Report: Ted Cruz Would “Absolutely” Accept a Supreme Court Nomination
Ted Cruz hinted the other day that he might be open to a Supreme Court nomination from Donald Trump, saying: “What I will say is that history is long and can take unexpected paths.” Today, some reports are making Cruz’s positive position sound even more definitive, although folks close to Cruz say nothing has changed. The Washington Examiner today reports:
Texas Sen. Ted Cruz has informed Trump transition insiders that he would accept the nomination to take the place of the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, potentially cementing the power of the court’s conservative wing for decades, according to sources.
But another source close to Cruz said that while he is eager to help the new administration, he hasn’t committed to any new position.
Cruz hinted at his openness to joining the court Friday at a legal conference.
“Ted Cruz would absolutely accept it if offered a seat on the court,” said a transition insider.
What gives me slightly more confidence than the word of a “transition insider” are these tweets from Phil Kerpen and Sean Davis, two people I consider reliable:
Cruz world source tells me Cruz has told Trump he will accept Supreme Court seat if offered.
— Phil Kerpen (@kerpen) November 20, 2016
— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) November 20, 2016
Those tweets have me willing to believe Cruz would accept it if offered. But as to whether Trump would offer it, let’s just say I am still . . . skeptical. Trump has so far sought to select loyalists, in keeping with his longstanding rule of rewarding his friends and punishing his enemies. While he has had aides give lip service to the idea of considering his critics for this post or that one, these appear to be nothing more than empty (if not entirely unwelcome) gestures towards reconciliation.
Still, Trump should consider actually offering the spot to Cruz. Perhaps no other single move could do as much to heal the rift in the Republican Party. I feel confident that I speak for many other admirers of Ted Cruz — people who supported Cruz during the primary, and strongly opposed Trump — that nominating Cruz would be a gesture that might actually bring the party together.
And it would be a fantastic move for fans of the Constitution and limited government. Cruz is 45 years old and absolutely unwavering. He would be there for decades, and could help shape the Court’s jurisprudence in ways that would benefit the country in countless ways.
Yeah, I’m still pretty sure it will never happen. But I’ve given up predicting when it comes to Trump — and man, I’d love to be proved wrong on this one.
[Cross-posted at RedState.]
I’m just hoping to avoid reading the tiresome “harvardtrash” “sackies,” and similar childish insults sure to follow.
What is true about Cruz is that he is a solid Originalist, and I think we need more of that on SCOTUS. Without it, there will be more “interpretations” of “emanations” from the “pneumbra” of things. Sigh.
Simon Jester (c8876d) — 11/20/2016 @ 4:43 pmI said over a year ago my dream result of this election would be president Trump putting Cruz on the supreme court. It’s a position way more suited to Cruz, and the best scenario for the country, IMO.
LBascom (1cae03) — 11/20/2016 @ 4:46 pmAs some of our principled #NeverTrump friends said prior to the election, “It makes no difference who wins between Trump and Hillary!“
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 11/20/2016 @ 4:52 pmI think and hope Trump will nominate Pryor or Sykes this time. They were on his “definitive” list of 21 and Cruz was not. Cruz for Supreme Court may well come later (for next opening), after his senate term is nearer over and he has proven to all that he can balance the unwavering constitutional part while also being a practical big tent guy in the political world when necessary. I’m hoping for a justice to replace Scalia who went to law school somewhere other than Yale and Harvard and who lives and works in another part of the country than the NY-DC corridor.
elissa (8f05d5) — 11/20/2016 @ 5:16 pmyes, sykes would be good, as an olive branch to the recalcitrant spouse, and pryor, was singled out because of his faith the last time around,
narciso (d1f714) — 11/20/2016 @ 5:26 pmCruz’ name isn’t on the list of 21 that Cruz persuaded Trump to promise, in a press release on the Trump website quoting Trump, that his SCOTUS nominees would be made “exclusively” from that list. Trump’s promise was made not to Cruz, but to the American voting public; Cruz has no standing to release Trump from his promise. Whether any of that matters at all to Donald J. Trump, I have absolutely no idea, but based on his past performance I’d very much doubt it, so: Never mind about that, I guess.
Cruz is certainly qualified. At some point in the future he might be someone who’d be at the top of my favorites list.
Right now, though, he’s not — and I hope Cruz doesn’t accept either a SCOTUS or cabinet office under Trump.
I don’t see any other Republican politician with the public stature or interest to effectively champion the constitutional values that Ted Cruz has championed, in anything remotely approaching the way he has championed them. He is the most articulate oral advocate within the GOP. He can continue to be a powerful persuader and educator and reformer of public opinion from his current job as a U.S. Senator for the most populous red state.
There are dozens of very competent, very reliable legal minds who have the credentials, temperament, experience, and philosophy to fill Justice Scalia’s seat, or for that matter, any of the other current justices who are at or nearing retirement age (Ginsburg, Breyer, Kennedy, and alas even Thomas). Indeed, there are 21 who’ve already been identified by name. I’m hoping Trump will keep his campaign promise about SCOTUS appointments exactly as made.
Beldar (fa637a) — 11/20/2016 @ 5:26 pmThose are excellent points elissa, and I agree. Hopefully Trump will get to seat three SCJ’s, Cruz could stand to cool his heels on the hill for a while.
LBascom (1cae03) — 11/20/2016 @ 5:31 pmThis supposedly comes from Pence. http://www.wsj.com/articles/mitt-romney-is-under-active-consideration-to-be-secretary-of-state-1479654129
nk (dbc370) — 11/20/2016 @ 5:35 pmTed Cruz Would “Absolutely” Accept a Supreme Court Nomination
Except his Senate colleagues won’t.
Tedtoo makes a $2 hooker look like the Queen of England.
“Hey BIG spender! Spennnnd a little time with me.” – ‘Sweet Charity’- 1969
DCSCA (797bc0) — 11/20/2016 @ 5:36 pmugh man of mystery removes all doubt, scalia was the conservative analog to frankfurter, would that be accurate, in terms of his analysis, and it is a high bar to clear,
narciso (d1f714) — 11/20/2016 @ 5:39 pmThat is also a good point Baldar, though Cuz not being on the original list might have to do with the fact Cruz was in the running for POTUS, and it would have been inappropriate for Trump to put him on that list then.
As for Cruz being a ” powerful persuader and educator and reformer of public opinion “, I can only laugh. You have to be a true blue fan not to see the guy is offputting, even to his colleges in congress. He definitely has a great grounding in conservatism, but unfortunately he also displays all the negative aspects as well.
LBascom (1cae03) — 11/20/2016 @ 5:41 pmQueers don’t like Cruz.
nk (dbc370) — 11/20/2016 @ 5:41 pmThat’s not news.
Ted Cruz hinted the other day that he might be open to a Supreme Court nomination from Donald Trump…
Chris Christie hinted the other day he might be open to Attorney General nomination from Donald Trump…
Rudy Giuliani hinted the other day they might be open to Secretary of State nomination from Donald Trump…
Mitt Romney hinted the other day he might be open to Secretary of State nomination from Donald Trump…
Mike Huckabee…
Rick Perry…
And what of Newt? No Cabinet post. But, God forbid— Administrator of NASA?
“Newt Gingrich, Moon President”– .Saturday Night Live’ NBC TV, 2012
DCSCA (797bc0) — 11/20/2016 @ 5:44 pmThere’s also this. Some people may be unaware that Donald Trump’s older sister Maryanne Trump Barry is a senior Federal judge appointed by Reagan and is on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit. This is how Ted Cruz (possibly over -zealously) characterized her: “a radical pro-abortion extremist”. So, the Trump-Cruz back and forth family insults have not been all one sided.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/03/08/meet-donald-trumps-sister-the-tough-federal-judge-ted-cruz-called-a-radical-pro-abortion-extremist/
Maryanne unfortunately does have the Trump family hair to contend with, though.
elissa (c4f7a3) — 11/20/2016 @ 5:44 pmthere’s also a physicist in the family, who has some ties to tesla’s work, which has inspired some interesting riffs in places,
narciso (d1f714) — 11/20/2016 @ 5:58 pmCruz was right about Trump’s sister:
Ditto here and especially .
Moderates do not support infanticide, except in blue states.
DRJ (15874d) — 11/20/2016 @ 6:04 pmRomney is a master at taking troubled businesses. He would be a great choice to turn around the VA. I hope Trump isn’t just toying with Romney and genuinely wants to use someone like him to reform the federal government.
DRJ (15874d) — 11/20/2016 @ 6:06 pmI lost a link in my comment 16. Here is a link to a PowerLine blog post that explains why Cruz was right about Maryanne Trump and abortion.
DRJ (15874d) — 11/20/2016 @ 6:10 pmAnd even if Cruz is “right” about Maryanne Barry and her 30 year body of work, his comment may not, uh, benefit him with the president-elect if Ted genuinely hopes to be considered for the Supreme Court which is the topic of this post.
elissa (c4f7a3) — 11/20/2016 @ 6:14 pmmost center right nominees like Rehnquist or lewis powell were of a conventional nature, scalia was a one of a kind, perhaps judge willetts would be a close parallel,
narciso (d1f714) — 11/20/2016 @ 6:15 pmMaryanne Trump is also 78 years old, so it wouldn’t make sense to appoint her.
I thought this interesting:
Makes you’d wonder…
http://www.phillymag.com/news/2016/02/16/4-things-to-know-about-donald-trumps-federal-judge-sister/#c0KAptsoLFdQi5cS.99
Dana (d17a61) — 11/20/2016 @ 6:22 pm*you*
Dana (d17a61) — 11/20/2016 @ 6:22 pmelissa,
I know you don’t care about abortion and other social issues but some people do, and it’s helpful for those who care to get accurate information. Ted Cruz did that. Trump didn’t.
DRJ (15874d) — 11/20/2016 @ 6:31 pmAt the time she was appointed by Reagan, the going rate for a district court judgeship was around one million dollars in fund-raising for the President’s party. She would also have needed the approval of both of New Jersey’s Senators.
Her appointment to the Circuit Court of Appeals was by Clinton.
Give free rein to your imaginations.
nk (dbc370) — 11/20/2016 @ 6:32 pmDRJ, you are wrong. I do care about abortion and some social issues but not in the black and white way I believe you seem to, and not on this particular thread. Maryanne Trump is not going to be nominated to the Supreme Court. She’s been on the bench for 30 years and is considered moderate by her colleagues. As far as we can tell Ted made a heated comment about a single case which she had adjudicated. Ted made it at a time he was feuding with Trump who had also insulted him/his family, and he likely wanted to hurt Donald back. Neither Heidi or Maryanne were running for anything. Yet, just as Heidi got caught in the boys’crossfire so did Maryanne. It was unclassy of both sides.
I mentioned it here ONLY because people were thinking about if Ted might get a nod for the Supreme Court. I made some other suggestions for my pick and idly wondered if that unnecessarily personal comment by Ted might affect his chances for a nomination to the Supreme Court in the near term. That is ALL I am suggesting and that is all I will have to say about it this evening. Please continue on with others if you and they want to discuss this particular abortion case further and feel that would be useful to the Donald’s eventual Supreme Court pick and other transition choices.
elissa (c4f7a3) — 11/20/2016 @ 7:10 pmAnd yet, this equation of the two scenarios seems to overlook a crucial distinction: that comments about Heidi were irrelevant to any topic having to do with the office of the presidency, whereas comments about the type of judge one might nominate are.
And somehow the lion’s share of the blame seems to be falling on the one making the relevant comments.
Patterico (115b1f) — 11/20/2016 @ 7:23 pmPutting up Cruz for Scalia’s seat would seem to be a clever way for Trump to neutralize a potential primary opponent in 2020 should things go sour, and also an incentive for Senators who would otherwise try to block this nomination (the one shot at filibuster before the neutering of the judicial filibuster is completed, Republican senators who really hate Cruz’s guts having to choose between ridding themselves of him and having a golden opportunity to stab him in the back). I don’t view his absence from the list as being a deal killer or even Trump really breaking his word–the list was issued six months ago, when emotions were still raw after Cruz suspended his campaign.
M. Scott Eiland (046eb0) — 11/20/2016 @ 7:25 pmthis primary was like the battle of Leipzig airport, there were many miscommunications and some deliberate enemy action, take liz of baku, who is a keystone cops player,
narciso (d1f714) — 11/20/2016 @ 7:29 pmCruz was talking specifically about Trump’s sister, Patterico, not “the type of judge one might nominate.” Her judge colleagues who defended her seemed to understand that, and I am relatively sure they were not looking at it from the partisan lens of the 2016 presidential primary campaigns as many of us do.
elissa (c4f7a3) — 11/20/2016 @ 7:32 pmBeldar lays out the e3xact reasons why I think Trump will nominate Cruz — so he will not be in a position to champion ANY of the things Beldar mentions, at least in the political arena.
As FDR did with his rival Douglas, Trump will do with Cruz. If Trump falters he doesn’t want a primary challenge from the also-ran.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 11/20/2016 @ 7:32 pmI don’t think anyone would say that Cruz isn’t like the people on the list.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 11/20/2016 @ 7:35 pmWho in Texas are prime candidates to assume Cruz’ senate seat should he end up on the court through the machinations M. Scott Eiland describes above. Are there any Dems who would have a chance or is Texas still too red to have to worry about that?
elissa (c4f7a3) — 11/20/2016 @ 7:37 pmRomney is a master at taking troubled businesses. He would be a great choice to turn around the VA.
You can fire people in a business. Firing people in government isn’t worth the effort.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 11/20/2016 @ 7:37 pmI’ve goofed on Ted repeatedly, but he’d be a great supreme court justice. He’ll be a total constitutional sperg and honestly, its the only type of judge we should have
lollin (3320cd) — 11/20/2016 @ 7:44 pmelissa,
I understood you to care about economic, foreign affairs and national defense issues, not the side shows of the social issues lIke abortion.
DRJ (15874d) — 11/20/2016 @ 7:49 pmI don’t believe there are any Democrats who could win a Senate seat in Texas.
DRJ (15874d) — 11/20/2016 @ 7:50 pmone of the castro brothers of san Antonio, would attempt it, remember this party gave us wendy davis, gosnell’s girl.
narciso (d1f714) — 11/20/2016 @ 7:59 pmIs that so, elissa? That’s not my memory . . . at all.
My memory is that the discussion revolved around the type of justice a candidate would support, and that Trump said his sister would be a phenomenal justice, but that he would rule her out, for now. And that Cruz responded by saying Trump’s sister was a radical pro-abortion extremist.
But I bow to your superior memory and smarts . . .
. . . as long as you provide links and quotes to back up your claim.
Patterico (115b1f) — 11/20/2016 @ 8:01 pm@ LBascom: You misremember the sequence. Trump mentioned Sykes & Pryor in an early GOP primary debate. Later, when still pressed about judicial appointments, his campaign released a list of 20 names (reportedly compiled from recommendations by the Heritage Foundation and other conservative think-tanks), but the Trump campaign described that list only as giving examples of the kinds of SCOTUS appointees he might pick, with no commitment to actually pick anyone from the list. The official List of 21 came out in a campaign press release long after Cruz had dropped out of the primary and, indeed, after Trump had secured the nomination at the convention. It was timed to coincide with Cruz’ formal “endorsement” of Trump (such as it was), and as such, the list was a clear quid pro quo negotiated between Cruz & Trump (with Mike Pence as intermediary and witness), and it added a name Cruz specifically requested — Mike Lee — but did not add Cruz’ own name.
Since the election, Kellyanne Conway has publicly reaffirmed that Trump intends to choose exclusively — using that word — from the List, a point I’ve heard her volunteer in fact.
Cruz placed second not because he was the second-most charismatic GOP candidate — he wasn’t, not by a long shot! — but because people voted for him despite his geeky appellate-lawyer personality. He ran an issues- and principles-based campaign that overperformed all expectations and predictions: For example, he won Iowa while running against corn subsidies by espousing small-government free-market economics. He actually is capable of engaging with opponents on an intellectual level and debating with them civilly. Now, I’m not optimistic that he can actually teach the likes of you anything. But you’re not the target audience.
Beldar (fa637a) — 11/20/2016 @ 8:08 pmNo, allow me. I bow to your superior abiliy to see a distinction between what you and I are actually saying, Patterico. LOL
elissa (c4f7a3) — 11/20/2016 @ 8:09 pmYou don’t see the difference, elissa? Why is it funny to you that you can’t understand something?
DRJ (15874d) — 11/20/2016 @ 8:12 pmIf Texas did jungle primaries like in CA but with 2 R candidates as top 2, would the Dewhurst types or the Cruz types prevail, or would it still end up R v. D?
urbanleftbehind (a992b8) — 11/20/2016 @ 8:15 pmI agree with DRJ (#36): Wendy Davis was the best the Texas Dems could put up against Abbott, and he beat her like the proverbial rented mule in 2014. Especially in a special election, any of several temporary appointees whom Abbott might choose could beat any conceivable Dem nominee in Texas. If Abbott wanted to blow Dems’ minds, he might appoint former Texas Supreme Court Chief Justice Wallace Jefferson, who’s now back in private practice but has been rumored to be interested in non-judicial elective politics (he’s only 53). Rick Perry is a possibility, I suppose, albeit a bit long of tooth. And several of the GOP Congressmen from Texas would certainly be interested in moving to the Senate, so there would be no shortage of “safe” replacements were Trump to nominate Cruz to the SCOTUS.
Beldar (fa637a) — 11/20/2016 @ 8:17 pmI have a Cairn terrier that could learn a few lessons here. I thought she was fairly tenacious, but she’s a minor leaguer compared to a few folks.
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 11/20/2016 @ 8:17 pmTed didn’t have jocks and coaches behind him, that was a bigger deal than expected. Trump had the lions share, with a few scattered Marco and Jeb fans in that realm.
urbanleftbehind (a992b8) — 11/20/2016 @ 8:18 pmDoes Greg Abbott’s Mexican wife cost him, have no effect, or net him +5?
urbanleftbehind (a992b8) — 11/20/2016 @ 8:19 pmI think the question is whether the Trump or the Cruz types would prevail, and I’m not sure what the answer would be. Some of it depends on what Trump and Cruz do in the next two years. If Trump does well and Cruz is seen as supportive, I think Cruz would be re-elected.
DRJ (15874d) — 11/20/2016 @ 8:19 pmThanks Beldar. I always have to ask because Texas has such an interesting political climate and texture to those of us from outside. I will never forget the out and out battles between commenters on this blog when Cruz was up against Dewhurst in the R primary.
elissa (c4f7a3) — 11/20/2016 @ 8:24 pmI don’t know if Cecilia Abbott has been a significant political factor in her husband’s campaigns. She is a teacher and Hispanic so in theory she could help him with those groups, but I don’t know if she has.
DRJ (15874d) — 11/20/2016 @ 8:25 pmO. M. G.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5JoDj1LGPA
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 11/20/2016 @ 8:25 pmshe does look positively ghoulish, doesn’t she, in other news a cop was slain in san Antonio, this afternoon, I guess it’s become so common, it rarely merits attention, other than a snippet here and there.
narciso (d1f714) — 11/20/2016 @ 8:31 pmhttp://americandigest.org/sidelines/awhittleparty.jpg
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 11/20/2016 @ 8:34 pmAnother ambush. Own it, Obama.
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 11/20/2016 @ 8:35 pmif one looks at yahoo news, for instance, you will find the story about 3/4 of the page down, but at the top there’s a whole bunch of squirrel?
narciso (d1f714) — 11/20/2016 @ 8:41 pmHail to the Redskins indeed, complete with Dan Snyder getting jiggy! Suck it cheeseheads of the football persuation!
There’s actually a school of thought out there that Hillary has been dead since the 9/11 collapse.
Stuff like that in San Antonio today keeps Black Texans from honorary whiteness in present day Texas.
urbanleftbehind (a992b8) — 11/20/2016 @ 8:44 pmthat’s about three scoops of crazy, there, ulb, wayne madsen territory, where the buses don’t run, then again stranger things have happened,
narciso (d1f714) — 11/20/2016 @ 8:49 pmHere’s a fourth helping, now tell me again which mayor de-sancts first: http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/20/media/donald-trump-ari-emanuel/index.html
urbanleftbehind (a992b8) — 11/20/2016 @ 8:57 pmlike Jeffrey wright in westworld, who has a rick Deckard problem,
narciso (d1f714) — 11/20/2016 @ 8:58 pmLOLOLOLOL. Here is what you said LOLOLOL
So you asserted that Trump was not talking about the type of judge one might nominate. And I observed:
Which suggested to me that Trump was saying his sister was the type of judge one might nominate LOL. And that Cruz’s criticism of Trump’s sister was fair game at that point LOL.
LOLOLOLOL
Patterico (115b1f) — 11/20/2016 @ 9:07 pmI love the respectful attitude we have here
LOL
Patterico (115b1f) — 11/20/2016 @ 9:08 pmThis.
And I am actually not laughing out loud. At all. This nails it.
Patterico (115b1f) — 11/20/2016 @ 9:08 pmspeculation is one thing, facts are another,
http://lidblog.com/clinton-foundation-conflicts/
narciso (d1f714) — 11/20/2016 @ 9:14 pmIt’s amazing that we’re discussing potential Supreme Court nominees such as Sykes, Pryor, and Cruz. Maybe even Michael Luttig.
Thank you for winning, Mr Donald!
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 11/20/2016 @ 9:30 pmLet Trump pick Senator Lee from the list to uphold his word on the appointment.
Then when the next shoe drops, Senator Cruz can take that slot and give constitutional law a bit booster shot.
NJRob (a07d2e) — 11/20/2016 @ 9:36 pm63. Now THAT is something to respect and look forward to. Put the rest in the rearview mirror, fer chrissakes.
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 11/20/2016 @ 9:39 pmToo much infighting and spite. Not enough light.
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 11/20/2016 @ 9:40 pmexactly, coronello, who would have thought this would be the circumstances we find ourselves,
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/jeffrey-lord/2016/11/20/times-post-and-fake-news-internment-camps
megyn has almost fallen to the nicolle Wallace standard in my book,
narciso (d1f714) — 11/20/2016 @ 9:52 pmjust spreading mind arson on at least two continents,
https://news.grabien.com/story-obama-peru-america-has-often-fallen-short-our-ideals
narciso (d1f714) — 11/20/2016 @ 9:55 pmLoyalty Trumps pragmatism.
Pragmatism Trumps ideology.
Next week’s Tedtoo balloon: “Ted Cruz Would “Absolutely” Accept an Appointment as Ambassador to Canada.”
DCSCA (797bc0) — 11/20/2016 @ 10:27 pmThe claRification, i don’t think today is one of those times.
narciso (d1f714) — 11/20/2016 @ 10:34 pmCruz had no compunction about standing up to Boehner, McConnell and the rest of them; he’ll have no compunction about standing up to Trump whenever he strays from the conservative path. For strictly personal reasons, Cruz might find payback especially gratifying. Trump would be wise to get Cruz out of his hair – not that I want Cruz out of his hair. A SCOTUS nomination would do that.
Given Trump’s narcissism and vindictiveness and Cruz’ intelligence and tenaciousness, a Trump-Cruz battle royal would be quite a spectacle.
ThOR (c9324e) — 11/20/2016 @ 10:54 pmGiven the fact that Hillary would have nominated Mumia Abu Jamal, Angels Davis and Bill Ayres, argue all you want over Ted Cruz.
Ipso Fatso (028fcf) — 11/21/2016 @ 2:06 amAngela Davis, my bad.
Ipso Fatso (028fcf) — 11/21/2016 @ 2:07 amAngela’s too long in the tooth, her Bio that I read for a sociology class, is the closest thing to vogon poetry.
narciso (d1f714) — 11/21/2016 @ 6:16 amCruz doesn’t acknowledge the Founders intent regarding eligibility clause and natural born citizenship. He invented some extra-constitutional idea that he could become a natural born citizenship as an adult by renouncing his Canadian and Cuban citizenships.
Jcurtis (a3fa42) — 11/21/2016 @ 7:18 amStop chasing that squirrel, its mangy.
narciso (d1f714) — 11/21/2016 @ 7:21 am#72 Ipso Fatso, even during the election season, it was difficult to get some of the #NeverTrumpers to acknowledge that the fate of the Supreme Court was worth voting Trump over Hillary.
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 11/21/2016 @ 7:23 amThey nominated one of Wesley cook’s atty for a justice department post, no?
narciso (d1f714) — 11/21/2016 @ 7:30 amFor those who are glad Trump won because of the Supreme Court:
Yu should be glad there are people like Cruz who understand how to arrive at and craft valid Court decisions. It’s not just about how the justices vote, like your famous Binary Choice. It’s about understanding the legal issues, convincing the other Justices, and writing well-reasoned opinions that can be clearly followed by lower courts.
Trump’s misunderstanding about his sister’s abortion decision, as well as the comments here that perpetuate his misunderstanding, show that court decisions are not simple. This may not impress you if you think legal reasoning is as easy as voting Yes or No, but it should.
DRJ (15874d) — 11/21/2016 @ 9:11 amThe whole point of Trump’s discussion of his sister’s record on the bench was that it illustrates his utter cluelessness about judicial appointments in general and, in particular, his unconcern at the prospect of appointing “another Souter.” (Or, more recently: “Another Kennedy,” although that’s less fair, because in fact Justice Kennedy still votes with the “conservative wing” far more often overall than he votes with the “liberal wing,” and that became untrue of Souter.) When you see a Reagan nominee to the district court bench who’s been elevated by Clinton to the court of appeals level, you can be very sure that you’re talking about a “moderate” Republican, often an east-coast one (as here) from a blue state (as here) who’s been “Souterized” — that is to say, consistently ratcheted into a “living, breathing Constitution”-mode by pressure from the MSM, legal academia, the Democratic Party, the Progressive Movement, and the left-leaning portion already on the federal bench. (But I repeat myself, since those groups all overlap spectacularly.)
That wasn’t a personal attack on Trump’s family. If Cruz had, for instance, Tweeted a very unflattering photo of Trump’s sister next to a flattering photo of, say, Heidi Cruz, that would have been a juvenile, immature, personal, and entirely reprehensible personal attack.
I certainly agree that it’s better, in this particular instance, to be worrying whether Trump will keep his campaign promises about the SCOTUS than to be worrying about the kind of nominee Hillary would definitely have appointed — which would have been another Kagan (young, well-credentialed, right identity-politics boxes checked, and utterly reliable as a vote for the Hard Left agenda of the Democratic Party).
I simply wish I didn’t have to worry about whether Trump will indeed keep this promise. I do worry; his history of breaking promises is reasonable cause for anyone to worry.
And I also worry that Senate GOP members are going to spend the next two years continuing to operate under the delusion that the Democrats haven’t already murdered the filibuster. If Schumer snookers McConnell on this again — which I’m 80% sure he will — then Trump won’t be able to confirm anyone on his list of 21, and the Dems will hand him the excuse to appoint another damned Souter. And because I have no confidence whatsoever that Trump has any clue what that even means — his comments about his sister’s record suggest strongly that he doesn’t — I am not so giddy as some of those currently celebrating here.
I hope Trump will prove me wrong in my worries about SCOTUS nominations, and when and if he does, I’ll happily acknowledge that. Until he does, though, it’s an open question.
Beldar (fa637a) — 11/21/2016 @ 9:25 amPatterico was wrong about Trump’s ability to get elected. Now he’s saying it’s somehow Trumpian to select loyalists, in keeping with his longstanding rule of rewarding his friends and punishing his enemies. Why don’t you give up complaining about Trump not being a conservative, grab some popcorn, and enjoy the battle between his administration and the progressives. Trump empowered his base by showing them that name-calling and fear-mongering by the media and other politicians won’t change him and his mission. Bannon will be there to remind him what he promised his voters. Your nitpicking his quotes and appointments is already getting old and is just leading you to a dead end of interesting ideas to post. Take a break.
ustuplay (4dd398) — 11/21/2016 @ 10:21 amI’d prefer Randy Barnett. Leave Cruz in the Senate where he can torment the squishes.
davidaitken47 (e0d788) — 11/21/2016 @ 11:00 amBecause we had (and still have) no idea who he will appoint. This story about Cruz? Could be true, and still not matter. He could easily appoint a Garland or a Souter. Maybe he appoints Cruz, who gets Borked, then he appoints Garland as a compromise.
And why are we still arguing about it? Trump won. We’ll see who is right.
Patrick Henry, the 2nd (2ab6f6) — 11/21/2016 @ 12:28 pm#83 Patrick Henry,
Whomever Trump nominates will still be preferable to whom Hillary would have nominated.
I don’t know why you’re still arguing about this.
I realize that a lot of the #NeverTrumpers are looking to justify their neverness.
But let’s all set aside our differences from the primary season so we can coalesce and fight The Left.
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 11/21/2016 @ 1:37 pmI think Willett is more in the scalia spirit, pryor could be the second one.
narciso (d1f714) — 11/21/2016 @ 1:40 pmnarciso, my guess is that Sykes is #1 on the list.
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 11/21/2016 @ 1:50 pmShe’s a conservative, and it will be difficult to mount opposition to her from the Left considering we’ve just been informed that any opposition to Hillary emanates from sexism.
Nothing in my understanding of Trump would lead me to believe a Cruz nomination is possible. Cruz was an enemy, and doesn’t have enough leverage over Trump to force it.
matt d (d4aa6f) — 11/21/2016 @ 1:52 pmYou could ask the huntress, Edith Rogers or Katherine Harris about that.
narciso (d1f714) — 11/21/2016 @ 2:01 pmnarciso, yes, the Left behaves horrendously toward women who color outside the Left’s lines (Sarah Palin, Edith Jones, Janice Rogers Brown, and Katharine Harris, as you mentioned) but it’ll be so soon after the election when Hillary’s supporters are still reminding us that Trump hates womyn, that there’ll be an extra sense of absurdity when Diane Sykes is nominated.
She “only” graduated from Marquette Law rather than Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Stanford, blah, blah, blah, so when the New York Slimes begins to remind us that she’s not one of the elite, it’ll resonate in states such as Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.
Come on, Pat Leahy and Chuckie Schumer, let’s brawl!
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 11/21/2016 @ 2:27 pmCruz in not among the 21.
Sammy Finkelman (643dcd) — 11/21/2016 @ 2:32 pmBecause we don’t know if that’s true. That’s the whole point of the argument. If he nominates a Souter, that’s just as bad as one Clinton would have nominated.
I don’t need to justify it. My “neverness” is the right stand from a liberty oriented perspective. Its right for me and right for the country. Just because Trump will do some good things- that I support- doesn’t negate the correctness of the stand.
Fine by me. That includes fighting Trump on the things he is wrong on, right? Because he is part of the Left.
Patrick Henry, the 2nd (db2c87) — 11/21/2016 @ 3:13 pmI’ve been reading beldar’s comments on various blogs for years. And his posts on his own blog for years before that. He has always been a thoughtful, coldly analytical, legal-minded but politically aware kind of person. And, in general, he and I agree on topics that I know enough about to have an opinion.😊
Chris (256ec2) — 11/22/2016 @ 3:28 pmSince I favored Cruz in the primaries even with his “difficult personality” issues but don’t have the background to understand some of the finer legal points, I guess I’ll just have to agree with all of his above comments.