Ted Cruz's first thought upon hearing of Scalia's death was to signal his desire to prevent President Obama from appointing a Supreme Court justice through gridlock.
What a putz. Hopefully Trump and the other candidates will drive him off the stage tonight.Justice Scalia was an American hero. We owe it to him, & the Nation, for the Senate to ensure that the next President names his replacement.
https://twitter.com/tedcruz
Because we all know that the Constitution that he loves so well has a codicil which requires all USSC vacancies which occur in the last year of a Presidency remain unfilled until the next election.Originally Posted by nogods
I think it is in Section 8.
What I find funny is a STAFFER from a Utah Senator already tweeted that any nominee would be blocked. Staffers vote for nominees?
b.b.
President Obama just announced that he has taken Ted's advice and will not appoint a replacement. He said he was thinking of appointing Ted Cruz, but will now wait to give the next president, Hillary, a chance to appoint Obama himself.
President Obama can show his racist sexist leanings by appointing another white female to the high court.
There is no requirement in law or in custom to hold off on filling a vacancy on SCOTUS during a presidential election year.
From: http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/su...lection-years/
In the wake of the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, questions have arisen about whether there is a standard practice of not nominating and confirming Supreme Court Justices during a presidential election year. The historical record does not reveal any instances since at least 1900 of the president failing to nominate and/or the Senate failing to confirm a nominee in a presidential election year because of the impending election. In that period, there were several nominations and confirmations of Justices during presidential election years.
“We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate.” ― Thomas Jefferson
Actually, there is something known as the "Thurmond Rule" regarding judicial appointments. Normally I don't use Wikipedia as a source, but it seems to speak to the history.
That said, I was stunned to hear all these prospects for President, all so called Patriots and protectors of the Constitution, all saying they would block or "not allow" (Carson) any nominee to replace Scalia. Last I checked, the Constitution does not say "advise and approve."
Then again we are talking politics and not statesmanship.
b.b.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote