Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

TexasTowelie

(112,252 posts)
Thu Oct 27, 2016, 10:45 PM Oct 2016

Cruz says there’s precedent for keeping ninth Supreme Court seat empty

LOVELAND, Colo. — Speaking to reporters after a campaign rally for a Republican U.S. Senate candidate here, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) said that there was “precedent” for a Supreme Court with fewer than nine justices — appearing to suggest that the blockade on nominee Merrick Garland could last past the election.

“You know, I think there will be plenty of time for debate on that issue,” said Cruz, when he was asked whether a Republican-controlled Senate should hold votes on a President Hillary Clinton’s nominees. “There is certainly long historical precedent for a Supreme Court with fewer justices. I would note, just recently, that Justice Breyer observed that the vacancy is not impacting the ability of the court to do its job. That’s a debate that we are going to have.”

Cruz’s remarks put him at odds with several colleagues on the Senate Judiciary Committee, including its chairman, Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa). “If that new president happens to be Hillary, we can’t just simply stonewall,” Grassley told reporters last week.

But Grassley made those remarks after Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) told a Pennsylvania radio station that Republicans would be “united against any nominee” put forward by a President Clinton. McCain walked back the remarks, but the threat of a liberal justice replacing the late Antonin Scalia — a move that would create a liberal Supreme Court majority for the first time since the 1970s — has kept many Republicans in Trump’s camp.

Read more: https://www.texastribune.org/2016/10/27/cruz-says-theres-precedent-keeping-ninth-supreme-c/

4 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Cruz says there’s precedent for keeping ninth Supreme Court seat empty (Original Post) TexasTowelie Oct 2016 OP
Another empty headed comment from Cruz Foggyhill Oct 2016 #1
Only republican presidents madaboutharry Oct 2016 #2
Many of my friends, through mostly professional contact, pangaia Oct 2016 #3
He's correct, in a way. Buckeye_Democrat Oct 2016 #4

Foggyhill

(1,060 posts)
1. Another empty headed comment from Cruz
Thu Oct 27, 2016, 10:47 PM
Oct 2016

I wish Texas flips for good and bury the lice or we'll have to endure the ufiot

pangaia

(24,324 posts)
3. Many of my friends, through mostly professional contact,
Thu Oct 27, 2016, 10:54 PM
Oct 2016

live outside the US....from Canada, to Mexico, Brazil, Trinidad and Tobago, Great Britain, Finland, Norway, Belgium, The Netherlands, Spain, Latvia, Romania, Italy, Georgia, Russia, Ghana, Iran, Turkey, China, Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, New Zealand... just o to show this is not an isolated opinion....


There is no fucking way I can explain what is going on to ANY of them..
it is just beyond the pale.

Buckeye_Democrat

(14,855 posts)
4. He's correct, in a way.
Thu Oct 27, 2016, 10:59 PM
Oct 2016

There's been as many as ten in the past, so maybe Clinton should take Cruz's comments to heart and nominate a few justices, not just one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States

Size of the Court

Article III of the United States Constitution does not specify 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.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt attempted to expand the Court in 1937. His proposal envisioned appointment of one additional justice for each incumbent justice who reached the age of 70 years 6 months and refused retirement, up to a maximum bench of 15 justices. The proposal was ostensibly to ease the burden of the docket on elderly judges, but the actual purpose was widely understood as an effort to pack the Court with justices who would support Roosevelt's New Deal. The plan, usually called the "Court-packing Plan", failed in Congress. Nevertheless, the Court's balance began to shift within months when Justice van Devanter retired and was replaced by Senator Hugo Black. By the end of 1941, Roosevelt had appointed seven justices and elevated Harlan Fiske Stone to Chief Justice.
Latest Discussions»Region Forums»Texas»Cruz says there’s precede...