Dear Senator Cruz,
I’ve read your recent letter to Senate Majority Leader McConnell stating your intention to block any vote on a nominee for the Supreme Court until next year. You and your fellow Republicans refer to this commitment as an “exercise of constitutional power” designed to “protect the will of the American people.”
Senator Cruz,
since the American people elected President Obama twice by wide margins;
since we voters understood at the time that there was a high probability there would be a Supreme Court appointment during his term;
since “a full and robust debate” is exactly what this constitutional process is designed to produce,
then please know that “the American people” already have made our will perfectly clear: we want President Obama to choose the next justice for the Supreme Court.
The American people want you and other Senators to receive the President’s nominee respectfully. We want you to offer fair hearings. We want you to advise and consent based on the merits of the nominee, not on your particular pet ideologies. THIS is the “constitutional power” entrusted to you.
Senator Cruz, you talk a lot about constitutional authority but it seems to me, you don’t actually honor the spirit of the constitution.
Our Founders created this impressive document in the midst of great debate and diversity. It represents a commitment to the principles of compromise and collaboration. It models a wise, ongoing approach of respectful negotiation between strong differences of opinion. Its spirit of e pluribus unum sets the stage well for our life together as an increasingly diverse community.
When you refuse compromise and collaboration, you dishonor the spirit of the Constitution.
When you elevate the preferences of one group of Americans over the “common good” of all Americans, you dishonor the spirit of the Constitution.
When you allow your particular sectarian understandings to close your mind to the wider wisdom of your fellow Americans, you dishonor the spirit of the Constitution.
When you misrepresent the tradition of “advising and consenting” during election years and attempt to deceive the American people on this matter, you dishonor the spirit of the Constitution.
When you disrespect the office of President of the United States, you dishonor the spirit of the Constitution.
Claiming “constitutional authority” to thus dishonor the very Constitution you purport to serve is an especially grievous fiction.
As you know, I am a Christian theologian and pastor, not a constitutional scholar. But since I am one of your constituents from Texas, I am bold to speak out. I have spent much of my life negotiating with various religious people who act as if their particular interpretation of what is “right” should take precedence over anyone else’s equally valid opinion. This self-righteous attitude has damaged countless communities of faith.
If I, as a pastoral leader, were to push through my own “righteous” agenda instead of listening to and respecting the varied perspectives of other faithful people within my congregation, that would be a significant breach of pastoral ethics. Not to mention short sighted and fool hardy. No matter how “right” we might believe ourselves to be, living together within any community demands humility and sometimes a willingness to yield personal “rights” for the good of the whole.
Senator Cruz, instead of using intransigence as a badge of honor; instead of boasting about your refusal to compromise and celebrating your obstructionist approaches, I urge you 
to respect the wide wisdom of the American people and to honor the constitutional process our Founders have put into place.
Your “constitutional authority” to “advice and consent” is to be done in the name of the American people.
Please listen to us. ALL of us.
Respectfully yours,
Rev. Charlotte Vaughan Coyle
Senator Cruz’s press release states: “For 80 years it has been the practice that the Senate has not confirmed any nomination made during an election year, and we shouldn’t make an exception now.”
See these two excellent SCOTUS blogs that take issue with his claim. These are helpful essays that offer more discussion about the American history of advising and consenting on Supreme Court nominees during presidential election years.
Amy Howe, Supreme Court vacancies in presidential election years, SCOTUSblog (Feb. 13, 2016, 11:55 PM), http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/supreme-court-vacancies-in-presidential-election-years/
Michael Gerhardt, Getting the Senate’s responsibilities on Supreme Court nominations right, SCOTUSblog (Mar. 9, 2016, 11:10 AM), http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/03/getting-the-senates-responsibilities-on-supreme-court-nominations-right/
Charlotte Vaughan Coyle lives in Paris TX and blogs about intersections of faith, culture and politics on her website and Intersections Facebook page. She frequently
shares her thoughts with Coffee Party USA as a regular volunteer.
Charlotte is an ordained minister within the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) and also blogs about Scripture from a progressive Christian approach in her Living in The Story Musings.
You should’ve just started with the “I am not a constitutional scholar” sentence. Then I would’ve had these five minutes back. He was voted in just as you said the President was. He’s not acting outside of his realm. Nice try though.
Nice try Don. President Obama is the Constitutional scholar whom I trust here; I’m with him on this. Plus he was voted in by wide margins as I mentioned; Senator Cruz got the job because Texans are notorious for not voting. He got the majority of votes cast but it was a pitiful voter turnout.
Don, no, he is not within his realm of responsibility! There are examples of recent presidents, both republican and democrat, who have appointed SCOTUS names for office their final year in office! The statement above from Cruz is just another one of his lies. You don’t have to be a “constitutional scholar” to understand that.
The Honorable Senator Cruz, in my opinion only concern is his political career. He will say and do whatever will give the appearance of being someone of Substance. He quotes the Constitution when it favors his position or if he can twist its meaning. In all my born days I’ve seen nor heard Nothing that is so Dangerous that can’t be Debated or talked about -Stevens Rhode Island Continental Congress 1776
Your posts make so much sense. Do you actually send them to Cruz and has he responded?
Thanks Roslyn. I usually do (I haven’t sent this one yet). I’ve only received one form letter. I keep writing anyway, hoping more and more people will join me. Send me a copy of your letter to your Rep when you write it. ?
I hope Ted reads your letters, though I have my doubts. I enjoy reading them and often share them. Ted, in my opinion, only want to win. He has no interest in coming to reasonable consensus or mutually beneficial solutions. I once saw him take apart an EPA administrator on climate change. The administrator had the facts on his side, but Ted had a sharp mind and some debater’s tactics and easily defeated the administrator who foolishly thought he was there to shed light on the subject.
Thanks, and keep up the good work.
Thanks for this well-written and informed letter to the Senator from Texas, who has not demonstrated he cares about the public, beyond extreme conservative ideologues. He supports a violent response to global conflicts, mistreatment of immigrants, and selectively chooses which parts of the
Constitution he supports. I think the Republican party does not want him as their standard bearer, because would be embarrasing and likely lose to either Democratic candidate.
Not only is this unwillingness to abide by the “Constitution” destructive to our freedom, it is bad for religion. The early immigrants to America fled from the deadening impact of State-supported churches in Europe. A religion that requires government enforcement to survive, is soon abandoned by its followers.