JFK Assassin's Son to be Next Supreme Court Justice?

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

There's an idea being floated that Ted Cruz will be the nominee for RBG's replacement. This isn't merely a rumor. Wednesday Trump submitted a list of 20 potential nominees. Cruz was one of the 20. Another was a protege of Cruz.

After hearing this idea, I watched Fox News. I observed small clues:

• Trump was delivering him enormous praise.
• Hannity likewise. Hannity said that Dershowitz said Cruz was his best student ever.

Cruz then came on and argued that they need to choose a nominee next week because they will need a tie breaker in the Court for election deliberations.

If Cruz isn't the nominee, he'll at least be heavily involved in the process.

 

[Jayjay]

Ted Cruz in 2016: “It has been 80 years since a Supreme Court vacancy was nominated and confirmed in an election year. There is a long tradition that you don’t do this in an election year.”

Ted Cruz in 2020: “The court — we are one vote away from losing our fundamental constitutional liberties, and I believe that the president should next week nominate a successor to the court, and I think it is critical that the Senate takes up and confirms that successor before Election Day.”

 

[Patooka]

Ted Cruz in 2016: “It has been 80 years since a Supreme Court vacancy was nominated and confirmed in an election year. There is a long tradition that you don’t do this in an election year.”

Ted Cruz in 2020: “The court — we are one vote away from losing our fundamental constitutional liberties, and I believe that the president should next week nominate a successor to the court, and I think it is critical that the Senate takes up and confirms that successor before Election Day.”

Is quote #2 legit? Fuck, I just checked. Seriously, I used to think politicians were hypocrites, but not so shamelessly. When did being held accountable be such an evil thing for the right?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Ted Cruz in 2016: “It has been 80 years since a Supreme Court vacancy was nominated and confirmed in an election year. There is a long tradition that you don’t do this in an election year.”

Ted Cruz in 2020: “The court — we are one vote away from losing our fundamental constitutional liberties, and I believe that the president should next week nominate a successor to the court, and I think it is critical that the Senate takes up and confirms that successor before Election Day.”

Is quote #2 legit? Fuck, I just checked. Seriously, I used to think politicians were hypocrites, but not so shamelessly. When did being held accountable be such an evil thing for the right?

We passed that point a decade ago with Death Panels and baby killer.

 

[repoman]

But Obama was a lame duck. Lawyerly technicality #367...

 

[Elixir]

The only thing that might possibly hold the Rethuglican hypocrites in check would be if the Democratic leadership were to grow a pair (unlikely) and directly threaten them with changing all the rules regarding SCOTUS if they win the Senate. Get rid of the filibuster, pack the court with six new Justices, eliminate lifetime appointments, and even seek to impeach every appointee of the criminal Donald Trump. Put it ALL on the table.
Maybe they can convey this to the Republicans in a way that would make them think twice about forcing a new appointment.
I don't believe for a minute that the Dem "leadership" has that kind of balls though.

 

[Jarhyn]

The only thing that might possibly hold the Rethuglican hypocrites in check would be if the Democratic leadership were to grow a pair (unlikely) and directly threaten them with changing all the rules regarding SCOTUS if they win the Senate. Get rid of the filibuster, pack the court with six new Justices, eliminate lifetime appointments, and even seek to impeach every appointee of the criminal Donald Trump. Put it ALL on the table.
Maybe they can convey this to the Republicans in a way that would make them think twice about forcing a new appointment.
I don't believe for a minute that the Dem "leadership" has that kind of balls though.

That, unfortunately, would require that the election not be *given* to Trump by the supreme court AND that the supreme court wouldn't deem it arbitrarily "unconstitutional" to add more justices, or to change the court to a rotational basis, or any of the other things discussed.

 

[marc]

Well the debates can be tied up for a while on if Cruz can actually vote to confirm himself. If it can be forced that he shouldn’t be able to vote for himself that would be one less vote the republicans can afford to lose.

Of course I’m betting they have no problem with such a conflict of interest.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Well the debates can be tied up for a while on if Cruz can actually vote to confirm himself. If it can be forced that he shouldn’t be able to vote for himself that would be one less vote the republicans can afford to lose.

Of course I’m betting they have no problem with such a conflict of interest.

If he abstains, VP Pence will vote to break a tie.

If Democrats demand he abstain, conservatives will start screaming his right to vote on the nominee is being taken away. ... and the rights of his constiuents who would want him to be a justice.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

BTW, he has said he doesn't want to be SC Justice...but that's usually what politicians say about a position before they form an exploratory committee.

 

[ZiprHead]

The only thing that might possibly hold the Rethuglican hypocrites in check would be if the Democratic leadership were to grow a pair (unlikely) and directly threaten them with changing all the rules regarding SCOTUS if they win the Senate. Get rid of the filibuster, pack the court with six new Justices, eliminate lifetime appointments, and even seek to impeach every appointee of the criminal Donald Trump. Put it ALL on the table.
Maybe they can convey this to the Republicans in a way that would make them think twice about forcing a new appointment.
I don't believe for a minute that the Dem "leadership" has that kind of balls though.

I like this idea.

 

[Swammerdami]

Is quote #2 legit? Fuck, I just checked. Seriously, I used to think politicians were hypocrites, but not so shamelessly. When did being held accountable be such an evil thing for the right?

For centuries America prided itself on the strength and wisdom of its people and its institutions. Evil politicians had to hide their true nature behind a veneer.

But the election of Donald Trump in 2016 proved that hypocrisy, hatred and greed are not impediments to citizen support anymore. The median American voter doesn't care about such things, or maybe even embraces it. The more that Trump and Trumpists display their true natures, the more support they get!

Donald Trump has proven to be a thousand times worse as President than even the pessimists thought. Yet he still has about a 50-50 chance to be re-elected.

Or maybe better than 50-50 given that all excuses to litigate will be on the table, and a new Court with 6 GOP hacks will be ready to rubber-stamp whatever Trump wants. (Chief Justice Roberts, who started his career as a political hack in the style of Karl Rove, seems occasionally to have a conscience and might vote with the humans, but they'll be outnumbered anyway now, 5-4.)

(There is a still chance. If Mitt Romney and 3 other GOP Senators join with the humans, Trump won't get to pack the Court. Unfortunately, most of the GOP Senators who might resist seem only to want to delay confirmation until after the November Election, and then, whether they win re-election or not, plan to confirm during the winter's brief lame-duck session.)

 

[Angra Mainyu]

There's an idea being floated that Ted Cruz will be the nominee for RBG's replacement. This isn't merely a rumor. Wednesday Trump submitted a list of 20 potential nominees. Cruz was one of the 20. Another was a protege of Cruz.

After hearing this idea, I watched Fox News. I observed small clues:

• Trump was delivering him enormous praise.
• Hannity likewise. Hannity said that Dershowitz said Cruz was his best student ever.

Cruz then came on and argued that they need to choose a nominee next week because they will need a tie breaker in the Court for election deliberations.

If Cruz isn't the nominee, he'll at least be heavily involved in the process.

The nominee will be a woman, so we can rule out Cruz now.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

There's an idea being floated that Ted Cruz will be the nominee for RBG's replacement. This isn't merely a rumor. Wednesday Trump submitted a list of 20 potential nominees. Cruz was one of the 20. Another was a protege of Cruz.

After hearing this idea, I watched Fox News. I observed small clues:

• Trump was delivering him enormous praise.
• Hannity likewise. Hannity said that Dershowitz said Cruz was his best student ever.

Cruz then came on and argued that they need to choose a nominee next week because they will need a tie breaker in the Court for election deliberations.

If Cruz isn't the nominee, he'll at least be heavily involved in the process.

The nominee will be a woman, so we can rule out Cruz now.

Allegedly.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

This article is from Sep 9th:

The new list includes three Republican senators (Ted Cruz, Tom Cotton and Josh Hawley) and former US solicitors general Paul Clement and Noel Francisco, as well as judges Trump has nominated to the lower courts.

Trump said the new names would be added to previous lists that include Judges Amy Coney Barrett and Amul Thapar, who are considered frontrunners should a vacancy arise.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/09/politics/supreme-court-trump-potential-nominees/index.html

Since Twitler is now saying he wants a woman, JFK's assassin's son is likely going to just be a big part of the process. That leaves one woman out of the likely nominees.
Amy Coney Barrett

Here is a more recent article on Barrett and other possibilities:
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/19/amy...nner-to-fill-ginsburg-supreme-court-seat.html

 

[Angra Mainyu]

There's an idea being floated that Ted Cruz will be the nominee for RBG's replacement. This isn't merely a rumor. Wednesday Trump submitted a list of 20 potential nominees. Cruz was one of the 20. Another was a protege of Cruz.

After hearing this idea, I watched Fox News. I observed small clues:

• Trump was delivering him enormous praise.
• Hannity likewise. Hannity said that Dershowitz said Cruz was his best student ever.

Cruz then came on and argued that they need to choose a nominee next week because they will need a tie breaker in the Court for election deliberations.

If Cruz isn't the nominee, he'll at least be heavily involved in the process.

The nominee will be a woman, so we can rule out Cruz now.

Allegedly.

It seems very improbable that he'd lie about this. Nothing to gain from it, and it would hurt with his base for no good reason.

 

[J842P]

Allegedly.

It seems very improbable that he'd lie about this. Nothing to gain from it, and it would hurt with his base for no good reason.

I don't think he's lying, but I don't think it would hurt with his base.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Allegedly.

It seems very improbable that he'd lie about this. Nothing to gain from it, and it would hurt with his base for no good reason.

It is entirely plausible that this first nominee is just for show to counter a charge against being misogynistic by nominating a super fundamentalist pro-life radical, conspiracy-theory-loving Qaren. A faux nominee, a fauxminee if you will. This will keep many of the suburban white women from leaving his base that they fear will leave to Biden.

Democrats will plausibly reject the nominee, not just because she may be a crazy person, but also because of the precedent that was established not to do a nomination during election months. Then, Trump may say, "See? It's the Democrats that are sexist. I nominated a woman and they rejected her. But I do have someone in mind to be the next nominee."

And ta-da: JFK's assassin's son, Ted Cruz.



By the way, if you expend any effort at all trying to debunk this, you don't get it. Twitler is the one behind this conspiracy theory about Ted Cruz's father. And now he's saying Ted Cruz is the greatest person in the world. And you are saying Trump's base would never forgive him for lying to them.

 

[lpetrich]

Momentum growing among Republicans for Supreme Court vote before Election Day | TheHill - "Momentum is growing among Senate Republicans for a Supreme Court confirmation vote to take place before Election Day, something that GOP strategists say would rev up conservative voters and deliver a huge accomplishment for President Trump before voters go to the polls."

Jeff Flake: Republicans 'should hold the same position' on SCOTUS vacancy as 2016 | TheHill

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) — a moderate defending her seat in a state Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton won in 2016 — said Saturday that she would not support a vote on a nominee this year, which Trump pointed out during a campaign rally Saturday evening.

Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.), who is up for reelection and behind in the polls in another state Clinton won, skirted the issue of timing during a town hall Saturday.

Barrett seen as a front-runner for Trump Supreme Court pick | TheHill

Amy Coney Barrett, a federal appeals court judge, has emerged as a front-runner to replace the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, according to people familiar with the discussions.

...
Others said to be under consideration for the Ginsburg vacancy include Amul Thapar, Barbara Lagoa and Allison Jones Rushing, all of whom are Trump appointees to federal appellate benches.

Graham on potential Supreme Court vacancy: 'This would be a different circumstance' than Merrick Garland | TheHill
How conveeeenient.

 

[lpetrich]

Amy Coney Barrett emerging as a front-runner to fill Ginsburg's Supreme Court seat

Amy Coney Barrett, a federal appellate court judge, has emerged as one of the front-runners to fill the Supreme Court seat left vacant by the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, three sources told NBC News.

...
Republicans thought she performed well in that venue and defended herself against allegations that her religious beliefs would color her legal judgment.

At the time, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., told her, “The dogma lives loudly within you, and that's a concern.”

Barrett responded, "It's never appropriate for a judge to impose that judge's personal convictions, whether they arise from faith or anywhere else, on the law."

Among Barrett’s perceived pluses from a GOP perspective is that she’s well-regarded by the religious right given her ardent opposition to abortion and her devout Catholic faith, she’s a former clerk to the late Justice Antonin Scalia, she’s a woman — viewed as a prerequisite in replacing the feminist icon Ginsburg — and is also a mother to seven children.