Posted on 09/18/2020 9:45:14 PM PDT by conservative98
Sen. Ted Cruz on Friday urged his fellow lawmakers to nominate and confirm a Supreme Court justice before the Nov. 3 presidential election following the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, warning of a looming “constitutional crisis” if the seat remains vacant.
“We cannot have Election Day come and go with a four-four court,” Cruz said during an interview with Fox News’ Sean Hannity. “A four-four court that is equally divided cannot decide anything. And I think we risk a constitutional crisis if we do not have a nine-justice Supreme Court, particularly when there is such a risk of a contested election.”
The Texas Republican — one of President Trump’s 20 potential nominees to the court, according to a list issued last week by the White House — called on Trump to nominate Ginsburg’s successor next week. Ginsburg died Friday due to complications of metastatic pancreatic cancer. She was 87.
“I think it is critical that the Senate takes up and confirms that successor before Election Day,” he said. “There’s going to be enormous pressure from the media, there’s going to be enormous pressure from the Democrats to delay filling this vacancy. But this election, this nomination is why Donald Trump was elected. This confirmation is why the voters voted for a Republican majority in the Senate.”
Cruz continued: “I’ll tell you one reason in particular why I think it is tremendously important that not only does the nomination happen next week, but that the confirmation happen before Election Day. Democrats and Joe Biden have made clear they intend to challenge this election. They intend to fight the legitimacy of this election. As you know, Hillary Clinton has told Joe Biden ‘under no circumstances should you concede. You should challenge this election.'”
(Excerpt) Read more at opslens.com ...
He’s right, but as soon as they can, the Democrats will alter the SC, letting it out to a size 12, and then their power will be permanent.
For now, they’ll say “let the voters decide,” though the voters did, in 2016 and again in 2018. Many of them would not have voted for Trump for any other reason than the judiciary.
Heh
Yes
that may be true. candidate trump was rather upfront about his judicial appointment inclinations in 2016. liberals should remember that elections have consequences.
Does the house have the ultimate say in this if there is a dispute? If it does, if I were the Trump campaign I’d ask for hand counted recounts in the mail in states, drag the process out until January and have the House decided the matter.
No. The Electoral College is purposely a stand-alone temporary body made up of people who hold no other political office. Hamilton wrote about this in Federalist #68:
Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one querter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union? But the convention have guarded against all danger of this sort, with the most provident and judicious attention. They have not made the appointment of the President to depend on any preexisting bodies of men, who might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes; but they have referred it in the first instance to an immediate act of the people of America, to be exerted in the choice of persons for the temporary and sole purpose of making the appointment. And they have excluded from eligibility to this trust, all those who from situation might be suspected of too great devotion to the President in office. No senator, representative, or other person holding a place of trust or profit under the United States, can be of the numbers of the electors. Thus without corrupting the body of the people, the immediate agents in the election will at least enter upon the task free from any sinister bias. Their transient existence, and their detached situation, already taken notice of, afford a satisfactory prospect of their continuing so, to the conclusion of it. The business of corruption, when it is to embrace so considerable a number of men, requires time as well as means. Nor would it be found easy suddenly to embark them, dispersed as they would be over thirteen States, in any combinations founded upon motives, which though they could not properly be denominated corrupt, might yet be of a nature to mislead them from their duty.
Federalist #68 says that the Electoral College was meant to be filled temporarily by citizens of the United States who are free from other obligations to federal office holders (such as Congress overseeing what they do). Furthermore, they were not to convene as a single body where factions might form; they were to remain local to their states and vote separately from the other states.
Note the phrase "...an immediate act of the people of America, to be exerted in the choice of persons for the temporary and sole purpose of making the appointment."
The electors were chosen to "make the appointment" of the President, not the legislatures nor the Congress. Any disputes within a state must be resolved by the Electoral College that meets in that state. Either the state legislature appoints its Electors directly to resolve a dispute, or the College members meet to hash it out (unless there are "faithless elector" laws in the state).
The only role for Congress is to break ties in the Electoral College.
-PJ
And this is why the Godless left and NWO people are going ballistic right now. Even more so than the right to kill your baby, issue.
You’re right!!!
Thank you.
I agree. She was commie trash.
[“RBG has been said by people I respect to be seriously brilliant.”
I would question the judgment of such people.]
Alan Dershowitz said of RBG: “She has a sharp mind, but it is the mind of a tax lawyer rather than a constitutional lawyer.”. Then again, maybe he was just jealous that this left-wing lawyer became a Supreme Court justice rather than him (also a man of the left).
Brilliant and wrong is still wrong.
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.