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

[Luis Gonzalez]

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.

Define ill-suited.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Define ill-suited.

If a judge makes a bunch of terrible decisions, they have no business in the USSC.

[Oceander]

Define ill-suited.

Not commensurate with the views of the Senator whose consent is required.  The issue is a political question, not amenable to enforcement, or definition, by a court. 

[ABX]

Define ill-suited.

They violate the Judicial Oath (U. S. C. § 453):

 

"I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _________ under the Constitution and laws of the United States.  So help me God."

[Jazzhead]

If a judge makes a bunch of terrible decisions, they have no business in the USSC.

Is Judge Garland "ill-suited"?  If so, why?   Should the Senate act to confirm him in December to deny Clinton the ability to pick someone else?   

[Oceander]

They violate the Judicial Oath (U. S. C. § 453):

 

"I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _________ under the Constitution and laws of the United States.  So help me God."

Unpack that statement and try to put definitions to those terms.  It's a judgment call and is not the same thing as whether you ran a red light or not. 

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Is Judge Garland "ill-suited"?  If so, why?   Should the Senate act to confirm him in December to deny Clinton the ability to pick someone else?

IMO I didn't see much wrong with Judge Garland personally. Depending on the election, the Senate should confirm him.

[libertybele]

IMO I didn't see much wrong with Judge Garland personally. Depending on the election, the Senate should confirm him.

Don't see much wrong??? Have you actually looked up his background or record?  I can give you four reasons I don't want him as a SCOTUS justice.  #1 He was appointed by Obama, that is wrong enough.  #2 His stance on gun rights is very troubling and is considered anti-2nd amendment! #3 He's a liberal.  #4 He has not voted on key issues and therefore really doesn't have a track record vote wise, so how would anyone decide on him as a justice other than Hussein knows him to be a liberal and has ensured him he would vote to tilt the courts?


http://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/273621-inside-merrick-garlands-judicial-record
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/03/16/merrick-garland-five-facts/
http://www.ontheissues.org/Merrick_Garland.htm

[txradioguy]

IMO I didn't see much wrong with Judge Garland personally. Depending on the election, the Senate should confirm him.

Garland isn't what we need on the bench at the SCOTUS level if we hope to save what's left of the Constitution.

President Barack Obama's choice for the vacant seat on the Supreme Court was presented as a moderate that could have bipartisan appeal, but Merrick Garland has previously disclosed in official documents that he has offered his services to numerous Democratic presidential candidates.

Buried in a questionnaire Garland submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1995 is his disclosure of volunteer work for Democratic politicians that stretched from his years as a college student up to Bill Clinton's presidential campaign in 1992.
 
 "I provided volunteer assistance on a Presidential Debate for President Clinton in October 1992 and for Michael Dukakis in October 1988," Garland wrote in response to a question on his previous political involvement. "I did some volunteer work for Walter Mondale's presidential campaign in 1983-84. As a college student, I worked two summers for the campaign of my then-congressman, Abner Mikva, in 1972 and 1974."

Then there is this:

The journalistic effort to stamp Garland as a “moderate” comes despite the judge’s past ruling against Second Amendment rights and a history of campaigning for Democratic presidential candidates. This conclusion also flies in the face of declarations of other outlets, including the liberal New York Times. The paper’s Upshot blog insisted that Garland is “substantially more liberal than Justice Scalia” and “is expected to be ideologically similar to Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama’s previous picks for the court.”

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/scott-whitlock/2016/03/17/

Add to that the fact that he's anti Second Amendment and he's the worst pick we could want on the bench at this moment.

Which is why I said earlier that in terms of preserving Conservatism and Conservative values...having only 8 Justices on the SCOTUS bench right now isn't really a bad thing.

[Luis Gonzalez]

All of you that believe Justices should not be confirmed based on their political views and not their ability as a jurist best be ready to accept a Democratically-controlled Senate to confirm extremist liberal judges nominated by President Clinton.

Trump should have never been nominated by the GOP, and every single person who supported hius candidacy will own the choices made by Hillary and confirmed by a majority Democratic Senate

[libertybele]

I looked up the cases that Scalia's death has impacted.  I am not sure as to how many cases they are still waiting to vote on, but the biggest case is Hussein's e.o. on immigration.

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/34865-how-scalia-s-absence-will-affect-pending-supreme-court-cases

[skeeter]

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

Nice!

[thackney]

The Congress was intended to be a co-equal branch of government.   They don't have to accept anything the Supreme court says.   They can even impeach Supreme Court justices and overturn their rulings. 

They just never don't have the balls to do it, anymore. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Chase

[txradioguy]

All of you that believe Justices should not be confirmed based on their political views and not their ability as a jurist best be ready to accept a Democratically-controlled Senate to confirm extremist liberal judges nominated by President Clinton.

I want them based on their ability as a jurist.  It's the left that wants them based on their political leaning.  To the Libs Social Justice is more important than legal justice.

Trump should have never been nominated by the GOP, and every single person who supported hius candidacy will own the choices made by Hillary and confirmed by a majority Democratic Senate

Agreed. 

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

All of you that believe Justices should not be confirmed based on their political views and not their ability as a jurist best be ready to accept a Democratically-controlled Senate to confirm extremist liberal judges nominated by President Clinton.

Trump should have never been nominated by the GOP, and every single person who supported hius candidacy will own the choices made by Hillary and confirmed by a majority Democratic Senate

Not political views, Luis, but by how they ruled on cases. Are you suggesting that's not relevant? 


As for Turnip (aka Trump), why is he getting brought into this?


Obviously a liberal will have different views as to whether a judge is qualified and suited to the position, as it should be.


If a Senator thinks a judge is ill-suited for a role on the USSC, it's a dereliction of duty to confirm that judge.

[thackney]

It has been customary for presidents to get their Supreme Court nominees. Yes, Bork was rejected, but nobody else has been.

False claim.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsuccessful_nominations_to_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States

[txradioguy]

I looked up the cases that Scalia's death has impacted.  I am not sure as to how many cases they are still waiting to vote on, but the biggest case is Hussein's e.o. on immigration.

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/34865-how-scalia-s-absence-will-affect-pending-supreme-court-cases

And that's the one that the Magistrate Judge in Texas put the kibosh on.  If it goes to the SCOTUS before Garland or which ever Liberal judge either nominee puts in Scalia's spot is approved and the decision is 4-4...then the ruling made in Federal court in Texas stands.

[sinkspur]

False claim.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsuccessful_nominations_to_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States

I should have said "Nobody since Bork has been rejected."  I stand corrected.

[skeeter]

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?

Their agenda presumably being to select justices who will accurately & faithfully interpret the Constitution and its amendments that they've sworn to uphold and defend.

Archaic, I know.

[thackney]

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?

The Constitution doesn't set the number of judges on the Supreme Court.  The Judiciary Act of 1789,  Circuit Judges Act of 1869, etc are not part of the Constitution.

That is undermining the power of Congress to set the number of required Justices in the name of politics.

How does congress choosing the candidates are unacceptable undermine the power of congress to set and approve the Justices?

[libertybele]

Not political views, Luis, but by how they ruled on cases. Are you suggesting that's not relevant? 


As for Turnip (aka Trump), why is he getting brought into this?


Obviously a liberal will have different views as to whether a judge is qualified and suited to the position, as it should be.


If a Senator thinks a judge is ill-suited for a role on the USSC, it's a dereliction of duty to confirm that judge.

Justices that are conservative have adhered to the parameters of the Constitution and have interpreted the law and ruled accordingly. Liberal justices have recently ruled according to public popularity and political correctness rather than rule according to the Constitution.  Garland is a liberal; to think that he is going to rule according to the parameters of the Constitution is very questionable.

[ConstitutionRose]

Their agenda presumably being to select justices who will accurately & faithfully interpret the Constitution and its amendments that they've sworn to uphold and defend.

Archaic, I know.

We need  PAC to promote this idea.  It certainly has been lost in the educational system.

[txradioguy]

Justices that are conservative have adhered to the parameters of the Constitution and have interpreted the law and ruled accordingly. Liberal justices have recently ruled according to public popularity and political correctness rather than rule according to the Constitution.  Garland is a liberal; to think that he is going to rule according to the parameters of the Constitution is very questionable.

It's not just recently that Liberals have done this.  FDR put Hugo Black...lawyer for the KKK on the SCOTUS bench.

Look at all the decisions that came out of the Warren Court.

And even when a Republican puts s judge on the SCOTUS bench it doesn't mean that they are Conservative or will even follow the Constitution.  Just look at Justice Roberts.

And that's why it's laughable to me when the Trumpkins say "we need to elect Trump to put Conservative Justices on the bench".

[Luis Gonzalez]

The Constitution doesn't set the number of judges on the Supreme Court.  The Judiciary Act of 1789,  Circuit Judges Act of 1869, etc are not part of the Constitution.

Article VI, clause 2 - This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land.

What art of that is it that you don't understand?

How does congress choosing the candidates are unacceptable undermine the power of congress to set and approve the Justices?

They are required to maintain a Court made up of nine Justices by a law enacted by Congress under the Necessary and Proper Clause of the Constitution, and as per the letter of the Supremacy Clause, as much the Supreme Law as the Constitution itself.

Congress can modify the law or the SCOTUS can vacate it, but until either one happens, the law stands.

[thackney]

I should have said "Nobody since Bork has been rejected."  I stand corrected.

October 3, 2005 Bush nominated Harriet Miers.

While not formally rejected in a congressional hearing, Bushes first choice was rejected and he withdrew the nomination.