After watching George Stephanopoulos interview Ted Cruz it is apparent that Cruz is placing politics and his own vision for America over the United States Constitution. Cruz is a master of diversion. Notice how he does not directly answer a lot of Stephanopolous’s questions.
Is Barack Obama really a “lame-duck” president? At what point does a POTUS become a “lame duck?”
Cruz says that he would filibuster any Obama appointee because “the people” should decide on who will replace Scalia. When Stephanopolous pointed out that the people elected Obama, Cruz’s said “that was three years ago.” What? Doesn’t the Constitution say that the President serves a four-year term?
Someone help me out here. I understand that the Senate has every right to reject an Obama nominee. But is the fact that the POTUS is a “lame duck” and thus should not be making an appointment so late in his term a legitimate reason for rejecting any nominee he sends to the Senate?
Kevin Kruse of Princeton University makes an important point in this satirical tweet:
Breaking: The Senate GOP has also declared Obama should cease any commander-in-chief duties until a new president is in place in 2017.
— Kevin M. Kruse (@KevinMKruse) February 14, 2016
Again, Cruz is placing politics and his moral vision for America over the Constitution, the document he claims to vigorously defend. This leads me to believe that Cruz may be motivated by something other than strict constitutionalism.