174
175

Cruz: GOP may block Supreme Court nominees indefinitely (politico.com)

lupianwolf が 投稿

全 135 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]PumaplayssdClassical Liberal (Conservative) [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Oh Cruz, you lovable little badass

[–]ultimisConstitutionalist 45ポイント46ポイント  (25子コメント)

If they aren't originalist then I support this. The Democrats need to appoint at least one candidate that is not a "moderate" but someone who is dedicated to applying the law instead of making it up from the bench.

FDR broke the court by threatening them with increasing their numbers until they made his policies "constitutional". We have watched a half century of nonsense coming out of the court since then and it's time to bring it under control.

[–]theresafire [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

Out of curiosity, have you read any of the studies on originalism? There are a number of studies demonstrating that originalism is not a constraint on a justice's interpretation of the relevant law. While not conclusive in and of themselves, this point is evidence by heller, where Stevens' dissent relies on an originalist argument....

[–]ultimisConstitutionalist [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Originalism is a philosophy. Determining the intent of a law in regards to a special case can actually be rather difficult. Even when you have the opinions of the framers, those are just opinions of individuals where the law was a compromise of multiple parties involved.

One clear way Scalia found at resolving this issue was how the law was applied after the Constitutional clause was implemented. Such as what were the state and local laws that continued to exist. This gives context to what all the people of that time perceived the intent of the clause.

This method can be flawed, but it is the only legitimate means of interpretation. Living document justices should be impeached and run out of the court. Even Justice "spirit of the law" Roberts should be removed (though his intent is to ensure that law stands even if it requires him to make a few personal tweaks to make it constitutional, which is more honest than the leftist Justices).

Law is like a contract. If you want to change it you need to draft a new one, you can't just reinterpret it to fit your current needs. If you do the rule of law goes out the window. Which is followed by anarchy.

[–]theresafire [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I fear you have missed the point, and don't fully grasp the complexities of interpreting a document that is intentionally vague.

The argument I am making is that originalism is not a constraint on reaching a determination. Both "liberal" and "conservative" justices can use originalist arguments and teach the conclusion they want to reach.

Given that originalism does not constrain a justice, how then, can it be the only "correct" way to interpret the Constitution? If one person can use originalism to reach an answer entirely contradictory to a different person, who also use originalism, your argument that originalism is the only "correct" way to interpret the constituon fails.

As for your contract analogy, it is woefully inadequate. If the Constitution were a contract, and subject to interpretation, it would constantly be reinterpreted because it does not address the vast majority of the issues faced today. The Constitution is a short document that speaks in broad generalities and at times in a seemingly contradictory manner, any contract drafted like that today would likely be grounds for a malpractice suit. Contracts are drafted with specificity. The Constitution is not. If we take your analogy to the extreme we see it is even more flawed; a controlling principle in contract interpretation is that ambiguity is resolved in favor of the non-drafting party.... So that would actually argue against originalism unless the Constitution is explicitly on point, which it rarely ever is.

[–]DanburyBaptistInalienable Rights of Conscience 19ポイント20ポイント  (6子コメント)

The fact that this got buried demonstrates to me that this sub has been pretty much taken over by the Left.

[–]Iwanttobedelivered [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

For now, until the election is over.

[–]AlaskanPipeline04 [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Yep. After the election we should see a big trend back to some shred of normalcy.

I don't know if CTR gives a shit after the election ends.

[–]Colonize_The_Moon [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

They're internet mercenaries; they care until the paychecks stop.

[–]Zouavez [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

What does it mean to you now that it's the top comment? That this sub is a bastion of conservatism?

[–]DanburyBaptistInalienable Rights of Conscience [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Nah, we're definitely infested, but perhaps not hopelessly so.

[–]Iwanttobedelivered [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

This thread has been taken over by leftists.

[–]A_Wild_Blue_Card [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Like the nation then?

Guess that's what happens when you don't have a damn wall.

[–]thetchaikovsky [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I don't think ideologies give a toss about walls friend. They spread, just like a virus spreads.

[–]lookingatyourcock [スコア非表示]  (5子コメント)

Huge respect for Cruz on this. However, I fear that the rest of the party will be too weak willed to back him up on this.

[–]Bowiesinspace [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

It's pathetic you respect such weak non democratic behaviour

[–]TedyCruzHEREEE'S TEDYY [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

The Senate is Democratically elected, and the Supreme Court is there to make sure the a constitution is followed, if a corrupt president decides to blatantly chose Justices to undermine it, the fuck yeah they should be blocked till a good candidate is put forward.

We are a Republic.

[–]CrossWired [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Then have the hearing and deny the nominee. Go through the proper process rather than eluding the responsibilities of the job.

[–]JackBond1234 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Yes. Letting unelected justices have an irrevocable lifelong job without any scrutiny is super democratic.

[–]ColonelCluster [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Democratically elected Senators refusing the nominees made by one person is non democratic?

[–]bullbour 22ポイント23ポイント  (57子コメント)

So all of that garbage about the American people have a right to have their voice heard on who gets to chose the Supreme Court justice only applies if the American people vote for the person Republicans in the Senate want to win.

To block a Supreme Court nominee and not hold a hearing during the final year of a President's term is one thing. To indefinitely refuse to hold a hearing if the other party wins the White House is dereliction of Constitutional duty.

The fact that this is even being discussed is unacceptable. Do your job, vote down the nominee, and keep doing so over and over again if you so chose. But refusing to hold a hearing at all is beyond the pale.

[–]DanburyBaptistInalienable Rights of Conscience 54ポイント55ポイント  (7子コメント)

Sounds like you didn't read Cruz's actual statement.

[–]Spidertech500 37ポイント38ポイント  (6子コメント)

I think we're being invaded by virtue signalling leftists thinking they can appear like us.

[–]SirGallantLionheart [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

They're infecting every sub. I can't wait for this election to end and for them to go back to whatever it is that they do.

[–]Spidertech500 [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

I'm scared this may be the new normal

[–]Ziacom [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Nope. Election funds dry up so they can't fund the shilling anymore, and the regular schmucks posting talking points are no longer scared of that year's Republican Big Bad.

[–]TearsForPeersConstitutionalist [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Soros shills go home! There's a bridge in Berkley that needs blocking.

[–]MrRgrs [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

It was easy pickings during the primary. They all got ousted after the convention but this one is straggling behind.

[–]ColonelCluster [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Negative comrade. I am conservative like you. I enjoy reading guns and eating bibles just like a true white blooded American, yes?

[–]LawlosaurusTea Party Conservative 18ポイント19ポイント  (1子コメント)

The Senate must advise and consent. If the Senate does not consent, then they are within their rights not to confirm the appointment.

[–]yeauxlo [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

The constitution doesnt require legislators to ever have a hearing on any justice ever. But thats a crippling failure of the separation of powers if taken to its conclusion by constitutional literalists. Its almost like the constitution is a 200 year old document that has gaps and missing pieces.

[–]Dsnake1 8ポイント9ポイント  (1子コメント)

Do your job, vote down the nominee, and keep doing so over and over again if you so chose.

The vote is simply supposed to be based on qualifications, not partisan politics. Voting someone down again and again shouldn't happen because if they aren't qualified, what could they have done in a month to be qualified.

[–]NakedAndBehindYou [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

To indefinitely refuse to hold a hearing if the other party wins the White House is dereliction of Constitutional duty.

They could just hold the hearing and vote no on every candidate. Would that be any better?

[–]Jimbob0i0 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Yes because they would be following the process that has been adhered to for generations. With each no vote, or Judicial committee report from the hearing indicating why specifically they decline to bring the nominee to a vote, the President gets the formal on the record advice and the ball is back in his or her court to nominate someone more favourable according the the report/vote

When GOP senators go on record praising the guy as perfect for the spot and then upon nomination just ignore the whole thing that's not advice and indicative of an obstructive broken situation.

[–]gprime#InstitutionalizeTrump [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

The fact that this is even being discussed is unacceptable. Do your job, vote down the nominee, and keep doing so over and over again if you so chose. But refusing to hold a hearing at all is beyond the pale.

Alternatively, since hearings are a modern practice with no constitutional basis, they could vote down the nominees without actually questioning them. But I agree, it isn't proper to indefinitely refuse to vote.

[–]Omahunek 8ポイント9ポイント  (2子コメント)

I totally agree, but

To block a Supreme Court nominee and not hold a hearing during the final year of a President's term is one thing.

By "one thing" you mean completely unprecedented? No doubt Cruz's claim here is even more ridiculous, but isn't it completely ridiculous to be waiting a whole year with an incomplete SCOTUS in the first place?

[–]Spidertech500 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

You're fucking with me right? This has happened before.

[–]Dsnake1 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

By "one thing" you mean completely unprecedented?

Not only unprecedented, but it is the single most partisan thing that has ever gone into (or blocked from going into) or come out of the Supreme Court.

[–]ultimisConstitutionalist -1ポイント0ポイント  (16子コメント)

Get your priorities straight.

To block a Supreme Court nominee and not hold a hearing during the final year of a President's term is one thing. To indefinitely refuse to hold a hearing if the other party wins the White House is dereliction of Constitutional duty.

Or you know Democrats have a track record. We will no longer tolerate judicial activism, end of story, period. Democrats have a 100% track record of appointing leftist ideologues that see it as their job to implement the leftist agenda from the bench.

There is also no reason to think they won't consider justices. But Hillary will need to put forward serious candidates, no Kagans or Sotomoyors. The court is fully capable of functioning without 9 justices. It is funny when morons call it a "Constitutional Crisis" while they are perfectly fine with the court legislating from the bench (which is an actual Constitutional Crisis as the court does not have this power, only Congress has this power). The Constitution makes no note of the number of justices required; which is how FDR black mailed the SCOTUS into accepting his laws as Constitutional (which they were constantly striking down before).

[–]bullbour 28ポイント29ポイント  (3子コメント)

And when Democrats take back control of the Senate and refuse to hold hearings for a Republican president's nominee, I'm certain you'll approve of that as well. Hell, we can just tweak your own words a little bit and they'll have their talking points ready to go.

Or you know Republicans have a track record. We will no longer tolerate judicial activism, end of story, period. Republicans have a 100% track record of appointing right wing ideologues that see it as their job to implement the right wing agenda from the bench.

See how that works?

There is also no reason to think they won't consider justices.

Except, you know, the last year of them doing literally that.

Stunts like this only work if you plan on the Republican party holding on to the Senate indefinitely. They won't. One day the Democrats will take it back. And when they do they will point to this dumpster fire and use it as justification to refuse to hold a hearing until the President puts forth a candidate to the left of Stalin.

So again I say that this does nothing but harm the country and set bad precedent.

[–]big_jonny 10ポイント11ポイント  (9子コメント)

4-4 splits are not indicative of a functioning court. A new justice should be named.

[–]ultimisConstitutionalist [スコア非表示]  (7子コメント)

The Constitution does not specify a number nor does it say a even number is not valid. It does specify the powers of each branch, which the court has completely violated on multiple occasions. That doesn't sound like a functioning court, it sounds like a failure of a Constitutional Republic and an extreme violation of the rule of law.

[–]Not_Insightful [スコア非表示]  (6子コメント)

28 USC 1:

The Supreme Court of the United States shall consist of a Chief Justice of the United States and eight associate justices...

Gotta repeal that then.

[–]ultimisConstitutionalist [スコア非表示]  (5子コメント)

That is not the Constitution. You can down vote my posts all you want. A statute is not a constitutional mandate.

[–]Not_Insightful [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Sure, but it was still lawfully passed under the constitution. Should probably repeal it if they want to adhere to the rule of law, which goes further than just the constitution.

[–]tinteoj [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

So, let me know if I am understanding your point: laws aren't important if they conflict with your ideology.

Did I get that right?

[–]xagut [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Also, murder isn't illegal according to the constitution. Owning guns is legal according to it. Since the constitution is the only source of law and order, we better watch out.

[–]ultimisConstitutionalist [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

The argument made is this is a constitutional crisis. It is not.

That statute does not give any specifications on time limits for replacements. So pretending as if this violates their own law is horrible whole ignoring an actual constitutional crisis caused by Democrat appoints is a sad state of this country.

The Constitution does not force Congress to act on anything. It does dictate how the president acts.

[–]Thisismyredditusern [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

A 4-4 split is as indicative of a functioning court as is a 4-3 or 5-4 decision. It just has a different effect for setting legal precedent.

There's no particular reason the Court couldn't have an even number that results in even splits being a normal part of every term. There's also nothing magical about 9 Justices. I happen to like that number, but it could just as well be 11 or 6 or 10 or 7 and function perfectly fine. Let's not get high smoking our own hyperbole here.

[–]WIlf_Brim [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

My prediction:

Hillary will appoint somebody that makes Kagan look moderate. The Republicans will cave, completely under the threat of a government shutdown (approve my appointment or else) and approve the nomination with >90 votes.

[–]egh -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

Sounds like you don't want anybody who actually respects the rule of law.

[–]ticklemythigh -2ポイント-1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Exactly. I don't get how this is the strategy they chose to publically go with. It's so much easier to have votes and vote against the nominee. Why say you're not even going to hold a vote? Makes no sense. Just seems like shooting yourself in the foot.

[–]lookingatyourcock [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

It's so much easier to have votes and vote against the nominee.

How is that easier?

[–]CaptLeibnizLibertine-Conservative [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Why are people getting so pissed about this? Constitutional gridlock was intended by the founders.

We are not a democracy - were a Democratic republic. It is entirely within the power of the Senate to refuse a hearing.

[–]SinSkin 6ポイント7ポイント  (3子コメント)

Not if they get voted out

[–]kevo7777 21ポイント22ポイント  (2子コメント)

Ted Cruz is not getting voted out of Texas. Not ever.

[–]ColonelCluster [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

I agree, but he means if Republicans lose control of the Senate, which is possible this election.

[–]PumaplayssdClassical Liberal (Conservative) [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

We just need 51 to be safe...

Then we need to surgically implant spines into our senators

[–]xwhy [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

That would be wrong.

Should Hillary win, move forward with Obama's nomination, unless for some reason he withdraws. If so, then move forward with Clinton's.

I supported the "hold off until the election" decision, and am SHOCKED that they held the line on it, but the Court is too important. I didn't like it with the lower court justices, and there might be reasons (of which I'm unaware) to block some, but not for a court where each member is 11% of the bench.

[–]PlasmaBurnz [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

I don't think it's about who is doing the appointing, it's about the candidates Obama has put forward. It doesn't matter how many buffoons he or Clinton suggest for the court, no one should be confirmed until a decent candidate is put forward.

[–]xwhy [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I wouldn't rubber stamp any nominee, but I wouldn't block them indefinitely.

Ill-suited candidates should be voted down.

[–]Villiuski -4ポイント-3ポイント  (27子コメント)

What an idiotic move. Blocking Obama's choice of candidate is understandable, but doing something like this due to party affiliations and stubbornness is undemocratic. They should have accepted Garland instead of being placed in a situation where Dems will likely have the house and Clinton the presidency.

[–]DanburyBaptistInalienable Rights of Conscience 7ポイント8ポイント  (22子コメント)

Garland is not a great choice. And no law requires there to be nine justices on the Supreme Court.

[–]tinteoj [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

Yes, there is. 28 USC 1.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1

[–]DanburyBaptistInalienable Rights of Conscience [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

This has already been discussed. That statute is under the Senate's control. If they decide to change the number, that's their prerogative.

[–]tinteoj [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

So, we can expect them to do that when exactly?

[–]DanburyBaptistInalienable Rights of Conscience [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

What's your hurry? The court is badly stacked as it is. Don't be in such a rush to see more liberal activist justices added to it. They may bring the number up to nine, or they may decide to permanently reduce. Your grousing isn't helping either way.

[–]Tolken [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

That's a very bad idea.

Why: The next time the Senate/President match they could use the same damn logic to flood the court with 3 new appointees. You do NOT what to allow either party to use such power as it WILL be abused by both.

[–]LCDDFA 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

Just out of curiosity, why do you think Garland isn't a good choice?

[–]DanburyBaptistInalienable Rights of Conscience [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

This is why.

Additionally, I don't want a "moderate" Supreme Court justice. That is inherently partisan terminology. I want justices who adhere to the Constitution and the original intent of its articles and amendments, without regard to partisan politics.

[–]Nail_Whale [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

anti 2a among other reasons

[–]hotpotamus 1ポイント2ポイント  (12子コメント)

You might be interested in the Judicial Circuits Act of 1866

[–]DanburyBaptistInalienable Rights of Conscience 8ポイント9ポイント  (8子コメント)

Dude... that in no way invalidates what I said. The statute you're citing says seven, not nine. And as Hot Air observed:

They … could do that, it’s true. The size of the Court is set by statute, not by the Constitution. If Congress wants a seven-member Court or a five-member Court, that’s up to them.

[–]haydenn156 4ポイント5ポイント  (1子コメント)

Damn, could you imagine a tryannical America where there is only 1 Supreme Court Justice!?

[–]DanburyBaptistInalienable Rights of Conscience 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

That would be really bizarre.

[–]hotpotamus -3ポイント-2ポイント  (5子コメント)

So you're saying that congress does not have to abide the laws they set for themselves. OK.

[–]DanburyBaptistInalienable Rights of Conscience 6ポイント7ポイント  (4子コメント)

This detail is theirs to adjust as they like. Whining about it won't change that fact.

[–]hotpotamus 2ポイント3ポイント  (3子コメント)

Then perhaps they should adjust it rather than violate their own law and the constitution. I'll continue to whine about it as long as they do and my vote or lack thereof will be how I express that whining.

[–]secret_porn_acct 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

Not voting on a vacancy is not violating the law. Not to mention the fact that not taking a vote is still considered fulfilling their constitutional obligation as it is an absence of consent...
The appointments clause of the Constitution places no limits on how the Senate discharges this power. The Senate may withhold its consent by voting down a nominee, but it may also withhold its consent by refusing to act, or otherwise failing to confirm a nominee.  If Obama put up an originalist, I doubt that there would be any problem and they would take a vote.

[–]hotpotamus 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

Nowhere in the constitution does it say anything about voting, so you're correct there. However not taking a vote is just not taking a vote, you can argue either way that it is lack of consent or tacit approval, which is why this is playing with fire, but I do not think that doing nothing is what the framers of the constitution intended when they wrote about advice and consent, and I think it is disingenuous to argue otherwise.

If Obama put up an originalist, I doubt that there would be any problem and they would take a vote.

They've said that they intend for the people to choose the next supreme court justice through the presidential election. Surely your not suggesting that the Senate is merely playing politics with the judiciary :P

[–]secret_porn_acct [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

What are you talking about? Of course the framers intended such a thing..

This isn't something that is new. If the framers didn't intend for it then why didn't they give requirements of a vote like they did with other things like the treaty clause? They absolutely knew this could have happened as this it is a political branch of government..
But there is no way you can argue it is tactic approval at all, that would require an affirmation from the Senate. The default answer is no consent.. How can you have consent when they refused to give it to you? Even through mental gymnastics there is no way one can reach such a conclusion.

If I asked you can I buy your house for $100 and you didn't even dignify that with an answer does that mean you consented?

I wouldn't say they are playing politics I would say they are exercising their advice and consent role.

[–]Jimbob0i0 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

The relevant controlling legislation is actually from 1869 not 1866

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiciary_Act_of_1869

And sure there can be Supreme Court reduced in size if the legislature desires... But that does actually require them to pass a bill with an update to the Judiciary Act specifying the new make up...

Wake me when they actually propose such a bill.

[–]ColonelCluster [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Are you citing that to defend or attack Cruz? Because that says Congress can and has arbitrarily redefined the size of the court to explicitly stop a President from filling a vacant SCOTUS seat...

[–]hotpotamus [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Let's put it this way - I'm not aware of a 2016 update to the law where they changed the size to 8 members.

[–]NeonAardvark [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Or we could vote Trump into office and have SC justices approved by the Federalist Society, the Heritage Foundation and Ted Cruz himself.

[–]Villiuski [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

In all likelihood Trump will lose, and Dems will have control of the senate. After the GOP's deplorable handling of the situation, I wouldn't put it past the Dems to elect a more liberal justice. The GOP would be able to do nothing to stop it.

[–]SirGallantLionheart [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Well back in the day president and senate had to compromise on it. So that a one sided justice doesn't show up. After all both president and senate are elected. Nowadays things are so partisanned they won't compromise. On the flip side all the liberals and democrats upset that the house/senate don't treat Obama like an emperor would probably be grovelling and fellating congress/senate in the reverse situation.

[–]waxtats [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

If Hillary wins, yes please. Save the country.

[–]TheOutlawJoseyWales1Make My Day -4ポイント-3ポイント  (1子コメント)

No rule about how many justices have to be on the supreme court. Why not lower the number to something like 4? Or expand the court to something like 15 by waiting until we get the executive branch and Congress, and then installing conservatives? Its not likely we lose Congress this cycle, contrary to sensationalist headlines.

[–]Jimbob0i0 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Actually yes there is legislation on the size and make up of the supreme court...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiciary_Act_of_1869

One chief, eight associates and six to reach quorum.

If they want to change that then fine, pass legislation to supercede that Act with the new setup...

[–]blizzardice [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Politico? The leftwing news source?

[–]iwingletotheleft [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

They wont