Posted on 07/01/2018 6:11:18 PM PDT by JeepersFreepers
The retirement of moderate Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy provides conservatives with a potential, once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to appoint a constitutional jurist to the court and cement a 5-4 conservative majority, but moderate Republicans are already throwing cold water on conservative hopes.
Yesterday, Sen. John Cornyn attempted to manage Republicans’ expectations on the upcoming Supreme Court nomination, saying he wants a less controversial pick for what could potentially be the most impactful Supreme Court appointment in American history.
According to a report by POLITICO, Cornyn “cautioned Trump against selecting any nominee with a publicly stated position on overturning court precedents such as Roe v. Wade.”
“I think that would be a terrible mistake, for the president to nominate somebody who had that sort of agenda,” he said adding that “we don’t need judges who have either personal or political or ideological agendas, in my view. And I think that ought to comfort all of us.”
Cornyn’s statement puts him in direct conflict with not only Texas’ pro-life voters but the president himself. On the campaign trail, Trump promised he would appoint pro-life, Second Amendment-supporting judges who will interpret the law as written.
“The justices that I am going to appoint will be pro-life, they will have a conservative bent, they will be protecting the Second Amendment. They’re great scholars in all cases and they’re people of tremendous respect. They will interpret the Constitution the way the founders intended it to be interpreted,” said Trump.
So far, Trump has kept that promise not only with the appointment of Justice Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, but with the appointment of scores of conservative jurists to the nation’s appellate and district courts.
With Republican control of the Presidency and the Senate, the only obstacle to the appointment of conservative judges are Republican hold-outs.
Cornyn’s sentiment places him at odds with Texas’ other conservative leaders. Both Sen. Ted Cruz and Gov. Greg Abbott have advocated for the president to nominate Republican Sen. Mike Lee of Utah.
And the Second Amendment.
Time to overturn bad precedent.
Oh, and Chuck, stick stare decises up your ass.
5.56mm
We didn’t see Cornyn fighting Obama’s radical nominees.
Cornball is as bad as a Bush. RINO to the core.
We’ve tried to oust ‘Big John’....as he calls himself in his campaign ads, every four years.....to no avail.
Big $$ always comes through, for Big RINO John.
Please tell us a viable candidate who can trounce Cornball. The last election, there were conservatives running....but, unfortunately, none could stand up RINO John.
And, Kalifornia.
You forgot “duck first”. You can lose an eye that way when your Chuckie. Just saying.
thats a man....
The Senate’s job is to advise and consent; the president’s job is to nominate. Thank you for your advice, but so long as they’re qualified to sit, unlike at least one of the people you approved in the past for Obama, then your consent is required.
I predict “stare decisis” will be the most popular phrase among Dems at confirmation hearings.
How many babies have you had aborted Cornyn?
These people are selling their souls to the devil. President Trump needs to air some abortions. . .maybe if they actual see one, they will believe it is a baby. God’s creation . . . the pro-abortion congress men and women are accomplices to murder with their rhetoric . . . . and murdering God’s creation at that. Woe to them.
I call him “The Great Cornholio”.
Someone needs to call out the democrat party on their obsession with murdering babies much more often. This is evil.
Exactly. Only liberal decisions are precedents. Every decision they hold so dear overturned decades and in some cases centuries of tradition or law, but that was fine. Now that they’ve been status quo for a couple decades, they’re supposed to have acquired the status of immutable natural law which must never be questioned. I’m waiting for some R nominee, when asked about stare decisis, to say that he loves it just as much as any Democrat. Where can the questioner go from there?
He’s a RINO. Don’t trust him as far as he can be thrown.
Bork was an idiot. He answered their questions about privacy correctly, technically, but in a way that validated the concept of the Constitution as an exhaustive enumeration of OUR RIGHTS, not one of feral powers. ALL the rights are belong to us.
Horse apples! The Court was 4/2/3, L-R. With a replacement to the right of Scalia, it still only becomes 4/1/4... a balanced Court, AT WORST (from the Left's perspective). How is this "impactful" in any way at all?
When Ginsburg and Breyer (80 in AUG) are replaced with Scalia 3 and Scalia 4, making it 2/1/6, THEN you can talk about impactful.
(And then, a Dem president in 2024 can make it 4/1/4 again as Thomas and Alito both hit their 80s during that term... so the "most impactful appointment ever", PLUS 2 massive extreme-L-to-extreme-R changes, are all reversed and put back to a perfect 4/1/4 balance within about 6 years. As with everything on the Left today, this is hysterics over nothing. A tempest in a teacup, all sound and fury, signifying nothing.)
I’ve been saying for a while that Abbott would beat either Cruz or Cornyn in a GOP primary.
Stick to a strict constitutionalist and the rest will follow.
Cheney was born in Nebraska and was a Congressman from Wyoming.
Cornyn will have a lot to explain on Judgment Day.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.