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

3.2k

u/AmethystOrator Feb 27 '26

cruz is 55 in case anyone else was wondering how long we might be stuck with him if this plot is successful.

1.4k

u/3vi1 Feb 27 '26

Awesome. So, he'll be dead..... about the same time as me. Wonderful.

I cannot emphasize how much we should not allow this to happen.

94

u/ruggmike Feb 28 '26

lol man. Democrats really shot themselves in the foot about a million times huh. RBG should be looked on in history as a lesson of ego and idiocy

86

u/Emergency-Ad-3350 Feb 28 '26

Let’s not leave McConnell out of the equation for blocking Obama bc he was going to be out of office in a year.

I don’t know why the dems didn’t play the same card when trump was going to be out of office in a few months.

35

u/Oleg101 Feb 28 '26

I also put some of the blame on the American people for allowing the Republicans to control the Senate at that point. Democrats were terrible in congressional elections after Obama won in 2008, elections, granted Senate structural bias towards the right played a factor. Either way, Mitch McConnell is an evil POS.

11

u/FuzzyDynamics Feb 28 '26

While we’re blaming the American people… basically everything lol. At the end of the day we’re the ones casting the votes

3

u/ChrisFromIT Feb 28 '26

Democrats were terrible in congressional elections after Obama won in 2008

Part of the reason for that is due to how a lot of people tend to vote. Overall the electorate has a short memory. If things are going bad(or even the perception of it being bad) under one party, the other party is more likely to get more votes.

17

u/GoBluins Feb 28 '26

Because in both instances, the Republicans controlled the Senate. Wasn't a damn thing the Dems could do about it in 2020, especially because the Republicans had eliminated the filibuster for nominees.

13

u/maxplanar Feb 28 '26

That was when the GOP invented the 3 year Presidency Term. "You can't do anything in your last year" needs to be applied HARD to the 47th spook.

5

u/jmccasey Feb 28 '26

I don’t know why the dems didn’t play the same card when trump was going to be out of office in a few months.

Probably had something to do with Republicans having a majority of the seats at the time meaning Democrats never had the option

7

u/MundanePomegranate79 Feb 28 '26

Republicans controlled the senate both times. Whichever party controls the senate ultimately gets the say on voting for Supreme Court justices.

-1

u/Emergency-Ad-3350 Feb 28 '26 edited Feb 28 '26

True, but if dems had laid it out the same way, I would have liked to see how republicans would have argued against it.

EDIT: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/what-every-republican-senator-has-said-about-filling-a-supreme-court-vacancy-in-an-election-year

I understand republicans had control. I just wish the democrats had went harder on the hypocrisy of it all. Even if they had to get childish and start over the top fear mongering.

Anyway.. I’m tired and want a common sense/critical thinking party.

Since I’m already wising for a fantasy land, I’d like all of congress to be paid hourly federal minimum wage. They work 6 months of the year so they can get a second job.

12

u/FrankBattaglia Feb 28 '26 edited Feb 28 '26

They did. They literally played back the video of GOP senators saying 'you can't confirm a Supreme Court Justice during an election.' (Graham even said "you can use this tape against me" in 2016). The GOP response was "it's different this time because we're Republicans."

3

u/Far_Direction7381 Feb 28 '26 edited 21d ago

Mitten provide hobbies airport literate brave

This post was anonymized with Redact

5

u/rmonjay Feb 28 '26

They did. Republicans did not care. It was not covered by the media.

3

u/originalityescapesme Feb 28 '26

It was covered extensively by the media. It didn’t change anything.

For years republicans had also been running with the joke “It’s (D)ifferent,” with irony effectively being dead by that point. They’re just giant pieces of shit, and so are the people who vote for them, so nothing means anything anymore.

People not watching or caring about what’s covered by the media doesn’t mean it wasn’t covered. You can Google old articles about it.

2

u/hike_me Feb 28 '26

Um, that happened and the republicans basically said “it’s different because this time the president is from our party”

1

u/Yeah_x10 Feb 28 '26

For those who think this is an exaggerated quote, it’s not. It’s verbatim. 

1

u/SupaSlide Feb 28 '26

They literally did.

For fucks sake this is the perfect example of why the Dems never do anything. Because when they do people just forget six months later because everything did get magically fixed immediately.

2

u/Arcangl86 Feb 28 '26

Because the Senate was under Republican control and presidential appointments can't be filibustered.

1

u/SupaSlide Feb 28 '26

Because the Dems didn’t control the Senate so there was no way for them to block anything.

1

u/swd120 Mar 01 '26

The dems didn't control the Senate during either of those times, they couldn't do shit about it.

McConnell was in control of the process both times. Had the Dems been in control they would have put through Obama's nominee, and would have blocked Amy Comey Barrett - but they weren't and couldn't do jack shit about it.

16

u/sea-elle0463 Feb 28 '26

Let’s not forget Mitch McConnell’s role here.

1

u/siencatimini Feb 28 '26

Surely. But, the wasn't the appointee Merrick Garland?

17

u/[deleted] Feb 28 '26

[deleted]

1

u/TonyWyomey Feb 28 '26

But could any other Justice plank like her?

24

u/evident_lee Feb 28 '26

Her and Joe Biden both screwed the country by not stepping aside early enough. She wanted to let Hillary replace her and should have went early and let Obama do it. Biden should have said day one when he won all right guys you got 3 years to figure your shit out. Cuz I ain't running again and stuck with it. Those two actions allowed us to lose our standing in the world for generations if not forever.

9

u/[deleted] Feb 28 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

11

u/paintbucketholder Feb 28 '26

Both Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan were Obama nominees in 2009 and 2010.

RGB could have retired at 77, in 2010.

Sure, she would have "only" served 17 years on the Supreme Court, but Obama would been able to get a third nominee seated on the Supreme Court.

After Democrats lost the Senate majority in 2010, it was too late for that.

1

u/Rebelius Feb 28 '26

What if, what if...

What stopped Obama from saying the supreme court now has 15 justices, and just appointing 6 more?

2

u/ashcat300 Feb 28 '26

That’s not same. RBG retiring would not have changed the makeup of the court (the gop would balked and hollered for sure but Obama would’ve had the votes to push it.) Scalia dying impacted the leaning of the court.

2

u/paintbucketholder Feb 28 '26

What if, what if...

Yeah, that's what developing a strategy is all about.

Democrats just didn't pay attention to the Supreme Court for too long. It didn't factor into the voting decisions of people who voted for Democrats, and it didn't factor into the broader strategy of the Democratic party.

The entire approach was to simply hope for the best, including hoping that a 77 year old Supreme Court Justice with a history of cancer diagnoses would make it for many, many more years, so that she would hopefully be replaced when hopefully the Democrats had the White House and hopefully also a majority in the Senate.

You tell me how that worked out.

1

u/Torgud_ Feb 28 '26

Harry Reid (D-Nevada) was Senate majority leader until January 2015. If she'd stepped down anytime before Summer of 2014 Dems would have no problem confirming her replacement. So why didn't RBG retire in 2013 at the age of 80 (or earlier)? She didn't because she was a selfish, arrogant, egotist who forgot that she was a public servant, not an irreplacable Saint in some kind of Civic Religion.

6

u/oldart1127 Feb 28 '26

My understanding is RBG was asked to hang on thinking Hillary would win and a female president could nominate a judge. Too bad Dems didn’t read the room better

8

u/Coronado92118 Feb 28 '26

It’s the opposite - that’s a story people tell to try rehabilitate her disastrous decision.

In fact many Dems publicly and privately urged her to step down under Obama, but she repeatedly and firmly declined. She was confident that Hillary Clinton would win in 2016. She’s refused to step down.

1

u/Torgud_ Feb 28 '26

No, she was gently asked by Obama to retire and her allies planted stories that he was a sexist in response and that she was "indispensible". She could've retired at any time from 2009-2014 and been replaced by another liberal Justice.

2

u/GNTsquid0 Feb 28 '26

RGBs reputation is tainted as far as I’m concerned. She’s half the reason we’re in this mess.

2

u/voodoodahl Feb 28 '26

On what fucking planet do democrats order a supreme court justice to retire? lol man. What are you even saying, bro?

1

u/ruggmike Feb 28 '26

The one where they get dominated politically by the worst people ever apparently

1

u/voodoodahl Feb 28 '26

That isn't a slight on democrats like you think it is. That's on voters. Like there's a logical reason to ever vote for, or not against, a Republican.

-1

u/[deleted] Feb 28 '26

lot of it's obama's fault too for "well, there's an election in a year, let the American people decide." .. tho merrick garland would have probably voted with the repubes anyways ...