Texas
Related: About this forumCruz 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 Clintons 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. Thats a debate that we are going to have.
Cruzs 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 cant 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 Trumps camp.
Read more: https://www.texastribune.org/2016/10/27/cruz-says-theres-precedent-keeping-ninth-supreme-c/
Foggyhill
(1,060 posts)I wish Texas flips for good and bury the lice or we'll have to endure the ufiot
madaboutharry
(40,217 posts)are allowed to appoint judges. First class asshole.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)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
(14,856 posts)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.