Oh No, The New Awesome Primary Thread

The last Republican to win the presidency without a Nixon or a Bush on the ticket was Herbert Hoover, 1929-1933.Edited by subbie, : Subtitle

One potential problem with this is that a compelling argument can be made that unless and until he's actually elected, there's nothing for the Supreme Court to decide. The Supremes are constitutionally limited in that they can only decide "Cases and Controversies." They have interpreted this to mean that they cannot answer hypothetical questions, there must be an actual dispute for them to resolve before they can hear a case. If Cruz is never elected, there's nothing for them to decide.

A big business egotist who knows absolutely nothing about government and who's platform is apparently going to be based on blatant lies designed to pander to right wing idiots? She'll fit right in with the rest of the Tea Baggers.

I'm no longer willing to say SCOTUS "has always" or "will never" anything after seeing some of the crap Scalia and Thomas have pulled.

Possibly.I did say that an argument could be made, not that the courts would necessarily buy it. It's quite possible your position could prevail. Ultimately, there's no way to know for sure unless and until the Supremes take the case and decide it.

Makes sense to me.Of course, there's a fair amount of Constitutional jurisprudence that doesn't make any sense, so whether it makes sense or not isn't necessarily a great predictor of what the Court will do.

Dred Scott was not a law, but a Supreme Court decision. And there are very, VERY good reasons why we don't want those to have a sunset provision. Can you imagine how insane presidential elections would be if the continued validity of Brown v. Board of Education, Marbury v. Madison, Gideon v. Wainwright, Miranda v. Arizona, Mapp v. Ohio were in issue?I can understand the impetus behind sunset provisions generally, but the idea of applying them to matters of fundamental rights scares the hell out of me.