Ted Cruz, contender for Supreme Court justice?

[randomname]

Would Cruz be any good on the Supreme Court?

 

[TheNewYorker]

No

 

[specsaregood]

Would Cruz be any good on the Supreme Court?

Why would you put a two-faced lying back stabber on the SC?

 

[erowe1]

I can imagine Rand nominating him. But I can't see anyone else doing it.

 

[Krugminator2]

I can imagine Rand nominating him. But I can't see anyone else doing it.

They have completely different judicial philosophies. I would say there is almost no chance Rand would nominate Cruz or anyone like Cruz. Rand has spelled out very clearly what he thinks the role of the court should be.

 

[Kords21]

Cruz would become the activist judge he claims to hate. Besides even if someone were to appoint him, the senate would never approve him, he's burned too many bridges there. Sure there'd be new people there, but there'd be just enough old ones around to block him.

 

[nikcers]

Can someone born in Canada be Supreme Court Justice?

 

[erowe1]

They have completely different judicial philosophies. I would say there is almost no chance Rand would nominate Cruz or anyone like Cruz. Rand has spelled out very clearly what he thinks the role of the court should be.

Could you elaborate on that? What are some specific differences in their judicial philosophies?

 

[GunnyFreedom]

His understanding of the Constitution is problematic, but he'd be better than most of them. Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia are way better than Cruz, but Cruz would be better than everyone else currently on the Court. Roberts and Alito also claim to be Strict Constructionists, but they appear to have been smoking crack when they made that statement.

That's not to say I want him there, but the reality is he wouldn't do a lot of harm there.

That said, he'd probably never get confirmed.

 

[jmdrake]

Can someone born in Canada be Supreme Court Justice?

I don't think you even have to be a citizen to be on the SCOTUS. Illegal aliens might qualify as well. The framers of the constitution weren't expecting the SCOTUS to achieve the godlike power it has now conferred upon itself.

 

[Krugminator2]

Could you elaborate on that? What are some specific differences in their judicial philosophies?

Rand believes the court should actively shoot down laws that restrict freedom using the 9th and 14th Amendments. Basically any law that infringes on freedom where someone isn't being harmed should be deemed unconstitutional.

Cruz thinks legislatures can do whatever they want as long as it isn't directly prohibited in the Constitution

https://reason.com/blog/2015/07/23/ted-cruz-attacks-scotus-for-judicial-act
http://fee.org/anythingpeaceful/ted-cruzs-crusade-against-the-supreme-court/

 

[erowe1]

Rand believes the court should actively shoot down laws that restrict freedom using the 9th and 14th Amendments. Basically any law that infringes on freedom where someone isn't being harmed should be deemed unconstitutional.

You mean any federal law? Sure. But I hope Rand doesn't extend that to include overturning state laws. His dad very zealously fought against that, and rightly so.

Cruz thinks legislatures can do whatever they want as long as it isn't directly prohibited in the Constitution

https://reason.com/blog/2015/07/23/ted-cruz-attacks-scotus-for-judicial-act
http://fee.org/anythingpeaceful/ted-cruzs-crusade-against-the-supreme-court/

Both of those articles mention Cruz making a factual error. But I don't see anything about his thinking that legislatures can do whatever they want if not directly prohibited by the Constitution or his judicial philosophy differing from Rand's. Generally speaking the actual judicial philosophy he argues for looks like it is in agreement with Rand's, or at least with Ron's (assuming Rand doesn't depart much from his dad here). Cruz rightly criticizes Obergefell and more generally the expansive appeal to the 14th Amendment exemplified by that and so many other cases.

 

[jmdrake]

Cruz would become the activist judge he claims to hate. Besides even if someone were to appoint him, the senate would never approve him, he's burned too many bridges there. Sure there'd be new people there, but there'd be just enough old ones around to block him.

I'm sorry. But why don't you want a conservative judicial activist judge? Part of the reason we are in the mess that we are in is that John Roberts is too "conservative" when it comes to being deferential to laws that should be struck down (Obamacare) or Supreme Court precedent that should be overturned (Roe v. Wade). I think if Ron Paul were nominated to the Supreme Court, Dr. No would be quite the activist judge.

 

[statist slayer]

I'm sorry. But why don't you want a conservative judicial activist judge? Part of the reason we are in the mess that we are in is that John Roberts is too "conservative" when it comes to being deferential to laws that should be struck down (Obamacare) or Supreme Court precedent that should be overturned (Roe v. Wade). I think if Ron Paul were nominated to the Supreme Court, Dr. No would be quite the activist judge.

^^ The problem with the conservatives on the court is too much deference to the other branches of government at the expense of the Constitution.

 

[Krugminator2]

You mean any federal law? Sure. But I hope Rand doesn't extend that to include overturning state laws. His dad very zealously fought against that, and rightly so.

Both of those articles mention Cruz making a factual error. But I don't see anything about his thinking that legislatures can do whatever they want if not directly prohibited by the Constitution or his judicial philosophy differing from Rand's. Generally speaking the actual judicial philosophy he argues for looks like it is in agreement with Rand's, or at least with Ron's (assuming Rand doesn't depart much from his dad here). Cruz rightly criticizes Obergefell and more generally the expansive appeal to the 14th Amendment exemplified by that and so many other cases.

This Reason article does a good job explaining Rand's views. It gives his opinion on specific cases. You can make up your own mind.

https://reason.com/blog/2015/01/28/why-rand-pauls-case-for-judicial-activis

 

[erowe1]

This Reason article does a good job explaining Rand's views. It gives his opinion on specific cases. You can make up your own mind.

https://reason.com/blog/2015/01/28/why-rand-pauls-case-for-judicial-activis

Thanks for that. Rand is on dangerous ground here. I hope he can still change his mind. I'm surprised he thinks this.

For conservatives like Yoo, the problem with Paul's speech is that he explicitly endorsed the Supreme Court’s 1965 ruling in Griswold v. Connecticut, which struck down a state law banning the use of birth control devices by married couples on the grounds that it violated their right to privacy.

Likewise with the example of the Lochner case.

I'm not sure if there's enough here to say that he and Cruz have fundamentally opposed judicial philosophies. But there's definitely enough to raise some red flags about Rand's views.

 

[statist slayer]

Thanks for that. Rand is on dangerous ground here. I hope he can still change his mind. I'm surprised he thinks this.



Likewise with the example of the Lochner case.

I'm not sure if there's enough here to say that he and Cruz have fundamentally opposed judicial philosophies. But there's definitely enough to raise some red flags about Rand's views.

What are you criticizing here? I'm willing to defend Rand's views of Griswold and Lochner 100%. John Yoo is a fascist stooge who believes in a unitary executive government.

 

[LatinsforPaul]

Groups file complaint against Cruz for failing to disclose loans

Campaign finance watchdogs are calling on the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to investigate the allegations that GOP presidential hopeful Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) failed to report loans he used to fund his 2012 Senate race.

The Campaign Legal Center announced Wednesday that it had, alongside Democracy 21, filed a complaint with the FEC against the Cruz. The complaint comes about a week after the New York Times reported that Cruz had failed to disclose two loans worth up to $500,000 each, one from Citibank and another from Goldman Sachs

 

[Brett85]

Thanks for that. Rand is on dangerous ground here. I hope he can still change his mind. I'm surprised he thinks this.



Likewise with the example of the Lochner case.

I'm not sure if there's enough here to say that he and Cruz have fundamentally opposed judicial philosophies. But there's definitely enough to raise some red flags about Rand's views.

I agree. Rand is wrong on this. But, there's no such thing as a perfect candidate. Rand is still far better than Cruz overall.

 

[statist slayer]

I agree. Rand is wrong on this. But, there's no such thing as a perfect candidate. Rand is still far better than Cruz overall.

Explain why Rand is wrong? No one is offering a cogent explanation of why state governments should be able to infringe constitutional liberties and why the Supreme Court should let the Constitution go to hell in a handbasket.