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: 4
5
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 19 2016 @ 04:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Nyiah


I'm not locked into any form of gov't any more. All succumb to idiocies. I do know what's going on now is insane.

'Business as usual' is national suicide. My post was closer to sarcasm than anything else. Fear of theocratic rule by Christians is hyperbole. Perhaps Amish collectives and the like, but they aren't interested in running everything, merely being left alone which I'm cool with.




posted on Feb, 19 2016 @ 04:35 AM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

In Cruz's case, he's that unique brand of intelligence and crazy that comes along once a decade. He finds a position, and argues it very well but he doesn't represent the people. The ones he represents are large corporations, churches, and banks. Everything he argues for is for their interests over the interests of the American people. In his own words, he puts his religion before America, but then when he does get to America he puts the interests of his donors before the interests of his constituents.

That is definitely not what I want to see in a member of the Supreme Court, or the President, and too many people doing just that are why Congress is such a mess.

If there were any candidate on the Republican side that I think would make a good Supreme Court justice, it would be Rand Paul.

The best place for Cruz is in the unemployment line. Preferably sooner rather than later, one way or the other I don't think he has much time left. Trump beating him to the nomination won't be good for his career, and if Trump gets it that's a clear sign the country is moving left between not just Trump but also Sanders. Conservatism, particularly of the Cruz brand doesn't have a bright political future in that case.



posted on Feb, 19 2016 @ 05:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
I do not see any evidence he puts his religion in front of his country.


He says so himself!

Ted Cruz: I'm a Christian First, American Second


originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic
He sees the Christian vote as a powerful tool and he believes/panders to it. The left does the same.


Yes. You're right. I'm not saying the left is ANY better. I thought we were talking about Ted Cruz. And yes, he uses religion to pander to the religious.



So what 'morals' do you see as superior or less dangerous than Judea-Christian? Or more successful? What would you replace them with?


Religion shouldn't be in government. Legislating morals shouldn't be an option. You seem to be mixing morality with the government and they are two different things. The Constitution is clear. We are a secular country of laws. Morality is a personal thing. Our legal system isn't based on morals.



posted on Feb, 19 2016 @ 04:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic


I agree with you in a sense, but suggesting morals aren't legislated is taking that concept way too far. What are laws based on if not morals???

Most of the criminal laws are completely based on morals. Merely because many of them seem reasonable and excepted by religious and non-religious alike doesn't make them any less fundamentals of Judeo-Christian morals. I really don't believe it is possible to separate religion from culture and culture from Gov't...I don't know that I'd even want to.

Unless virtually every founding father was pandering, they made their religious beliefs clear. It's flat out included in too many documents to glibly say we have a secular Constitution and there is not much doubt that that provision was to keep gov't out of religion, not the other way around.

Back to the subject, I agree with Aazadan to the extent of his now apparent backing clearly Corporate interests and some contradiction with his Constitutional stance.

Again, I didn't really consider his religious aspect when I started this thread. I didn't consider it relevant. Apparently, many do. I don't see any threat of a theocratic gov't whatsoever....if for no other reason that too many would be against it.


On a personal note, I find it ironic that the general left-not saying you- is hell bent on importing a religious group that has as it's basis theocratic gov't in Sharia law and point it's fingers at Christians who haven't had a theocratic gov't since the dark ages....go figure...



posted on Feb, 19 2016 @ 05:31 PM
link   
Judge Andrew Napolitano

www.judgenap.com...



posted on Feb, 19 2016 @ 09:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker
I've come to realize that Cruz's mantra on the Constitution is, in a political sense, about as safe as it gets. Who's going to argue against the Constitution in a public forum. Even the most die-hard leftist wouldn't push it that far and their media wouldn't cover it anyways. The same applies to those on the right that have found the Constitution 'inconvenient'. A safe pulpit to preach from.

Pretty sure I see people on the left saying only the parts of the Constitution they like should be safe. The rest, like the 2nd amendment, need to go. Even free speech for them needs special zones and is bad.



posted on Feb, 19 2016 @ 11:19 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04


Agreed, on the right, Roe Vs Wade and the like. Still, specific points not the "Constitution", itself. At least usually from what I can see.



posted on Feb, 19 2016 @ 11:26 PM
link   
a reply to: tkwasny

Nice. Thanks. I'd go as far as to say that IF the Republicans cave in and accept an extreme left or even moderate replacement. (And I have little doubt they will stand firm, they forgot how....) that will almost give Trump an almost automatic win! SO many Republicans will be so angry at now 20 plus years of a left leaning court that it will create even more momentum for Trump and that will likely be enough to end the Republican Party as we have known it.


I say good riddance.

edit on 19-2-2016 by nwtrucker because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2016 @ 09:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic


I agree with you in a sense, but suggesting morals aren't legislated is taking that concept way too far. What are laws based on if not morals???


People's human rights. We have the right to life, therefore, murder is illegal. We have the right to our possessions, therefore, stealing is illegal. And so on. Laws are to protect the victim, not to impose morality.



On a personal note, I find it ironic that the general left-not saying you- is hell bent on importing a religious group that has as it's basis theocratic gov't in Sharia law and point it's fingers at Christians who haven't had a theocratic gov't since the dark ages....go figure...




What? "importing a religious group"? I can't speak for the left, but I don't care if a religious group wants to abide by their religious law (Muslims, Christians or Jews), as long as it doesn't conflict with US law.



posted on Feb, 20 2016 @ 10:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic


"Rights"? Really? Sounds like a 'morality' in and of itself. Merely a twisting of words that have the same result. The right to life. which really doesn't even exist, then becomes the 'right' to free health care or University...or the 'right' to not be offended.....

I have no problem with religious groups that exist within the laws of the U.S. either. Sharia law isn't within those parameters as you well know. You're the one who raised the theocratic rule issue which I don't see whatsoever happening in the U.S..


edit on 20-2-2016 by nwtrucker because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-2-2016 by nwtrucker because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
5
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join