Biden: Voters do not deserve to know where he stands on packing the Courts

We know already, cant we just take their word for it?

NYT, Burns said Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., told him she is “absolutely open” to packing the Supreme Court. “Harris told me in an interview actually …

Chucky said everything is on the table, 52 stars, SC packing , ending filibusters.

Biden’s refusal is a tell. It’s only going to be an obtrusive story if they declare they would pack the Court. If they say they won’t, the story will be are they lying or not, but common sense dictates to leave the court alone, so no big deal. Biden is on record saying packing the Court is a stupid idea, so that would be thrown in his face (by Fox and OAN, but hardly anyone else) and he would undoubtedly step on his crank numerous times trying to justify his hypocrisy. But, we have the answer; they will absolutely pack the Court, ASAP.

like the idiot bar fly pelosi, on obamshit medical care. ” have to approve it to read it”. the paedophiles arrogance is nothing new. in his own demented mind he has already won the election. his pollsters have told him so, just like the slut hillary’s did.

his economic plan will set this country back 50 years and rippen it for global insurrection and take over. groups like the belligerent lying marxist and antif**k-up are just pawn in this exercise in which they will become the first into slavery or extinction. hitler, stalin, and moa all did the same thig; once power was achieved, the leader of the inserection and most of its followers are put to death.
to this end, there is room for comrade chucky-poo.
one nice thing about Opera, one cannot lip sync a Mozart Opera- The Die Zauberflote K 620. ever notice how joey and kamaslut’s words are not in sync with their brain

So, why do biden voters not deserve to know where he and heels up harris stand on packing the Supreme Court? harris has emphatically stated she is in favor of packing the court with leftist radical activists judges.

It is a simple question joe and your voters want to know and need to know.

@kitt:

Chucky said everything is on the table, 52 stars, SC packing , ending filibusters.

Even if it were true, you made the bed. Now you get to lie in it.

So, why do biden voters not deserve to know where he and heels up harris stand on packing the Supreme Court?

Because Democrats don’t want Republican Senators who plan to ramrod through a radically conservative Supreme Court nominee less than three weeks ahead of a presidential election to think such a blatant act of hypocrisy won’t have serious consequences. A warning is only taken seriously if the offending party understands the consequences will be real.

Biden supporters know perfectly well that the refusal to answer isn’t about what they “deserve to know”. Democrats would prefer not having to expand the court to maintain some semblance of ideological balance.

Compared with Amy Coney Barrett, Merrick Garland was ideologically neutral, yet Republicans blocked any action on his nomination for nearly a year, asserting that something so important should be delayed until after the election so “the people could have their say”. Barrett has voiced opinions regarding a number of controversial issues that make Democrats very wary of her; she seems to come with a right-leaning political ideology; there is a high level of public concern about her nomination, yet Republicans insist this must be done immediately.

Go ahead. But if you do, be prepared for consequences.

You are trying to say the Democrats in the same position wouldnt do exactly what the Republicans will do?

Democrats have never done so before.

The purpose of the court is not ideological balance, it is to determine if it is constitutional, not to legislate as with roe vs wade.

That is correct. But it’s no secret from anyone that Republicans are hoping to set the ideological balance of the court in their favor for an entire generation. THEY HAVE OPENLY STATED AS MUCH.

@Greg:
Hypocrisy, Greg? What hypocrisy? The Constitution is hypocritical, Greg? How so? Voters not like you voted for the current Senate term. It’s the Constitution that allows the Senate to withhold advice and consent- which was their right for Merrick Garland. The Constitution allows Trump to nominate judicial appointments- which was his right for Amy Coney- Barratt. It was Harry Reid- a Democrat- who changed the Senate rules over filibusters regarding judicial nominees.

And remember this: it was your guy, Barack Hussein Obama, who most famously quipped “Elections have consequences”.

So, too bad, so sad. Like it or not, Coney-Barratt is going to be confirmed, irrespective of how much you petulantly cry “It’s not FAIR!!”.

@Greg: After the likes of Ginsburg, that’s a feature, not a bug.

If you’d venture outside of the Trump propaganda bubble into the forbidden realm of the mainstream media, you could see what’s happening with your own eyes. He’s been steadily beating the “rigged election” drum for months, while simultaneously working every possible angle to rig it himself.

There no credible evidence that anything is wrong with the balloting process. He lies about that constantly.

16 comments in and greg steps all over the thread. greg can not debate the thread topic without diversion.

15 comments in and greg steps all over the thread. greg can not debate the thread topic without diversion.

@kitt:

At least 14 justices have been confirmed in election years

So why wasn’t that relevant to republicans as they sat on Merrick Garland’s nomination for most of a year, not even giving the man the courtesy of a hearing? Now, with only three weeks until the election, they’ve totally flip-flopped on their rationalization. There was never any truth to it. Those who have taken control of the GOP have no consistent guiding principles that they would ever openly acknowledge.

@Greg: Because elections have consequences, Greg? Just spitballin’ here.

@Bill H:

Here is just one case of voters being sent an incorrect ballot; 50,000 voters that is:

https://twitter.com/FranklinCoBOE/status/1314612703999057920/photo/1

In New Hampshire, voters are receiving fake ballots in the mail with instructions to mail them in.

In New Jersey, a USPS mail carrier has been charged with dumping mail, including mail-in ballots, by the US Attorney’s office.

In California, voters are receiving ballots for people who have not lived at that address for decades, for dead voters and one at their business address and one at their home. Nah, no chance of ballot stuffing there.

And in many states, Obama appointed judges are changing voting laws in spite of the fact that voting in those states have already started.

The Democrats are pulling out all the stops to steal this election and Comrade Greggie knows that. That’s why he projects his Party’s plans on to Trump.

Neither one of the democrat candidates have stated they would not add seats to the court. The issue here is without answering definitively we are left to believe that the democrats will add more seats to the court if they are successful cheating to win the election.

@Greg:

Do you answer the burglar’s question if he asks if your gun has a round in the chamber, or do you let him wonder?

You are now comparing a reporter asking Bargain Basement Joe if he supports court “stacking” to a criminal act?

You really have some mental issues there, Comrade Greggie.

President Trump will not add seats to the court.

Senate majority leader McConnell has not said he would add seats to the court.

Senate majority leader McConnell has not vowed to end the filibuster.

There has been no talk of adding states by the Republican Party.

@Greg:

What you’ve got there is a case of a problem being detected and corrected a month ahead of the election.

Wrong, dipshit. Early voting has already started in Ohio.

I hope the GOP is providing lots and lots of poll watchers in all states because the Democratic Party is definitely out to rig this election.

Are republican operatives now mailing out fake ballots to give Trump something to point at? I wouldn’t put it past them. They’d do anything to keep this guy in office.

You mean like how the Democrats did everything they could to rig the election so JFK would win? Ever take a look at people who have been convicted of voter fraud, Comrade Greggie? Almost 100% are Democrats.

@Greg: Wonder no more, Greg: in my home, the burglar gets shot. Even in California.

@Bill H:

Just wait until you read The People’s Charter just announced by the Squad (AOC plus three). Free everything. And I’m sure all those voters who struggled to pay their kid’s way through college are going to be thrilled to pay off some wealthy kid’s student loans because his/her/its parents didn’t.

People’s Charter; has a nice Communist ring to it, doesn’t it?

@retire05:

Wrong, dipshit. Early voting has already started in Ohio.

The notification included instructions to be followed by anyone who might have already received, completed, and submitted an incorrect ballot. Didn’t you bother to read what the notification said?

@Greg:

Your reference to post #10 explains nothing. All voters deserve to know what a candidate for POTUS believes and intends to do as President.

Do voters deserve to know what that joe biden raped Tara Reade?

— here is the relevant quote

““Well, you’ve been asked by the viewers who are probably Republicans who don’t want me(biden) continuing to talk about what they’re doing to the court right now,” Biden deflected, mirroring the media’s “Republicans pounce” tactic to make the conversation about the GOP instead of his refusal to answer the legitimate question.

“Well, sir, don’t the voters deserve to know where you stand…” DiMattei asked before Biden cut him off.

“No, they don’t deserve — I’m not going to play his game,” Biden said.

The old man(biden) lost his temper …. this remark is going to leave a permanent mark. Angry, arrogant unstable, losing control of his emotions … ‘we the people’ in a government by the people, for the people, are so far beneath him, matter so little that we don’t “deserve” to know? This will be damaging & the Trump campaign should pound him back into the basement with it … or an elder care facility (the kind where the doors to his unit are kept locked).

?w=900&ssl=1

A brief history of FDR and his “Packing the Court”

Franklin Roosevelt and the Supreme Court

The political agenda that Franklin D. Roosevelt brought to his first administration ran into great hostility from the Supreme COurt, which overturned a number of New Deal programs in the first few years. Roosevelt was enraged and threatened to change the number of justices, which is not set by the Constitution, to allow him to appoint new justices with views favorable to his own. Public opposition to this attempt to assert control over the judicial branch by the executive branch forced him to back down, but the court itself began to take a more generous view of the New Deal. As justices were replaced by Roosevelt appointees, the issue was gradually defused. In the summer of 1936, a number of decisions handed down by the Supreme Court invalidated the provisions of several key elements of the New Deal. The actions bothered Roosevelt a great deal. The landslide victory that he enjoyed in the election of 1936 emboldened him. On February 5, 1937, Roosevelt sent to Congress a bill for the reform of the federal judiciary, which among other things would have allowed him to appoint up to six additional justices to the Supreme Court, raising its total to fifteen. He explained his plan first in a message to Congress and then in his Fireside Chat of March 9, 1937. During his radio address, Roosevelt took pains when drawing the line between the policies advocated by himself and opposed by the Supreme Court to place the American people on his side of it, remarking that “In 1933 you and I knew …” and “Today we are only part way through that program.” He explained the his plan was to ensure that the court would have new blood, people who would see the modern circumstances of American life, by providing a new justice for each justice who remained on the court after the age of seventy and having served ten years. Roosevelt accused the court of having overstepped its bounds and switched from exercising proper Judicial Review to becoming a “third house of Congress.” He denied that the justices were compelled to overturn his legislation by noting that some justices had dissented. The project had been described as “packing” the court, and Roosevelt demurred, somewhat:

If by that phrase “packing the Court” it is charged that I wish to place on the bench spineless puppets who would disregard the law and would decide specific cases as I wished them to be decided, I make this answer: that no president fit for his office would appoint, and no Senate of honorable men fit for their office would confirm, that kind of appointees to the Supreme Court. But if by that phrase the charge is made that I would appoint and the Senate would confirm justices worthy to sit beside present members of the Court, who understand modern conditions, that I will appoint justices who will not undertake to override the judgment of the Congress on legislative policy, that I will appoint justices who will act as justices and not as legislators – if the appointment of such justices can be called “packing the Courts,” then I say that I and with me the vast majority of the American people favor doing just that thing – now.
His proposal was considered by a Senate committee, which reported adversely on June 14. The report was unsparing in its criticism of Roosevelt`s motives. It suggested that Roosevelt had constructed a smokescreen around his real objectives:
It should be pointed out here that a substantial portion of the message was devoted to a discussion of the evils of conflicting decisions by inferior courts on constitutional questions and to the alleged abuse of the power of injunction by some of the Federal courts. These matters, however, have no bearing on the bill before us, for it contains neither a line nor a sentence dealing with either of those problems.
It also noted that the purported interest in creating a larger and more efficient court were contradicted by statements from the administration:
Three invitations to the members of the Supreme Court over 70 years of age to get out despite all the talk about increasing personnel to expedite the disposition of cases and remedy the law`s delay. One by the bill. One by the President`s message. One by the Attorney General. Can reasonable men by any possibility differ about the constitutional impropriety of such a course?
It finished with a scathing critique:
Its ultimate operation would be to make this Government one of men rather than one of law, and its practical operation would be to make the Constitution what the executive or legislative branches of the Government choose to say it is—-an interpretation to be changed with each change of administration.
The strength of the opposition to his plan may have surprised Roosevelt, who adopted a more moderate tone in response. While some continued to advocate for judicial reform, Roosevelt largely left the problem alone. It became moot when the Supreme Court began to view the constitutionality of his programs more favorably. In retrospect, it`s not hard to understand why the plan failed to gather support. The American people, and especially its Congress, hold the separation of the three branches in high regard. While Roosevelt in his message noted the need for younger people in both the judicial and executive branches, and the Senate noted that his plan did nothing to improve youthfulness in the executive, the unmentioned fact was that national legislators can themselves grow old and out of touch. The challenge to the Supreme Court in 1937 could have become a challenge to Congress later. Much as Congress supported Roosevelt at the time, it supported its future independence and relevance even more.

Today however, the Senate minority leader advocates creating this imbalance of power between the three branches. The wisdom of the Senate then is absent now with respect to the democrat communist party of today.

By the way, FDR’s first appointment to the Court was none other than Hugo Black. Black was a member of the KKK, well documented and he was white. Gee, wonder if that made him a White supremacist?

During World War II, Black wrote the majority opinion in Korematsu v. United States (1944), which upheld the Japanese-American internment that had taken place. Black opposed the doctrine of substantive due process (the anti–New Deal Supreme Court’s interpretation of this concept made it impossible for the government to enact legislation that conservatives claimed interfered with the ostensible freedom of business owners)[9] and believed that there was no basis in the words of the Constitution for a right to privacy, voting against finding one in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965).[10]

Before he became a U.S. Senator (D-AL), Black espoused anti-Catholic views and was a member of the Ku Klux Klan in Alabama, but he resigned in 1925.[11] Years later, he said: “Before becoming a Senator I dropped the Klan. I have had nothing to do with it since that time. I abandoned it. I completely discontinued any association with the organization.”[12]

So, in review, the democrat nominee’s will not put forth a list of potential appointments to the Supreme Court if elected. President Trump has twice given his list of potential nominees to the Court once in 2016 and again in 2020.
And neither of the democrat nominees will answer in the affirmative or negative with respect to increasing the number of justices on the Court.

All Americans deserve to know the democrat nominees position of this issue.