Sunday, on Meet the Press, Senator Cruz had this to say:
By the way, the Senate's duty is to advise and consent. You know what? The Senate is advising right now. We're advising that a lame-duck president in an election year is not going to be able to tip the balance of the Supreme Court.
That we're going to have an election, and if liberals are so confident that the American people want unlimited abortion on demand, want religious liberty torn down, want the Second Amendment taken away, want veterans' memorials torn down, want the crosses and stars of David sandblasted off of the tombstones of our fallen veterans, then go and make the case to the people. [emphasis added]
I don't think the American people want that. I'm very happy to take that case directly to Hillary Clinton, directly to Bernie Sanders. And I would note, look, how do we know Donald Trump's record on this is going to be bad? He has supported liberals for four decades: Jimmy Carter, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer, Harry Reid.
Anyone who cares about judges would not be supporting Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer and John Kerry and Hillary Clinton. And the consequence is, if either Hillary or Bernie or Donald Trump is the president, we will see the Second Amendment written out of the constitution. This is a basic question, who will defend our liberties?That business about sandblasting crosses and stars of David off the tombstones of veterans may sound like just some crazy piece of paranoid fantasy rhetoric but it is worse than that. R. Ted Cruz was one of the petitioners in Salazar v. Buono, a case argued before the Supreme Court in October 2009. Elena Kagan, Solicitor General, was counsel on behalf of the petitioners.
Got that? The Obama administration was on R. Ted Cruz's side, seeking to NOT tear down a veteran's memorial in accordance with a lower court injunction that the Bush administration had not appealed.
 |
| The life cycle of the T. cruzi parasite |
4 comments:
Cruz seems a bit fuzzy in regards to his interpretation of the advise and consent role of the Senate concerning appointments by the President. The President's role is to nominate a potential appointee. The Senate's role is to then review the nomination and consent to the appointment or then deal with an alternative Presidential nomination. In Federalist #76 Hamilton makes the "original" intent of the Article dealing with appointments clear. The Article itself is not ambiguous regarding the two roles to be played by the President, to nominate for appointment, and the Senate, to advise and consent to the appointment.
"THE President is "to nominate, and, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States whose appointments are not otherwise provided for in the Constitution. But the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers as they think proper, in the President alone, or in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments. The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies which may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session."
Of course nobody has ever asked to have "crosses and stars of David sandblasted off of the tombstones of our fallen veterans," since individual tombstones are a matter for the families of the dead to decide on. But a large cross on public land as a memorial to a group of veterans of mixed (and, in some cases, no) religion is a violation of the separation of church and state. Kagan's position was absolutely wrong, though sadly just one example of Obama's all-too-frequent abandonment of the wall of separation, e.g. his continued use of federal support of faith-based organizations that are allowed to discriminate in hiring.
https://www.au.org/church-state/october-2015-church-state/au-bulletin/obama-administration-issues-faith-based
"...a violation of the separation of church and state."
So the lower court ruled -- a ruling that was NOT appealed to the Supreme Court.
But Salazar v. Buono was mired in technicalities. It was about a way around the establishment clause by conveying the land with the cross to the VFW.
Cruz's slander is an example of how much "gratitude" one can expect by trying to accommodate the politico-religious right. They don't want to be tolerated. They want to tyrannize.
Keep your god in your heart rather than wear god on your shirt sleeve.
Post a Comment