Ted Cruz's Supreme Court remark draws White House criticism
Business Law
Sen. Ted Cruz's suggestion of an indefinite Supreme Court vacancy under a President Hillary Clinton raises questions about the credibility and integrity of Republicans who have said the next president should get to the choose who fills the vacancy, White House spokesman Josh Earnest said Thursday.
Earnest was asked during Thursday's White House press briefing about the Texas Republican's statement that there is a long historical precedent for a Supreme Court operating with fewer justices.
Earnest replied that the notion of opposing any nomination put forward by a Democratic president would be inconsistent with longstanding Senate tradition. He said historically that the Senate has evaluated candidates based on their merits.
"Republicans this year have deviated from that tradition by refusing to even consider Chief Judge Merrick Garland to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court," Earnest said.
Cruz's comment also seemingly contradicts an earlier position he took during the GOP primary when he told CNN, "I think 2016 should be a referendum on the Supreme Court."
Sen. John McCain said earlier this month that Republicans would unite against any Supreme Court nominee that Clinton puts forward if she becomes president, though an aide later said that McCain would examine the record of anyone nominated for the high court and vote for or against that person based on their qualifications.
Obama nominated Garland in March to fill the vacancy left by the death of former Justice Antonin Scalia, but Senate Republicans, led by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, declined to hold hearings as they insisted the voters choosing the next president would have the final say on the vacancy.
Related listings
-
As time runs out, dozens of judge nominees waiting on Senate
Business Law 10/18/2016Federal judges in New Jersey have struggled with a workload approaching 700 cases each, nearly double what's manageable, because of judicial vacancies. In Texas, close to a dozen district judgeships remain open, more than in any other state. Senate c...
-
Lithuania wants Gorbachev to testify in war crimes trial
Business Law 10/16/2016A Lithuanian court has called former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev to testify in a mass trial related to the 1991 crackdown on the country's independence movement. Gorbachev and Russian authorities haven't answered previous requests so it's unlikel...
-
Court enters default judgment in Kansas voting rights case
Business Law 10/15/2016A federal court clerk entered a default judgment Tuesday against Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach for failing to file a timely response to a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of a state law requiring prospective voters to prove they are ...
Grounds for Divorce in Ohio - Sylkatis Law, LLC
A divorce in Ohio is filed when there is typically “fault” by one of the parties and party not at “fault” seeks to end the marriage. A court in Ohio may grant a divorce for the following reasons:
• Willful absence of the adverse party for one year
• Adultery
• Extreme cruelty
• Fraudulent contract
• Any gross neglect of duty
• Habitual drunkenness
• Imprisonment in a correctional institution at the time of filing the complaint
• Procurement of a divorce outside this state by the other party
Additionally, there are two “no-fault” basis for which a court may grant a divorce:
• When the parties have, without interruption for one year, lived separate and apart without cohabitation
• Incompatibility, unless denied by either party
However, whether or not the the court grants the divorce for “fault” or not, in Ohio the party not at “fault” will not get a bigger slice of the marital property.