Supreme Court


emocrats are pulling out all the stops in justifying why their nemesis President Trump should not take the opportunity to fill the Supreme Court vacancy after the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Friday. However, Senator Ted Cruz uses facts to explain with ease that if Trump gets a nominee through to the court, he is historically justified.

Speaking to ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos on Sunday, Cruz explained, “twenty-nine times there has been a vacancy in a presidential election year. Presidents have made nominations all 29 times.” Each and every sitting president took the opportunity to make their nomination. Simply put, that is what Presidents do in the event of a Supreme Court vacancy; election year or not.

Whether or not the nomination results in confirmation is another matter. As Cruz explains, there is one simple factor: the Senate. “There’s a big difference in the Senate, with whether the Senate is of the same party of the president or a different party than the president” explained Cruz. “If the parties are the same, the Senate confirms the nominee” he added. Of the 29 nominations, 19 were made by a President of the same political party of the Senate. 17 of those 19 were confirmed.

There you have it, Democrats. All of your presidents took their respective opportunities to put their own justice on the court. They were held up at the Senate. Because the White House and the Senate majority are both held by the Republican party, a Trump confirmation is highly likely, and once again, historically justified.

“It’s not just simply your party, my party. It’s a question of checks and balances. In order for a Supreme Court nomination to go forward, you have to have the president and the Senate” Cruz simplifies. “In this instance, the American people voted. They elected Donald Trump. A big part of the reason they elected Donald Trump is because of the Scalia vacancy, and they wanted a principled constitutionalist on the court” said Cruz.

Despite Democrats’ insistence that Ginsburg’s death in an election year is comparable to 2016 when former President Obama made his nomination after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, the two instances are different. Again, for one main reason: the Senate. President Obama was a Democrat, trying to confirm a liberal judge in a GOP held Senate.

The Federalist also addresses Democrats’ argument that Trump will “rush” a nominee through before the November elections. “Three former SCOTUS justices, including Ginsburg, were formally nominated and confirmed within 45 days from their nominations. That’s the distance between now and the November elections.”


  1. For the sake of our country’s future, and the integrity of our Supreme Court, if possible, it would be great to see President Trump nominate and have approved, a woman that has both conservative views, and who is a firm believer and supporter of our Constitution… and to honor RBG, by also having the inert ability to go against the grain, sticking to her beliefs, even when controversial. Honesty, Integrity, Compassionate, Selfless, and Pro America are absolutely paramount to the future of our Great Nation. Mr. President, I hope that when you search and find the Best SCOTUS candidate, it is NOT because they are a “Republican” but because they are 100% committed to Our Republic… Our future, our children’s future and grandchildren’s futures depend on it.❤️🇺🇸🙏


  3. Let’s geterdone

    Quickly Quickly Confirm Confirm Confirm

    President TRUMP’s newest US Scotus Nominee

    ❤💥👍CHRISTrumPence and of his/our US TRUMPlican Lawmakers in their Successful US2020 Elected/Relected Landslide
    Amen & Amen👍💥❤

Comments are closed.