Ted Cruz: ‘Make the 2016 election a referendum on the Supreme Court’

[NightHawkeye]

Appearing on NBC's "Meet the Press" this morning: Cruz: ‘Make the 2016 election a referendum on the Supreme Court’ | The Hill

When asked if the Senate has an obligation to at least consider a nomination that President Obama puts forward, Cruz responded, “Not remotely.”

“It has been 80 years since a Supreme Court vacancy was nominated and confirmed in an election year,” Cruz said. “There is a long tradition that you don't do this in an election year. And what this means, Chuck, is we ought to make the 2016 election a referendum on the Supreme Court.”​

 

[brinny]

Interesting. He might have a point.

 

[bhsmte]

Appearing on NBC's "Meet the Press" this morning: Cruz: ‘Make the 2016 election a referendum on the Supreme Court’ | The Hill

When asked if the Senate has an obligation to at least consider a nomination that President Obama puts forward, Cruz responded, “Not remotely.”

“It has been 80 years since a Supreme Court vacancy was nominated and confirmed in an election year,” Cruz said. “There is a long tradition that you don't do this in an election year. And what this means, Chuck, is we ought to make the 2016 election a referendum on the Supreme Court.”​

Tell me, does this mean we can never have the senate consider a nominee, with 11 months left in a presidents term? I don't know how many openings there have been during that 80 year span (in the last year of a president's term), but I don't see how this is some sort of rule, that must be followed.

Lastly, what do you think Cruz's and other republicans position would be on considering a replacement justice, if a republican was in office, with 11 months left on their term?

 

[NightHawkeye]

Tell me, does this mean we can never have the senate consider a nominee, with 11 months left in a presidents term? I don't know how many openings there have been during that 80 year span (in the last year of a president's term), but I don't see how this is some sort of rule, that must be followed.

Lastly, what do you think Cruz's and other republicans position would be on considering a replacement justice, if a republican was in office, with 11 months left on their term?

No doubt, those who have repeatedly supported the extra-constitutional liberties Obama has taken throughout his tenure in office will now be highly offended that anyone in Congress would dare to suggest taking similar liberties with the confirmation process to defer confirmation of a judicial appointee.

Meh ...
Can Republicans really block Obama’s Supreme Court nomination for a year? Probably. | The Washington Post

 

[bhsmte]

No doubt, those who have repeatedly supported the extra-constitutional liberties Obama has taken throughout his tenure in office will now be highly offended that anyone in Congress would dare to suggest taking similar liberties with the confirmation process to defer confirmation of a judicial appointee.

Meh ...
Can Republicans really block Obama’s Supreme Court nomination for a year? Probably. | The Washington Post

You didn't really answer my question.

If a republican was president right now, with 11 months left in their term, do you think republicans would have the position, to wait until after the election, to consider a replacement justice?

 

[NightHawkeye]

You didn't really answer my question.

If a republican was president right now, with 11 months left in their term, do you think republicans would have the position, to wait until after the election, to consider a replacement justice?

LOL, if Democrats had control and George W. Bush was in office what would they do?

 

[MerlinJ]

No, Ted, the lame duck period is the time after the election, between November and January.

And what's this tradition he's speaking of? Judges are replaced within a few months of when they retire or die. Anthony Kennedy was nominated and confirmed at the end of Reagan's presidency.

 

[bhsmte]

LOL, if Democrats had control and George W. Bush was in office what would they do?

Well, I am willing to say, I would imagine the democrats would say lets wait until after the election.

Now, back to my question; do you think the republicans would still be stating we should wait until after the election, if a republican was president right now?

 

[Aryeh Jay]

The ideological makeup of the court is now more liberal, Are the Republicans willing to risk 11 months of the Obama administration overturning laws?

 

[Goonie]

It is fascinating this insistance that a US president should not make policy decisions, judicial appointments etc. in his last year. On that basis you may as well reduce the presidential term to 3 years, and then to 2 years and then...

With thanks to an article in The Guardian, that for the life of me I cannot find, that pointed out this absurdity.

 

[bhsmte]

It is fascinating this insistance that a US president should not make policy decisions, judicial appointments etc. in his last year. On that basis you may as well reduce the presidential term to 3 years, and then to 2 years and then...

With thanks to an article in The Guardian, that for the life of me I cannot find, that pointed out this absurdity.

Yea, last I checked, president's had 4 year terms.

 

[jayem]

Judge Sri Srinivasan seems like a smart pick. He was confirmed by a 97-0 vote to the DC Circuit CoA in 2013. He's a Stanford Law alumnus, and clerked for Justice O'Connor. He worked in the solicitor general's office for Pres. G. W. Bush, and was a Deputy S.G. for Pres. Obama. He also got an interesting compliment during his confirmation hearing:

At Srinivasan's confirmation hearing, Texas Republican Senator Ted Cruz, now a presidential candidate, described himself as a long-standing friend dating back to their time together as law clerks in the U.S. appeals court based in Richmond, Virginia.

Cruz said Srinivasan had done a "very fine job" in answering the committee's questions.

He hasn't had a radical record since he's been on the DC Circuit. It'd be hard for Repubs to claim he's ideologically unfit for the job, when not a single one voted against him in 2013. If he were nominated, it would be crystal clear that election-year politics is the only reason they'd refuse to consider his nomination. That might play with hard-line right wing partisans, but would absolutely turn off most American voters.

http://www.ibtimes.com/who-sri-srin...e-race-replace-justice-antonin-scalia-2306734

 

[mark46]

Let's be clear.

If the Republicans don't allow an appointment in 2016, there won't be one in 2017 either.

 

[bhsmte]

Let's be clear.

If the Republicans don't allow an appointment in 2016, there won't be one in 2017 either.

Wouldn't that depend on who is elected president?

 

[mark46]

Wouldn't that depend on who is elected president?

Not really.

First, there is likely to be a Democratic Senate.

Second, a Supreme Court nominee can be filibustered and ends up needing 60% of the Senate in order for there to be a vote. The Democrats have over 40% and now, and will certainly have more than that percentage after the election.

 

[variant]

I don't see this going any way that puts another Scalia back on the court.

The Republicans already nominated their Scalia replacement and his name is Justice Alito.

 

[Maren]

The ideological makeup of the court is now more liberal, Are the Republicans willing to risk 11 months of the Obama administration overturning laws?

That is an interesting point. Of course, the fear from the Republican standpoint is if Obama nominates a liberal, then the court has a "liberal" majority. While this is true, it is something of a false argument. The problem for these people is, the court is always tipped one way or another because their are 9 justices - a majority of Justices are always appointed by either a Republican or a Democrat.

The problem this year, the Republicans are used to having the majority on the court -- their have been 5 justices appointed by a Republican President and only 4 by a Democrat for the last few decades. Essentially, the Republicans are having a temper tantrum that they aren't going to be able to keep that 5th Supreme Court justice.

I think more interesting, the oldest justices now seem to be "liberal." Ginsberg is the oldest at 82; Kennedy, while nominated by a Republican is a centrist and has been the swing vote for liberal wins, is 79 -- he's older than Scalia was, and Breyer is 77.

The real Republican plan here is to pack the court with Republicans. If a Republican wins the next election they expect Ginsberg is likely to either die or step down, she'll be 91 by the time the next president (assuming it is a Republican) leaves office. Breyer will be 86, it is hard to say if he will be alive or dead -- but the key is between Ginsberg and Breyer the odds are at least one will die (or be forced to retire). The idea here, if they can replace Scalia plus replace either Ginsberg or Breyer (or hopefully both), you then have a 6-3, or even 7-3, conservative advantage on the court -- particularly if they can replace Kennedy, who will be 88.

This whole thing about a "liberal" Supreme Court is largely a smoke screen and more about playing a long game. If the Republicans win the White House, the hope is that they can remake the Supreme Court in their image giving them a Republican majority that will last decades. If they lose in November they've lost little, other than Obama will likely nominate a centrist now, whereas Clinton/Sanders would likely nominate a justice that would have more liberal views -- but the Democrats still likely only have a 5-4 advantage.

 

[mark46]

That is an interesting point. Of course, the fear from the Republican standpoint is if Obama nominates a liberal, then the court has a "liberal" majority. While this is true, it is something of a false argument. The problem for these people is, the court is always tipped one way or another because their are 9 justices - a majority of Justices are always appointed by either a Republican or a Democrat.

The problem this year, the Republicans are used to having the majority on the court -- their have been 5 justices appointed by a Republican President and only 4 by a Democrat for the last few decades. Essentially, the Republicans are having a temper tantrum that they aren't going to be able to keep that 5th Supreme Court justice.

I think more interesting, the oldest justices now seem to be "liberal." Ginsberg is the oldest at 82; Kennedy, while nominated by a Republican is a centrist and has been the swing vote for liberal wins, is 79 -- he's older than Scalia was, and Breyer is 77.

The real Republican plan here is to pack the court with Republicans. If a Republican wins the next election they expect Ginsberg is likely to either die or step down, she'll be 91 by the time the next president (assuming it is a Republican) leaves office. Breyer will be 86, it is hard to say if he will be alive or dead -- but the key is between Ginsberg and Breyer the odds are at least one will die (or be forced to retire). The idea here, if they can replace Scalia plus replace either Ginsberg or Breyer (or hopefully both), you then have a 6-3, or even 7-3, conservative advantage on the court -- particularly if they can replace Kennedy, who will be 88.

This whole thing about a "liberal" Supreme Court is largely a smoke screen and more about playing a long game. If the Republicans win the White House, the hope is that they can remake the Supreme Court in their image giving them a Republican majority that will last decades. If they lose in November they've lost little, other than Obama will likely nominate a centrist now, whereas Clinton/Sanders would likely nominate a justice that would have more liberal views -- but the Democrats still likely only have a 5-4 advantage.

Yes, Republicans were hoping to make the Republican majority the case for a decade.

 

[mark46]

THIS IS A MAJOR CHANGE

Any 5-4 ruling in favor of the conservative majority can no longer happen for the foreseeable future.

At very best, the Republicans must filibuster for over a year, and then get an moderate or two on the bench under a Republican president. Even this possibility is unlikely if they filibuster now.

The Republican hope is to work with Democrats on the next 3 nominations, 1 now, and 2 under the next president. Then, the Republicans have a chance of keeping a majority on the bench.

 

[Drekkan85]

Of course, Justice Kennedy was nominated during an election campaign (November 1987) and confirmed in an election year...