Sen. Ted Cruz: Can Have Less Than 9 SCOTUS Justices

[Luis Gonzalez]

At the end of the day though it's not really his call.  It would be up to the Kentucky Turtle to allow a nomination to go through.

There hasn't been much outcry from either side so far with just 8 justices currently seated.  And in some instances....with some of the future cases coming up...8 justices with 4-4 decisions might be a good thing for Conservatives.  A tied court means the ruling by the lower court stands.

And in cases like the one filed by the AG of Texas over Obama's illegal immigration policies...the coming battle over Trannys' in bathrooms and a couple of other fights on the horizon...having to defer back to the lower court decision is a win for Conservatives trying to stave off further denigration of the Constitution at the hands of the Progressives.

How does the whole "keep the trannys out of the women's restroom" thing work anyway?

Are Conservatives trying to legally set some kind of a penis check station at every ladies' restroom in the US?

[jmyrlefuller]

No, he reportedly said that we (a GOP-controlled Senate) could block all of Hillary's appointments and let the Court stay at less than what the Circuit Judges Act of 1869 says it should be set at.

That's four years of less than the required number of Justices. That is undermining the power of Congress to set the number of required Justices in the name of politics.

The Senate is a part of Congress, and one where the filibuster is a long-established tradition.

Furthermore, the Constitution also requires the Senate to advise the President on potential nominees, which it has not done, in addition to their role of providing consent. Should not the Senate send a list of potential nominees to the President under its Constitutional duty? Yet, as far as I know, it has not.

[jmyrlefuller]

How does the whole "keep the trannys out of the women's restroom" thing work anyway?

Are Conservatives trying to legally set some kind of a penis check station at every ladies' restroom in the US?

The honor system. Get caught (i.e. expose your nether regions), get arrested. Other than that, it's not going to be that big of a deal.

[txradioguy]

How does the whole "keep the trannys out of the women's restroom" thing work anyway?

Are Conservatives trying to legally set some kind of a penis check station at every ladies' restroom in the US?

I may not have put that politely as I should.

The issue of transgenders going in the bathroom and locker rooms they weren't born to go in is heading for a SCOTUS fight after the decision last week that an injunction against Obama's mandate on this issue was unconstitutional. 

[libertybele]

Ted Cruz...

Isn't he supposed to be some Constitutional superhero or something?

The Judiciary Act of 1789 began the process of setting in place the required number of Justices in the Court. After many changes, Congress finally set the number of Justices to be seated at nine, via the Circuit Judges Act of 1869.

These were changes made to the Court by Congress, under their Necessary and Proper Clause powers.

Is Ted suggesting that we should undermine the Constitution and the powers of Congress under the Constitution?

I certainly don't proclaim to be a Constitutional scholar, but Article III references the Judicial Branch, however, the number of justices was not defined.  You are correct regarding the Judiciary Act of 1789, however, it is my understanding that it has been amended several times.  The only Amendment to the Constitution to Article III however, is Amendment XI. As far as I know the number of justices to SCOTUS is still not specifically defined by an actual amendment anywhere in the Constitution.  Secondly, Cruz is the only sitting Senator that has argued cases before the Supreme Court. Had he been elected he would have only been the ninth president in history to have argued before the Supreme Court. No president has done so since Nixon, over 50 years ago.

Trying to demean Cruz by smugly saying he's some kind of 'constitutional superhero' is certainly your prerogative, but he is one of a select few who has stood up repeatedly for our sovereignty and our rights.  Perhaps you feel he is much too conservative or too far to the right, but quite frankly, IMHO, he was our last glimmer of hope in saving this country and he would have been infinitely better than the Clinton/Trump machine.  Clinton feels that the Supreme Court should rule in favor of the will of the people and Trump is pretty much clueless.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/435296/donald-trump-constitution-end-separation-powers

http://reason.com/archives/2016/10/26/clintons-constitutional-contempt

http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2016-02-16/cruz-makes-his-vast-supreme-court-knowledge-a-camp

[txradioguy]

I certainly don't proclaim to be a Constitutional scholar, but Article III references the Judicial Branch, however, the number of justices was not defined.  You are correct regarding the Judiciary Act of 1789, however, it is my understanding that has been amended several times.  The only Amendment to the Constitution to Article III however, is Amendment XI. As far as I know the number of justices to SCOTUS is still not defined anywhere in the Constitution.  Secondly, Cruz is the only sitting Senator that has argued cases before the Supreme Court and had he been elected he would have only been the ninth president in history to have argued before the Supreme Court and the first since Richard Nixon.

Demeaning him by smugly saying he's some kind of 'constitutional superhero' is certainly your prerogative, but he is one of a select few who has stood up repeatedly for our sovereignty and our rights.  Perhaps you feel he is much too conservative or too far to the right, but quite frankly, IMHO, he was our last glimmer of hope in saving this country and he would have been infinitely better than the Clinton/Trump machine.

 

[ABX]

I certainly don't proclaim to be a Constitutional scholar, but Article III references the Judicial Branch, however, the number of justices was not defined.  You are correct regarding the Judiciary Act of 1789, however, it is my understanding that has been amended several times.  The only Amendment to the Constitution to Article III however, is Amendment XI. As far as I know the number of justices to SCOTUS is still not defined anywhere in the Constitution.  Secondly, Cruz is the only sitting Senator that has argued cases before the Supreme Court and had he been elected he would have only been the ninth president in history to have argued before the Supreme Court and the first since Richard Nixon.

Demeaning him by smugly saying he's some kind of 'constitutional superhero' is certainly your prerogative, but he is one of a select few who has stood up repeatedly for our sovereignty and our rights.  Perhaps you feel he is much too conservative or too far to the right, but quite frankly, IMHO, he was our last glimmer of hope in saving this country and he would have been infinitely better than the Clinton/Trump machine.

That's correct. The original Supreme Court under Washington was just 3 justices, then 6 after the Judiciary Act of 1789. It has varied several times. The Constitution actually gives congress the authority to set the number of judges so Cruz is absolutely spot on in his statement. Not only does Congress approve appointments, they can say how many judges there are.

[geronl]

Ted Cruz...

Isn't he supposed to be some Constitutional superhero or something?

He is correct, there is no set number of Supreme Court members in the Constitution. Of course it takes an act of Congress to change the number.

[geronl]

His fellow GOP Senators likely do not agree with him and, so, he loses again.

It was a simple factual statement, not much to disagree with.

[kjam22]

So if congress acted to make the court contain 5 people, how do they decide which ones get voted off the island?

[txradioguy]

So if congress acted to make the court contain 5 people, how do they decide which ones get voted off the island?

Most likely a move like that would go fully into effect with retirements of the justices.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

So if congress acted to make the court contain 5 people, how do they decide which ones get voted off the island?

Attrition: retirement and or death.

[jpsb]

Elect Hillary and conservatives will lose the Supreme Court and all the lower federal courts for the next 30 years. Elect Hillary and you will lose what is left of the Bill of Rights. Including the right to bear arms. Elect Hillary and forget about ever banning abortion, even late term abortion. Elect Hillary and it is game over, you lose on every principle you have American conservative.

Plus as a bonus Hillary (safe in her bunker) will get all us little people killed in a war with Russia over Syria.

[txradioguy]

Elect Hillary and conservatives will lose the Supreme Court and all the lower federal courts for the next 30 years. Elect Hillary and you will lose what is left of the Bill of Rights. Including the right to bear arms. Elect Hillary and forget about ever banning abortion, even late term abortion. Elect Hillary and it is game over, you lose on every principle you have American conservative.

Plus as a bonus Hillary (safe in her bunker) will get all us little people killed in a war with Russia over Syria.

 

[Texas Yellow Rose]

This kind of grandstanding is the reason Cruz has no friends in the Senate. 

OH pleeeeeease .................

[ConstitutionRose]

Ted Cruz...

Isn't he supposed to be some Constitutional superhero or something?

The Judiciary Act of 1789 began the process of setting in place the required number of Justices in the Court. After many changes, Congress finally set the number of Justices to be seated at nine, via the Circuit Judges Act of 1869.

These were changes made to the Court by Congress, under their Necessary and Proper Clause powers.

Is Ted suggesting that we should undermine the Constitution and the powers of Congress under the Constitution?

Congress  made the law.  Congress can amend the law.  That might be the fight to fight first. 

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Ted Cruz...

Isn't he supposed to be some Constitutional superhero or something?

The Judiciary Act of 1789 began the process of setting in place the required number of Justices in the Court. After many changes, Congress finally set the number of Justices to be seated at nine, via the Circuit Judges Act of 1869.

These were changes made to the Court by Congress, under their Necessary and Proper Clause powers.

Is Ted suggesting that we should undermine the Constitution and the powers of Congress under the Constitution?

9 is basically the max. The Senate is under no compulsion to vote in Judges they think are ill-qualified or unsatisfactory.


In fact, I would argue the opposite.


You really think Congress should vote in people they think should have no business being a USSC Justice?

[Jazzhead]

There hasn't been much of an outcry because there is plenty of precedent on not confirming the appointment of a (basically) lame duck President. But if there is a concerted effort to not appoint anyone for the four years of the first Clinton term, there will be Hell to pay, specially if another Justice kicks it.

P.S. All moot since I don't expect that the GOP will hold the Senate.

Agreed.   The premise of the current GOP Senate regarding Judge Garland has been largely accepted -  Scalia's is a pivotal seat and there's a Presidential election coming up, so let the people decide.

Well,  if Clinton's the next President the people will have decided.   It's insane to flatly deny a duly-elected President her SCOTUS picks for the entirety of her four-year term.   An individual pick can be opposed on the merits,  but to state that no Clinton pick will be afforded a Senate vote is the kind of malice that will turn the Trump party into the rump party.   

So it all comes back to the point that annoys DiogenesLamp so much -  the fools who nominated Trump are to blame for what's to come these next four years.   We should have approached this election as an historic opportunity to carry forward the conservative victories that have secured for us the Congress.   Instead we may lose control of all three branches of government because we nominated a crazy man with the self-control of a child.     

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Well,  if Clinton's the next President the people will have decided.   It's insane to flatly deny a duly-elected President her SCOTUS picks for the entirety of her four-year term.   An individual pick can be opposed on the merits,  but to state that no Clinton pick will be afforded a Senate vote is the kind of malice that will turn the Trump party into the rump party.

Giving a vote I can understand, but the idea that it's a Senator's duty to vote for a Justice they find ill suited just blows my mind. I cannot understand that concept.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Elect Hillary and conservatives will lose the Supreme Court and all the lower federal courts for the next 30 years. Elect Hillary and you will lose what is left of the Bill of Rights. Including the right to bear arms. Elect Hillary and forget about ever banning abortion, even late term abortion. Elect Hillary and it is game over, you lose on every principle you have American conservative.

Plus as a bonus Hillary (safe in her bunker) will get all us little people killed in a war with Russia over Syria.

All those arguments were lost to the people who insisted on nominating a man who couldn't beat Hillary in a general election, so to make them now amounts to little more than closing the stable door after the horse has bolted. 

[Jazzhead]

Elect Hillary and conservatives will lose the Supreme Court and all the lower federal courts for the next 30 years. Elect Hillary and you will lose what is left of the Bill of Rights. Including the right to bear arms. Elect Hillary and forget about ever banning abortion, even late term abortion. Elect Hillary and it is game over, you lose on every principle you have American conservative.

Plus as a bonus Hillary (safe in her bunker) will get all us little people killed in a war with Russia over Syria.

I and many others fought like hell to deny Trump the nomination,  because we knew full well it would mean President Hillary.   What's done is done.   I hope we can save the House and then use whatever leverage we have to limit the damage.   But folks like you decided to back the man the Dems wanted most to get the GOP nomination.   Do yourself a favor and open up a good bottle of scotch.   The hysterics won't do you or anyone else any good.   The dominoes are falling;  if you want to know who pushed them, look in the mirror.   

[Jazzhead]

Giving a vote I can understand, but the idea that it's a Senator's duty to vote for a Justice they find ill suited just blows my mind. I cannot understand that concept.

I don't disagree with that.   But it's insane to flatly deny a duly-elected President a vote on her judicial picks from the outset of her term. 

But Luis is right,  it'll all be moot if we can't retain the Senate.   I've said it before and I'll say it again - get out and support the re-election of your GOP Senator.    Do that,  and then proudly throw your Presidential vote away.   

[Luis Gonzalez]

Giving a vote I can understand, but the idea that it's a Senator's duty to vote for a Justice they find ill suited just blows my mind. I cannot understand that concept.

Ill suited in what way?

Their resume or whether or not the nominee's record of judgements and opinions fits in with the voter's political ideology and agenda?

[Oceander]

Ill suited in what way?

Their resume or whether or not the nominee's record of judgements and opinions fits in with the voter's political ideology and agenda?

Either. That's part of having the Senate consent to court appointments. 

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Ill suited in what way?

Their resume or whether or not the nominee's record of judgements and opinions fits in with the voter's political ideology and agenda?

Besides the obvious like criminal convictions, bribery, etc., if the Judge has a history of making poor judgements then they are ill-suited, period.


It's the Senator's duty to turn them down. Republican or Democrat. Liberal or conservative. Doesn't matter.


I do agree that they should hold a vote on a nominee however.