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

[thackney]

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?

The part where you claim Congress choosing to not to schedule a hearing is a violation of the Constitution.  What clause is that?

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.

And what part of that law states undesirable nominations must be given a speeding hearing?  Multiple times in the past, it has been intentionally stretched out postponing a hearing until the nomination is withdrawn and an acceptable candidate is submitted.  Did you claim the same in those previous events?

[jpsb]

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

Everyone helping elect Hillary will own Hillary. Ours, like it or not, is a two party system. In the real world the choice is Hillary or Trump.

[thackney]

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?

Let me word this differently.  Are you trying to claim every violation of any congressional law is a violation of the constitution?

[Luis Gonzalez]

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.

I find it rather offensive for any member of Congress, be they liberal or conservative, to set the idea that what qualifies a nominee for the SCOTUS is a predisposed expectation on how they would rule in cases that may come to them.

What we end up with then, is a judiciary that little more than an extension of a political party, and not an independent and unbiased Court that is open and willing to look at every issue with a fresh eye and to give each and every individual standing in their presence a judgement based on the individual circumstances of their complaint and a judgement based on the highest level of individual freedom?

How can the people successfully exercise their Constitutionally-protected right under the First Amendment to petition the government for a redress of grievances when the government, by way of the powers of the political parties controlling the nominations to the SCOTUS, require those justices to pass a litmus test of political viewpoints designed to make the people's halls of justice into a wall of protection for their enacted legislation?

Anyone here who believes that being a conservative means that we are always on the side of the Constitution is woefully naive.

[Elderberry]

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

United States v. Texas was already before the Supreme Court. A 4-4 decision.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

What we end up with then, is a judiciary that little more than an extension of a political party, and not an independent and unbiased Court that is open and willing to look at every issue with a fresh eye and to give each and every individual standing in their presence a judgement based on the individual circumstances of their complaint and a judgement based on the highest level of individual freedom?

Be nice if unicorns and leprechauns existed too. Might as well add that to your list.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

I find it rather offensive for any member of Congress, be they liberal or conservative, to set the idea that what qualifies a nominee for the SCOTUS is a predisposed expectation on how they would rule in cases that may come to them.

This is an interesting point, because I used to think that way, and I've actually argued in front of them.

But recently, I've been reconsidering.  It is the responsibility of the President to support and defend the Constitution.  So, wouldn't it seem consistent with that obligation for a President to appoint justices based on whether or not he believes they will do that?  For example, is it wrong for a President to say "I'm not going to nominate someone to the Court unless I think they will protect the Second Amendment rights of American citizens?  And to be honest, I don't even understand the logic of judicial nominees themselves hiding the ball regarding their constitutional beliefs.  is it really better to say that we should prefer it when we -- and by that I mean the people of the country as a whole, and our elected representatives --  don't know where a nominee stands on a key constitutional issue?

I understand the logic of not selecting justices based on their view of particular statutory law.  But if you step back, I think it is tough to think of the justification for not consider a potential nomines's views of constitutional issues as perhaps the single most important selection criteria.  Yet now, it's become a virtue to say (essentially) "I'm not going to consider candidates' views on core constitutional rights when deciding who to nominate."

I was trained/taught to think that way for my whole legal career, but now, I'm having a tough time justifying that position.

How can the people successfully exercise their Constitutionally-protected right under the First Amendment to petition the government for a redress of grievances when the government, by way of the powers of the political parties controlling the nominations to the SCOTUS, require those justices to pass a litmus test of political viewpoints designed to make the people's halls of justice into a wall of protection for their enacted legislation?

So shouldn't the President and Senate specifically consider someone's views on the First Amendment when deciding whom to nominate/confirm?  Shouldn't we prefer Justices who will protect that First Amendment right to petition, the right to free speech, etc.?  What's wrong with making specific inquiries in that regard?

[Oceander]

This is an interesting point, because I used to think that way, and I've actually argued in front of them.

But recently, I've been reconsidering.  It is the responsibility of the President to support and defend the Constitution.  So, wouldn't it seem consistent with that obligation for a President to appoint justices based on whether or not he believes they will do that?  For example, is it wrong for a President to say "I'm not going to nominate someone to the Court unless I think they will protect the Second Amendment rights of American citizens?  And to be honest, I don't even understand that logic of justices hiding the ball regarding their Constitutional beliefs.

I understand the logic of not selecting justices based on their view of statutory law.  But if you step back, I think it is tough to think of the justification for not consider a potential nomines's views of constitutional issues as perhaps the single most important selection criteria.  Yet now, it's become a virtue to say (essentially) "I'm not going to consider candidates' views on core constitutional rights when deciding who to nominate."

I was trained/taught to think that way for my whole legal career, but now, I'm having a tough time justifying that position.

So shouldn't the President and Senate specifically consider someone's views on the First Amendment when deciding whom to nominate/confirm?  Shouldn't we prefer Justices who will protect that First Amendment right to petition, the right to free speech, etc.?

[Luis Gonzalez]

This is an interesting point, because I used to think that way, and I've actually argued in front of them.

But recently, I've been reconsidering.  It is the responsibility of the President to support and defend the Constitution.  So, wouldn't it seem consistent with that obligation for a President to appoint justices based on whether or not he believes they will do that?  For example, is it wrong for a President to say "I'm not going to nominate someone to the Court unless I think they will protect the Second Amendment rights of American citizens?  And to be honest, I don't even understand the logic of judicial nominees themselves hiding the ball regarding their constitutional beliefs.  is it really better to say that we should prefer it when we -- and by that I mean the people of the country as a whole, and our elected representatives --  don't know where a nominee stands on a key constitutional issue?

I understand the logic of not selecting justices based on their view of particular statutory law.  But if you step back, I think it is tough to think of the justification for not consider a potential nomines's views of constitutional issues as perhaps the single most important selection criteria.  Yet now, it's become a virtue to say (essentially) "I'm not going to consider candidates' views on core constitutional rights when deciding who to nominate."

I was trained/taught to think that way for my whole legal career, but now, I'm having a tough time justifying that position.

So shouldn't the President and Senate specifically consider someone's views on the First Amendment when deciding whom to nominate/confirm?  Shouldn't we prefer Justices who will protect that First Amendment right to petition, the right to free speech, etc.?  What's wrong with making specific inquiries in that regard?

But that's not what "conservatives" want.

They want a SCOTUS justices confirmed tailored to overturn specific laws and support specific hot-button issues, NOT based on any constitutional discussion, but rather on the viewpoint of conservatives. Same goes for liberals.

You can't out of one side of your mouth oppose the doctrine of judicial review (as so many conservatives do) then turn around and demand that the Court overturn legislation they don't favor.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

But that's not what "conservatives" want.

   I can't speak for anyone else but what I want is a Justice who interprets the USSC as written, not as a living document.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Btw.

Cruz is not discussing qualifications or anything of the sort.

He's suggesting that no justice nominated by Clinton be confirmed. Period

[Oceander]

Btw.

Cruz is not discussing qualifications or anything of the sort.

He's suggesting that no justice nominated by Clinton be confirmed. Period

That is the Senate's prerogative and the only check on it is whether the Senators can take the political heat from their constituents.  The Constitution permits exactly that. 

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Btw.

Cruz is not discussing qualifications or anything of the sort.

He's suggesting that no justice nominated by Clinton be confirmed. Period

No. The article is in reference to a Tweet (which AFAICT is itself heresay):




"I asked Cruz if there should be votes on Clinton court nominees if GOP holds Senate. He said there's plenty of precedent for <9 justices."


That's all Cruz said.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Btw.

Cruz is not discussing qualifications or anything of the sort.

He's suggesting that no justice nominated by Clinton be confirmed. Period

To the extent you think he's implying that, it's in the context of expecting her to nominate someone who will not protect the Second Amendment, etc..   If she were to nominate someone like Dianne Sykes, I'm quite positive Cruz would advocate confirmation in a heartbeat.  He's just being realistic about the type of judges Hillary is likely to nominate, and saying the Senate is not under any obligation to confirm them simply to keep the number at 9.

[EtX]

Well, silence is consent in some aspects of the law.

So if the Senate doesn't hold hearings, then they consent.

The judge is seated on the Supreme court and they can file as many lawsuits as they'd like to the Supreme court about it.

The question is, after undermining the very existence of that court itself... will the court they undermined be willing to give their attackers a fair hearing?

---

It's a dangerous game the Senate is playing.

John, there seems to be a small portion of the Constitution you have forgotten, the part about the Senate approving a judge for SCOTUS. No judge can be seated without that Senate approval.

Refusal to consent is not silence.

On the other legal hand if one knows of a crime committed, their silence is consent to that crime.

[HonestJohn]

John, there seems to be a small portion of the Constitution you have forgotten, the part about the Senate approving a judge for SCOTUS. No judge can be seated without that Senate approval.

Refusal to consent is not silence.

On the other legal hand if one knows of a crime committed, their silence is consent to that crime.

Refusal to hold a hearing on the suitability of the candidate is silence on the suitability of the candidate.  Refusal to hold a vote on the suitability of a candidate is silence on the suitability of the candidate.

[libertybele]

Btw.

Cruz is not discussing qualifications or anything of the sort.

He's suggesting that no justice nominated by Clinton be confirmed. Period

Sounds good to me.

..."Clinton said she wanted justices who would defend women's rights, back LGBT rights, support Roe v. Wade and reverse the Citizens United decision and its ability to funnel dark money into elections. Clinton said she wanted a court to "stand on the side of the people" rather than wealthy donors and corporations, though Clinton's own political career has benefited from some rich backers....

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/19/hillary-clinton-heres-what-i-want-in-the-supreme-court.html

[montanajoe]

Not having 9 justices is a real bad idea because the 4-4 ties will result in the underlying decision remaining in place. What will soon start happening is that special interest groups will start forum shopping to get a decision the way they want it and then wait for the SC to deadlock 4-4 and they win in their circuit plus put president out there for other circuits to follow.

The SC constitutional responsibility is to decide controversy's it can't do that in all cases with only eight members.

[sinkspur]

Why are posters acting as if this is a possibility?  Republican Senators are NOT GOING TO GO ALONG WITH CRUZ ON THIS!  He's always been an outlier and I don't think even he would admit that this is a good long-term strategy.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Sounds good to me.

..."Clinton said she wanted justices who would defend women's rights, back LGBT rights, support Roe v. Wade and reverse the Citizens United decision and its ability to funnel dark money into elections. Clinton said she wanted a court to "stand on the side of the people" rather than wealthy donors and corporations, though Clinton's own political career has benefited from some rich backers....

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/19/hillary-clinton-heres-what-i-want-in-the-supreme-court.html

So you support Cruz when he demands that we follow the law as well as when he suggests that we ignore it?

Makes all the sense in the world.

/sarcasm

[Luis Gonzalez]

John, there seems to be a small portion of the Constitution you have forgotten, the part about the Senate approving a judge for SCOTUS. No judge can be seated without that Senate approval.

Refusal to consent is not silence.

On the other legal hand if one knows of a crime committed, their silence is consent to that crime.

Congress is mandated by law to maintain a nine-Justice Court.

Do conservatives believe in the letter of the law only when it suits them?

[montanajoe]

Why are posters acting as if this is a possibility?  Republican Senators are NOT GOING TO GO ALONG WITH CRUZ ON THIS!  He's always been an outlier and I don't think even he would admit that this is a good long-term strategy.

Well in my case to humor those who think the GOP my retain control of the Senate after the Trumpiaster. My guess is they are going to be scrambling to confirm Garland on November 9...

[Luis Gonzalez]

No. The article is in reference to a Tweet (which AFAICT is itself heresay):




"I asked Cruz if there should be votes on Clinton court nominees if GOP holds Senate. He said there's plenty of precedent for <9 justices."


That's all Cruz said.

If you're going to quote someone, quote them. Don't paraphrase them.

"You know, I think there will be plenty of time for debate on that issue," said Cruz, when asked if a Republican-controlled Senate should hold votes on a President Hillary Clinton's nominees, according to The Washington Post.

"There is certainly long historical precedent for a Supreme Court with fewer justices. I would note, just recently, that Justice 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 continued.

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/2016-presidential-election/2016/10/26/ted-cruz-historical-precedent-keeping-supreme-court-seat-vacant

Not a tweet either.

It's amazing that you think you can ascertain what Cruz meant when you can't either quote him or name the actual source of the quote.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

If you're going to quote someone, quote them. Don't paraphrase them.

Not a tweet either.

It's amazing that you think you can ascertain what Cruz meant when you can't either quote him or name the actual source of the quote.

And this isn't Cruz saying we will block whoever Hillary put up.


So you fail, yet again.

[Luis Gonzalez]

To the extent you think he's implying that, it's in the context of expecting her to nominate someone who will not protect the Second Amendment, etc..   If she were to nominate someone like Dianne Sykes, I'm quite positive Cruz would advocate confirmation in a heartbeat.  He's just being realistic about the type of judges Hillary is likely to nominate, and saying the Senate is not under any obligation to confirm them simply to keep the number at 9.

So, you believe that Congress should only confirm those Supreme Court Justices that will guarantee the outcome of contentious issues to one side of the political aisle or the other?

Why have Judges then?

We can eliminate the Court, go to a strict direct Democracy electoral system, and let all issues be decided by whoever holds the majority in Congress.