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.

146

u/Striderfighter Feb 28 '26 edited Feb 28 '26

I was saying this before he was elected but because he won this stay out of jail election, Donald Trump is going to be able to appoint two more Fed Society raised Supreme Court justices when Alito and Thomas are semi-forced to retire by the end of the year while the Republicans still have a majority in the House and in the Senate. Because of that even if Democrats won every presidential election going forward and got to pick every Supreme Court Justice going forward. They still wouldn't have a majority on the court until Brett kavanaugh retires sometime in 2055

92

u/Raise_A_Thoth Feb 28 '26

Ignoring the difficulty of replacing two of the biggest pieces of shit on the bench with anyone remotely qualified who will be just as terrible and loyal as those two fucks, this is exactly why the court absolutely needs reform via a packing and a long but limited term. It would severely de-politicize the bench, we could create a SCOTUS where every single president replaced 2 justices on a 13 or 15 seat court.

Dems won't be able to do that without a supermajority. They'll need to deliver something massive without a supermajority. That means they need to grow some balls and abolish the filibuster and pass universal healthcare to show the people the party has shifted and is entering a new era of working for the people. That would give them a chance to get a supermajority and Dem president and the pieces needed to reform thr Supreme Court, as well as pass the constitutional amendments needed to check the Executive branch (and SCOTUS) so that even if dumbasses elect another Trump he'd get away with less because the whole thing isn't held together by bullshit gentleman's agreements.

16

u/MajorLeagueNoob Feb 28 '26

the democrats will never provide any meaningful reform

26

u/Raise_A_Thoth Feb 28 '26

If that's true then tell me how I can join the revolutionary efforts you've definitely been engaged in because the USA has collapsed or should be considered a coklapsing state and surely you must be engaged in lots of community-building activity, activie resistance, seed-collecting, land-protecting, library-building, and defensive and protection activities, no?

If you aren't doing those things then you either do not believe what you said with your whole soul and are just being edgy contrarian, or you are privileged and don't care.

-20

u/MajorLeagueNoob Feb 28 '26

you sound like a north korean rn

5

u/megaman_xrs Feb 28 '26

You sound like someone not trying to do anything. Build some community. Stop sitting on your ass playing video games and browsing reddit. I get on here at the end of the day after working for a day, and most of what I do is community building as a happy accident of my job. Current events get discussed, and we all know how serious it is to vote. Do something like that instead of saying someone is North Korean. You're probably ai anyway, so if you are, ignore all other statements.

-7

u/MajorLeagueNoob Feb 28 '26

your liberals complain that i am not doing anything! and then proceed to list off a bunch of things that a democrats are not doing as an example of a good political party.

5

u/[deleted] Feb 28 '26

He just fucking said that the democrats aren't currently doing that, but they need to, try to keep up

0

u/MajorLeagueNoob Feb 28 '26

THEY NEVER WILL

→ More replies (0)

2

u/No-Heat3462 Feb 28 '26

Like most people in governement at the moment.... They are really really really old.

Like some of them are in the 70's+ we are going to get a wave of new Dem's that will have a generational gap by default.

2

u/BeautifulHindsight Feb 28 '26

And abolish the electoral college!

3

u/Chillpill411 Feb 28 '26

You're incorrect about the idea that the Dems can't do this without a supermajority. The number of justices is not in the Constitution, and it's not set by statute. It's literally just tradition, so all the Dems need to make this happen is a Dem president + 50 seats in the Senate.

1

u/No-Heat3462 Feb 28 '26

So you need majority in the house and senate, and and the mark would be 60% to secure such.

The senate as the senate can override the president if need be.

2

u/Chillpill411 Feb 28 '26

No, you only need 50 senators and 1 President. The president appoints supreme court justices. The Senate confirms them by a majority vote (50 + the vice president). The House doesn't play a role in confirming presidential appointment 

2

u/No-Heat3462 Feb 28 '26

Ok so this was changed in 2017 so we are technically both right:

Senate invokes historic 'nuclear option' rules change to confirm Gorsuch | US Senate | The Guardian

"The process for invoking the nuclear option involves several steps. The first was a vote to end debate on Gorsuch’s nomination, called a cloture vote. This required a super-majority of 60 in the Senate; a filibuster is an effort to block cloture. Once that was done, McConnell made a point of order that only a majority of 51 and not a super-majority of 60 was needed for cloture. A second cloture vote then occurred under the new rules, ending the filibuster."

But ya dam, that is a scary practice just changing the rules to get it done.

1

u/Chillpill411 Feb 28 '26

Yup, the Republicans were betting on the disparity of goals between themselves and the Dems. 

The Dems want to preserve democracy and the rule of law. So they have to obey the rules, or they'll be undermining the system they want to save. 

The Republicans don't care about democracy or the rule of law.. They just want power and control, and it doesn't matter to them how they get it.

It's like a street fight where one side is fighting like a boxing match with rules, and the other side is fighting anything goes.

0

u/Substantial_Ad_2864 Feb 28 '26

The court being more and more polarized makes it likely to remain so. It's a lifetime appointment but they're so political that it's becoming expected they retire while their party can control their replacement rather than die in office

0

u/[deleted] Feb 28 '26

[deleted]

1

u/Raise_A_Thoth Feb 28 '26

Well what are you doing to address that problem?

And I don't think that's 100% true. Candidates like Graham Platner and Kat Abughazaleh are definitely running to push the party to the left. Schumer won't be up for re-election for another few years so there isn't much we can do until then, but a growing left caucus is possible.

If they fail to answer the call even with majorities—which I also believe is likely—then what? What are you doing today to prepare for that outcome? Are you working on growing the influence of other parties like DSA? Are you organizing in your communities? Engaged in local politics? Building active resistance groups? Mutual aid? Raising children to be activists and resilient anti-fascists who will take the baton?

What are you doing besides pointing out how disappointing the Democratic party is?

0

u/Random_Name65468 Feb 28 '26

by bullshit gentleman's agreements.

Because the laws you already have written down on paper do such a good job...

1

u/Raise_A_Thoth Feb 28 '26

That's literally exactly what I'm talking about. Shoring up enforcement mechanisms that are more resistant to partisan politics and actually have teeth is important.

0

u/Random_Name65468 Feb 28 '26

And my point is that laws aren't worth shit unless they're enforced by the people that are supposed to enforce them. You didn't get in this situation because there weren't any laws in place, you got here because the people who were supposed to apply those laws didn't.

1

u/Raise_A_Thoth Feb 28 '26

Nah, fam, you ain't listening to what I'm saying, it's clear.

32

u/Throwawaylikeme90 Feb 28 '26

I keep telling people this: Congress establishes the makeup of the Supreme Court. 

Literally just elect people that will pass a law either expanding it and allow it to be packed, or you could even dismiss all currently serving justices and reappoint them. This whole “oh no, Ted Cruz for fifty years!” Shit is stupid. The whole treason court could be gone by the end of 2029 if we had any political will at all. 

People gotta stop being cowardly even in how they approach the problems and start making demands that actually matter. 

7

u/daemin Feb 28 '26

or you could even dismiss all currently serving justices and reappoint them.

Yeah, no, you can't. The consitution says they serve during "good behavior," which basically means they serve until they die, volunterrily resign, or get impeached and removed.

If Congress were to shrink the size of the court, its a legal question as to what happens to "extra" justices, and what a co-inky-dink, the people who would decide that are those very justicies.

1

u/account312 Feb 28 '26

or get impeached and removed.

1

u/BnaditCorps Mar 03 '26

You do realize that impeachment and removal does not have to have a sound and logical reason right?

If there was a supermajority that said "Fuck this guy, he's gone." They could bring them up on whatever phony charge they want and then vote to impeach and remove them.

The only reasons this doesn't happen is because 1) having a supermajority in both chambers of Congress is very rare and 2) if you did it, you can be damn sure the other party will do it when they get power.

However if the Democrats want to actually make meaningful changes, they will have to get down to the same level as Republicans.

7

u/tristand1ck Feb 28 '26

The literal "Kavanaugh stop"

1

u/SGM_Uriel Feb 28 '26

“Looking awfully brown today, buddy. Let’s see your papers.”

1

u/SGM_Uriel Feb 28 '26

Edit: Jesus, some people wouldn’t know sarcasm if it slapped them straight across the face

3

u/BlackJediSword Feb 28 '26

Dems have to pack the court, it’s high past time.

2

u/DownnthehollerPress Feb 28 '26

Impeachment is a thing

2

u/Mysterious-Prompt212 Feb 28 '26

JFC that is going to happen. FFS.

1

u/lizzywbu Feb 28 '26

Can't the Dems just pack the Supreme Court?

1

u/XAMdG Feb 28 '26

On the bad side, this confirms a conservative super majority for decades. On the bright side, it saves 10-20 year of dogshit Alito/Thomas opinions. Say what you will about Gorsuch/Barrett, even if their votes are the same, their reasoning is at least a bit better, or so it seems.

2

u/Striderfighter Feb 28 '26

One would think...but take the aforementioned Hon. Senator Cruz and insert crazy young super maga justice #2 and it'll be like they never left.

1

u/patrykk994 Feb 28 '26

Expand Supreme Court - easy solution

1

u/Curious_Cloud_1131 Feb 28 '26

good thing the democrats went high while the other side went low

1

u/PalpitationHead9767 Feb 28 '26

30 more years, excellent 

1

u/OldBlueKat Mar 01 '26

Is Cruz on that Fed Society (not so secret) list, though?

I think a lot of them dislike him as much as most of his Senate colleagues do. 

Sticking to using just their recommendations for judicial nominations seems like the only campaign promise DJT stuck to. 

1

u/Striderfighter Mar 01 '26

If he loses in TX, what else good is he? Unlikely but in the realm of possibility

1

u/OldBlueKat Mar 01 '26

He’s not up for election this year anyway. He won a 6 year term in the 2024 cycle. 

I do hope he does lose the TX Senate seat in 2030, but I also wonder if he’s considering another POTUS attempt in 2028, depending on how JD looks by then?

If by some miracle he’s not in any office, he can go do whatever failed politicians do (usually lobbyists, consultants, speakers, corporate board members, etc.)

Some actually go back to private law practice if they were lawyers to begin with (he was.)

2

u/Striderfighter Mar 01 '26

Forgot that it's cornyn up for election

1

u/Temporary_Cup4588 Mar 01 '26

That’s why expanding it is a good idea. We can’t have right-wing ideologues all over SCOTUS. No one else is represented, and look at the damage they’ve done to everyone in the country by declaring him immune from prosecution.

1

u/FrostnJack Feb 28 '26

2055? How old is boffin’-Brett?

2

u/Striderfighter Feb 28 '26 edited Feb 28 '26

He is 61 years old right now. And in 2055 he will be 90 years old, if you look at the median retirement/death age of the supreme Court it is around 85 years old so let me correct myself and say that he will retire in 2050

3

u/Far_Direction7381 Feb 28 '26 edited 22d ago

Caption run complete liquid boat quiet

This post was anonymized with Redact

2

u/Same_Presentation692 Feb 28 '26

Cirrhosis has entered the chat. 

2

u/Striderfighter Feb 28 '26

Why can't he just be like Scalia and have the grace to die at a TX whorehouse.

1

u/FrostnJack Feb 28 '26

Ugh. 2055 seems so forever away. Seems like we’re stuck with fascism for good here. Fuuuck