Posted on 02/15/2016 9:16:14 PM PST by Morgana
Following the death of pro-life Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said the Senate will not take up a vote on a replacement for him until after the next president takes office. However, should a vote take place before then, Senator Ted Cruz promises to filibuster any nominee President Obama puts forward.
Here’s a transcript of Cruz’s remarks:
STEPHANOPOULOS: “— Does that mean — does that mean that you’re going to filibuster anyone — anyone that President Obama nominates?â€
CRUZ: “Absolutely. This should be a decision for the people, George. We’ve got an election. And, you know, Democrats — I cannot wait to stand on that stage with Hillary Clinton or with Bernie Sanders and take the case to the people, what vision of the Supreme Court do you want? Let the election decide it. If the Democrats want to replace this nominee, they need to win the election.
“But you know what, I don’t think the American people want a court that will strip our religious liberties. I don’t think the American people want a court that will mandate unlimited abortion on demand, partial birth abortion with taxpayer funding and no parental notification. And I don’t think the American people want a court that will write the Second Amendment out of The Constitution. All of those are 5-4 issues that are hanging in the balance.â€
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on Saturday said the Senate would not hold a vote on any President Obama replacement for deceased Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, but instead would wait until a new president takes office — setting the stage for a dramatic political showdown in Washington.
“The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President,†McConnell said in a statement.
Democrats will undoubtedly push for the nomination and a confirmation vote for a new left-wing judge.
“The President can and should send the Senate a nominee right away,†Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid said on Twitter. “The Senate has a responsibility to fill vacancies as soon as possible.â€
The ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee took a similar line.
“I hope that no one will use this sad news to suggest that the President or the Senate should not perform its constitutional duty,†Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said Saturday. “The American people deserve to have a full functioning Supreme Court.The Supreme Court of the United States is too important to our democracy for it to be understaffed for partisan reasons. It is only February. The President and the Senate should get to work without delay to nominate, consider and confirm the next justice to serve on the Supreme Court.â€
Leading pro-life advocates agree the Senate should not vote on Scalia’s replacement until after a new president has been selected.
Americans United for Life President Charmaine Yoest told LifeNews, “His loss is tragic, and we hope that when it comes time for the Senate to vote on his replacement, that a worthy successor who can pick up his banner can be found after the election.â€
Mat Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel: “With the passing of Justice Scalia, the future of the High Court and the future of America is hanging in the balance. The Senate must not confirm any nominee to the Supreme Court from President Obama. The Senate must hold off any confirmation until the next President is seated. Unfortunately the presidential debates have been more theater and less substance about the real issues surrounding the Supreme Court. The election of the next President has now taken on even greater importance. The future of the Supreme Court and America now depends on the Senate blocking any nominee by President Obama and the people electing the right person to occupy the White House.â€
August 28, 2015. Give me a break.
The problem is he sounded like the radical left on stage Saturday. He spouted democrat talking points. He is a democrat in disguise. Can you imagine the supreme court appointments he would make. He’s talking about his sister in law. Give me a break.
I hope you can understand the incongruity in those two statements when printed together. I do understand Trump's appeal. I went from a Trump doubter to a Trump supporter when he first appeared on the scene. I later became turned off by his whining, crying, and incoherent positions. (Some of) his goals are great. Given that he often takes both sides of many issues, and your own conclusion that he will likely fail in keeping his promises, I simply cannot support him for the nomination.
This is not a joke.
I think Chuck Norris should run. He believes in the Constitution, he’s a Christian God fearing man. He says the most important job in the world is being a father. I can respect that.
I don’t know much else, but that would be a better pick than what is offered.
Yeah, Chuck could be a good choice. If we are talking other conservative actors, Clint Eastwood would be up there.
and that is where the story ends. The Dems will throw a daily hissy fit, but it's already over.
Did you despise Sen. Cruz when he stood there for 21 hours trying to defund Obamacare? Should he not have bothered since he was up against a behemoth of opposition? Well, he didn’t lose that battle, the American people did by not calling or showing up at the Senate or senate offices in enough numbers to scare those who could’ve made the difference. We blew it, not Cruz or his associates. They did their job and I respect that, despite the outcome.
This would sure help make your articles more readable by
clearing up the ‘ and “ problem.
http://dan.hersam.com/tools/smart-quotes.html
” Senator Ted Cruz promises to filibuster any nominee President Obama puts forward. “
And if that doesn’t work he will send a shaming letter to each Democrat Senator. :-)
No and I don’t despise him now
But his ‘promise’ of a filibuster means NOTHING. Perhaps you don’t remember the days when a filibuster would go on and on and on until someone broke. 21 hrs was a drop in the bucket
The longest filibuster was Strom Thurmond at 24 hours and 18 minutes. Cruz’s 21 hours and 19 minute filibuster is more than just a drop in the bucket compared to that.
From what I’ve read about filibusters, they rarely stop what they’re opposing.
That’s the point
I honestly can't think of a single issue that I care about that has gotten better in over 30 years. I am simply not impressed when a candidate says he'll make sure things don't get worse. Best case scenario a perfect record and in 8 years the reversal resumes.
We knew that filibuster wasn’t going to go anywhere when Cruz and Lee stepped up, because we had (and still have) an overabundance of status quo idiots and weasels in DC.
The point was, he was doing what he promised the voters of Texas he would do, stand up to the Washington elites, defend the Constitution. No one else dared.
He was cheered back then on this forum. Now everyone parrots, like it’s a bad thing, that his colleagues don’t like him. Back then, that right there was a badge of honor.
“AND McConnell said”
And you trust him?
“And you trust him?”
Nope. Not in the least.
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.