It's Down To A Governor & A Canadian vs Trump: The Math & The Constitution..

[Silhouette]

Here's another state origin suing Cruz. Illinois.

02/21/2016
Ted Cruz’ eligibility to run for president has been put to a test of legality. On Friday, the Circuit Court of Cook County in Chicago heard questions in a lawsuit challenging the Texas senator’s legal qualifications to determine if his bid for the nomination can continue....Illinois attorney Lawrence Joyce sued after his previous attempt to dispute Cruz’ placement on the ballot with the state’s Board of Elections was dismissed on February 1....
According to the Washington Times, Joyce’s concerns with Cruz hinge on the potential that he could garner the nomination, only to be challenged in court by the Democratic Party — when it would be too late....“At that point, all of his fundraising would dry up. And his support in the polls would drop dramatically,” Joyce said. “He may be forced at that point to resign the nomination.” Lawsuit Challenging Ted Cruz's Eligibility For President Officially Filed | Zero Hedge

 

[Skylar]

"you're just spamming now" says Skylar, taking 3 posts ^^ to reply to the same poster all in a row, spewing the same things in each post.

Have you somehow managed to find a case that the Supreme Court has agreed to review regarding Cruz's eligibility?

No? Then why wouldn't I mention that?

Trying the old "time tense" strawman eh? One of your favorites.

I don't think strawman means what you think it means. I'm pointing out the fact that 1) There is no such case before the Supreme Court. 2) You've never once been right with a legal prediction. Every case, every legal outcome, every finding, everything you've ever predicted about the law....

.......has been comically, laughably, embarrassingly wrong. Without exception. Every. Single. Time. Your record of failure is literally perfect.

But this time your baseless prediction of legal outcome based entirely on your imagination regarding a case that doesn't exist....is gonna be different?

Yeah, you really don't know what 'strawman' means.

Well for the contemporary...but there may be others...

12 February 2016 Five people in northern Alabama have filed a federal lawsuit claiming Texas congressman Ted Cruz is ineligible to run for president.

Cruz was born in Canada to an American mother and a Cuban father....The U.S. Constitution limits the presidency to 'natural born' U.S. citizens. There are differences of opinion on whether or not the federal courts have established what those two words mean. Federal 'birther' lawsuit challenges Cruz's presidential eligibility

And show us the evidence that this case won't be dismissed like the ones in NY, Illinois, and Florida? Or that the Supreme Court has the slightest interest in hearing the case.

Remembering of course that your pseudo-legal predictions with a record of perfect failure.....aren't actually evidence.

 

[Silhouette]

And show us the evidence that this case won't be dismissed like the ones in NY, Illinois, and Florida? Or that the Supreme Court has the slightest interest in hearing the case.

Remembering of course that your pseudo-legal predictions with a record of perfect failure.....aren't actually evidence.

OK, I'll show you the evidence of a future event that hasn't happened yet if you show me the evidence of where in the constitution marriage is cited as a guarantee to all citizens in any combination. Fair enough?

I'm sure the USSC having one seat open now would not have its liberal majority seize an opportunity to stack another far left Justice it its ranks. You're right. A GOP hard-right person running for president with a bone fide foreign birth certificate during a pivotal election year won't catch the radar of the USSC's liberal wing.

Got any other used cars you'd like to sell us Sky Sky?

 

[Skylar]

And show us the evidence that this case won't be dismissed like the ones in NY, Illinois, and Florida? Or that the Supreme Court has the slightest interest in hearing the case.

Remembering of course that your pseudo-legal predictions with a record of perfect failure.....aren't actually evidence.

OK, I'll show you the evidence of a future event that hasn't happened yet if you show me the evidence of where in the constitution marriage is cited as a guarantee to all citizens in any combination. Fair enough?

When EVERY such case that has ever been raised has been dismissed.......your insistence that '5th times the charm' on the *exact* same argument that has been rejected 4 times before is ludicrous. When the USSC has never expressed the slightest interest in any of these cases, why would you assume that they're going to pluck this case out of obscurity and rule on it?

Once again, you are predicting what you WANT to be true rather than what the evidence suggests will actually happen. This is why you 're always, always wrong on legal outcomes. Why every time you predict the law, you're wrong.

Without exception. But this time, this time its different, huh?

Why?

 

[Silhouette]

^^ Skylar is advising the GOP to err on the side of foolishness ^^ Skylar is a far left loon. Do the math...

 

[Skylar]

^^ Skylar is advising the GOP to err on the side of foolishness ^^ Skylar is a far left loon. Do the math...

You're not the GOP.

And I'm advising you to make your assessment based on what the evidence suggests rather than what you WANT to happen. Making predictions based on your desires is why your predictions are *always* wrong.

You've literally never made a legal prediction that has ever panned out. With every of the 4 other birther suits against Cruz dismissed, its ludicrously unlikely that this 1 will make it to the Supreme Court.

Do the math. Your 'belief' has a perfect record of failure on the law. The evidence has a far better track record.

 

[Silhouette]

You're not the GOP....And I'm advising you to make your assessment based on what the evidence suggests rather than what you WANT to happen. Making predictions based on your desires is why your predictions are *always* wrong....You've literally never made a legal prediction that has ever panned out. With every of the 4 other birther suits against Cruz dismissed, its ludicrously unlikely that this 1 will make it to the Supreme Court.

Do the math. Your 'belief' has a perfect record of failure on the law. The evidence has a far better track record.

Sure, you follow me around the threads like a stalker because you're not speaking to a larger audience...mm hmm? Got a Chevy nova to sell me now from your used car lot? BS artist.

For someone so "no concerned" about the veracity of what I'm saying, you sure are avid about making sure there isn't the slightest chance anyone might listen to me. That's the whole of your commentary about by points: "Don't listen to the words of someone who is a habitual liar". Why do you need to keep insisting that if my "lies" are so "blatant and obvious"?... Shouldn't they be on their face?

 

[Syriusly]

You're not the GOP....And I'm advising you to make your assessment based on what the evidence suggests rather than what you WANT to happen. Making predictions based on your desires is why your predictions are *always* wrong....You've literally never made a legal prediction that has ever panned out. With every of the 4 other birther suits against Cruz dismissed, its ludicrously unlikely that this 1 will make it to the Supreme Court.

Do the math. Your 'belief' has a perfect record of failure on the law. The evidence has a far better track record.

Sure, you follow me around the threads like a stalker because you're not speaking to a larger audience...mm hmm? Got a Chevy nova to sell me now from your used car lot? BS artist.

For someone so "no concerned" about the veracity of what I'm saying, you sure are avid about making sure there isn't the slightest chance anyone might listen to me. That's the whole of your commentary about by points: "Don't listen to the words of someone who is a habitual liar". Why do you need to keep insisting that if my "lies" are so "blatant and obvious"?... Shouldn't they be on their face?

Meanwhile- Cruz is still eligible and on the ballots.
Trump is still running ahead of everyone else

And this GOP primary is more entertaining than the Superbowl.

Great article in Time about how the Republican Party has changed since Reagan's presidency.

 

[Silhouette]

Meanwhile- Cruz is still eligible and on the ballots.

Of course he is Syriusly.... The USSC decision can't be as effective if it were to come down now in time for the GOP to properly drop their hot rock and pick up the sure-to-beat-Hillary bet John Kasich..

Look for a "sudden USSC urgency" to happen about *checks watch* September or October this year.

 

[Syriusly]

Meanwhile- Cruz is still eligible and on the ballots.

Of course he is Syriusly.... The USSC decision can't be as effective if it were to come down now in time for the GOP to properly drop their hot rock and pick up the sure-to-beat-Hillary bet John Kasich..

Look for a "sudden USSC urgency" to happen about *checks watch* September or October this year.

LOL.......

 

[Silhouette]

Meanwhile- Cruz is still eligible and on the ballots.

Of course he is Syriusly.... The USSC decision can't be as effective if it were to come down now in time for the GOP to properly drop their hot rock and pick up the sure-to-beat-Hillary bet John Kasich..

Look for a "sudden USSC urgency" to happen about *checks watch* September or October this year.

LOL.......

You're right, how "funny" of a supposition to think the liberal USSC majority looking to fill that one empty seat with a left President's pick next year would jump at the chance to seal that deal... "Preposterous"..

I'm sure it will never happen in this or any other parallel universe..

 

[Syriusly]

Meanwhile- Cruz is still eligible and on the ballots.

Of course he is Syriusly.... The USSC decision can't be as effective if it were to come down now in time for the GOP to properly drop their hot rock and pick up the sure-to-beat-Hillary bet John Kasich..

Look for a "sudden USSC urgency" to happen about *checks watch* September or October this year.

LOL.......

You're right, how "funny" of a supposition to think the liberal USSC majority..

I think your delusions are bizarre and laughably wrong.

Certainly there will be law suits against Cruz- there is absolutely no indication that any court will act on them.

 

[Skylar]

For someone so "no concerned" about the veracity of what I'm saying, you sure are avid about making sure there isn't the slightest chance anyone might listen to me. That's the whole of your commentary about by points: "Don't listen to the words of someone who is a habitual liar". Why do you need to keep insisting that if my "lies" are so "blatant and obvious"?... Shouldn't they be on their face?

Don't flatter yourself, Sil. I've been popping Birther zits for about as long as you've been obsessed with gay people. And your math doesn't add up. There are 0 cases before the US Supreme Court regarding the issue you insist they will rule upon. Your record of accurate legal predictions is exactly 0. You've literally never been right. And of the 5 birther suits brought against Cruz.....all have been dismissed save this very last one.

You simply don't know what you're talking about, Sil. You have little capacity to forecast future legal events because you always, *always* replace the law, the courts, and their rulings with whatever pseudo-legal gibberish you want to be true.

And the courts don't give a shit what lies you tell yourself.

 

[Skylar]

Meanwhile- Cruz is still eligible and on the ballots.

Of course he is Syriusly.... The USSC decision can't be as effective if it were to come down now in time for the GOP to properly drop their hot rock and pick up the sure-to-beat-Hillary bet John Kasich..

Look for a "sudden USSC urgency" to happen about *checks watch* September or October this year.

LOL.......

You're right, how "funny" of a supposition to think the liberal USSC majority looking to fill that one empty seat with a left President's pick next year would jump at the chance to seal that deal... "Preposterous"..

'Liberal majority' according to who? You citing yourself. And you're clueless. Kennedy sides with conservatives on a rate of about 3 to 1 what he does liberals. And no one on the court has ever expressed any interest to hear a birther case.

You've imagined it all. And the silly, stupid little lies you tell yourself have no relevance to the courts, the laws, or anyone's eligiblity to be president.

You simply don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Silhouette]

There are 0 cases before the US Supreme Court regarding the issue you insist they will rule upon.

Do you suppose that the moment they are filed in different states seeking to remove Cruz from THEIR ballots that they would immediately be heard by SCOTUS? You know the appeals system takes time, Idiot.

 

[Skylar]

There are 0 cases before the US Supreme Court regarding the issue you insist they will rule upon.

Do you suppose that the moment they are filed in different states seeking to remove Cruz from THEIR ballots that they would immediately be heard by SCOTUS? You know the appeals system takes time, Idiot.

Not one has made it an appeals court, with each either stalling or being dismissed in the court they were filed. 4 out of 5 cases have already been dismissed, imbecile. The one that remains has made no progress, using the exact same argument that the 4 that failed already have. With the Supreme Court expressing zero interest in any such cases.

You're once again arguing your feverish hopes while ignoring the evidence. And that's a perfect recipe for failure. As you've demonstrated......with never once having made a legal prediction that pans out.

Not once.

 

[Silhouette]

^^ Yet ^^ This has less to do with my "feverish hopes" and more to do with prudent caution on behalf of the GOP...

 

[Syriusly]

^^ Yet ^^ This has less to do with my "feverish hopes" and more to do with prudent caution on behalf of the GOP...

Nothing you say has anything to do with what the GOP actually does.

Here is my prediction- if Cruz looks like a serious threat to Trump he will file a serious law suit challenging his eligibility.

And a lawsuit by Trump might have standing to proceed. I don't think it will succeed- but it will make it to an actual review by a court.

If Cruz gets knocked out of the race- then the question will be moot(unless he is a VP candidate)

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Trump can't get the votes to beat Hillary in the Fall. Cruz isn't eligible to run for president. (and like Trump couldn't get the votes to beat Hillary either even if he was eligible to run).. Need I remind you that either Trump or Hillary/ their surrogates or both will challenged a Cruz run on constitutionality. And, remember, in 2008 the conservatives on the court (now in the minority) raked their fingernails down the spines of the liberal Justices back then by using a technicality to hand the election to Bush. Don't think the new liberal majority on the Court won't repay the favor when Cruz's Canadian birth certificate squares off in the legal arena against the "natural born" requirement from the Constitution...

Kasich: born in the US. Kasich, beats Hillary in the general, according to all the polls. And at the end of the day, the general election is what the GOP strategists are mandated to consider if they want the last ditch chance to save their party, and by extension, the nation from falling to a leftist coup from which we'll never recover.

Still beating that same old, busted up drum?

You were wrong, are wrong, and continue to be wrong as you have NEVER provided one shred of evidence that Cruz is not eligible. It is very tiring to read the same spittle-laced diatribes from you every time you post. Is it possible for you to grow up?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Kasich is exactly the type of common sense inclusive conservatives California dines on.

I think Arnold will endorse John K; if he does, Cali gets very interesting

He already did on March 6th.