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.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.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."
Patrick Leahy....WTF...why we need age limits for politicians. He can barely ask the question and loses his train of thought.
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.
The size of the court was never changed in 2016. It hasn't been changed in over a century.
They were never going to consent. Still holding on to ‘16 not going to workHow many decisions were decided by an 8 person court in 2016 because republicans refused to perform their duty to advise and consent?
They were never going to consent. Still holding on to ‘16 not going to work
So after a year will the dems bring it back down to 9?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 reversedGarland 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.
So after a year will the dems bring it back down to 9?
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
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
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.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.
How many decisions were decided by an 8 person court in 2016 because republicans refused to perform their duty to advise and consent?
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.You care about politics.
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.
i feel like this video is pro joe esp at the end with the republican court packing partI'm Joe Biden and I approve this message. Why Trump interrupts this man is completely dumb. Let him keep talking. One gem after another.
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.i feel like this video is pro joe esp at the end with the republican court packing part
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.
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.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.
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 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.
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.
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.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.
Stop voting for them for starters...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)
I've said before that Garland should have received a vote. Stop putting words in my mouth and stop being a partisan hack.
Stop voting for them for starters...
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.
That went over your head...Sure. We can replace this group of partisan hacks with another one.
and then how about the process?
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
Not as good as Amy Klobachur getting flustered when Amy Coney Barrett asked her what her definition of a super-precedent is?Mazie Hirono.... Rambling idiot.
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.?