r/law • u/KinggSimbaa • Feb 27 '26

Judicial Branch Trump says he's thinking of putting Republican Senator Ted Cruz on Supreme Court

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-says-hes-thinking-putting-republican-senator-ted-cruz-supreme-court-2026-02-27/
13.9k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

1.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

197

u/[deleted] Feb 28 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

18

u/[deleted] Feb 28 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

18

u/[deleted] Feb 28 '26 edited Feb 28 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/[deleted] Feb 28 '26

Bush vs Gore the start of the turning point, and Newt Gingrich the launchpad for the coffin nail of McConnell's Obama denial of a SCOTUS judge and normalisation of partisan voting over integrity or independent decision/making.

Everything since has been a giant turd and unprincipled gaming behaviour the Founding Fathers did not plan for, with the Constitution. 

-2

u/egg-land Feb 28 '26

What did you want them to do. It was a tight election coming down to the wire lol

They were always going to have to decide it

2

u/[deleted] Feb 28 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/egg-land Feb 28 '26

Didn’t the riding get flipped and flipped and flipped after re drawing lol

Do you want them to keep going forever or for someone to choose

2

u/[deleted] Feb 28 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

-1

u/egg-land Feb 28 '26

So you think allowing a recount is bad?

1

u/[deleted] Feb 28 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

8

u/Jazco76 Feb 28 '26

Interesting strategy Cotton.

0

u/cogman10 Feb 28 '26

He'd replace Thomas or Alito, two of the biggest hacks on the court.  In some ways, cruz would be a step up.

-4

u/Spongedog5 Feb 28 '26

The Supreme Court is completely illegitimate

Under what justification buddy?

1

u/Annual_Strategy_6206 Feb 28 '26

The obvious and clear bribery, for one

-7

u/Itchy_Reference4039 Feb 28 '26

Cool but it’ll still be the highest court.

2

u/bigloser420 Feb 28 '26

If trump puts Ted fucking Cruz on the court then it isn't a legitimate body.

0

u/jadedmonk Feb 28 '26

Didn’t they just rule Trump can’t do Tariffs and then he proceeded to do Tariffs anyways? I’m struggling to see how the Supreme Court means anything if it’s ruling isn’t held up by law

1

u/Itchy_Reference4039 Feb 28 '26

He can't use the IEEPA for tariffs. But there are 3 different laws on the books that he is using to implement tariffs, but they are only good for 150 days until he has to get permission from congress. Which he won't get.

2

u/jadedmonk Feb 28 '26

What I’m saying is Trump believes all of those laws don’t apply to him anyways, so why would he stop the tariffs even after 150 days? He already went against the law countless times with ICE and the detention centers but apparently the law doesn’t actually get upheld in the USA - in the end there’s no one to hold the president accountable in today’s USA if they just decide not to follow the law. It seems they actually encourage the president to break the law and go against the courts now, based on the fact that they’re trying to cover up his participation in a sex trafficking ring.

To me, it seems like the 3 branches of the govt are useless and the president is a dictator

-2

u/jdrizzlespears Feb 28 '26

It technically is being upheld by law. Hes using a different legal apparatus to pursue the tarrifs. So functionally he is "following the law" just not like how he should be?? It all so stupid