I think what went wrong for Cruz was the media.  They wanted a Trump / Hillary matchup because it was the one which is most suited to having Hillary as president.  So the media has been very nice and very accommodating to Donald up to now.  They're not going to pivot immediately, but consider that yesterday he was the darling bad boy trying to get the nomination and now he has pretty much secured it and become their enemy.  The nice phase is over.

I'm thinking of voting for the Devil.

Why choose the lesser evil?

Your ignorance is only exceeded by your arrogance.

I go back to Compuserve, before the Usenet was in vogue with the masses.  That experience doesn't qualify anyone to psychoanalyze another.

Of course, your diagnosis of me as a flaming liberal shows that either your reading comprehension is woefully lacking or your memory is insufficient to store and process the hundreds of posts I have made.

sticks and stones dearie. 

Compuserve...lol!

The leftists fundamentally misunderstand the purpose of the Bill of Rights.

No.  They don't.  They know the bill of rights in particular and the Constitution generally, are restrictions on the power of government.  THAT is why they try persistently, consistently, without fail, to undermine them.

Actually, they do misunderstand.  I think we have proof of that in the other thread.


http://www.pilotspin.com/index.php?action=post;quote=13292;topic=768.15

You do realize that absent the 14th Amendment, the 1st Amendment does not apply to any actions of a state government, right?

No one right enumerated in the Constitution is absolute.

Here are two people on the left who believe 1) That the Bill of Rights does not apply to a State Govt and 2) the Bill of Rights can be abridged at any time and to any extend.  Those two things kind of prove that they don't understand that the Constitution implements restrictions on government.  Restrictions that come and go or don't apply aren't restrictions.

While you may believe the term has been bastardized, it was a carefully-considered concept of the founding fathers, and one that substantially pre-dates our nation's birth. Nearly unanimously, the founders recognized limitations upon our rights when exercise thereof was detrimental to the common good. They were careful, however, to assert that the common good arose out of natural law and the ability to abridge rights was to be carefully considered and was a power bestowed by the people upon their government.

Limitations of our rights come from the nature of rights, not by compromising the meaning the English language.  If you're seeing something where you think one right conflicts with another then perhaps you're not looking at real rights.

I'd need to see some documentation of "carefully considered concepts of the founding fathers" before I could agree that they wrote words that they did not mean.  The gentlemen were educated men.  For example, when they wrote "The right of the people to be secure...shall not be violated...", they did not mean that it would be OK to violate them some of the time. 

No one right enumerated in the Constitution is absolute.

Well, there's the problem then.

Why do we have a Constitution?  If nothing that is stated in the Constitution is absolute then everything can be changed in it, why bother to even have one?  You say nothing is absolute then what can not be taken away?  Constitutional rights are absolute or they are meaningless.  Meaningless laws are no basis for a Republic (a system of government based on law).  If your rights are not absolute then how do you know when or even if they exist?

FWIW, Yes, I have had courses in the Constitution and in law.  No, I am not one of the roughly 300 living lawyers who have argued before the Supreme Court and neither are you.  It's amateurish to attack someone's credibility this way, I thought you above that.  Post a picture of your Quill?

Google "hierarchy of laws" and learn a little.  Or here's a couple of direct links
NY University School of Law: A Guide to the U. S. Federal Legal System http://www.nyulawglobal.org/globalex/United_States.html
Georgetown University Law Center: Which Court is Binding http://www.law.georgetown.edu/academics/academic-programs/legal-writing-scholarship/writing-center/upload/which_court_is_binding_painter-and-mayer-final.pdf

Pay special attention to that second document, especially the table on page 5.  Note that when there is a conflict between a federal issue and a state issue, the decision is usually (always?) made in a federal court.  Looping back to the Kleins, a state issue was used to punish them in a state court but completely disregarded their federal rights.

Because if you accord that right to Christians, you have to accord Muslims the right not to hire women or infidels, etc.  It goes on and on and on.

Yes, I think  you are catching on.

You say that like it's a bad thing?   

Well it's bad if you want reliability.  Instability in government is generally bad for business.  When owners and managers don't know what's coming they hold money rather than spend it.  They don't hire, they don't train, they can't prepare because they have no idea what direction to prepare for.