Posted on 02/18/2016 5:51:48 AM PST by GregNH
GOP presidential candidate Ted Cruz should recuse himself in any future Senate Judiciary Committee vote on a nominee to replace Antonin Scalia, according to a law professor’s op-ed.
Cruz has a conflict of interest because of questions surrounding his eligibility to serve as president, according to the CNN op-ed by Northwestern University law professor Steven Lubet. Cruz is the only remaining GOP presidential contender with a seat on the committee.
(Excerpt) Read more at abajournal.com ...
Under the notion, all senators should recuse themselves because any of them might end up running for president (such as Garfield in 1880).
It regards a judge of the people, not a judge to serve one president. Or I might be wrong. I have been wrong before.
Just because someone might, maybe, sometime in one of many possible futures bring such an action would be no reason for Cruz to abdicate his Senatorial responsibility to vote on such a nominee.
As it stands there is no conflict of interest, because no such action has been brought in any court, much less before the SCOTUS.
If the standard for recusal was set at the possibility that a member of The Senate might end up in an action before the court in the future, then neither the POTUS nor the Senate could have any say in the matter. Any person in the US has the potential to be a party in a case before the Court, therefore none of them could vote, and even an appointment would be a possible conflict someday, some how, sometime.
Obviously, the standard would have to be, at the very least, one in which there was a case pending before the bench.
As others have pointed out, in strict application of recusal rules, there has to be a case first - no case, no question of recusal.
The public will decide if Cruz can be impartial in vetting a nominee, if one should be advanced and be subjected to a committee vote. There is no rule that forces him to recuse, not even if there WAS a case underway that involved him, that was in fact before SCOTUS. He's not the judge. He can pick a judge that he KNOWS will rule in his favor, and it would be up to that judge to recuse him or herself, again, as conscience and care for appearance of impartiality may guide.
If Kagan didn’t recuse herself on the Obamacare lawsuit, Cruz isn’t even close to the requirement for recusal.
I’d be lying if I didn’t say that the thought of having the first President (admittedly) not born in America makes me feel a little... odd.
I’ll still vote for Ted in the general if he wins the nomination, but I worry about the precedent this will set. This opens the door to jus sanguinis allowing for Presidential candidates from Syria, Venezuela, wherever, going forward. It’s a little bit unnerving.
One would think Harvard Law Schooled lawyer Ted would be a bit more grounded in the law... jurisprudence is not his strong suit.
There's an "idiot professor" born every second, it looks like.
Another professor that got his "certification" from a Cracker Jacks box
Northwestern University law professor Steven Lubet
http://www.law.northwestern.edu/faculty/profiles/StevenLubet/
Trump can cost Cruz more votes with niggling uncertainty than if the matter was adjudicated. He won't sue, that's a bluff, but he will run with it and use the allegations to influence LIVs.
Natural born Canadian. Just a fact.
Tenure is a privilege of another age.
It must be eliminated.
But see my previous post in this thread. The call for recusal at this point is just political rhetoric. Cruz could have as a "favorable vote" criteria that the judge must accept Cruz's side of the case; and for arguments sake, assume the case exists, and is on SCOTUS docket for decision. Cruz can still vote to approve the nominee. It is up to the judge to recuse, not to the "judge selector."
IRREFUTABLE AUTHORITY HAS SPOKEN
(Oct. 18, 2009) The Post & Email has in several articles mentioned that the Supreme Court of the United States has given the definition of what a “natural born citizen” is. Since being a natural born citizen is an objective qualification and requirement of office for the U.S. President (and VP), it is important for all U.S. Citizens to understand what this term means.
http://www.thepostemail.com/2009/10/18/4-supreme-court-cases-define-natural-born-citizen/
They’re going to use this to end Cruz’s chances for the presidency. They completely and deliberately covered up 0bama’s claim that he was born in kenya.
Also technically we vote for state electors, not the party headliners whose names appear on the presidential election ballot. The USSC cannot interfere with the constitutional mechanism used to elect the president as it is a violation of the separation of powers.
Yeah, it has been a rough 7 years.
Cruz is in that position with NBC. The chances of Congress or the courts enforcing that provision of the constitution are close to zero. It's stupid to follow the law, when you know the law is not enforced.
The fact is that a US Senator does not have to be, nor is required to by the Constitution, to be ‘impartial’. The requirements for being Senator are finite and written clearly. The responsibility any Senator owes is to the state which he represents and the nation as a whole. Partisanship, preferences, biases or proclivities not reaching the definition of impeachment are at a Senator’s discretion.
In truth, the public won’t decide crap about Cruz’ authority to vet; that is ALREADY given by his being a Senator. It is up to those who want Obama’s choice, likely a very bad one, to get enough Senate votes to overcome dissent.
What the author asserts is bullshit and it is a diversion and attempt at influencing this Senator’s standing in election for higher office as well as intimidate him to change his likely opinions and advice and consent on a duty he is already sworn and authorized to execute. The Constitution says nothing about all these specious suppositions of IFs, CANs or MIGHTs, and it is a waste of time to suffer the machinations of these fools any further than right now.
Really? Who do you think trained Cruz the law.? You think there is a difference in Harvard Law professors and Northwestern.... What really stinks is when liberals who consider the Constitution a living breathing document, actually know the law, and will not hesitate when serving their purpose use it against the likes of Cruz...
This is a Cruz problem, not a law problem. You think for a minute if it were a liberal democrat running for president, Cruz would not bring up this same point?
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.