Ted Cruz: Politician or Originalist?

Politician.

After watching George Stephanopoulos interview Ted Cruz it is apparent that Cruz is placing politics and his own vision for America over the United States Constitution. Cruz is a master of diversion. Notice how he does not directly answer a lot of Stephanopolous’s questions.

Is Barack Obama really a “lame-duck” president?  At what point does a POTUS become a “lame duck?”

Cruz says that he would filibuster any Obama appointee because “the people” should decide on who will replace Scalia.  When Stephanopolous pointed out that the people elected Obama, Cruz’s said “that was three years ago.”  What?  Doesn’t the Constitution say that the President serves a four-year term?

Someone help me out here.  I understand that the Senate has every right to reject an Obama nominee.  But is the fact that the POTUS is a “lame duck” and thus should not be making  an appointment so late in his term a legitimate reason for rejecting any nominee he sends to the Senate?

Kevin Kruse of Princeton University makes an important point in this satirical tweet:

Again, Cruz is placing politics and his moral vision for America over the Constitution, the document he claims to vigorously defend.  This leads me to believe that Cruz may be motivated by something other than strict constitutionalism.

4 thoughts on “Ted Cruz: Politician or Originalist?

  1. Someone help me out here. I understand that the Senate has every right to reject an Obama nominee. But is the fact that the POTUS is a “lame duck” and thus should not be making an appointment so late in his term a legitimate reason for rejecting any nominee he sends to the Senate?

    President Obama actually lost the last election–in 2014. The people gave the GOP the Senate for only one reason, really, to stop Obama.

    http://www.politico.com/story/2009/01/obama-to-gop-i-won-017862

    And so they shall. Payback’s a

    Like

  2. Cruz gets the Constitution wrong far more than he gets it right. He is a politician who uses the Constitution to get votes. He is not a constitutionalist at all. He wants people to think he is a constitutionalist, but to do that he would have to actually understand the contents of the document. Instead of being bound by that document, he thinks he can make it mean what he wants it to mean and that interpretation is definitely not that of a constitutional scholar.

    While others can say the same thing about Obama, the difference is that he is a constitutional scholar and his interpretation of the Constitution is that of constitutional scholars and experts for the most part.

    Like

  3. Not surprised, George. But thought it was interesting because Cruz so prides himself on being a constitutionalist. Several people have criticized my piece on his domonionism by saying that he is not a dominionist, but a constitutionalist.

    Like

Comments are closed.