quote:

Originally posted by jstex56:
For your Friday afternoon enjoyment. Liberal tears are the best.

" If you are not a straight, white male, right now, in America, you are probably freaking out!"

quote:

Originally posted by deepocean:
I seriously doubt either Cruz or Lee are on the real short list. The President may not say it, because he will not benefit from insulting them, but they have about as much a chance of being nominated as Romney had when he was rumored to be the SOS. Fortunately for us, the President takes this very seriously. It would seem against his nature for him to give one of his picks to someone who might go back to being disloyal to him after they have a lifetime appointment.

They have as near to zero shot as you can get. They are political swamp creatures with no business even being considered, other than it's nice and cool to say they 'had a shot', but they don't.

We want a conservative, experienced judge - someone with a record of applying the constitution and not making shit up. It would be nice (all things being equal) for it to be a woman, to slowly make the case that Trump values strong women but to me that's just an extra.

quote:

Originally posted by deepocean:
It would seem against his nature for him to give one of his picks to someone who might go back to being disloyal to him after they have a lifetime appointment.

I seriously doubt either Lee or Cruz would decide a case against the Constitution and the American people in order to get one over on Trump. At least that is what it seems like you are implying.

In any case, though both would make great Supreme Court Justices, neither will be chosen. I think that can be said with near certainty.

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:

quote:

Originally posted by deepocean:
I seriously doubt either Cruz or Lee are on the real short list. The President may not say it, because he will not benefit from insulting them, but they have about as much a chance of being nominated as Romney had when he was rumored to be the SOS. Fortunately for us, the President takes this very seriously. It would seem against his nature for him to give one of his picks to someone who might go back to being disloyal to him after they have a lifetime appointment.

They have as near to zero shot as you can get. They are political swamp creatures with no business even being considered, other than it's nice and cool to say they 'had a shot', but they don't.

We want a conservative, experienced judge - someone with a record of applying the constitution and not making shit up. It would be nice (all things being equal) for it to be a woman, to slowly make the case that Trump values strong women but to me that's just an extra.

Both Cruz and Lee are experienced Constitutional lawyers and scholars, clerkships, Cruz with Rehnquist, Lee with Alito on the 3rd Circuit. Cruz has handled more Supreme Court cases than anyone in the Senate now, and probably more than any other on the list. Both are strong Scalia type thinkers.

What makes them unlikely is their current positions. If Cruz should somehow not be re-elected, he would be a very strong almost irresistable candidate for the next open seat.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
..... If Cruz should somehow not be re-elected, he would be a very strong almost irresistable candidate for the next open seat.

Well we have to save someone for when Ginsburg goes!
The left would just implode....

quote:

Originally posted by bald1:
Jimbo54,
That was already posted on page 12 (June 28, 2018 08:27 PM) of this thread.

I missed it. Deleted.


Thanks for the heads up.

I’ve been wondering about the tactics of timing the confirmation hearings. McConnell seems to be in a rush to get it done, assuming that the vote would be close but would likely get to 50 given probable crossover of a couple of Dems.

But given that the GOP has only 9 seats at stake and the Dems IIRC 26, the chances are that the midterm elections will result in an increase in GOP senators. It might be rolling the dice, but putting off confirmation hearing until after the elections would likely greatly increase GOP turnout, whereas confirmation prior to the election would likely increase Dem more than GOP turnout.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
I seriously doubt either Lee or Cruz would decide a case against the Constitution and the American people in order to get one over on Trump. At least that is what it seems like you are implying.

I thought Lee's statements of righteous indignation prior to the last election were naive and showed poor judgement. Lee has stated he thought voting for Evan McMullin (and thus Hillary Clinton) was a better choice than voting for Trump. This makes him part of the problem in this Country, not the solution.

Beyond that, I haven't seen much explanation for Lee's short sale issue other than he could not afford the house after he was elected. He ran for office and had no personal financial plan if he won other than to stick the bank with a $400,000 loss? If a democrat did this, I would question it for sure. I'm not giving a pass because the first letter of the party he belongs to starts with an r rather than a d.

This would surely come up during a confirmation hearing. The President is thinking of all these things and more.

Cruz may be better, I do not know much about him.

One of the judges on Trump’s lost, and in some accounts, his short list, is Raymond Kethledge, now on the 6th Circuit.

Judge Kethledge has written a book, with a co-author, “Lead Yourself First.” A review of this book, by Spencer Abraham, former Senator and Seceretary of Energy, found at https://www.nationalreview.com...urage-a-judge-needs/.

Interesting review, and sounds like an interesting book.

quote:

Originally posted by deepocean:

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
I seriously doubt either Lee or Cruz would decide a case against the Constitution and the American people in order to get one over on Trump. At least that is what it seems like you are implying.

I'm not implying anything. I judge politicians on what they do, not what they say.

I thought Lee's statements prior to the last election were naive and disturbing. Anyone who thought Evan McMullin (and thus Hillary Clinton) was a better choice than Trump is part of everything wrong with this Country, not the solution.

Beyond that, I haven't seen much explanation for Lee's short sale issue other than he could not afford the house after he was elected. He ran for office and had no personal financial plan if he won other than to stick the bank with a $400,000 loss? If a democrat did that, I would question it for sure. I'm not giving a pass because the first letter of the party he belongs to starts with an r rather than a d.

Cruz may be better, I do not know much about him.

I don't know what any of that has to do with how Lee would rule on the court which is what I thought we were talking about. My point was simple, that he would be a strict constitutionalist and therefore a fine choice. But we all know he likely won't be the nominee for obvious reasons.

By the way, i don't know anything about the short sale issue you mentioned. I missed all that somehow.

quote:

Originally posted by sjtill:
I’ve been wondering about the tactics of timing the confirmation hearings. McConnell seems to be in a rush to get it done, assuming that the vote would be close but would likely get to 50 given probable crossover of a couple of Dems.

But given that the GOP has only 9 seats at stake and the Dems IIRC 26, the chances are that the midterm elections will result in an increase in GOP senators. It might be rolling the dice, but putting off confirmation hearing until after the elections would likely greatly increase GOP turnout, whereas confirmation prior to the election would likely increase Dem more than GOP turnout.

The stakes of that gamble are much too high.

quote:

Originally posted by sjtill:
I’ve been wondering about the tactics of timing the confirmation hearings. McConnell seems to be in a rush to get it done, assuming that the vote would be close but would likely get to 50 given probable crossover of a couple of Dems.

But given that the GOP has only 9 seats at stake and the Dems IIRC 26, the chances are that the midterm elections will result in an increase in GOP senators. It might be rolling the dice, but putting off confirmation hearing until after the elections would likely greatly increase GOP turnout, whereas confirmation prior to the election would likely increase Dem more than GOP turnout.

10 of those 26 are in Trump states, states Trump won in some cases by huge margins. What better way to smoke out those 26 Senators than to make them vote, for Chuck You Schumer, or for Trump, on this nomination.

Then, let the voters decide.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

The stakes of that gamble are much too high.

This is true. Nominate a great candidate and get it done.

quote:

Originally posted by smlsig:

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
..... If Cruz should somehow not be re-elected, he would be a very strong almost irresistable candidate for the next open seat.

Well we have to save someone for when Ginsburg goes!
The left would just implode....

Fair enough, but I would still argue that we can replace a Cruzian conservative Senator from Texas easier than we can get a shot at filling another seat on the Supreme Court.

Then again, I am leaving out two things. I have no idea whether Cruz would want the seat at this time. I also don't know what kind of hell Trump's first Supreme Court nominee is going to go through.

Why would the second thing matter? If another seat opens up, there's going to be a tremendous advantage in being the nominee for the second opening over being the nominee for the first opening. There's no question that the nominees to replace Kennedy are not only going to get the kitchen sink thrown at them, but that the kitchen sink is going to be filled up with gasoline and styrofoam cups and then lit on fire before it's hurled. Besides, the Dems will still want to delay a vote if they can. Even if a nominee gets shot down or waited out, delays waste more time before Trump is forced to start the process all over again. As we've seen over and over, the Dems in Congress seem to be convinced that flinging monkey poo is the best and most "productive" way to delay a vote that they can come up with.

The thing is, though, that they're patently out of their minds, and so are their constituents. Forget Bush Derangement Syndrome, this anti-Trump reaction makes them sound like a zoo on acid. Since the Dems in the Senate have to prove themselves ideologically, distinguish themselves from other Dem Senators in order to assert themselves as leaders and play to a constituency that seems to be moving radically to the left, we can count on the Senate hearings being a three-ring circus. If the Dems manage to burn Trump's first few nominees, they will have burned so much political capital and made such histrionic asses of themselves for so long that they'll eventually be forced to let a Trump nominee get confirmed out of sheer exhaustion.

In other words, lots of cost, lots of time wasted, lots of noise, and absolutely no production of anything useful or worthwhile.

So. If another opening occurs while Trump is President, how long do you think the zoo is going to bother to howl over the first nominee, even if that nominee is Cruz? How long will the media bother to cover the hearings in any real depth? How many rank 'n' file Dems are really going to be passionate about the contest? After all, the last time the Senate Feckless Left Caucus tried to block a nominee, the effort was doomed to inevitable failure.

Then again, do we really know that Trump is going to get a second shot - even, perhaps, one that will actually change the composition of the court - before January, 2025?

If Cruz has Court ambitions, he needs to keep the calendar in mind. He will be 48, I think. In a few years he will be getting too old to be “prime.”

I don’t see resigning a Senate seat. He will almost certainly win re-election this year. As his seniority builds, his influence and power do as well. All the old guys he drove nuts will be dead or gone, and the new guys junior.

Ted Cruz would be fantastic on SCOTUS for conservatives. We know exactly where he stands on the issues, especially the Second Amendment, but that would make for very contentious hearings though and probably more than a few weak knee RHINOS would not vote for him but it would be fun just to watch all the leftists heads explode.

I am all for an appointment before the elections. Let's really see where the democrat senators up for election this fall stand, especially those in states that Trump won. I would not be surprised to see at least a few of them vote for whoever President Trump nominates.

You know what would be hilarious and drive the leftists crazy, if President Trump delays the announcement of his SC nominee until after his meeting with Putin

quote:

Originally posted by deepocean:

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

The stakes of that gamble are much too high.

This is true. Nominate a great candidate and get it done.

Agreed - bird in hand is better than 2 in the bush...

I guess that technically there's no reason why Trump would have to wait to fill the seat. The nominee might not gather enough "yes" votes in the Senate before the election, but that's a problem which the Republicans should still be able to solve after the election. The Dems might do an effective job of making the confirmation hearings an election issue, but that seems wildly improbable. There really doesn't seem to be any cost for going to the Senate majority Trump has in hand for a confirmation unless Pushing Turtle pulls something really wild out of his fencepost-riding behind.

The time to strike is now - push the nomination and make the Dems in Trump country vote up or down before the election.