The next member of SCOTUS should be Ted Cruz.

originally posted by: olaru12
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...

LOL. I cannot for the life of me see any logic in that post......

a reply to: Hefficide

Isn't it safe to assume anyone appointed to the SCOTUS would, sooner or later, be faced with decisions that his personal beliefs and/or morals would conflict with the law or even the Constitution, itself?


Therefore unfair to target Cruz
alone when all will face similar choices?

a reply to: aethertek

Good! Continue to believe the battle is over......

a reply to: greencmp

Hey, I'm just a dumb-assed truck driver.

I keep it simple. Federal funding equals federal control. Period. Nothing more than blackmail/bribe mechanisms.


It raises an interesting question about Cruz and his drive/campaign for Constitutionality. Is it roll-back? Stay any further violations? How does he plan to implement any of this? Doesn't really say, does he?

a reply to: nwtrucker

No... it actually establishes the Golden Rule as a Universal Truth.

Too bad many politicians/rulers cannot abide by it. That too is a Universal Truth, as in Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely.

One cannot blame religion alone for corruption, it requires powerful people to make it happen. This is why it is important to politicians that they inject their power into courts and the law.

a reply to: nwtrucker

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.

Actually, those are Jewish morals. Go Bernie!

a reply to: nwtrucker

Cruz is philosophically opposed to Trump on nearly every issue. It would never happen. I know you won't believe me, but Trumps historical positions rather clearly show him to be the most liberal candidate in this election. The last thing he would do is put a hardcore conservative on the Supreme Court.

We do agree that Cruz's should be hamstringed in power though. Rather than promote him into a position of being useless though I would much rather just see him voted out of office. He wants a theocracy, is literally and figuratively in bed with the bankers, and is establishment as you can get... even though he is despised on a personal level by just about everyone in DC.

Fortunately, people like Cruz have a short shelf life. Like Bachmann before him, he'll be out soon likely only to be replaced by someone equally crazy.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Hefficide

Isn't it safe to assume anyone appointed to the SCOTUS would, sooner or later, be faced with decisions that his personal beliefs and/or morals would conflict with the law or even the Constitution, itself?


Therefore unfair to target Cruz
alone when all will face similar choices?

In my opinion anyone who is an X first, American second should be disqualified to all public office. That includes Cruz.

If you're working in the government, your #1 priority is duty to the country and doing what is best for the people/state (depending on the office) rather than the subgroup you identify as.

a reply to: windword

We're actually arguing the SCOTUS merits and qualifications of a man who graduated Princeton and Harvard law programs with highest honors and yet you see no issue with the POTUS merits and qualifications (or rather the lack thereof) of a man who has never held a real steady job in his life prior to being 40 years old and getting elected mayor of a small town, then Congressman from a small district?

Again, I find myself laughing in this thread...

originally posted by: greencmp
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.

Wouldn't this really just be welfare spending? Encourage parents to drop out of the work force, to educate their children (when they likely aren't professional teachers), popping out more babies to educate in order to keep getting funding and not have to work?

a reply to: Aazadan

No, homeschool federal funding wouldn't pay mom or dad to teach. In fact, it represents a MUCH lower investment and usually produces a much smarter child. The money is modest and is used for extracurricular activities, textbooks, lesson plan material, and testing fees. Compared to the combination of teacher and staff salaries and benefits, overhead, insurance, and such, it's a hell of a lot better deal for the taxpayers.

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.

Exactly why I haven't supported his presidential campaign.

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: nwtrucker

Cruz is philosophically opposed to Trump on nearly every issue. It would never happen. I know you won't believe me, but Trumps historical positions rather clearly show him to be the most liberal candidate in this election. The last thing he would do is put a hardcore conservative on the Supreme Court.

We do agree that Cruz's should be hamstringed in power though. Rather than promote him into a position of being useless though I would much rather just see him voted out of office. He wants a theocracy, is literally and figuratively in bed with the bankers, and is establishment as you can get... even though he is despised on a personal level by just about everyone in DC.

Fortunately, people like Cruz have a short shelf life. Like Bachmann before him, he'll be out soon likely only to be replaced by someone equally crazy.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Hefficide

Isn't it safe to assume anyone appointed to the SCOTUS would, sooner or later, be faced with decisions that his personal beliefs and/or morals would conflict with the law or even the Constitution, itself?


Therefore unfair to target Cruz
alone when all will face similar choices?

In my opinion anyone who is an X first, American second should be disqualified to all public office. That includes Cruz.

If you're working in the government, your #1 priority is duty to the country and doing what is best for the people/state (depending on the office) rather than the subgroup you identify as.

Actually you have almost no understanding of Trump at all, assuming your post on him isn't some form of spin. Trump is closer to apolitical rather than anything else...certainly not Liberal.

As far as SCOTUS goes, admittedly, I didn't consider his religious views. Just his political/educational ones. A pretty large omission on my part. My apologies.

a reply to: Aazadan


There is a small stipend available in Washington St. for home schoolers. Something like 200 per month or so. Some take advantage of that, others do not, including my family as apparently, there are strings attached to that money. Very intrusive for that money. Many ignore that 'service'.


Money almost always has a string attached....

originally posted by: nwtrucker
The next member of SCOTUS should be Ted Cruz.

Absolutely!
Xtian Shariah Law sounds nice, especially after history shows us how beautiful it can be!
Another toxically insane belief-addled idiot!
This one actually out Scalias Scalia! *__-

a reply to: burdman30ott6

I was responding to a post that supported Ted Cruz because of his supposed Christian values, citing The 10 Commandments, that are actually Jewish values, not to a post about Cruz' education.

Bernie Sanders' values are more Christian like than Ted Cruz' values. That's my response.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
While I am not Christian, I would take theocratic rule over being ruled by snakes, weasels, crooks and outright psychos we have now, thank you very much.....

Off the top of my head, try your luck in Saudi Arabia, Sudan, or Afghanistan. I mean, you're not a Christian & not opposed to living under their religious thumb, so why would any other religion's theocracy flavor matter any, right?

Theocratic rule is a very dangerous slippery rights slope to tango with. If you really consider yourself a good 'ol Constitution-loving American, you'd be appalled at the mere notion of a theocracy here (goes against everything in that document, period) not in favor of it.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: greencmp

Hey, I'm just a dumb-assed truck driver.

I keep it simple. Federal funding equals federal control. Period. Nothing more than blackmail/bribe mechanisms.


It raises an interesting question about Cruz and his drive/campaign for Constitutionality. Is it roll-back? Stay any further violations? How does he plan to implement any of this? Doesn't really say, does he?

I don't disagree, the general position for constitutionalists is to leave it to the states with respect to federal law. It is surprising to find any other position so this is a questionable judgement.

It smacks of ironic payback when principled dignified correctness would have sufficed.

a reply to: nwtrucker

It's not spin, check his historical positions and not just what he's saying right now to get elected. He believes very strongly in tax and spend. Lots of social programs, lots of taxes, and he's about as authoritarian as one can get.

If Trump were to be elected and get his way (something I doubt as both parties in Congress would block him) he would grow government significantly. Security programs such as a wall, police programs to find illegals, a much stronger IRS to actually collect more taxes, more welfare programs (probably with many strings attached such as the home schooling stipend), and so on.

a reply to: Aazadan



You leave out much that isn't in the liberal arena, hence 'apolitical'. However, this thread isn't about Trump. It's about Cruz and how he isn't particularly any different from the rest of the Republican, 'business as usual' crowd.