Ted Cruz, SCOTUS

[Jolly]

If Trump should win, the GOP might have control of both houses for two years. If that happens, Thomas might retire.

Cruz may, or may not win his reelection bid.

There is no doubt Cruz has a good legal mind and is a Scalia/Thomas disciple of Constitutional intent.

Cruz for SCOTUS!

[LuFins Dad]

Cruz is waaaayyy too partisan of a politician to be considered for a SCOTUS appointment. 12 years ago, okay. Not anymore.

[Jolly]

It would be Trump's only term. The GOP would have both House and Senate (not that the House matters).

Does it matter about the optics?

[taiwan_girl]

@Jolly said in Ted Cruz, SCOTUS:

Does it matter about the optics?

If politicians had backbones, it would.

[Jolly]

@taiwan_girl said in Ted Cruz, SCOTUS:

@Jolly said in Ted Cruz, SCOTUS:

Does it matter about the optics?

If politicians had backbones, it would.

If politicians had backbones, it wouldn't.

[LuFins Dad]

@Jolly said in Ted Cruz, SCOTUS:

It would be Trump's only term. The GOP would have both House and Senate (not that the House matters).

Does it matter about the optics?

Oh, it’s not about the optics, and it’s certainly possible, but it would be the dumbest damn move in the history of the Republican Party.

[Jolly]

@LuFins-Dad said in Ted Cruz, SCOTUS:

@Jolly said in Ted Cruz, SCOTUS:

It would be Trump's only term. The GOP would have both House and Senate (not that the House matters).

Does it matter about the optics?

Oh, it’s not about the optics, and it’s certainly possible, but it would be the dumbest damn move in the history of the Republican Party.

You would be replacing like with like. So besides the optics, what makes it so dumb?

[LuFins Dad]

You aren’t replacing like with like. Thomas doesn’t have a political podcast that is entirely based on demonizing the left. Cruz is closer to Limbaugh than he is to Scalia, these days.

[jon-nyc]

@LuFins-Dad said in Ted Cruz, SCOTUS:

Cruz is waaaayyy too partisan of a politician to be considered for a SCOTUS appointment. 12 years ago, okay. Not anymore.

Agreed, perhaps even worse he's an attention whore. We need quiet institutionalists on the court, not fame-seeking RBG wannabes.

[Horace]

A GOP president could probably find similar politics in a less overtly political judge. The downsides of appointing an overtly tribal pundit are obvious, not least because the other side would then be able to do so without suffering any social backlash.

[Tom-K]

I like Cruz, he's a really bright guy--but WAY too much political baggage. They need a nice conservative judge that nobody ever heard of with impeccable credentials, something like Barrett and Kavanaugh. They both were great candidates and the Democrats STILL tore them apart before they got in. It's going to be a rough ride for anyone who wants to be a Justice.

[jon-nyc]

Also we need SCOTUS judges whose final ambition is serving on the court (or maybe leading it). Not someone who wants to use it as a springboard to the presidency. Guaranteed mischief will come from that.

[George K]

@jon-nyc said in Ted Cruz, SCOTUS:

Not someone who wants to use it as a springboard to the presidency.

Cruz wants to do that?

I'd not heard that.

[jon-nyc]

He mentioned it once or twice in 2015.

[Jolly]

Never heard that one.

[jon-nyc]

He actually ran for president. Don’t you remember how he committed election fraud in the Iowa caucus? Me neither but Trump does.

[Renauda]

Let me help. From 2016:

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/trump-cruz-stole-iowa-tweet-deleted-218674

[Mik]

@taiwan_girl said in Ted Cruz, SCOTUS:

@Jolly said in Ted Cruz, SCOTUS:

Does it matter about the optics?

If politicians had backbones, it would.

That's completely backwards.

[Mik]

I like Cruz in many ways. But I'd prefer someone with judicial experience.

[George K]

@Mik said in Ted Cruz, SCOTUS:

I like Cruz in many ways. But I'd prefer someone with judicial experience.

He was solicitor general for Texas (that's not judicial experience, per se).

He clerked for Luttig (4th Circuit Appellate judge) and later Rehnquist.