Trump’s First Supreme Court Nominee … Could It Be Ted Cruz?

From: hotair.com,  by Ed Morrissey,  on Nov 9, 2016

First big Trump-era question: Who’s up for the open SCOTUS seat?

The justices of the U.S. Supreme Court gather for a group portrait in the East Conference Room at the Supreme Court Building in Washington, October 8, 2010. Seated from left to right in front row are: Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Associate Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Standing from left to right in back row are: Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice Stephen Breyer, Associate Justice Samuel Alito Jr., and Associate Justice Elena Kagan.      REUTERS/Larry Downing (UNITED STATES - Tags: POLITICS CRIME LAW) - RTXT6Z5

Needless to say, the plans to push Barack Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland, for the Supreme Court seat left vacant by Antonin Scalia’s passing have evaporated. Republicans who demanded a halt to his confirmation process has been vindicated by the resounding Electoral College victory of Donald Trump, who now controls the nomination process. Thanks to a big win yesterday, Senate Republicans will control the confirmation process too, albeit with a too-narrow majority to stop a filibuster (more on that in a moment).

This literally might be the first decision Trump has to make on January 20th, 2017 — who will he pick instead of Garland? CNN reminds us of the list of potential nominees that the Trump campaign released six months ago, in large part to woo movement conservatives into the fold after clinching the nomination:

It was in May that Trump unexpectedly released a list of 11 judges.

The list included: Steven Colloton of Iowa, Allison Eid of Colorado, Raymond Gruender of Missouri, Thomas Hardiman of Pennsylvania, Raymond Kethledge of Michigan, Joan Larsen of Michigan, Thomas Lee of Utah, William Pryor of Alabama, David Stras of Minnesota, Diane Sykes of Wisconsin and Don Willett of Texas.

Trump later hedged on the list just a little, saying that the names represented the kind of jurist he would seek for the position. In September he added more names to the list, including Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT), a Trump critic who promptly announced that he wasn’t interested in the job. Largely, though, the lists achieved their short-term goal; it focused conservatives on the danger of having Hillary Clinton name the next two or three Supreme Court nominees, and especially the choice to replace a stalwart conservative whose passing threatened to tip the balance of the court to the Left.

Now, however, Trump has to actually make a choice. The stakes are high, politically as well as judicially. A misstep here could lose Trump any goodwill he has been able to build with movement conservatives. However, I suspect that Trump’s inclined to give conservatives whatever they want on this choice. He’s not driven by ideology but he understands how deals get made — and Trump at least knows that this will be a big chit to call in when he wants to start talking about infrastructure spending and trade.

So who gets the call? William Pryor would give pro-lifers a reason to cheer; Pryor had to defend his statement in a 2003 Senate confirmation that Roe v Wade was “the worst abomination in the history of constitutional law.” He’s only 54 years old now and has been on the Eleventh Circuit for thirteen years. That might prompt a filibuster attempt by Democrats, but that’s a dangerous game for them to play, too. Harry Reid all but eviscerated any precedent for protecting the filibuster and provoking the nuclear option that Reid himself detonated in 2014 for appellate appointments risks allowing simple majorities to confirm even more “objectionable” nominations down the road. Republicans will never have as much moral authority as they do now to nuke the filibuster on SCOTUS confirmations, and after 2018’s midterms will probably have an even larger majority anyway.

Trump could kill more than one bird with one stone by choosing his first Supreme Court nominee from the Senate, but with Ted Cruz rather than Lee. Cruz looks likely to face a tough primary challenge for his seat in 2018, and he’s torched a number of bridges with his colleagues in the Senate over the last few years for very little gain. With Trump in the White House now, Cruz has to look to 2024 for a potential shot at the Oval Office, and could very well have been out of public office for six years by that time. His Senate colleagues might be delighted to confirm him and let Texas voters select Cruz’ replacement in 2018.  That would eliminate at least a theoretical opponent in the 2020 election for Trump and push Cruz into a position where he’d have to think carefully about criticizing the new administration. Plus — and this is no joke — the court would get a brilliant legal mind on constitutional issues to replace the one we lost early this year, potentially for the next 40 years, and a jurist unlikely to “grow in office” to the Left. Sounds like a win-win, right?

~~~~~~~~~~

 

Damned if I don’t like that idea! Next to being president, there may not be a better, more productive, more natural place for Ted Cruz. While it’s true that he is currently a solid conservative vote in the Senate, as the article notes he’s destined to get some tough competition for reelection in 2018. Ex-Governor Rick Perry is already beating the bushes trying to recruit someone to run against Cruz; he will have some tough opposition.

On the other hand, he would be another strong conservative vote on the court – an excellent replacement for Justice Scalia.

It remains to be seen whether Cruz will even be considered by President Trump, but Mr. Morrissey makes a pretty good case for him to choose Cruz – for several reasons. 

I like it – make it happen, President Trump!

Garnet92.

 



Categories: Political

Tags: ,

2 replies

  1. Ted Cruz would be an excellent addition to the SCOTUS, and his knowledge of the Constitution would have a huge impact on some important decisions. But I’m not so sure he would accept the offer. He has said that he didn’t come to Washington to make friends and he seems to enjoy being the thorn in the sides of the establishment GOPers.

    Also remember a while back when Reince Priebus told all the failed presidential candidates they needed to show their support for Trump or they could encounter problems with the RNC should they run in the next election. Sure that was blatant blackmail, but Cruz jumped on the Trump train shortly after Priebus made that statement, and that’s what makes me think he’s got his head set on running again next time.

    By then a 70 year-old Trump will be older and have 4 years of headaches and battles behind him, so he may not be interested in seeking a second term. He’s proven his point that he can win and that was his main goal from the beginning. Cruz wouldn’t have the incumbent to compete against.

    I could be all wrong but that’s my two cents’ worth.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Cruz will beat all comers for reelection to the Senate.

    But I agree that this would be brilliant tactically.

    Heck, even the Dems would like to see a different Republican in that seat than Cruz, who regularly humiliates them in debate on CSpan.
    GOP leadership would remove a painful burr from under their saddle blanket, Trump would solidify his bona fides with the TEA/conservative branch of the party.
    And Cruz is one of the finest constitutional minds in the nation. His arguments would be most persuasive in chambers to the moderates on the SCOTUS.

    I’m for it too! Two Thumbs Up!!

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: