Reply With Quote
Drain the swamp
In a vintage return to his confrontational style, Sen. Ted Cruz indicated that Republicans could seek to block a Democratic president from filling the vacant Supreme Court seat indefinitely.
After staking his endorsement of Donald Trump on a list of potential conservative Supreme Court nominees, Cruz said on Wednesday that there is precedent to limiting the Supreme Court to just eight justices. Last week, Cruz's colleague, Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), suggested the GOP should confirm President Barack Obama's nominee, Merrick Garland, to avoid having to swallow a more liberal nominee under Hillary Clinton.
As is his nature, Cruz took a harder line when asked how Republicans would handle a potential Clinton nominee while campaigning in Colorado for Darryl Glenn, a longshot candidate for the Senate.
“There will be plenty of time for debate on that issue ... There is certainly long historical precedent for a Supreme Court with fewer justices. I would note, just recently, that Justice [Stephen] Breyer observed that the vacancy is not impacting the ability of the court to do its job. That’s a debate that we are going to have," Cruz said, in remarks first reported by The Washington Post.
Cruz 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. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said earlier this month the GOP would be "united" in blocking a Clinton appointment, remarks he later softened.
An indefinite GOP blockade of a Supreme Court nominee would almost certainly lead to an erosion in the Senate's supermajority requirement. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid has already suggested lowering the bar for Supreme Court nominee from 60 votes to a simple majority. Under Reid, Democrats changed the Senate rules to allow all nominees but Supreme Court appointments to be approved by a majority vote.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/1...#ixzz4OFrejNqe
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook
We need to get this guy out of office. The GOP establishment is going to try to primary him like they did most of his caucus. Thanks Tea party!
Drain the swamp
taking the side of legalism against ins utional norms, like allowing the incoming administration to make appointments, bodes ill for the republic.
conservatives are fond of pointing out that elections have consequences when they win. when they lose, shouldn't the other side get to govern?
government can't work when the opposition is treated as if it were illegitimate, per se. wtf happened to popular sovereignty?
i was hoping he would get the nomination only to fall flat in the general and deliver a blow to the tea party
Tactically this is a horrible move.
Keep talking like this and people will get democrats to run up and down after 8 years of doing jack .
yeah, and they'd have no reason not to if this is going to be the republican approach. one of the major gop complaints about obamacare was that it passed without a single republican vote. but if this is the stance the gop will take, then can you really blame the democrats for not playing ball?
but the problem will extend beyond that...next time republicans are in power (whenever that is), then it will be their turn to play hardball and bully legislation through.
"bodes ill for the republic."
The Repugs don't give a about "the republic", governing. They only care about, execute the wants of their big donors, which includes a SCOTUS that will not overturn C-U/corporations-are-people/money-is-speech, not undo Scalia's class action trashing, not return guts to the VRA, etc, etc.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
