Posted on 02/14/2016 6:34:31 AM PST by SMGFan
The GOP presidential candidate—and at least two of his rivals—are acting as if the meaning of the Constitution changes depending on the timing of the next election. Antonin Scalia is dead. Is it legitimate for the Republican-controlled Senate to refrain from confirming a replacement for the late Supreme Court justice until a new president is elected, as Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Ben Carson and others on the right have urged? Or does the Senate have an obligation to approve a qualified nominee put forth by President Obama, as many on the left argued as soon as news of the death broke?
(Excerpt) Read more at theatlantic.com ...
Conor Friedersdorf? A journalist who writes about his opinions about stuff?
Or Ted Cruz? A Constitutional lawyer who has taken cases before the Supreme Court and has won those cases?
And knows the Constitution better than the back of his hand.
Has everyone contacted their senators to urge them to “Bork” any nomination by Zero. I did. Of course, I know Ted Cruz will lead this fight. Cornyn had better block Zero as well.
BFAC will be along any second now to post this as an effective anti Cruz piece. She loves her some far left radical media.
Article III of the United States Constitution leaves it to Congress to fix the number of justices. The Judiciary Act of 1789 called for the appointment of six justices, and as the nation's boundaries grew, Congress added justices to correspond with the growing number of judicial circuits: seven in 1807, nine in 1837, and ten in 1863.
In 1866, at the behest of Chief Justice Chase, Congress passed an act providing that the next three justices to retire would not be replaced, which would thin the bench to seven justices by attrition. Consequently, one seat was removed in 1866 and a second in 1867. In 1869, however, the Circuit Judges Act returned the number of justices to nine, where it has since remained.
With most of the Senate declared 'the enemy' (of Conservatives), what ever happened to the enemy of my enemy is my friend?
If they liked him as much as McConnell or Boehner or the rest of that herd of RINOs, he'd be one of them, and deservedly as despised as Jebbie around here. IMHO, the GOPe not liking him is a plus!
/hijack
he burnt the bridge, Senatorial discretion....
So, the number of justices on the Supreme Court has been a matter of law since 1869. Did not know that.
Then how did FDR’s court-packing attempt come within a whisker of being passed by Congress? Would it have been ruled unconstitutional if it had? It would seem so.
Yes. Bork was BORKED by the Senate Dems, and they proudly speak of that today. They had no justification for rejecting him, other than their power and Bork’s love of the Constitution. Nixon appointees Haynsworth and Carswell were very qualified. One of Bush’s appointees was rejected by DEMs because he admitted to smoking weed. Anita Hill is considered a saint for lying and trashing Thomas-those hearings went on for over a year.
I'm no constitutional scholar (Obama took my law school slot, but that's another story). But I'm guessing a president could legally pack the Supreme Court if he had the votes in Congress.
If the Wikipedia article is correct, all you'd need do is get Congress to authorize a Supreme Court of, say, 20 Justices. Then you could just appoint 11 more Justices.
In 1937 even the hugely Democratic Congress shied away from allowing FDR to turn SCOTUS into an instrument of his will.
They figured the world at that time already had enough dictators.
Why pack the Court now? A liberal replacement for Scalia will be quite sufficient to turn SCOTUS hard left for years to come.
One commie would have been replaced with another commie. This situation is completely different.
Not sure anyone Obama puts up is “qualified” for the job. They lack reading comprehension.
The make up of the GOP senators that vote YES will be ones retiring and not running again and those with election dates as far out in the future as can be...
That is because cruz has a spine and stands up for what he believes...
and most of the GOPe’ers in the senate do not.
“Most of them can’t stand him.”
Yes, I know. Isn’t it wonderful how he has managed to stand against the go along to get along Rinos in the senate, and not be beaten down like most everyone else? I’m sure you agree that a man of such strength and character will make a fine president. I’m also sure he appreciates your support.
I believe O’Connell has been quoted as saying that there will nor be a vote this year. If he will only stick to it.
Well said
Awww, is someone trying to say that the Senate has no place in approving a Supreme Court justice?
Someone let Robert Bork know....
Ayotte makes 3.
It seems rare that the major GOP POTUS candidates agree on anything but Trump, Cruz, Rubio (the only three capable of nomination) agree on this as does Carson. JEB! is batting .500 on his desire to be nominated without the votes of the base because he certainly won't get the votes of the base OR be nominated. Kasich is seeking a Waffle House franchise after his political career ends.
If most GOP US Senate love slaves of Wall Street and K Street and the US Chambers of Crony Commerce despise Cruz, isn't that a feather in his cap and a feather shared by Trump and, truth be known, Rubio?
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.