Ted Cruz: 'Odds are very good' of Supreme Court vacancy this summer

A five justice majority of "Constitutionalists" says Cruz.

Fantastic says I.

We're very much likely to get to shape the future of America in ways that will change history for the better.

Its so amazingly fortunate that Trump won and that Hillary did not have this responsibility.

We quite literally saved America.

BTW, watch the interview at the link, its great, Cruz is a really good speaker.

 

I think the Previous Make up was actually pretty reasonable, with only CU being the opinion that i vehemently disagreed with. Ted was a good swing vote and I think that should be the modeled make-up of SCs to come.

 

Appoint Ted Cruz to the court. He is a brilliant sensible man.

 

A seat on the court is a good place for him. He's not likable, but he is brilliant.

 

Prior to the era of Obama I was of the opinion that a court should have a balanced membership.

But after witnessing the rulings that the federal bench has been handing out over the past 8 years I cant support that notion anymore.

We need a stacked Conservative court in order to quell the radicalism and anti-Constitutional quality of progressives.

 

6-3 conservative majority? Woo!

Of course, this means the left will declare any decision that does not go 7-2 or better as "partisan".

 

It should all be conservatives. This may be the last hurrah for the reps. The forecast if for the white conservative vote to die off. If and when that means Hillary clones for the foreseeable future.

 

I would relish the liberal meltdown for that nomination.

 

They're going to poison one of the liberal judges...

 

Most definitely. The very definition of conservatism is the preservation of values and culture. In this case, the Constitution of the United States.

 

Or, they could just foresee the 83 yr old stepping aside.

 

As if anyone needed to - Ginsburg is already two knees in the grave.

 

You sound like my Liberal friends, just from the other side. I didn't like some of the rulings they handed down, but I respect that they have tried to be balanced. Just because you don't like the decisions, doesn't mean they aren't good decisions.

Maybe white people should have more babies? And no, a balanced court means no one side gainst absolute power. We all know where that leads.....

 

The alt-left is too extreme for America.

We suffered with Obama's two alt-left judges.

Thank God Trump won.

 

Basically, waaa, they don't rule the way I want, lets put some scumbag in that will bastardize the constitution. Do conservatives have any shred of honesty and decency?

I'm sorry, those conservative justices like Scalia make the dumbest, most screwed up decision. All some of you care about is forcing your morals on others (which is unconstitutional) and putting absolute hacks on SCOTUS and only those that protect the 2nd amendment, not any of the others. And you claim you want a constitutionalist. Some of you know nothing about the constitution when you constantly whine about "activist judges" and supreme court justices interpreting the constitution, which is there job. So how can you say you want constitutionalist when all you really want are people to push your agenda and bastardize the constitution. News flash, the role of SCOTUS, as the constitution says, is to determine if laws violate the constitution or not. How do you do that if you don't interpret what the constitution says and how it fits to things not known at the time of its inception? It's written pretty succinctly on purpose

Citizens United was a joke. How do corporations have free speech? How is money free speech? They just handed corporations the keys to buying the government unchecked. Trumps pick probably also is bought and paid for.

I'm sorry, there has pretty much always been a conservative majority and we have had some horrendous rulings. Stack the court with a holes that will ensure for decades to come that the rich will continue to be able to trample all over this country

 

Oh yeah, you suffered sooooo much. I can see the apocalypse left behind from Canada.

hyperbole much?

Also, don't forget where the Republicans where back in 08. US Politics are a cycle, and the Dems will be back in power eventually.

 

A challenge to you
1: Pick a decision
2: Show how it is unsound, in specific terms.
Else, you're just crying "waaah" about a ruling that did not go the way you want.

 

Its not the rulings that are practical yet disagreeable that I take issue with to the point of saying there shouldn't be balance.

And its not actually the SCOTUS that I'm taking issue with either.

Its the moonbat side of the federal courts system that creates so much drama that I want a strong Constitution-centric SCOTUS so that it can slap down the moonbats in the federal.

Immigration orders (both Trumps and Obamas), assaults on the 2nd amendment, assaults on voter id laws, assaults on states rights, all the problems come from radical Leftist overreaching federal districts.

If we had a balanced court, many bad rulings would survive it.

- - - Updated - - -

There's not liking a ruling because your personal opinion doesn't agree with the law.

And there's not liking a ruling because it doesn't agree with the law.

Google the phrase "legislating from the bench" and you'll understand what I'm talking about.

 

So, basically, wa wa wa, because you don't like the way they ruled.

 

If they survive, maybe they aren't bad rulings? I mean, you have some very solidified ideas as to how things should run, but I think taking some time and viewing things from others perspective might help you appreciate where they come from.

Also, I think SCOTUS has done a rather reasonable job considering the constant attempts by both sides to radically alter the US landscape. As much as the media would like you to think that the US is a hellhole on a downward spiral, it's actually doing reasonably well. Yes there are a lot of areas that need improvement, but It's not as bad as they would like you to believe. I mean, if you had to choose, I believe you'd rather live in America (as I would Canada) then anywhere else.....

 

Agree 100%.

Agree 100%.

Gorsuch is absolutely right: any judge who hasn't had to render a decision based on the law which he/she disagrees with is not doing their job properly. We need more justices on the high court that understand this simple precept.

 

And don't forget the ultimate brown-nose to this swamp-filled administration and its swindler-in-chief.

 

So in order to eliminate legislation from the bench (in your eyes), we need more of it - just from the party you agree with...
That makes sense

It's hilarious that you people believe you are in any way better than the extreme left.

Well, that's what happens when you stack the court with justices that are ruling on "morals" or "ideals" and not legal principle.

 

No, you've taken that completely wrong.

Like I said we need a Constitution-centric bench, one that will uphold laws not twist their meaning to support their agenda.

You do realize that is the absolute best way to run a country, right?

I'm going to give you two examples of what Leftist courts are doing right now, then I'll pose two mirrored hypothetical of what Rightist courts could do using the same precedent, and you tell me if you are happy with how that would work.

Example 1

Right now Leftist courts are using their interpretation of the law to say the 2nd amendment doesn't technically give you the right to own a gun.

Hypothetically, what if Rightist courts judged that the 15th doesn't technically give you the right to vote?

Did you know that if we use the language of the judgement in the recent Unconstitutional Maryland ruling and apply it to the 15th that we actually end up with a strong legal basis to deny votes to people?

Their entire foundation for that ruling was that the Constitution wasn't explicit and therefore any unspoken words were subject to interpretation.

Did you know that the 15th has similar language susceptible to subjective interpretation.

As it reads "shall not be denied on account of race, color, previous condition", basically factor X, Y, and Z only - what about factors A, B, and C?

See what I mean?

The precedent used in Maryland to strip somebody of their Constitutional right could easily be used on any other right.

Example 2

Leftist courts are using their interpretation of the law to say that States need not follow federal immigration law if their didn't want to.

Hypothetically, what if Rightist courts judged that States need not follow other federal laws if they didn't want to ...such as gay marriage laws?

A court which rules that federal law need not apply is a major precedent and once it has been set this 50 State game we're all playing becomes a free-for-all.

If California defies a federal law on illegal immigration then Tennessee is 100% free and justified to do the same for federal laws they don't agree with.

--

So what do we do?

We empower Constitutionalism.

That way we have a judiciary who will be duty bound to execute all laws and not selectively choose when to adopt an enforcement role based on feels while simultaneously setting dangerous precedents.

Please, if you respond, please tell me what you think about those two examples because they are very serious realities of a lawless court.

 

I agree we need judges that will follow the constitution and not twist it to their ideals, this applies to both parties not just the democrats. Republicans are equally as guilty.

On the gun issue, I agree 100%. There is no wiggle room. The second amendment protects us not only from domestic threats but foreign ones as well. Any judge or legislator attempting to dismantle the 2A should be removed from office. Gun free states are blatantly unconstitutional.

On immigration I also agree, no country can exist without borders. We need border security, I don't know if a wall is going to work but that seems to be the current direction, we have technology now that would be much more efficient and effective. Anyone here illegally needs to be deported, their ability to get a job and receive benefits should be stopped immediately and I personally feel birthright citizenship needs to be reexamined.