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

[essentialsaltes]

“It has been 80 years since a Supreme Court vacancy was nominated and confirmed in an election year,” Cruz said.

Except that Kennedy, who is still on the Supreme Court, was confirmed in 1988, an election year.

 

[Goonie]

That would be possibly the smartest move, but nothing in his past record of appointments suggests that he'll do anything like this.

Hmm... don't have time to check on his record of appointments, but yep it would be smart to make this a non issue in the election, unless the republicans want to make themselves look obstructionist just for stupiditys sake.

As someone has pointed out the next couple of appointments are likely to be to replace the liberal members if the court I suspect Obama is likely to act to make this only an issue if the Republicans are dumb.

 

[mark46]

Incorrect.

Some on the court now fervently believe that the constitution is a living, breathing document to be changed at the discretion of the court. That philosophy is and has always been unconstitutional. The Supreme Court's job was never defined as reinterpreting the constitution to suit the pleasure of those in power.

Let us consider the 2nd Amendment.

For centuries, this amendment was interpreted to guarantee the right of a civilian militia, the National Guard. Our founding fathers were afraid of a central government controlling all the military power.

And then, there was a justice who decided (and convinced others) that this interpretation was somehow outdated. Surely in our time, the right to bear arms should be guaranteed to individuals. After all, the vast majority of Americans agreed. And as had happened in the field of Civil Rights, abortion and other areas, the Supreme Court made a decision that changed the precedent of centuries.

Guns were now a right of individuals. And who was it that changed the interpretation in this way? Scalia.

BTW, I am NOT in any way arguing with this decision, any more than those having to do with civil rights and abortion.

 

[mark46]

Apologies if it has already been mentioned. Does anyone think there is even a remote chance Obama will nominate a moderate justice that doesn't have a rep for legislating from the bench?

If not, guess I'll stock up on filibuster popcorn.

None

And just BTW, what are the chances that Cruz would nominate a moderate? he probably would have an equal chance of getting a nominee through the Senate.

 

[Goonie]

That would be possibly the smartest move, but nothing in his past record of appointments suggests that he'll do anything like this.

Though off cause it might depend on the definition of moderate

 

[mark46]

Though off cause it might depend on the definition of moderate

For Republicans, Cruz is a moderate.
For Democrats, Clinton is a moderate.

 

[Goonie]

For Republicans, Cruz is a moderate.
For Democrats, Clinton is a moderate.

Yep, Cruz a moderate

 

[NotreDame]

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

I'm incredulous to the notion the American voter is going to care to any significant degree, at least not at the moment.

 

[Maren]

Incorrect.

Some on the court now fervently believe that the constitution is a living, breathing document to be changed at the discretion of the court. That philosophy is and has always been unconstitutional. The Supreme Court's job was never defined as reinterpreting the constitution to suit the pleasure of those in power.

That is a misrepresentation of what those justices believe. Just as those calling Scalia a racist or other derogatory term were also misrepresenting his views. I will agree that I find some legal scholars views on the elasticity of the Constitution go far overboard but they still believe in the framework of the Constitution, their argument is in how we are to interpret what it says.

Of course, there are those that believe the Constitution needs to be "tossed out", I'm not counting those as they don't believe in the Constitution, but these people exist on both the right and the left; nor do they tend to be legal scholars.

Incorrect, again. It will depend entirely upon whether Obama chooses to appoint a justice committed to upholding constitutional law. If Obama does that, then there will be no issue. If Obama chooses otherwise, as many seem to expect, then the Senate will likely fulfill its constitutional obligation to the President by telling him to "go fish" for another prospective nominee. At that point the president will have received good advice.

Great but that isn't what the Republicans have stated. Instead, they are calling for either not considering or completely blocking any nominee made by Pres. Obama. They may not mean it in that way but that is exactly what they have said.

 

[NotreDame]

Let us consider the 2nd Amendment.

For centuries, this amendment was interpreted to guarantee the right of a civilian militia, the National Guard. Our founding fathers were afraid of a central government controlling all the military power.

And then, there was a justice who decided (and convinced others) that this interpretation was somehow outdated. Surely in our time, the right to bear arms should be guaranteed to individuals. After all, the vast majority of Americans agreed. And as had happened in the field of Civil Rights, abortion and other areas, the Supreme Court made a decision that changed the precedent of centuries.

Guns were now a right of individuals. And who was it that changed the interpretation in this way? Scalia.

BTW, I am NOT in any way arguing with this decision, any more than those having to do with civil rights and abortion.

What exactly is your point?

 

[Goonie]

I'm incredulous to the notion the American voter is going to care to any significant degree, at least not at the moment.

It will only be an issue if it's made one. Ie Obama appoints a candidate who does not change the balance on the court and the Republicans obstruct it.

 

[Maren]

That would be possibly the smartest move, but nothing in his past record of appointments suggests that he'll do anything like this.

How about Sri Srinivasan, who was previously mentioned in this thread? Are you going to tell me that a man that worked in Pres. G. W. Bush's Solicitor General's office was not a moderate appointee?

 

[Maren]

It will only be an issue if it's made one. Ie Obama appoints a candidate who does not change the balance on the court and the Republicans obstruct it.

That is the problem, even with a moderate it is one of the most conservative justices being replaced. Unless Republican's can put this off and the next president get a very conservative justice confirmed, it is going to change the balance of the court. Even a moderate will swing the balance, regardless of which party the justice is nominated by.

 

[NotreDame]

It will only be an issue if it's made one. Ie Obama appoints a candidate who does not change the balance on the court and the Republicans obstruct it.

Even with a moderate I'm doubtful this is going to be the defining or substantial election issue. The electorate is more concerned with the economy, jobs, taxes, food on the table, paying the mortgage, and reduced buying power of their income. The two parties' base and extremely partisan voters may attach significance to the appointment but not many others, at least not right now.

 

[mark46]

What exactly is your point?

The point is that even the most strict constitutionalist justice of our time (since the word was invented) favored changing the interpretation of the constitution to suit the times, rather than rely of the trying to discern the wishes of the founders.

 

[NotreDame]

Agreed, I suspect obama will nominate a moderate, or even someone with reoublican views so as challenge the Senate to obstruct. The idea that the US president cannot make policy, appoint a justice etc in the last year of his term is absurd. If that was the case then the presidential term should be reduced to 3 years, and since the last year will be pointless 2 years, then...

Who is articulating this position?

 

[mark46]

Even with a moderate I'm doubtful this is going to be the defining or substantial election issue. The electorate is more concerned with the economy, jobs, taxes, food on the table, paying the mortgage, and reduced buying power of their income. The two parties' base and extremely partisan voters may attach significance to the appointment but not many others, at least not right now.

???

The replacement of Supreme Court justices is already an election issue. If no one nominated and confirmed, folks will be reminded that 4 justices might need to be replaced in the next term and that this could change the Court and the country for many decades.

 

[Goonie]

That is the problem, even with a moderate it is one of the most conservative justices being replaced. Unless Republican's can put this off and the next president get a very conservative justice confirmed, it is going to change the balance of the court. Even a moderate will swing the balance, regardless of which party the justice is nominated by.

Which is why I wonder whether Obama might just appoint a Republican, not a moderate and leave it to Republicans to make themselves look silly. It is the next few appointments who will replace morere moderate/liberal judges that will matter.

 

[mark46]

Which is why I wonder whether Obama might just appoint a Republican, not a moderate and leave it to Republicans to make themselves look silly. It is the next few appointments who will replace morere moderate/liberal judges that will matter.

A Republican is quite possible. Whoever is nominated will be unacceptable to Cruz and Wingnuts (is that a band?).

 

[Goonie]

Who is articulating this position?

Cruz, partly in saying that a President traditionally cannot nominate a justice in his last year. This is plain wrong as the case of Kennedy shows. In terms of policy this from what I have read this is a common perception, the idea of a dead/lame duck president.