I'm Joe Biden and I approve this message. Why Trump interrupts this man is completely dumb. Let him keep talking. One gem after another.
You, the American people, don't deserve to know
- Thread starter SHUHoopsFan
- Start date
I very much doubt that Biden would pack the court.
The threat of increasing the size of the court is to try and get republicans to wait until after the election to move forward with the vote (and not move forward if Biden wins)
If Biden says no, some liberals will get mad. If Biden says yes, conservatives will be mad.
His answer should be, "I am not in favor of changing the size of the court, but these same republicans had no problem changing the size of the court in 2016 and are now changing their election year rule because they know that Trump is going to lose. If they move forward with a confirmation, we will review our options after I win."
The threat of increasing the size of the court is to try and get republicans to wait until after the election to move forward with the vote (and not move forward if Biden wins)
If Biden says no, some liberals will get mad. If Biden says yes, conservatives will be mad.
His answer should be, "I am not in favor of changing the size of the court, but these same republicans had no problem changing the size of the court in 2016 and are now changing their election year rule because they know that Trump is going to lose. If they move forward with a confirmation, we will review our options after I win."
The size of the court was never changed in 2016. It hasn't been changed in over a century.
That's a lot better of an answer then "No, the American't people don't deserve to know." Unfortunately your changing of the courts is a reference to Obama leaving almost 150 open court seats available for Trump to fill.
Flashback: “President Roosevelt clearly had the right to send to the United States Senate and the United States Congress a proposal to pack the court. It was totally within his right to do that. He violated no law. He was legalistically, absolutely correct. But it was a bonehead idea.” —Joe Biden … in 1983
My reference was leaving the size of the supreme court to 8 for a year... but the open court spots were due to republicans blocking any confirmation. McConnell is very proud to take credit for that.
How many decisions were decided by an 8 person court in 2016 because republicans refused to perform their duty to advise and consent?
Garland was not a controversial pick.
If they were never going to consent to anyone, that means they believed that there was no problem changing the size of the court to 8 for a year.
Garland was not the pick of majority of the senate and that majority could care less about whether he was “controversial“. Same would happen if shoe on other foot and frankly it likely will happen again with roles reversed
I sincerely doubt they would add more seats to begin with. Just saying that if you didn't care about the size of the court in 2016, then you don't really care about the size of the court. You care about politics.
Last edited:
That's nonsense.
It doesn't occur often that there is a nomination by a president with an opposing party senate majority.
Last time it happened was George HW. Bush and both of his nominations were ultimately confirmed. Thomas was controversial, but Souter was not. Democrats could have blocked both of them if they were as political as you are suggesting they should have been.
McConnell was wrong in not having a vote. He should have had the hearing and the vote. Garland would not have been voted in. Having the vote was the right thing to do. With that said we would still be in the same exact place as we are today without a doubt and the Dems would be complaining that he did not get voted in. But yes McConnell was wrong and did not carry out his duty as a US Senator simple as that.
The real issue is that he and Schumer and Pelosi and Leahy and many other ridiculously long, ineffective incumbents need to be voted out. But the American electorate continues to put these clowns in office year after year and adds to the partisan gridlock and bickering etc. And those long-term politicians hold the power on committees and when and what gets voted on and they intimidate newly elected Senate and Congress people into voting for the party instead of with their conscience, leading to the situation we are in right now. A vicious cycle.
The real issue is that he and Schumer and Pelosi and Leahy and many other ridiculously long, ineffective incumbents need to be voted out. But the American electorate continues to put these clowns in office year after year and adds to the partisan gridlock and bickering etc. And those long-term politicians hold the power on committees and when and what gets voted on and they intimidate newly elected Senate and Congress people into voting for the party instead of with their conscience, leading to the situation we are in right now. A vicious cycle.
I just don't accept that view at all. We are just going to accept that the senate gets to decide if a vacancy is filled or not? If the senate is not the same party as the president then we shouldn't expect that they fill a court seat?
That's crazy.
Crazy? Yeah. Amazing to think that Ginsburg and Scalia were approved by votes of 98-0 and 96-3. Now we see totally political and partisan votes, so that's what you should expect. And we wonder why the have a 12% approval rating.
You should be a democratic talking head on TV because all you do is spin and twist words to fit your narrative.
The capacity of the court never changed.
And that's why Biden won't answer the question. He's got a juggle dealing with AOC and Bernie along with moderates. Answer that question and you lose one group. But saying the American people don't deserve an answer.....that's up there with the best of Joe's moments.
I don't disagree, but a partisan protest vote in a known outcome is different than saying that we should be ok with the senate blocking any possible nominee from the other party.
i feel like this video is pro joe esp at the end with the republican court packing part
It's a fair and balanced piece, but once you say the American people don't deserve to know...you lose. Good day sir. This is supposed to be a government of the people, for the people, and by the people. In no way should any politician ever say the American people don't deserve to know.
Sadly I don't see this as a democratic issue. This is the fact pattern and I would say the same thing if democrats find a way to get PR and DC statehood, add 4 senate seats and then block any republican nominated justice from a hearing.
The fact is that republicans blocked any consideration of any candidate for the court resulting in an 8 seat court for around 75 opinions.
If you were ok with that, then you really don't have a leg to stand on when arguing about the size of the court.
It was wrong, but do two wrongs make a right?This has become a completely political and Partisan process for both sides. Nothing less nothing more.
When you have a Senate that cares more about keeping their power and cushy jobs vs doing the right thing, that is what you get and you are seeing that on both sides now. And seeing it with the Dem controllled Congress too. Like I said sad state of affairs. You should not accept it, it's wrong but that unfortunately is where we are and why we either need a third party to be allowed to debate and offer another view to provide some competition for the failing Repub and Dem party. But the way the debates are managed and everything else that is not likely to occur in today's two party monopoly, partisan environment.
I've said before that Garland should have received a vote. Stop putting words in my mouth and stop being a partisan hack.
Do two wrongs make a right? No.
One wrong still makes a wrong though. We accepted the "wrong" as a new rule that we will not replace justices in an election year. Democrats haven't done a "wrong" in response and I don't believe there would be any consideration in doing so if republicans had held to the rule they implemented 4 years ago.
Republicans are going to push through a justice days before an election (another "wrong" based on 2016) and we should just expect the democrats to watch?
I agree. Can we fix it? Is there a way to remove the politicization from the process?
(again - this is why I liked Buttigieg's idea to do so)
Exactly a vicious cycle, Americans need to wake up (all of us) and institute term limits. 3 terms in either the house or senate and you are done. Sick of listening to the same garbage for years and years. Plus they get the same health care as all of us, plus ZERO benefits and pay when they leave.
sigh... I know a lot can be be misinterpreted over a text conversation, but to be clear. I wasn't talking about you.
I was talking about those who claim to care about the size of the court now but make excuses for what happened in 2016.
Sure. We can replace this group of partisan hacks with another one.
and then how about the process?
I really liked the idea that there would be additional justices which would be chosen by consensus of the current appointed justices.
Why three? Someone elected to three terms in the senate for example will still be there for 18 years. That's a long time. Why not one term, which I have proposed? The idea is to eliminate career politicians, the need for fundraising and reelection campaigns and return the positions to what they're supposed to be: public service.
He should have gotten a hearing and a vote. His personal politics aside, he was eminently qualified for the Supreme Court.
Elections have consequences. It goes both ways.
Irony...who is better qualified to have a perspective on the right for a woman to protect her body while looking out for the rights of the unborn child, than a woman who is a mother of seven children, two adopted and one special needs....and was first in her class at ND Law.?
Not as good as Amy Klobachur getting flustered when Amy Coney Barrett asked her what her definition of a super-precedent is?
Honestly I hope she is confirmed and does overturn Roe v. Wade.
We would unfortunately see that the reasons why people want and seek an abortion will have not been impacted at all.
