Biden; You'll Know My Opinion On Packing The Courts After The Election

[my2¢]

I would expect Trump to play it the same in Biden's shoes. There's no way Biden will try to pack the court if he wins and the Republicans control either the House or Senate. Even if it's an election disaster for Republicans the way 2008 was, why would Biden give up such a prime negotiation card? Plus would you believe him anyways?

 

[TNHarley]

This senile old fool actually said voters dont deserve to know whether he supports packing the court or not. And then he lied. I am sure the fact checkers are all over it right now

 

[RodISHI]

Well one thing about it he is being honest about how he feels. I doubt that will make one iota worth of difference for those rabid TDS peeps.

 

[BS Filter]

Democrats don't care about anyone, just power.

 

[RodISHI]

Democrats don't care about anyone, just power.

There are republicans that are the same way. Not sure how to shake them all off but the Tea Party was a hell of a good start.

 

[Billy_Bob]

"Democratic nominee Joe Biden on Friday said that voters don’t deserve to know if he would attempt to pack the Supreme Court if he wins in November..."

Biden says voters don't deserve to know his stance on packing Supreme Court

Democratic nominee Joe Biden on Friday said that voters don’t deserve to know if he would attempt to pack the Supreme Court if he wins in November and Amy Coney Barrett is confirmed to the high court.

www.foxnews.com

--------------

Translation...Biden can't say no or he loses the left and he can't say yes because then he loses the middle...

...so, the safest assumtion before you vote for a man who refuses to divulge his position is...what ever you expect/want him to do, he actually plans on doing the opposite...

Its rather amazing that Biden believes the moderates are to stupid to figure out that he is lying to them or he is lying to his rabid base.... None of them can figure out they are being lied too...

This elitist stance should come back and bite him solidly in the ass.

 

[Cecilie1200]

He's going to pack the court if he gets elected and Republicans will pound him over it right up until election day.

Something needs to be done to protect the civil rights of American Citizens to become infected by Thomas, Alito, Korsuch and Kavenaugh. Adding Barrett not only packs the court but in the last case violates Article VI of the Constitution.

Don't pretend that R v. W and the ACA will not be gone before the end of this year. Remember Kooks, elections have consequences, some very bad and some very good. If Trump and Moscow Mitch are reelected the bad will continue and the good will need to replace the evil that is Trumpism.

1) The way to "protect" people from the opposing political party is to win elections, not to rejigger the structure of the government so that your agenda is the only option.

2) You might as well give up now on this lame-ass attempt to redefine court-packing as "How DARE Republicans think that they get to have power?! It's Unconstitutional for anyone but Democrats to pick judges!" No one's getting outraged because of your hypocrisy on this. I dare you to actually try to make an argument that Article VI of the Constitution prohibits people who disagree with you from appointing judges you don't like.

3) If you think what Dementia Joe and Kneepad Kamala have to offer is "the good", feel free to try actually convincing people to agree with you, rather than just forcing it on them because you think you know better than they do what they want and need.

 

[Cecilie1200]

He's going to pack the court if he gets elected and Republicans will pound him over it right up until election day.

Something needs to be done to prevent the civil rights of American Citizens to be infected by Thomas, Alito, Korsuch and Kavenaugh. Adding Barrett not only packs the court but in the last case violates Article VI of the Constitution.

What civil rights have those justices violated? Please be specific.
And what civil rights do they intend to violate?

Do you not understand why people are opposed to “packing the court”... aka adding more justices to the total number?

The Supreme Court is SUPPOSED to be insulated from popular opinion, political trends, etc.
that was the reasoning behind life time appointments to the court, so they were insulated from drastic changes in make up, not effected by elections, etc.
If we go down the road of adding justices to the court to give one idealogical/political side, then what? Ever time one side wins, they add more justices to swing it one way or another. That’s a disastrous Road to go down.

One would think that following the constitution and judging cases based on the guidelines and principles outline wouldn’t be hard. But as your liberal judges have often demonstrated, they know what ideological outcome they want, and then perform whatever mental gymnastics are needed to get there.

Repealing the Voting Rights Act, for one. You last paragraph describes an ideal, one which McConnell has violated, and his hypocrisy along with the small minority of the Senate supports.

You posted the Supreme Court is supposed to be insulated, I agree that is something all courts need to be. However, when a justice is nominated, and will be confirmed by this lame duck Senate to appoint someone whose religious values supercede the health and right of women, such an act needs to be corrected.

First of all, the Supreme Court doesn't "repeal" laws, moron. All they can do is rule that they're Unconstitutional, and I sincerely doubt you can show us any grounds on which they would declare the Voting Rights Act so, or any proof that they would consider doing so. But by all means, prove us wrong and justify saying such an asinine thing.

Don't even get me started on your fauxrage about McConnell "violating that ideal" when your entire purpose here is to allow leftist judges to continue their ongoing violations of that ideal.

"Oh, it's really good for judges to be insulated . . . unless they might make a decision that I have decided isn't acceptable!" **** you. There is not enough **** you in the world for your elitist belief that the law takes a backseat to your agenda.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Pelosi and Schumer will pass a law to expand the court if they can. Nobody with half a brain thinks Biden will refuse to sign it. Democrats are liars

Elections have consequences. I hope they do expand the Supreme Court, as well as replace the Tax Fraud signed by Trump and replace it to not only raise revenue from corporations but to add back the two tax brackets which reduced taxes paid by the highest earners; cut taxes to families with earned income of under $400,000, and use the revenue to repair and replace are nation's rusting infrastructures; and make sure that every American, notwithstanding any preexisting condition to be able to afford good health insurance.

BTW,

"America Disrupted Seniors
"Robin Viger waves to participants in parade of over 300 golf carts supporting Democratic presidential candidate former Vice President Joe Biden as they arrive at the Sumter County Elections office to cast their ballots during early voting Wednesday, Oct. 7, 2020, in The Villages, Fla. (AP Photo/John Raoux)"

See my thread moved from the thread I posted it on (Current Events) on to the USMB Badlands. I do wonder why (tee hee).

"It's so horrible that Trump is trying to pack the court by appointing a Justice to an empty seat . . . but I really hope the Democrats REALLY pack the court by adding new seats, because winning means we get to do whatever we want but you winning means you have to be nice enough to give us our way, anyway."

See my last post about "not enough **** you in the world".

 

[Beef_Supreme]

This senile old fool actually said voters dont deserve to know whether he supports packing the court or not. And then he lied. I am sure the fact checkers are all over it right now

It’s only your country in name only. **** you and bow down to your elected (and non elected) overlords.

 

[Rye Catcher]

He's going to pack the court if he gets elected and Republicans will pound him over it right up until election day.

Something needs to be done to prevent the civil rights of American Citizens to be infected by Thomas, Alito, Korsuch and Kavenaugh. Adding Barrett not only packs the court but in the last case violates Article VI of the Constitution.

What civil rights have those justices violated? Please be specific.
And what civil rights do they intend to violate?

Do you not understand why people are opposed to “packing the court”... aka adding more justices to the total number?

The Supreme Court is SUPPOSED to be insulated from popular opinion, political trends, etc.
that was the reasoning behind life time appointments to the court, so they were insulated from drastic changes in make up, not effected by elections, etc.
If we go down the road of adding justices to the court to give one idealogical/political side, then what? Ever time one side wins, they add more justices to swing it one way or another. That’s a disastrous Road to go down.

One would think that following the constitution and judging cases based on the guidelines and principles outline wouldn’t be hard. But as your liberal judges have often demonstrated, they know what ideological outcome they want, and then perform whatever mental gymnastics are needed to get there.

Repealing the Voting Rights Act, for one. You last paragraph describes an ideal, one which McConnell has violated, and his hypocrisy along with the small minority of the Senate supports.

You posted the Supreme Court is supposed to be insulated, I agree that is something all courts need to be. However, when a justice is nominated, and will be confirmed by this lame duck Senate to appoint someone whose religious values supercede the health and right of women, such an act needs to be corrected.

First of all, the Supreme Court doesn't "repeal" laws, moron. All they can do is rule that they're Unconstitutional, and I sincerely doubt you can show us any grounds on which they would declare the Voting Rights Act so, or any proof that they would consider doing so. But by all means, prove us wrong and justify saying such an asinine thing.

Don't even get me started on your fauxrage about McConnell "violating that ideal" when your entire purpose here is to allow leftist judges to continue their ongoing violations of that ideal.

"Oh, it's really good for judges to be insulated . . . unless they might make a decision that I have decided isn't acceptable!" **** you. There is not enough **** you in the world for your elitist belief that the law takes a backseat to your agenda.

I understand now why my thread has been moved to the Rubber Room. It was to allow people like you to write vile and hateful comments.

The Truth in my posts are what set you off. Maybe there is hope that you might see the consquences of what Trump and Moscow Mitch have done.

Read this, and then consider what you want to vote for,

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

or, four more years of Trumpism; Trumpism is an antithesis of the Preamble, a short paragraph which today would be called a Mission Statement. An ideal left to us by the Founders.

 

[bendog]

I would expect Trump to play it the same in Biden's shoes. There's no way Biden will try to pack the court if he wins and the Republicans control either the House or Senate. Even if it's an election disaster for Republicans the way 2008 was, why would Biden give up such a prime negotiation card? Plus would you believe him anyways?

Exactly. So long as the dems have the presidency and the senate, they'd have "an axehandle" to beat the SC like civil rights protestors. (-:

And there are about twice as many goper senators up for election in 22 than dem.

So there's a disensentive for them to do anything really radical.

But it remains to be seen how radical the gop Court with 6 votes chooses to be.

 

[my2¢]

I like the nomination of Amy Barrett but one doesn't need to be Einstein to figure that Biden would like to nominate the next Supreme Court justice himself. One of the reasons I see the desire for Republicans to approve Barrett before the election is to eliminate the possibility of Biden to wheel and deal the nomination away from Trump. Say Biden wins and the Democrats win control of the House and Senate, Biden could then promise not to pack the court in return for the Senate not approving Barrett.

 

[Rye Catcher]

I would expect Trump to play it the same in Biden's shoes. There's no way Biden will try to pack the court if he wins and the Republicans control either the House or Senate. Even if it's an election disaster for Republicans the way 2008 was, why would Biden give up such a prime negotiation card? Plus would you believe him anyways?

Exactly. So long as the dems have the presidency and the senate, they'd have "an axehandle" to beat the SC like civil rights protestors. (-:

And there are about twice as many goper senators up for election in 22 than dem.

So there's a disensentive for them to do anything really radical.

But it remains to be seen how radical the gop Court with 6 votes chooses to be.

Keep in mind, the Federal Court System has added 300 (?) Conservative Judges since trump took office. Judges should be umpires, as the Chief Justice said at this confirmation hearing. Sadly, no such thing can be seen in Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh or Gorsuch; adding Barrett will put the scales of lady justice to lean further right for decades.

Say good-bye to the ACA, R v. W and Miranda. It will be the time for law and order, justice will be an afterthought and variable.

 

[Cecilie1200]

He's going to pack the court if he gets elected and Republicans will pound him over it right up until election day.

Something needs to be done to prevent the civil rights of American Citizens to be infected by Thomas, Alito, Korsuch and Kavenaugh. Adding Barrett not only packs the court but in the last case violates Article VI of the Constitution.

What civil rights have those justices violated? Please be specific.
And what civil rights do they intend to violate?

Do you not understand why people are opposed to “packing the court”... aka adding more justices to the total number?

The Supreme Court is SUPPOSED to be insulated from popular opinion, political trends, etc.
that was the reasoning behind life time appointments to the court, so they were insulated from drastic changes in make up, not effected by elections, etc.
If we go down the road of adding justices to the court to give one idealogical/political side, then what? Ever time one side wins, they add more justices to swing it one way or another. That’s a disastrous Road to go down.

One would think that following the constitution and judging cases based on the guidelines and principles outline wouldn’t be hard. But as your liberal judges have often demonstrated, they know what ideological outcome they want, and then perform whatever mental gymnastics are needed to get there.

Repealing the Voting Rights Act, for one. You last paragraph describes an ideal, one which McConnell has violated, and his hypocrisy along with the small minority of the Senate supports.

You posted the Supreme Court is supposed to be insulated, I agree that is something all courts need to be. However, when a justice is nominated, and will be confirmed by this lame duck Senate to appoint someone whose religious values supercede the health and right of women, such an act needs to be corrected.

First of all, the Supreme Court doesn't "repeal" laws, moron. All they can do is rule that they're Unconstitutional, and I sincerely doubt you can show us any grounds on which they would declare the Voting Rights Act so, or any proof that they would consider doing so. But by all means, prove us wrong and justify saying such an asinine thing.

Don't even get me started on your fauxrage about McConnell "violating that ideal" when your entire purpose here is to allow leftist judges to continue their ongoing violations of that ideal.

"Oh, it's really good for judges to be insulated . . . unless they might make a decision that I have decided isn't acceptable!" **** you. There is not enough **** you in the world for your elitist belief that the law takes a backseat to your agenda.

I understand now why my thread has been moved to the Rubber Room. It was to allow people like you to write vile and hateful comments.

The Truth in my posts are what set you off. Maybe there is hope that you might see the consquences of what Trump and Moscow Mitch have done.

Read this, and then consider what you want to vote for,

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

or, four more years of Trumpism; Trumpism is an antithesis of the Preamble, a short paragraph which today would be called a Mission Statement. An ideal left to us by the Founders.

Whine, whine, whine. "You only oppose me because I'm SO BRILLIANT."

I'm laughing my ass off at the "I can't make a point, so I'll quote the Preamble and just pretend it makes my point for me."

Thank you for proving that there's no reason for a sane, mature person to vote for Biden.

 

[bendog]

He's going to pack the court if he gets elected and Republicans will pound him over it right up until election day.

Something needs to be done to prevent the civil rights of American Citizens to be infected by Thomas, Alito, Korsuch and Kavenaugh. Adding Barrett not only packs the court but in the last case violates Article VI of the Constitution.

What civil rights have those justices violated? Please be specific.
And what civil rights do they intend to violate?

Do you not understand why people are opposed to “packing the court”... aka adding more justices to the total number?

The Supreme Court is SUPPOSED to be insulated from popular opinion, political trends, etc.
that was the reasoning behind life time appointments to the court, so they were insulated from drastic changes in make up, not effected by elections, etc.
If we go down the road of adding justices to the court to give one idealogical/political side, then what? Ever time one side wins, they add more justices to swing it one way or another. That’s a disastrous Road to go down.

One would think that following the constitution and judging cases based on the guidelines and principles outline wouldn’t be hard. But as your liberal judges have often demonstrated, they know what ideological outcome they want, and then perform whatever mental gymnastics are needed to get there.

Repealing the Voting Rights Act, for one. You last paragraph describes an ideal, one which McConnell has violated, and his hypocrisy along with the small minority of the Senate supports.

You posted the Supreme Court is supposed to be insulated, I agree that is something all courts need to be. However, when a justice is nominated, and will be confirmed by this lame duck Senate to appoint someone whose religious values supercede the health and right of women, such an act needs to be corrected.

First of all, the Supreme Court doesn't "repeal" laws, moron. All they can do is rule that they're Unconstitutional, and I sincerely doubt you can show us any grounds on which they would declare the Voting Rights Act so, or any proof that they would consider doing so. But by all means, prove us wrong and justify saying such an asinine thing.

Don't even get me started on your fauxrage about McConnell "violating that ideal" when your entire purpose here is to allow leftist judges to continue their ongoing violations of that ideal.

"Oh, it's really good for judges to be insulated . . . unless they might make a decision that I have decided isn't acceptable!" **** you. There is not enough **** you in the world for your elitist belief that the law takes a backseat to your agenda.

I understand now why my thread has been moved to the Rubber Room. It was to allow people like you to write vile and hateful comments.

The Truth in my posts are what set you off. Maybe there is hope that you might see the consquences of what Trump and Moscow Mitch have done.

Read this, and then consider what you want to vote for,

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

or, four more years of Trumpism; Trumpism is an antithesis of the Preamble, a short paragraph which today would be called a Mission Statement. An ideal left to us by the Founders.

Whine, whine, whine. "You only oppose me because I'm SO BRILLIANT."

I'm laughing my ass off at the "I can't make a point, so I'll quote the Preamble and just pretend it makes my point for me."

Thank you for proving that there's no reason for a sane, mature person to vote for Biden.

Well the gop can run on no protections for preexisting and no keeping the kids on healthcare until 26. And hopefully the SC will find all the states that expanded Medicaid …. can't. Last time the gop ran on that, the dems got 60 seats.

And the gop can run on women not being able to get the abortion pill in telemedicine. That should do the trick if the ACA doesn't.

That's the thing. The trumps are not actually conservatives. THEY want a court that will give them things they can't get through electing legilsators. And I'm not denying Roe was done by an activist court.

Practically speaking, Miranda doesn't mean much. So long as cops have to tell a guy he can not talk till his free lawyer shows up, and he can stop anytime he wants, the cops will still get written waivers of rights before browbeating a confession. LOL

 

[Cecilie1200]

I would expect Trump to play it the same in Biden's shoes. There's no way Biden will try to pack the court if he wins and the Republicans control either the House or Senate. Even if it's an election disaster for Republicans the way 2008 was, why would Biden give up such a prime negotiation card? Plus would you believe him anyways?

Exactly. So long as the dems have the presidency and the senate, they'd have "an axehandle" to beat the SC like civil rights protestors. (-:

And there are about twice as many goper senators up for election in 22 than dem.

So there's a disensentive for them to do anything really radical.

But it remains to be seen how radical the gop Court with 6 votes chooses to be.

Keep in mind, the Federal Court System has added 300 (?) Conservative Judges since trump took office. Judges should be umpires, as the Chief Justice said at this confirmation hearing. Sadly, no such thing can be seen in Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh or Gorsuch; adding Barrett will put the scales of lady justice to lean further right for decades.

Say good-bye to the ACA, R v. W and Miranda. It will be the time for law and order, justice will be an afterthought and variable.

Instead of sniveling about how it's "Unconstitutional" for Republicans to fill existing vacant seats because "WAAAAAHHH, I don't agree with them!" maybe you should ask former President Obama what the **** he was doing leaving so many seats unfilled. You have no one to blame but your fake messiah.

Tell us all about what "impartial umpires" any of the Justices you like in the last 50 years have been. Oh, wait, you define "impartial" as "deciding things according to what I think is best, **** the laws".

 

[Cecilie1200]

He's going to pack the court if he gets elected and Republicans will pound him over it right up until election day.

Something needs to be done to prevent the civil rights of American Citizens to be infected by Thomas, Alito, Korsuch and Kavenaugh. Adding Barrett not only packs the court but in the last case violates Article VI of the Constitution.

What civil rights have those justices violated? Please be specific.
And what civil rights do they intend to violate?

Do you not understand why people are opposed to “packing the court”... aka adding more justices to the total number?

The Supreme Court is SUPPOSED to be insulated from popular opinion, political trends, etc.
that was the reasoning behind life time appointments to the court, so they were insulated from drastic changes in make up, not effected by elections, etc.
If we go down the road of adding justices to the court to give one idealogical/political side, then what? Ever time one side wins, they add more justices to swing it one way or another. That’s a disastrous Road to go down.

One would think that following the constitution and judging cases based on the guidelines and principles outline wouldn’t be hard. But as your liberal judges have often demonstrated, they know what ideological outcome they want, and then perform whatever mental gymnastics are needed to get there.

Repealing the Voting Rights Act, for one. You last paragraph describes an ideal, one which McConnell has violated, and his hypocrisy along with the small minority of the Senate supports.

You posted the Supreme Court is supposed to be insulated, I agree that is something all courts need to be. However, when a justice is nominated, and will be confirmed by this lame duck Senate to appoint someone whose religious values supercede the health and right of women, such an act needs to be corrected.

First of all, the Supreme Court doesn't "repeal" laws, moron. All they can do is rule that they're Unconstitutional, and I sincerely doubt you can show us any grounds on which they would declare the Voting Rights Act so, or any proof that they would consider doing so. But by all means, prove us wrong and justify saying such an asinine thing.

Don't even get me started on your fauxrage about McConnell "violating that ideal" when your entire purpose here is to allow leftist judges to continue their ongoing violations of that ideal.

"Oh, it's really good for judges to be insulated . . . unless they might make a decision that I have decided isn't acceptable!" **** you. There is not enough **** you in the world for your elitist belief that the law takes a backseat to your agenda.

I understand now why my thread has been moved to the Rubber Room. It was to allow people like you to write vile and hateful comments.

The Truth in my posts are what set you off. Maybe there is hope that you might see the consquences of what Trump and Moscow Mitch have done.

Read this, and then consider what you want to vote for,

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

or, four more years of Trumpism; Trumpism is an antithesis of the Preamble, a short paragraph which today would be called a Mission Statement. An ideal left to us by the Founders.

Whine, whine, whine. "You only oppose me because I'm SO BRILLIANT."

I'm laughing my ass off at the "I can't make a point, so I'll quote the Preamble and just pretend it makes my point for me."

Thank you for proving that there's no reason for a sane, mature person to vote for Biden.

Well the gop can run on no protections for preexisting and no keeping the kids on healthcare until 26. And hopefully the SC will find all the states that expanded Medicaid …. can't. Last time the gop ran on that, the dems got 60 seats.

And the gop can run on women not being able to get the abortion pill in telemedicine. That should do the trick if the ACA doesn't.

That's the thing. The trumps are not actually conservatives. THEY want a court that will give them things they can't get through electing legilsators. And I'm not denying Roe was done by an activist court.

Practically speaking, Miranda doesn't mean much. So long as cops have to tell a guy he can not talk till his free lawyer shows up, and he can stop anytime he wants, the cops will still get written waivers of rights before browbeating a confession. LOL

"Look at all these biased opinions I was told to believe! The GOP should have to accept them as fact because I think they are!"

The "horrors" of judicial activism, as decried by a supporter of the party of refusing to confirm anyone who won't swear to vote the right way before even hearing the case. I'll get right on feeling defensive to the likes of you.

 

[my2¢]

maybe you should ask former President Obama what the **** he was doing leaving so many seats unfilled

Nothing doubtful about you needing to get a clue about what you're posting about.

 

[Beef_Supreme]

I would expect Trump to play it the same in Biden's shoes. There's no way Biden will try to pack the court if he wins and the Republicans control either the House or Senate. Even if it's an election disaster for Republicans the way 2008 was, why would Biden give up such a prime negotiation card? Plus would you believe him anyways?

Exactly. So long as the dems have the presidency and the senate, they'd have "an axehandle" to beat the SC like civil rights protestors. (-:

And there are about twice as many goper senators up for election in 22 than dem.

So there's a disensentive for them to do anything really radical.

But it remains to be seen how radical the gop Court with 6 votes chooses to be.

Keep in mind, the Federal Court System has added 300 (?) Conservative Judges since trump took office. Judges should be umpires, as the Chief Justice said at this confirmation hearing. Sadly, no such thing can be seen in Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh or Gorsuch; adding Barrett will put the scales of lady justice to lean further right for decades.

Say good-bye to the ACA, R v. W and Miranda. It will be the time for law and order, justice will be an afterthought and variable.

mare you actually listing those judges as examples of partisan judges???
mate you kidding???
So am I to understand that Ginsburg was an “umpire” and not an ideolog?
What about Soto mayor, or kageb?

funny, even the liberal media agrees Ginsberg was an activist.