Biden’s statement on court packing

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Donald Trump has the support of more Talibans than of past presidents of his own party
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He must actually be a globalist instead of a populist.

[Pete F.]

Trump only rejects an endorsement when it means he won't actually lose a vote.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Biden has the endorsement of 500 retired top military, national security officials.

Trump has the coveted Taliban endorsement.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Biden has the endorsement of 500 retired top military, national security officials.

Trump has the coveted Taliban endorsement.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Biden picked up 500 votes.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Trump only rejects an endorsement when it means he won't actually lose a vote.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Pete Kreskin mentalizes again.

[Pete F.]

Grassley's bill to change the size of the DC circuit for pretty transparently political reasons was cosponsored by current Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham, as well as Sens. Cornyn, Lee, and Cruz.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

i’ve said many times, that the gop
needs to do better in healthcare.

boy you’ve got me on the ropes!!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Nice none answer do better???? should I call you Jim or pence

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

biden said yesterday, that voters don’t deserve to know his plans on court packing. that’s literally what he said.

strange times.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He's referring to Trump voters , still waiting on Trumps health care plan.

I guess you Trump and feel voters don't deserve to know his plans. Seeing how many people it affects,

Ps you didn't care when the senator flipped flopped on filling a Supreme Court seat

Or are you suggesting they're not liars

[Pete F.]

I'm sure it would be theoretically possible for Republicans to devise an issue more remote from voters' everyday concerns amid pandemic and economic depression than the number of justices on the Supreme Court. But it would not be easy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

I'm sure it would be theoretically possible for Republicans to devise an issue more remote from voters' everyday concerns amid pandemic and economic depression than the number of justices on the Supreme Court. But it would not be easy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You're sure of a lot of stupid stuff, and it's easy for you.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Nice none answer do better???? should I call you Jim or pence

it’s not a no answer, for god’s sake i’m saying i agree with you. just because you can never ever go against your party, means you can’t even recognize when someone else is obviously doing so?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

for god’s sake i’m saying i agree with you.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

that's not enough!!

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

it’s not a no answer, for god’s sake i’m saying i agree with you. just because you can never ever go against your party, means you can’t even recognize when someone else is obviously doing so?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You still never answered the question

[scottw]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Ps you didn't care when the senator flipped flopped on filling a Supreme Court seat

Or are you suggesting they're not liars

you know they all flip flopped on that issue on both sides...right? and...does that surprise you?

[Pete F.]

Joe Biden won't say whether he will support expanding the Supreme Court and it would be great to know his position but did you know Trump has released NO POLICIES WHATSOEVER FOR HIS 2ND TERM?

Trump's website doesn't have a policy section!

The GOP didn't bother making a platform
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

The GOP didn't bother making a platform
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sure they did, it's the same as the current term.

1) Undo anything Obama did
2) Pack the courts with marginally qualified political operatives
3) Undermine global alliances
4) Give GOP special interest groups the keys to dad's car
5) Set day to day priorities based on Fox and Friends

[Pete F.]

And now his method to gather more support is a pretty wild political pitch

“ California is going to hell. Vote Trump!”
“ New York has gone to hell. Vote Trump!”
“Illinois has no place to go. Sad, isn’t it? Vote Trump!”

Looks like going, gone and?????

Everything-is-going-to-#^&#^&#^&#^&-on-my-watch-vote-for-me
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Sure they did, it's the same as the current term.

1) Undo anything Obama did

That's mostly a good thing. And Biden and the Dems would do the same with anything Trump and the Repubs did.


2) Pack the courts with marginally qualified political operatives

"Pack the courts" is a term of art meaning to add more Justices. There is no Repub policy to pack the courts. And you're obviously too ignorant and unqualified to decide what is "marginally qualified." And "operative" is a deliberately pejorative characterization. If you mean appoint Justices that politically align with party ideology, both parties do that. And if you mean by an "operative" someone who does not think he is constrained by the Constitution, then the Dems are the guilty party.

3) Undermine global alliances

Trump has strengthened several global alliances and has not "undermined" any.

4) Give GOP special interest groups the keys to dad's car

Both parties bend to special interests. If you think that the Dems don't, then you're stupid or lying to yourself.

5) Set day to day priorities based on Fox and Friends

Number five is as stupid as saying that the Dems set their priorities based on Rachel Maddow.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

You still never answered the question

Read you post #38. There is no question.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Ps you didn't care when the senator flipped flopped on filling a Supreme Court seat

I have said here many times, that the senate republicans COMPLETELY flip flopped (at least, the ones who said that they denied Garland because of the proximity to an election) And they deserve to be criticized for that.

Now, can you admit the democrats are equally hypocritical? Because back in 2016, they were saying it was OK to fill a vacancy in an election year.

Biden, especially. He made a statement so famous they called it the Biden rule, saying presidents shouldn't fill vacancies in an election year, and if they try, the senate should refuse a hearing. Obviously Biden flip flopped in 2016, now he's flip flopping again.

Wayne, in 2016 the American people decided to give senate control to republicans. They didn't do that, because they wanted Scalia replaced with a liberal. In 2020, the Americans elected Trump and again, gave senate control to republicans.

Elections have consequences, filling a vacancy is pretty clearly allowed.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Joe Biden won't say whether he will support expanding the Supreme Court and it would be great to know his position but did you know Trump has released NO POLICIES WHATSOEVER FOR HIS 2ND TERM?

Trump's website doesn't have a policy section!

The GOP didn't bother making a platform
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Trump has a lot of faults. I'm not sure being evasive is one of them. But he should have a policy agenda, obviously. Notably lacking for healthcare.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Trump has a lot of faults. I'm not sure being evasive is one of them. But he should have a policy agenda, obviously. Notably lacking for healthcare.

I think it weakens the separation of powers, constructed in the Constitution, to give the President the responsibility to create government legislative policy. In the Constitution, that is left to Congress.

In Article 2 of the Constitution it says that the President can "from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient". These are ad hoc recognitions of problems that Congress should probably look into and fix. They are not presidential campaign policies.

The President, in a federal election, may express his party's legislative policies. They may not even be what he would like. So it would not be Presidential legislative policy, since he doesn't have the power to make it. If he would like Congress to legislate his ideas, that should be resolved in party caucus debates, not in personal campaign speeches.

That we now look to the President to make policy is a result of the Progressive agenda to centralize the government of this country. And expanding the responsibilities of the President is part of the means to eliminate the obstacle that constitutional separation of powers imposes on the goal of an unlimited central government by blurring the separate branch powers more and more into a unitary administrative power.

If we want to return to a more constitutional form of a republic, we need to pare back our demands of what a President has the power and responsibility to do.

[wdmso]

US Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett has evaded questions about her views on key issues on day two of her Senate confirmation hearing.

The conservative judge repeatedly refused to be drawn on abortion, healthcare and LGBTQ rights.


Don't the American people have a right to know her position on these topics seeing its a lifetime appointment. Or this standard only applies to Biden and packing the court.. must be answered

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

we need to pare back our demands of what a President has the power and responsibility to do.

I agree 100%