Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas has been among the most vociferous critics of the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decisions on Obamacare and gay marriage, and he has since called for holding judicial retention elections for high court justices.
But at least one rival and one potential rival for the 2016 GOP presidential nomination aren’t ready to go there just yet.
“Look, I understand the frustration,” Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal said when asked about Mr. Cruz’s proposal on Fox News’ “Special Report with Bret Baier.” “I think the real solution here is for a president to actually appoint justices that will read the Constitution.”
“This was a bad week for the court and the rule of law,” said Mr. Jindal, who entered the 2016 presidential race last week. “I think the easiest way to fix this is to appoint justices who will actually read a dictionary, read the Constitution.”
“One, I don’t think adding more politics to this body fixes it, and secondly … I’m a Christian, I’m a conservative — I also understand we have a bigger issue in terms of where the culture is moving,” he said. “It’s not clear to me if there was a vote, [it] would necessarily turn out the way I would want it to turn out, especially if you look at polls. Unlike Hillary Clinton, unlike President Obama, my beliefs aren’t evolving with the polls when it comes to marriage.”
Ohio Gov. John Kasich, who is announcing his 2016 decision on July 21, said Monday on Fox News’ “The Kelly File” he doesn’t agree with having judicial retention elections.
“No, I don’t think so — I mean, I think the system is fine,” Mr. Kasich said.
“And if I were to run and get elected president, I certainly would want to have the power to appoint them,” he said, laughing. “Look, I appoint judges now — I appointed a woman on the Supreme Court here in Ohio. I just want to make sure we have conservatives that abide by the Constitution, but in terms of electing the Supreme Court, no, I’m not for that, ’cause then [we’re] going to have political elections to elect the Supreme Court.”
“Look, I think we all have to see how this develops,” he continued. “I believe fundamentally that religious institutions … have got to be given protection. I have friends that are gay — I don’t [have] any of them say, ’Well, you’re wrong.’ I don’t hear that at all. Hopefully, this is [going to] go smoothly. If not, and if problems arise, and if people feel as though they’re not being respected, then we’ll have to deal with it. But let’s not get carried away. Let’s just wait to see what happens here.”
• David Sherfinski can be reached at dsherfinski@washingtontimes.com.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.