![]() ![]() Let’s just focus on the strategic sense of the very public threat he has made.īy declaring upfront that he will reject any nominee, Mr. Cruz’s threat is that he will refuse to consider any nominee. This is because, for 40 years of judicial nomination fights, Republicans bring their very best rules and strategies of checkers to play high-stakes games of chess against Democrats.ĭemocrats are so successful in this area, they actually have Republicans on the defensive over nominees who simply believe that the Constitution means just what it says and that it is only a “living document” through the constitutional amendment process.īut let’s forget for the moment how constitutionally spurious Mr. And it is an area where Republicans have an even greater record of losing. With Justice Scalia’s replacement, the stakes are even higher. Cruz’s gallant vows to “defund Obamacare” with a filibuster on the Senate floor? Cruz and his hapless Republicans always lose. Schumer and his dastardly Democrats always win, and Mr. Schumer, New York Democrat, would say talking about the “ideological balance” of the Supreme Court. ![]() Not sure where he found that little nugget, but it isn’t in the Constitution. Isn’t he essentially saying that he is refusing to perform his constitutional responsibility to “advise and consent”?Īnd then he goes on to say that by refusing to do his job, he and the Senate are advising the president that a “lame-duck” executive is not allowed to “tip the balance of the Supreme Court” in an election year. Cruz make such a stupid, lazy, self-serving - and, I would argue, unconstitutional - threat such as declaring he will “absolutely” filibuster any nominee the president puts forward? He is saying that, as a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, he will refuse to even consider any nominee President Obama makes. It will exude from every decision of every case.īut how does someone like Mr. But a court without Justice Scalia today will have nothing but hostility for the Constitution. There are examples of disdain for the Constitution throughout history, and especially in the past half-century. I don’t think that’s going to work in a republic, in a civil society.Now, I am one of those people who believes the death of Justice Scalia very well may be the tipping point in America where the high court finally, fully and irreversibly embraces anti-constitutional lawlessness. “We have decided,” he said according to The Associated Press, “that rather than confront disagreements, we’ll just simply annihilate the person who disagrees with me. Speaking to The Heritage Foundation to mark 25 years on the Supreme Court, Thomas did not cite the Garland blockade but noted a decline in civil behavior. Later Wednesday, Justice Clarence Thomas lamented that the broken confirmation process was a sign of larger problems. In his last availablity on Capitol Hill before the election, McConnell refused to entertain the possibility that the Senate may be forced to entertain a more liberal judge next year, though there may be enough centrist Republicans and those deferential to presidential prerogative to confirm a justice like Garland. Republicans have blocked from even holding hearings on the Garland nomination for more than seven months, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has said the Senate will not confirm Garland in the post-election lame duck. The Founding Fathers would roll over in their graves.” It would turn our Justice system and our democracy on its head. “The Supreme Court could dwindle to 7, then maybe 6, Justices. ![]() “We need to treat it like the constitutional crisis it will be if Democrats don’t take back the Senate majority,” Reid said on Wednesday night in an email to members of the liberal Progressive Change Campaign Committee. Under Reid, Democrats changed the Senate rules to allow all nominees but Supreme Court appointments to be approved by a majority vote. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid has already suggested lowering the bar for Supreme Court nominee from 60 votes to a simple majority. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said earlier this month the GOP would be “united” in blocking a Clinton appointment, remarks he later softened.Īn indefinite GOP blockade of a Supreme Court nominee would almost certainly lead to an erosion in the Senate’s supermajority requirement. That’s a debate that we are going to have,” Cruz said, in remarks first reported by The Washington Post.Ĭruz was unlikely to vote for any Democratic nominee given his conservative ideology, but his remarks could indicate a broader shift within the GOP to halt Democrats from shifting the court’s balance to the left. I would note, just recently, that Justice Breyer observed that the vacancy is not impacting the ability of the court to do its job. There is certainly long historical precedent for a Supreme Court with fewer justices. “There will be plenty of time for debate on that issue. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |