- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: If Mark Levin was 10 or 15 years younger would you back him for SCOTUS?
Posted on 6/28/18 at 1:04 pm to Wednesday
Posted on 6/28/18 at 1:04 pm to Wednesday
Don’t get me wrong, I would love to have Cruz on the bench, still worries me that his seat would be open. We cannot afford to lose any seats in the Senate.
Not that it matters and not that I completely understand the difference between the two; but do we want more letter of the law types or spirit of the law types on the bench and which does Cruz fall under?
Not that it matters and not that I completely understand the difference between the two; but do we want more letter of the law types or spirit of the law types on the bench and which does Cruz fall under?
2
Posted on 6/28/18 at 1:17 pm to Ace Midnight
Am solely concerned with "what could have been."
Had they all gotten their way, and Cruz through some divine intervention gotten the nomination, right about now we'd be ever closer to something eventually irreversible by preferred parliamentary means.
We came close on this one.
Had they all gotten their way, and Cruz through some divine intervention gotten the nomination, right about now we'd be ever closer to something eventually irreversible by preferred parliamentary means.
We came close on this one.
Posted on 6/28/18 at 2:26 pm to TigerFanInSouthland
quote:
Don’t get me wrong, I would love to have Cruz on the bench, still worries me that his seat would be open. We cannot afford to lose any seats in the Senate.
Texas.
No way in hell that seat goes Blue.
Posted on 6/28/18 at 9:00 pm to TigerFanInSouthland
quote:
Hell, I’d be all in for him right now.
Absolutely!
Posted on 6/28/18 at 10:48 pm to TigerFanInSouthland
He is 49 years old... not sure I would want any 34 yo on the SCOTUS
Wait why is his age all over the place? I see born from 57 to 68
Wait why is his age all over the place? I see born from 57 to 68
This post was edited on 6/28/18 at 10:54 pm
Posted on 6/28/18 at 10:51 pm to TigerFanInSouthland
This would cause the GOAT liberal melt.
Posted on 6/28/18 at 10:56 pm to TigerFanInSouthland
No rush fir Cruz this time around, he’s still
Young. Just nominate him in 4 or 5 years for RBGs spot...
Young. Just nominate him in 4 or 5 years for RBGs spot...
Posted on 6/29/18 at 6:20 am to TigerFanInSouthland
No.
He spent a lot of time as a very vocal nevertrumper.
Someone who even went there either (1) simply did not fully understand the threat to the Constitution and the American Way of Life posed by the left or (2) had a very shallow conservatism that was limited to Chamber of Commerce interests.
Neither option speaks particularly well about the man's intellect or judgement. So, no, I wouldn't.
Mike Lee? Probably. Ted Cruz? Probably.
He spent a lot of time as a very vocal nevertrumper.
Someone who even went there either (1) simply did not fully understand the threat to the Constitution and the American Way of Life posed by the left or (2) had a very shallow conservatism that was limited to Chamber of Commerce interests.
Neither option speaks particularly well about the man's intellect or judgement. So, no, I wouldn't.
Mike Lee? Probably. Ted Cruz? Probably.
Posted on 6/29/18 at 7:37 am to TigerFanInSouthland
Yes without hesitation
Posted on 6/29/18 at 7:43 am to TigerFanInSouthland
Not a chance
Posted on 6/29/18 at 10:56 am to Boatshoes
quote:
No.
He spent a lot of time as a very vocal nevertrumper.
Someone who even went there either (1) simply did not fully understand the threat to the Constitution and the American Way of Life posed by the left or (2) had a very shallow conservatism that was limited to Chamber of Commerce interests.
Neither option speaks particularly well about the man's intellect or judgement. So, no, I wouldn't.
Agreed until:
quote:
Mike Lee? Probably. Ted Cruz? Probably.
Levin and Cruz are "joined at the hip" forever.
After years of presenting himself as an "originalist" and strict-constructionist in his program discussions and books, he suddenly waives it all by supporting Cruz for the highest office in the land.
Completely ignoring Article II Section I, clause 5, which by any true "originalist's" interpretation would view its reason for existence as the Founders insistence on any candidate for the office be "born on this soil, of parents, both of whom are citizens."
Described in the Founders' primary reference at the Convention - Vatell's The Law Of Nations - as the citizenship requirement for a nation's highest office.
Both sides have acted as though they consider that requirement as some sort of inscrutable imposition that interferes with their preference of the day.
And as for "judgment," Mike Lee was all put out that he wasn't able to make it down to the border for that photo-op with Beck and Cruz in handing out Teddy Bears and other toys to teenagers.
Lots of "judgment" there.
Posted on 6/29/18 at 11:29 am to Boatshoes
quote:
No.
He spent a lot of time as a very vocal nevertrumper.
Someone who even went there either (1) simply did not fully understand the threat to the Constitution and the American Way of Life posed by the left or (2) had a very shallow conservatism that was limited to Chamber of Commerce interests.
Neither option speaks particularly well about the man's intellect or judgement. So, no, I wouldn't.
Holy shite this whole post is not even remotely correct. For one, he wasn’t a never Trump guy. He was Cruz until Trump won the nomination and then kind of begrudgingly endorsed Trump. He’s 100% on Trump’s side right now except for his tariff stance. He’s written idk 5 or 6 books describing the dangers of the left on this society. His fricking most recent book was titled Rediscovering Americanism and the Tyranny of Progressivism he calls the Chamber of Commerce the Chamber of Crony Capitalism.
You really don’t know anything about Levin.
Posted on 6/29/18 at 11:34 am to laxtonto
Mark Levin actually said that Cruz does not want the SCOTUS on his show last night.
Posted on 6/29/18 at 11:35 am to TigerFanInSouthland
I like Levin. In small doses. Once or twice a year.
Maybe.
I think he'd legislate from the bench. Conservatively, but not without his own prejudices.
I like him though.
Maybe.
I think he'd legislate from the bench. Conservatively, but not without his own prejudices.
I like him though.
Posted on 6/29/18 at 11:45 am to TigerFanInSouthland
Levin wasn't really thrilled with Trump winning the nomination but he didn't hedge like Ben Shapiro and say that he didn't have any advice for his audience on November 8th. That's a big distinction. That's why I like Levin compared to some ultra-conservatives. He realizes that his principles won't mean very much when the left has complete control over the country.
This post was edited on 6/29/18 at 11:51 am
Posted on 6/29/18 at 11:56 am to jackamo3300
quote:
Completely ignoring Article II Section I, clause 5, which by any true "originalist's" interpretation would view its reason for existence as the Founders insistence on any candidate for the office be "born on this soil, of parents, both of whom are citizens."
You keep citing this but actually, that’s not how the Framers looked at the problem. And they didn’t use the phrase:
quote:
born on this soil, of parents, both of whom are citizens.
In the clause. They used this phrase:
quote:
natural born Citizen
Which to them meant at least one of your parents being a citizen of the US, made you a citizen of the US if you were born outside of the country. Cruz’s father was Cuban, his mother is American and he was born in Alberta. He’s still considered a natural born US citizen because his mother was an American citizen at the time of his birth.
Posted on 6/29/18 at 12:59 pm to TigerFanInSouthland
The post was about how a true "originalist" would interpret the term knowing how it is described in the Founders' primary reference at the Convention, Vatell's The Law of Nations.
So you're on record now as insisting that the Founders, a group of nation builders fresh off a bloody revolution to remove themselves from under the yoke of a foreign power and who history records as concerned with someone in its highest position with potentially "divided loyalties" would have universally been for altering the term as found in their primary reference during the Convention, and would have been all in for something to the effect:
"Which to them meant at least one of your parents being a citizen of the US, made you a citizen of the US if you were born outside of the country."
That's weak at best and doesn't follow rationale/logic even guessing at the collective psyche of the time.
The term itself has gone through a series of court cases with differing opinions resulting from them.
All of which could have been prevented by the Founders with a verbatim description of the term as it is shown in their primary reference during the proceedings for an Article specifically placed in the Document for the express purpose of setting the citizenship requirements - not for any potential rank and file Americans - but for the holder of the nation's highest office.
Or maybe they were just presumptuous that the nation would never produce a legion of "entitleds" constantly looking for a vacuum, any vacuum to move into and exploit the system to their own ends.
So you're on record now as insisting that the Founders, a group of nation builders fresh off a bloody revolution to remove themselves from under the yoke of a foreign power and who history records as concerned with someone in its highest position with potentially "divided loyalties" would have universally been for altering the term as found in their primary reference during the Convention, and would have been all in for something to the effect:
"Which to them meant at least one of your parents being a citizen of the US, made you a citizen of the US if you were born outside of the country."
That's weak at best and doesn't follow rationale/logic even guessing at the collective psyche of the time.
The term itself has gone through a series of court cases with differing opinions resulting from them.
All of which could have been prevented by the Founders with a verbatim description of the term as it is shown in their primary reference during the proceedings for an Article specifically placed in the Document for the express purpose of setting the citizenship requirements - not for any potential rank and file Americans - but for the holder of the nation's highest office.
Or maybe they were just presumptuous that the nation would never produce a legion of "entitleds" constantly looking for a vacuum, any vacuum to move into and exploit the system to their own ends.
Posted on 6/29/18 at 1:00 pm to TigerFanInSouthland
quote:
Mark Levin
quote:
SCOTUS
Posted on 6/29/18 at 1:26 pm to jackamo3300
quote:
The post was about how a true "originalist" would interpret the term knowing how it is described in the Founders' primary reference at the Convention, Vatell's The Law of Nations.
I’m sorry, I didn’t know the Law of Nations was the supreme law of the land.
Majority of legal experts agree on Cruz’s eligibility to be President, sorry your attempt at a gotcha on Levin doesn’t have legal backing.
Posted on 6/29/18 at 1:27 pm to TigerFanInSouthland
We already have more than enough Israelis on the SCOTUS.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News