Posted on 02/15/2016 2:29:59 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Despite the objections of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, President Obama has announced his intention to submit a nominee to fill the Supreme Court vacancy created by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia.
And despite Donald Trump's call for "delay, delay, delay," the Senate Judiciary Committee will almost certainly have to hold a hearing on Obama's eventual nominee.
It would be one thing to vote against an individual, or even to stage a filibuster, but quite another to abdicate the Senate's constitutionally required "advice and consent" function by refusing to extend even the minimal courtesy of a committee hearing.
That brings us to Ted Cruz, who happens to be the only remaining Republican presidential candidate with a seat on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Under ordinary circumstances, Cruz would therefore be entitled to question the eventual nominee, and to vote on whether his or her name should be advanced to the Senate floor.
Cruz, however, has an unresolvable conflict of interest in this matter, which should disqualify him from participating directly in the proceedings.
As is well known, Cruz's claim to "natural born" United States citizenship has been questioned (bombastically) by Donald Trump, and (very seriously) by a number of highly respected legal scholars, including Harvard's Lawrence Tribe and the University of Chicago's Eric Posner....
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
*******
Here in Texas we elect our judges. How is that any different from this?
Funny, Constitutionality sure becomes important when folks want to use it to their advantage.
Any other time, and the Republicans and Democrats couldn’t care less about the document.
ridiculous. Recusal applies to the judiciary - not congress.
You needn’t be an NBC to be a Senator. This is baloney.
> “t would be one thing to vote against an individual, or even to stage a filibuster, but quite another to abdicate the Senate’s constitutionally required “advice and consent” function by refusing to extend even the minimal courtesy of a committee hearing.”
Oh really?
I once read a debate between Scalia and Tribe. Scalia was down to earth, clear and made sense. Tribe tried to impress, but made no sense whatsoever.
Ok, then every damned Obama supporting democrat senator has to stand down. Obama is a usurper.
What a pantload. This guy is a perfesser?
Great point!
Cruz SHOULD recuse.... following the fine example set forth by Kagen on the ACA.
It is not “constitutionally required” ....
He doesn’t have to be a natural-born citizen in order to be eligible for election to the Senate. There is no doubt that he meets the Constitutional citizenship, age and residency requirements for the office he now holds.
Liberals have no bottom floor.
If McConnell is true to his word, there will never be hearings, so this leftie’s opinion is moot.
I just saw Jug Ears on the evening news talking about his constitutional duty to nominate a justice and the Senate’s duty to confirm that nominee.
Gag me....
The Constitution means NOTHING to these jokers when it stands in the way of some agenda they want to advance, like baby-butchery or sodomy. It’s only in cases like this that they even mention the words on the paper, and then very cynically.
This guy is embarrassing himself.
Elections have consequences.
There could be a danger to Cruz’ candidacy if McConnell reverses himself on scheduling hearings. Sen. Cruz may have to chose between his campaign on one hand and Senate judiciary hearings, or even a fillibuster, on the other.
Apparently you really can get a law degree from a box of Kracker Jack.
Yes, Those are my thoughts also.
We’ve already let the halfrican run wild.
Enough already!
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.