Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Ted Cruz's first thought on hearing hearing of Scalia's Death - GRIDLOCK!

  1. #1
    Member nogods's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    9,330

    Ted Cruz's first thought on hearing hearing of Scalia's Death - GRIDLOCK!

    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.

    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.
    What a putz. Hopefully Trump and the other candidates will drive him off the stage tonight.

    https://twitter.com/tedcruz

  2. #2
    Member BorderBob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    2,924
    Quote Originally Posted by nogods View Post
    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.

    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.

    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.

  3. #3
    Member nogods's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    9,330
    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.

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    1,557
    President Obama can show his racist sexist leanings by appointing another white female to the high court.

  5. #5
    Member dtwarren's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    West Seneca, New York, United States
    Posts
    4,636
    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

  6. #6
    Member BorderBob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    2,924
    Quote Originally Posted by dtwarren View Post
    There is no requirement in law or in custom to hold off on filling a vacancy on SCOTUS during a presidential election year.
    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.

  7. #7
    Member dtwarren's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    West Seneca, New York, United States
    Posts
    4,636
    It is more myth than a rule. The facts do not bear it out: http://www.afj.org/blog/judicial-con...-thurmond-rule
    “We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate.” ― Thomas Jefferson

  8. #8
    Member dtwarren's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    West Seneca, New York, United States
    Posts
    4,636
    Also the Republicans control the Senate by a mere 10 votes. If the 2 Independent Senators side with the Democrats then only 8 Republicans are needed to be absent and/or vote with the Democrats for an Obama appointment to be confirmed. That will be another interesting event to watch.

    I consider myself a moderate Republican but I cannot see myself supporting Trump or Cruz. I think their extremism is going to alienate many moderates in the party. Here is what Scotusblog is reporting as the effect on the current term: http://www.scotusblog.com/.../what-h...this-terms.../

    So the real question is going to come down whether the nominee put forward by Obama can be accepted by some more moderate Republicans that do not believe the current frontrunners will be able to win the presidency and therefore vote for the devil they know rather than one put forward by Clinton or Sanders.
    “We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate.” ― Thomas Jefferson

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •