Ted Cruz brainstorm: just ignore Clinton court nominations

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by LizKat, Oct 26, 2016.

  1. LizKat macrumors 68040

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #1
    Another brilliant move by the right wing Republicans. Cruz suggests just not considering any Clinton nominations. McCain had similar idea on leaving court at 8, but then when Cruz took it up, McCain seemed to back off. Honestly these guys can't stop shooting themselves in the foot. Apparently Cruz thinks of this move as an alternate way to not-confirm Clinton's nomination if the GOP loses Senate majority. The Court could then shrink even further if justices retire and she can't get any nominations confirmed.

     
  2. thermodynamic Suspended

    thermodynamic

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #2
    On the plus side, that means race is ruled out.

    But why was race made an issue in the first place by people saying how Obama was being obstructed and Garland this and other things that and so on?

    Unless there are no black GOP people in Congress at all to help prove any claim the GOP is racist, just because?
     
  3. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #3
    I do think it would be fine for Congress to pass a law to bring the court down to 8 members. Having an even number can help avoid having a precedent set in closely divided cases (the only problem I see with it is if we have a repeat of the 2000 election). That said I'm guessing they won't actually officially drop the number and will instead just ignore any democratic appointees no matter how small the court gets in the hopes of someday having a Republican president and Senate majority.
     
  4. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #4
    now it's sexist not to do what she wants :p
     
  5. Meister Suspended

    Meister

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2013
  6. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #6
    Who would have thought the Republicans would double down on stupid?
     
  7. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #7
    I think the sensible Republicans will leave the party.
     
  8. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #8
    Shameful. Just ****ing shameful.

    How many more instances are needed to show that the GOP has no interest in governance? They're 30+ year streak of policies have been to whittle the institutions of government down to the bone to where they don't function properly, point to the brokenness in order to get elected, then ensure whatever function it is is privatized so their paymasters get a windfall.

    Chomsky was right, the American GOP isn't a party, they're a dangerous insurgency with the goal of ceasing the functions of the government outright leaving a vacuum for the multinational conglomerates to take over.
     
  9. samcraig macrumors P6

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    #9
    Another fine example of how some politicians put their own agenda ahead of what the people want and need. Cruz and Trump are cut from the same cloth. They'll just take their toys and go home. Some patriots these people are.
     
  10. thermodynamic Suspended

    thermodynamic

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #10
    After what they said about what amounts to avoiding Clinton's to-be court nominees, given Obama's chess play of GOP Garland, Clinton could want to put in the same sort of deconstructive people as Rubio (had he been nominated) would try to put in and they would still not care...
     
  11. Herdfan macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    #11
    While I would not agree with this, these sort of shenanigans are not limited to Dems. If you remember from your history books (and I know you are old enough that they actually taught you history when you were in school) FDR fearing his legislative agenda would be stopped by the court, sought to expand the court by up to 15 justices that he would appoint.

    Also, there is nothing in the Constitution specifying the number of justices.
     
  12. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #12
    The fact that their justifications keep changing show that they really are just gearing up for further obstruction for political purposes. They are not attempting to work in good faith.
     
  13. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #13
    Add ****wit Jason Chaffetz to the mix. Promising years of Clinton investigations, This from the limp dick who will vote for Trump but won't "endorse" him. Cowards who are unable and unwilling to govern.
     
  14. samcraig macrumors P6

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    #14
    I say let him. But that if nothing comes of the investigation, he has to reimburse taxpayers all the money spent.
     
  15. colourfastt macrumors 6502a

    colourfastt

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2009
    #15
    There was a good article giving the position that the Senate has waived its right to "advise and consent".

    From the article:

    Today, the system seems to be broken. Both parties are at fault, seemingly locked in a death spiral to outdo the other in outrageous behavior. Now, the Senate has simply refused to consider President Obama’s nomination of Judge Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, dozens of nominations to federal judgeships and executive offices are pending before the Senate, many for more than a year. Our system prides itself on its checks and balances, but there seems to be no balance to the Senate’s refusal to perform its constitutional duty.

    The Constitution glories in its ambiguities, however, and it is possible to read its language to deny the Senate the right to pocket veto the president’s nominations. Start with the appointments clause of the Constitution. It provides that the president “shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint . . . Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States.” Note that the president has two powers: the power to “nominate” and the separate power to “appoint.” In between the nomination and the appointment, the president must seek the “Advice and Consent of the Senate.” What does that mean, and what happens when the Senate does nothing?

    In most respects, the meaning of the “Advice and Consent” clause is obvious. The Senate can always grant or withhold consent by voting on the nominee. The narrower question, starkly presented by the Garland nomination, is what to make of things when the Senate simply fails to perform its constitutional duty. ...

    It is in full accord with traditional notions of waiver to say that the Senate, having been given a reasonable opportunity to provide advice and consent to the president with respect to the nomination of Garland, and having failed to do so, can fairly be deemed to have waived its right.

    Here’s how that would work. The president has nominated Garland and submitted his nomination to the Senate. The president should advise the Senate that he will deem its failure to act by a specified reasonable date in the future to constitute a deliberate waiver of its right to give advice and consent. What date? The historical average between nomination and confirmation is 25 days; the longest wait has been 125 days. That suggests that 90 days is a perfectly reasonable amount of time for the Senate to consider Garland’s nomination. If the Senate fails to act by the assigned date, Obama could conclude that it has waived its right to participate in the process, and he could exercise his appointment power by naming Garland to the Supreme Court.
     
  16. AsherN macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 11, 2016
    Location:
    Canada
    #16
    Good points. Furthermore, for those thinking that failing to have 60 votes, the Dems would need to invoke the "nuclear option", parsing the appointent clause, it seems that the 2/3 requirements refers to Treaties. So a simple majority is all that is required to appoint.
     
  17. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #17
    No, but congress has passed laws to set the number of justices. If the GOP wants to keep it at 8 instead of just trying to delay until the next GOP president they need to pass a law to officially change it to 8. They have both houses of congress so they could do it.
     
  18. AlliFlowers Contributor

    AlliFlowers

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2011
    Location:
    L.A. (Lower Alabama)
    #18
    If they are not performing their duties, they should be fired. Period.

     
  19. LizKat thread starter macrumors 68040

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #19
    And a single Senator can place a hold on any nomination.

    Let's not forget Senator Shelby with his blanket hold on scores of Obama nominations back in 2010. Senator Shelby has often resorted to putting holds on nominations when trying to angle for advantage in other legislation. So it's certainly not like Ted Cruz invented this process. But, Senator Cruz may be unique in proposing to block nominations for the merry hell of it.


     
  20. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #20
    To top it off, at the time these were anonymous holds, were they not?
     
  21. appleisking macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 24, 2013
    #21
    As long as it's a Republican doing it right? Country be damned!
     
  22. VulchR macrumors 68020

    VulchR

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Location:
    Scotland
    #22
    All I can say is that I hope Clinton appoints a more liberal judge than Obama, and that the Democrats get a majority in the Senate. In any case, is sounds to me like the GOP is rapidly becoming a fringe party, so at some point soon the more sane people in the party will form a centrist party or coalition (perhaps attracting people from the Democratic side as well).
     
  23. tgara, Oct 27, 2016
    Last edited: Oct 27, 2016

    tgara macrumors 6502a

    tgara

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2012
    Location:
    Somewhere in the Delta Quadrant
    #23
    This is just stupid. It's crystal clear that appointments clause requires both (1) that the president nominate, and (2) that the Senate provide advice and consent on said nominee. You have to have both. That's why we have such checks and balances! The president cannot simply "deem" that the Senate waived its right. Remember when Obama deemed the Senate out of session and made recess appointments? It didn't go so well.
     
  24. LizKat thread starter macrumors 68040

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #24
    We did seem to do better in coming to consensus when the Congress had moderate Republicans. We still have some blue dog Democrats but to think of a Republican in office now as moderate means shifting the traditional definition way to the right.
     
  25. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #25
    who says they are NOT performing their duties? a liberal SCOTUS would be the death of the 2nd so blocking liberal justices is indeed doing their duties.
     

Share This Page