ just look at the last couple of elections when this one & that one are all claiming GAWD told them to run.
Gee where are those people, not where GAWD supposedly wanted them.

Cruz a serious loon raised by a religulous nut who claims his son is one of the kings of christ to usher in a new era.
These people are nuts, seriously mentally deficient & society had better start treating these people for their delusions, not electing them to positions of authority.

K~



posted on Feb, 18 2016 @ 06:02 PM
link   
Today I learned that the pope criticizing Donald Trump and he's "not a Christian" because of his platform positions is supposed to be damaging to Trump's candidacy for president for some reason while Ted Cruz's personal profession of Faith and embracement of Christianity in his life is supposed to be damaging to his candidacy for any public service (POTUS or SCOTUS)...

Goddamn people crack me up.



Folks need to make up their minds, get their stories straight, then join the rest of us voters at the grown up table so we can actually get down to business and discuss matters of importance, like platform positions and how they pertain to the nation as a whole rather than this asininity currently being rolled between our finger and thumb prior to flicking it thoughtlessly out the window.



posted on Feb, 18 2016 @ 06:04 PM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

He would be a great SCOTUS for sure but, he's young and we need him to appoint good ones during his administration.

The Goldman Sachs connection is unfortunate but, open for debate.

The homeschooling thing is about allowing homeschools to be considered private schools so they could have access to federal educational funding. This is an issue for types such as me who like homeschooling but, don't like federal involvement in education. We want to be allowed to have homeschools but are concerned about government overreach.

This is not a deal breaker for anyone and is actually a potential unifying factor with centrists.

Ultimately, what other candidate can be relied upon to appoint constitutional judges?



posted on Feb, 18 2016 @ 06:07 PM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1


I don't know the context of that statement. If that is valid then don't vote for him. I won't for different reasons.


If I believed that applying the morals of Christianity would be sufficient to restore this nation I would vote for him. I do not believe that is the case. I do believe, don't lie, don't murder, steal cheat...so on, are pretty good starting points for a workable and prosperous nation.



posted on Feb, 18 2016 @ 06:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker

I've never been a practicing Christian. I have been a supporter of the Judeo-Christian morals as fundamental to the nation.


Morality and the Golden Rule:




Buddhism: 560 BC, From the Udanavarga 5:18- "Hurt not others with that which pains yourself."

Judaism: 1300 BC, from the Old Testament, Leviticus 19:18- "Thou shalt Love thy neighbor as thyself."

Hinduism: 3200 BC, From the Hitopadesa- "One should always treat others as they themselves wish to be treated."

Zoroastrianism: 600 BC, From the Shast-na-shayast 13:29- "Whatever is disagreeable to yourself, do not do unto others."

Confucianism: 557 BC, From the Analects 15:23- "What you do not want done to yourself, do not do to others."

Christianity: 30 AD, From the King James Version , 7:12- "Whatsoever ye would that others should do to you, do ye even so to them.”


www.thegoldenrule.net...

It’s not such a new idea, is it?

Oh, and for Ted Cruz:

Matthew 6 “Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven.



posted on Feb, 18 2016 @ 06:10 PM
link   
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask




LoL scared of Cruz, but not scared of Trump.....


I for one am 'scared', since you used the word, of both of them being our president or a justice seat.



posted on Feb, 18 2016 @ 06:15 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

The Pope isn't an American voter. While he is obviously very welcome to his opinion, it should be irrelevant.

Only it isn't going to be, is it? And why not? Because he is the leader of a group that does contain some very dogmatic individuals who are American voters and who consider Il Papa's word the infallible word of God.

Which brings us back to the subject of why a person who positions themselves very openly on a religion platform should open a debate such as this. If he were appointed to the court it is a certainty that he would face decisions where he found the law and his religious scruples at odds. Given the Supremacy clause, it is imperative that, in such a situation , we could trust that he would be capable of approaching that decision being informed only by law and not by personal bias.



posted on Feb, 18 2016 @ 06:18 PM
link   
a reply to: greencmp


The home schooling IS the deal breaker for me. It's certainly isn't Constitutional. Therefore a direct contradiction of his pulpit. On a personal basis, since when has federal intervention into our education ever improved that education??


His intention may be as you say....until we get another Obama or leftist that now runs the same propaganda into home schooling we suffer now in regular schools. Not unifying in the slightest for me. Just more federal control and opens the door to later 'upgrades'.


Agreed on the Goldman Sacks issue.


I might give credence to your position on him appointing Constitutionally proper nominees. MIGHT. Yet, I still hold the view of the OP and no longer trust him to be outside the beltway loop.


For me, that 'trumps' all....



posted on Feb, 18 2016 @ 06:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80


I know...



posted on Feb, 18 2016 @ 06:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: greencmp


The home schooling IS the deal breaker for me. It's certainly isn't Constitutional. Therefore a direct contradiction of his pulpit. On a personal basis, since when has federal intervention into our education ever improved that education??


His intention may be as you say....until we get another Obama or leftist that now runs the same propaganda into home schooling we suffer now in regular schools. Not unifying in the slightest for me. Just more federal control and opens the door to later 'upgrades'.


Agreed on the Goldman Sacks issue.


I might give credence to your position on him appointing Constitutionally proper nominees. MIGHT. Yet, I still hold the view of the OP and no longer trust him to be outside the beltway loop.


For me, that 'trumps' all....



But, that would make you pro federal school control and pro denial of funding for homeschoolers (since funding is available for non-homeschoolers). I don't actually mean that you are but, that's how confusing this is.

It's a problem for constitutionalists because we want the complete dismantling of the federal department of education and this is a technical workaround, not a solution.
edit on 18-2-2016 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2016 @ 06:23 PM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

AND we will destroy THAT garbage too.
IT'S no better than the Commie P.C. crowd I fight.



posted on Feb, 18 2016 @ 06:24 PM
link   
This is a preposterous idea! Cruz has stated that his religion is foremost before America. That statement right there would nullify his being qualified as a supreme justice. You cannot place your religious beliefs ahead of ALL the people you represent, including those that are not Christian. So he basically says that he doesn't care about the constitution and any Americans who do not believe as he does. Gee...not only does that nullify a possible scotus position but as a president, too, huh?



posted on Feb, 18 2016 @ 06:28 PM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1




There goes the bipartisan bullcrap. I'm not a member of the left, stop assuming things. I think the two party system is stupid, I consider myself a human being, nothing more or less.


you started the division by immediately attacking a persons religious beliefs , so please, spare me your "righteous" indignation...




If he plans on banning gay marriage (which he does plan on doing btw) then he is going against the 14th amendment


and yet more uneducated drivel.........he wants to return the rights to the STATES and let them decide what they want to do.....

You should probably do some actual research on people before throwing stones, and maybe beyond what you read on the new york times or CBS



posted on Feb, 18 2016 @ 06:38 PM
link   
I would find it absolutely humorous if Cruz was nominated for SCOTUS and came up one vote short because he had to recuse himself from the vote.



posted on Feb, 18 2016 @ 06:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Hefficide

Not that I disagree with you, but what was your take on Ben Carson's declaration that he did not believe a true, practicing Muslim should be qualified to serve as POTUS? In fact, it is the backbone of *why* Shariah law exists... to permit Muslims to serve in seats of government and as jurists while avoiding contradictions between doing the job they were elected/selected to do and following Islamic teachings.

I can understand concerns and arguments against Cruz based on his religiousness. (I don't agree with them, precisely, because his religious beliefs are similar to my own, but I can understand the worries of non evangelicals.) That said, I 100% agreed with Dr. Carson's take on the idea of a future Muslim president, but find it beyond curious how it turned into a partisan bickerfest with many of the same folks currently wringing their hands over the idea of Cruz in power then criticizing Carson for saying exactly the same thing being said about Cruz.



posted on Feb, 18 2016 @ 06:45 PM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

I like you use of logic, fits in perfectly with Glenn Beck's style conservative ideology concerning Cruz.




Glenn Beck Thinks God Killed Antonin Scalia To Help Ted Cruz Get Elected President


www.abovetopsecret.com...




edit on 18-2-2016 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2016 @ 06:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
Terrible idea. Ted Cruz shouldn't be in any kind of authoritative position, he'll let his religion overrule common sense 100% of the time. He's the type of person who would LOVE for a Christian theocracy to be in place in America.


really? because all this time that hes been a constitutional lawyer and winning his cases FOR the constitution, his religion doesnt seem to have had any adverse affect there.......


He hasn't spent a lot of time representing the people before the Supreme Court. However, he IS a lawyer who represented a lot of corporate clients and who represented the State of Texas in lawsuits brought by private citizens. He has won some commendations and awards but is not known as a constitutional lawyer. (see Wikipedia)

He's also against net neutrality - if you love Internet service, you probably won't appreciate his stance.

He also opposes a minimum wage, and his father thinks Ted has been appointed as a king to bring about the end times. (source)
edi t on 18-2-2016 by Byrd because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2016 @ 07:16 PM
link   
a reply to: masqua

Didn't say it was new. It IS 'new' to those just learning it.


That somehow
marginalizes the dissemination by Christianity of those morals?




top topics



 
5
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join