Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Soul Crusher on May 10, 2013, 10:01:00 AM
-
Dershowitz: Ted Cruz one of Harvard Law’s smartest students
8:34 PM 05/09/2013
Famed Harvard Law School professor Alan Dershowitz ranks Sen. Ted Cruz among the school’s smartest students, adding that the Canada-born Texan can run for president in 2016.
Cruz was a “terrific student,” Dershowitz told The Daily Caller. “He was always very active in class, presenting a libertarian point of view. He didn’t strike me as a social conservative, more of a libertarian.”
“He had brilliant insights and he was clearly among the top students, as revealed by his class responses,” Dershowitz added.
Ads by Google
Dershowitz also gave a high estimate of Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren — who has decidedly different political views than Cruz.
Dershowitz says he and Cruz would often debate issues presented in Dershowitz’s criminal law class. “Cruz’s views were always thoughtful and his responses were interesting,” the law professor explained. “I obviously disagreed with them and we had good arguments in class. I would challenge him and he would come up with very good responses.”
Cruz’s “career has not surprised me. I thought he would go on to accomplish important things.”
“His movement toward social conservatism has surprised me a little bit,” Dershowitz added, but “people will change and perhaps when you are at Harvard Law School you are less likely to espouse a socially conservative point of view.”
Cruz “was an outstanding student in my class,” Dershowitz said. “Without a doubt he is among the smartest students I’ve ever had… I’ve had great students but he has to be at the top of anyone’s short list, in terms of raw brain power.”
Ads by Google
Dershowitz places Cruz alongside Warren among the Senate’s smartest members.
“Their election raised the IQ level of the Senate discernibly. The two of them have to be among the smartest senators now,” Dershowitz said.
Dershowitz and Cruz stayed in touch when Cruz was a law clerk for Justice William Rehnquist and then Texas solicitor general. Dershowitz called Cruz and wished him well when he ran for U.S. Senate.
Does Dershowitz think Cruz should run for president?
“The question is whether he can,” Dershowitz said. “I think he can. I think he’s a natural-born citizen and therefore he’s eligible to run. There will be challenges, perhaps, to his eligibility.”
But Dershowitz doesn’t think that his old student would win the 2016 GOP nomination.
“I don’t think he’ll get the nomination when you think about Rubio and posturing himself a little more to the center on immigration,” Dershowitz said. “Cruz won’t run in 2016 and that he’ll wait. Just a prediction. He would probably establish himself first before he ran.”
“Everyone is following the Obama model” of serving a few years in the U.S. Senate and then running for president, Dershowitz said.
(Full disclosure: Charles Johnson served as a research assistant to Alan Dershowitz on several books and cases and Senator Ted Cruz has written on his book, Why Coolidge Matters: Leadership Lessons From America’s Most Underrated President.)
Tags: Alan Dershowitz, Elizabeth Warren, Harvard Law School, Ted Cruz
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/09/dershowitz-tex-cruz-one-of-harvard-laws-smartest-students/#ixzz2SuU2WWYV
-
funny - what happened to calling people with degrees from Harvard elitists?
I guess that only applies when it's a black man running for POTUS and the right is trying to scare the dumbfounded dipshits in their base
If it's Ted Cruz we are talking about then suddenly we're supposed to think going to Harvard Law school is a good thing
-
funny - what happened to calling people with degrees from Harvard elitists?
I guess that only applies when it's a black man running for POTUS and the right is trying to scare the dumbfounded dipshits in their base
If it's Ted Cruz we are talking about then suddenly we're supposed to think going to Harvard Law school is a good thing
No - its because idiots like yourself calling cruz a nutter and crazy, etc.
-
No - its because idiots like yourself calling cruz a nutter and crazy, etc.
no one is calling him a "nutter" because he went to Harvard
people (including his own party) are calling him an wingnut because of his words and deeds on the Senate floor
did you seem him at the NRA boasting about him filibustering legislation supported by 90% of American an then minutes later bitching about Democrats fillibustering legislation that he supported.
the following is from The Daily Show which I'm sure you did not watch and if you did then you didn't understand it
Here's Cruz bragging about something he did and then complaining about the VERY SAME THING 3 minutes later
SEN. TED CRUZ, R-TX (5/4/2013): Well I'll tell ya, I was proud to join with my friends, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) and Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) ... in writing a short and simple letter to Harry Reid that said we will filibuster any legislation that undermines the Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. (wild NRA audience cheering and applause)
Woo! They did it. And their filibuster was able to defeat the Senate gun control bill, including the Manchin-Toomey bipartisan background check amendment, supported by 90% of Americans, and 55 out of 100 Senators. Get it? 55 out of 100. That's democracy.
Here's tyranny, in the same speech, three minutes earlier, Cruz talking about a gun rights bill he supported.
SEN. TED CRUZ, R-TX (5/4/2013): That bill got 52 votes in the U.S. Senate, including nine Democrats. ... And what happened? Harry Reid and the rest of the Democrats filibustered the bill and killed it, demanding 60 votes. (NRA audience boos the filibuster)
-
Good for him!
Just cause 90% people want something does not make it ok.
no one is calling him a "nutter" because he went to Harvard
people (including his own party) are calling him an wingnut because of his words and deeds on the Senate floor
did you seem him at the NRA boasting about him filibustering legislation supported by 90% of American an then minutes later bitching about Democrats fillibustering legislation that he supported.
the following is from The Daily Show which I'm sure you did not watch and if you did then you didn't understand it
Here's Cruz bragging about something he did and then complaining about the VERY SAME THING 3 minutes later
Woo! They did it. And their filibuster was able to defeat the Senate gun control bill, including the Manchin-Toomey bipartisan background check amendment, supported by 90% of Americans, and 55 out of 100 Senators. Get it? 55 out of 100. That's democracy.
Here's tyranny, in the same speech, three minutes earlier, Cruz talking about a gun rights bill he supported.
-
Good for him!
Just cause 90% people want something does not make it ok.
so you're just as stupid ad Cruz
which is why you will be shocked when the rest of the country rejects him as any kind of a national leader
he is a batshit crazy teabagger from Texas and that's all he can ever be
-
no one is calling him a "nutter" because he went to Harvard
people (including his own party) are calling him an wingnut because of his words and deeds on the Senate floor
did you seem him at the NRA boasting about him filibustering legislation supported by 90% of American an then minutes later bitching about Democrats fillibustering legislation that he supported.
the following is from The Daily Show which I'm sure you did not watch and if you did then you didn't understand it
Here's Cruz bragging about something he did and then complaining about the VERY SAME THING 3 minutes later
Woo! They did it. And their filibuster was able to defeat the Senate gun control bill, including the Manchin-Toomey bipartisan background check amendment, supported by 90% of Americans, and 55 out of 100 Senators. Get it? 55 out of 100. That's democracy.
Here's tyranny, in the same speech, three minutes earlier, Cruz talking about a gun rights bill he supported.
LIAR.
There wasn't a single poll showing that 90% of Americans supported the Manchin-Toomey bill. Not a single one showing support for that specific piece of legislation, you fucking lying piece of shit.
-
LIAR.
There wasn't a single poll showing that 90% of Americans supported the Manchin-Toomey bill. Not a single one showing support for that specific piece of legislation, you fucking lying piece of shit.
here is a list of all the polls that supported background check
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/apr/18/gabrielle-giffords/gabby-giffords-says-americans-overwhelmingly-suppo/
now stop stalking me Fairy
isn't your 5 minute break from the take out window almost over
-
here is a list of all the polls that supported background check
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/apr/18/gabrielle-giffords/gabby-giffords-says-americans-overwhelmingly-suppo/
now stop stalking me Fairy
isn't your 5 minute break from the take out window almost over
Thanks for proving my point. Not a single one of those polls shows 90% support for the MANCHIN-TOOMEY bill, you lying piece of shit.
-
Thanks for proving my point. Not a single one of those polls shows 90% support for the MANCHIN-TOOMEY bill, you lying piece of shit.
apparently Fairy can't read
you say Manchin-Toomey as if that's any different than background checks
well, in a sense you're right since Manchin-Toomey is watered down bullshit and there is actually 90% support for even MORE COMPREHENSIVE checks than in Manchin-Toomey
so 90% support for even more comprehensive background checks would be inclusive in 90% support for Machin-Toomey
now stop stalking me Fairy
go find 333 and tell him how much you love him
Your unrequited love for him is really kind of sad
• Quinnipiac University poll, March 26-April 1, 2013. "Do you support or oppose requiring background checks for all gun buyers?" Support: 91 percent. Oppose: 8 percent.
• CBS News poll, March 20-24, 2013. "Would you favor or oppose background checks on all potential gun buyers?" Favor: 90 percent. Oppose: 8 percent.
-
And your incompetent messiah cant even muster support for something that popular right? FORWARD!
-
presenting a libertarian point of view. He didn’t strike me as a social conservative, more of a libertarian.”
???
-
apparently Fairy can't read
you say Manchin-Toomey as if that's any different than background checks
well, in a sense you're right since Manchin-Toomey is watered down bullshit and there is actually 90% support for even MORE COMPREHENSIVE checks than in Manchin-Toomey
so 90% support for even more comprehensive background checks would be inclusive in 90% support for Machin-Toomey
now stop stalking me Fairy
go find 333 and tell him how much you love him
Your unrequited love for him is really kind of sad
• Quinnipiac University poll, March 26-April 1, 2013. "Do you support or oppose requiring background checks for all gun buyers?" Support: 91 percent. Oppose: 8 percent.
• CBS News poll, March 20-24, 2013. "Would you favor or oppose background checks on all potential gun buyers?" Favor: 90 percent. Oppose: 8 percent.
Sorry, dickhead, but there is not a single poll that shows 90% support for the Manchin-Toomey bill. Your logical leap is a fallacy and an assumption by yourself. And given that you're a complete dumbass, I'm not putting any weight in it.
-
Sorry, dickhead, but there is not a single poll that shows 90% support for the Manchin-Toomey bill. Your logical leap is a fallacy and an assumption by yourself. And given that you're a complete dumbass, I'm not putting any weight in it.
why are you the only dumbass on this board to do this kind of nonsense
even your mancrush 333 doesn't stoop to making himself look this stupid
Manchin Toomey = background checks
background checks have 90% support in some polls
maybe what you're trying to say is that 90% of the public supported even more stringent background checks than Manchin-Toomey
Is that what you're trying to say?
That could be the ONLY possible point you are trying to make
-
The bill itself was problematic due to the possibility of a database.
And guess why people dont trust the govt whatsoever? Hint - read the threads about obama admn using irs to go after tea party people.
Your ghetto criminal crackhead messiah has no cred with anyone on anything whatsoever and people dont trust him to properly enforce or follow the law.
why are you the only dumbass on this board to do this kind of nonsense
even your mancrush 333 doesn't stoop to making himself look this stupid
Manchin Toomey = background checks
background checks have 90% support in some polls
maybe what you're trying to say is that 90% of the public supported even more stringent background checks than Manchin-Toomey
Is that what you're trying to say?
That could be the ONLY possible point you are trying to make
-
The bill itself was problematic due to the possibility of a database.
And guess why people dont trust the govt whatsoever? Hint - read the threads about obama admn using irs to go after tea party people.
Your ghetto criminal crackhead messiah has no cred with anyone on anything whatsoever and people dont trust him to properly enforce or follow the law.
why am I not surprised that you are still so uniformed and passing along lies that have been debunked multiple times, even by Manchin himself
I just saw Manchin on TV last night yet again refuting that lie and saying his bill actually includes even stronger penalties than currently exist for trying to create a national registry
seriously 333 - how is it that you spend virtually your entire life online talking about political issue yet you remain so uninformed about even the most basic shit
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/11/national-gun-registry_n_3060625.html
In actuality, a federal registry of gun ownership is already prohibited under law. But the lawmakers crafting a compromise -- Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) -- wanted to ensure a smoother passage for their bill, so they made the punishment more severe. In addition to a potential jail sentence of 15 years, officials who create a gun registry or misuse federal records on gun sales or ownership would face a monetary fine.
"Pat and I were very clear to make sure that we protected the rights of law abiding gun owners and clarified a lot of things that have been misinformed or basically not clarified enough," Manchin said during a Thursday appearance on MSNBC's "Morning Joe."
"Right now, the law is ... the federal government cannot do a registry. We doubled down on that and made stronger penalties -- a felony -- if any law enforcement or anybody tries to do a registry for the federal government," he said. "So we basically strengthened the ability for them not to be able to do it and for us to be able to protect our rights."
btw - I am all in favor of a national registry and I think it's fucking insane that we would not have a registry for deadly weapons when we have them for cars, and lots of other things which don't have the unique feature of having the sole purpose of injuring or killing someone
-
And the IRS is not supposed to go after people selectively for political reasons too. Hint hint - no one believes a damn thing from these politicians anymore
why am I not surprised that you are still so uniformed and passing along lies that have been debunked multiple times, even by Manchin himself
I just saw Manchin on TV last night yet again refuting that lie and saying his bill actually includes even stronger penalties than currently exist for trying to create a national registry
seriously 333 - how is it that you spend virtually your entire life online talking about political issue yet you remain so uninformed about even the most basic shit
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/11/national-gun-registry_n_3060625.html
btw - I am all in favor of a national registry and I think it's fucking insane that we would not have a registry for deadly weapons when we have them for cars, and lots of other things which don't have the unique feature of having the sole purpose of injuring or killing someone
-
And the IRS is not supposed to go after people selectively for political reasons too. Hint hint - no one believes a damn thing from these politicians anymore
so you're not denying the bill actually creates even more stringent penalties for trying to use it to create a national database ?
you're just deciding to ignore that FACT and go on pure paranoia instead
hint hint - you're insane and you wonder why people don't share in your insane delusions
-
Haha so straw you think a guns sole purpose is to kill someone
-
Haha so straw you think a guns sole purpose is to kill someone
dude - why do you take almost everything I say and change it
why are you so careless or is it intentional?
scroll up and look at what I actually wrote
-
dude - why do you take almost everything I say and change it
why are you so careless or is it intentional?
scroll up and look at what I actually wrote
ahhh I didnt change anything this is a quote from you.....
btw - I am all in favor of a national registry and I think it's fucking insane that we would not have a registry for deadly weapons when we have them for cars, and lots of other things which don't have the unique feature of having the sole purpose of injuring or killing someone
LMFAO so again you think a guns sole purpose is to injure or kill someone?
-
why are you the only dumbass on this board to do this kind of nonsense
even your mancrush 333 doesn't stoop to making himself look this stupid
Manchin Toomey = background checks
background checks have 90% support in some polls
maybe what you're trying to say is that 90% of the public supported even more stringent background checks than Manchin-Toomey
Is that what you're trying to say?
That could be the ONLY possible point you are trying to make
Bullshit.
More lies and distortions - your typical M.O.
That bill is way more than just background checks. Hell, one part of it basically codifies the AG's authority to run gun walker programs. ::)
How the fuck are people going to have any recourse when they fuck up another operation.
I said it before, if they just stuck to background checks ALONE, they probably could have passed the fucking thing.
-
Sorry, dickhead, but there is not a single poll that shows 90% support for the Manchin-Toomey bill. Your logical leap is a fallacy and an assumption by yourself. And given that you're a complete dumbass, I'm not putting any weight in it.
Exactly. He's trying to pull one aspect from the bill and act like the whole bill had support from the public, rather than an aspect of the bill had support.
Distortion at it's finest.
-
Been reading up on him. He appears to be a staunch conservative - but not the big spending Bush, Santorum type.
I think he would a tough time if he ran for POTUS, particularly moving independents to his side.
-
Dershowitz: Ted Cruz one of Harvard Law’s smartest students
Easy there, 333386.
Dershowitz is proud of his Obama vote. I'm sure there are more credible people to back Cruz.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-dershowitz/no-buyers-remorse-for-vot_b_1710487.html