nm. it was gonna be stupid.
And despite attending Harvard Law School (and apparently doing well there), he had this to say in reaction to the Supreme Court verdict allowing same-sex marriage nationwide, “Five unelected lawyers have declared themselves the rulers of 320 million Americans.” As if he’s shocked to discover that the Justices aren’t elected and their decisions affect Americans. (Even more surprising, given that he was a clerk for the Chief Justice.)
I don’t see any inconsistency there.
And of course, in such cases as Hobby Lobby, Citizen’s United and the 2000 Presidential election, he had no problems with “five unelected judges”.
Not to mention the Goldman Sachs employee who sleeps in the bed next to him.
Damn it, one demerit for me -1 
I don’t think anyone else has posted yet that a lawsuit has been filed. However, since it’s filed by a random Houston attorney who probably doesn’t have standing to sue, the suit will probably be thrown out. But even so, it could bring more attention to Cruz’s Canadian birth and cause him problems.
Doesn’t any voter have standing here?
And you shouldn’t mention him because his wife doesn’t know.
This article was the most thorough I’ve seen so far on the subject. The author identifies as a Republican, and a libertarian-leaning one at that, but despite those two red flag seems to have sound scholarship.
The conclusion of this article is that the Supreme Court would likely rule Cruz eligible. Still, I find it obnoxious to use the denigrating word “birther” in the Cruz case, as it seems like a genuinely involved issue as to whether Cruz is eligible or not.
Read this thread Who can sue Ted Cruz - Factual Questions - Straight Dope Message Board and the linked references then get back to us. The general legal consensus is that no, voters as individuals, or as a class, don’t have standing.
Yes, but not because of anything in that article.
The Supreme Court consists of political appointees. Justices do sometimes rule against the majority view of their party on a particular case/issue. But when it comes to party control of one of the branches of government, I can’t see them ruling against their own party.
The current Supreme Court is 5-4 GOP. As long as there is a GOP majority, Cruz, assuming a November win, is rock-solid safe.
Here’s another factor that comes into play: Justices feel not only a party affiliation, but also an affiliation to the Supreme Count as a whole. Overturning a democratic election would damage the reputation of the court, regardless of how brilliant the justification in the written ruling.
I don’t see how, after Bush v. Gore, anyone would think this kind of case would be decided on the merits. But to each his own.
I will say that, if Cruz was a principled follower of the original intent of the Constitution, he would, because of his foreign birth, not be running for President.
I see where your reasoning went wrong.
His apology to New Yorkers:
From the article:
“So today, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton and Gov. Andrew Cuomo and Mayor Bill de Blasio of New York City all demanded I apologize,” he said theatrically, eliciting some grumbles. “Who am I to say no?”
He went on: “I apologize to the millions of New Yorkers who’ve been abandoned for years by liberal politicians.”
And on: “I apologize to all the hardworking men and women in New York who’d like to have jobs, but Gov. Cuomo has banned fracking.”
And on: “I apologize to all the New Yorkers who are pro-life and pro-marriage and pro-Second Amendment.”
And on: “I apologize to all the small businesses that are fleeing New York City because of the crushing taxes and regulations.”
And so it went, with Mr. Cruz displaying an impressive handle on New York politics. (He also referenced Mr. de Blasio’s past clashes with his own Police Department and proponents of charter schools.)
Wrapping up, Mr. Cruz said he hoped “that was the apology they were looking for.”
He’s so smug, he is.
It’ll either work brilliantly, or be a total flop. We have to give him points for going all in on this one. In combat there’s a maxim that the only way to survive an ambush is to immediately counterattack into the face of the ambush. Admittedly Cruz ambushed himself with this one, but he’s got the right idea for a response.
Time (and the NY Daily News) will tell whether that was wise or foolhardy.
I think the decision would unanimous in favor of Cruz. This is not a party issue, and The Supremes are not always partisan anyway.
It’ll work to his benefit. The Republican party went from venerating the tough guy into venerating the caricature of a tough guy into venerating being a dick.
Agreed – they would basically say “It’s up to the voters.”
The JEW media is upset about Cruz’s attack on JEW values? Heavens to Betsy, who’d a thunk it?