Why Doesn't Biden Just Answer The Question?

[Valcazar]

In the "democratic republic" the President presents his choice and tbe Senate votes on it. Regardless of the outcome of the election the term of the President ends January 20th, 2021. To deny the sitting President his Constitutional right to appoint the judge based on political considerations is what banana republics are made from.

So... you think the GOP acted like a banana republic in 2016?

More seriously, you are just agreeing with me.
The Dems can't actually stop the president from naming his appointment and the Senate from voting on it.
They can point out that it will have political consequences of course, because these things always do.
Up to the GOP to decide what to do about that.

Oh, here's your myth. Feel free to spin and/or defend Nancy all you like

Yes. As I said. She told people that the bill is really complicated and most people wouldn't understand it until they had experienced it and then they would like it.
There were years of negotiations on the bill, it was never hidden from the GOP. The only thing remotely like that was at the end when due to the byelection the Senate passed the bill as is instead of sending it back into reconciliation where it would lose once the new Senator was seated. Even then, it isn't that no one had seen the House bill.

 

[Valcazar]

He answered by not answering. That means yes he will pack the court

I certainly hope so. We desperately need Article III reforms.
But I still think that if the GOP backs down they won't pull the trigger, which will be a tragedy.

 

[jcpro]

So... you think the GOP acted like a banana republic in 2016?

More seriously, you are just agreeing with me.
The Dems can't actually stop the president from naming his appointment and the Senate from voting on it.
They can point out that it will have political consequences of course, because these things always do.
Up to the GOP to decide what to do about that.



Yes. As I said. She told people that the bill is really complicated and most people wouldn't understand it until they had experienced it and then they would like it.
There were years of negotiations on the bill, it was never hidden from the GOP. The only thing remotely like that was at the end when due to the byelection the Senate passed the bill as is instead of sending it back into reconciliation where it would lose once the new Senator was seated. Even then, it isn't that no one had seen the House bill.

The GOP will do what is necessary to appoint an originalist to the Bench. It's their right and their duty. The rest is politics of no importance. As for Nancy; she said what she said in a rush to push the bill through- that's the real context. The 3 or four of her spins and the media's spin or attempts to put it in the "right" context are easily dismissed by the situation at the time around the attempts at ramming of the ACA.

 

[Frankfooter]

True.
But asking Biden if he will stack the SC will be like Democrats asking Amy Barrett this week, her thoughts and views on abortion.
Both deserve a straight answer, neither side will hear what they want.




It is a big deal, because aside from all the judges Trump has already appointed, he has two SC justices now, with a chance of a third.
Unless the election is a landslide, the courts will be key in resolving the disputes.

You said the situation of Barrett is a BS move. Forget what happened in 2016 because the Republican's had the Senate.
My question, is do you really think if the Democrats had both the WH and Senate, and the opportunity for three SC justices, that they would not take full advantage,
even if it meant right to the last day? Tell me you think they would pass on such a situation.

If the GOP were to confirm Barrett, it would be very hypocritical of both Lindsey Graham and Mitch McConnell, but not wrong of Trump or the Senate.

But that third conservative judge will make abortions illegal and kill what's left of health care down there.
Why would you think that's good?

 

[Frankfooter]

The GOP will do what is necessary to appoint an originalist to the Bench. It's their right and their duty. The rest is politics of no importance. As for Nancy; she said what she said in a rush to push the bill through- that's the real context. The 3 or four of her spins and the media's spin or attempts to put it in the "right" context are easily dismissed by the situation at the time around the attempts at ramming of the ACA.

Right, the GOP is packing the courts because they can.
And when the dems win they will pack the courts because they can.

Great fucking system.
They need to take politics out of the legal system the way we have up here.
(though Ford is trying to make judges political)

 

[Valcazar]

The GOP will do what is necessary to appoint an originalist to the Bench. It's their right and their duty. The rest is politics of no importance.

And the Democrats have the right and duty to implement the original concept of restoring the court to have one judge per circuit court, adding 4 more justices.

As for Nancy; she said what she said in a rush to push the bill through- that's the real context. The 3 or four of her spins and the media's spin or attempts to put it in the "right" context are easily dismissed by the situation at the time around the attempts at ramming of the ACA.

It's ok that you don't remember what really happened. It was a while ago.

 

[Valcazar]

But that third conservative judge will make abortions illegal and kill what's left of health care down there.
Why would you think that's good?

Because it would also strip gay marriage as a legal right and increase corporate power? (These are people who voted that if the corporate rules are that a trucker can't abandon the truck, then it is the trucker's duty to die in cold weather staying with the truck instead of getting to safety.)

Right, the GOP is packing the courts because they can.
And when the dems win they will pack the courts because they can.

Great fucking system.
They need to take politics out of the legal system the way we have up here.
(though Ford is trying to make judges political)

It's a terrible system. This is why the Democrats have put down a bill to change and depoliticize it. Maybe the GOP will reach for it as a way to stop the Democrats from just making the court 15 and putting 6 new judges on, but who knows?

 

[Frankfooter]

Health care I agree is a Republican mess. They've had four years to come up with a plan, and have none.
I also don't think making abortion is good.

The health care plan is two weeks away, as it always will be.
I don't get the American fixation with putting heavily religious people in power, or being religious as a necessity for politics.
Makes no sense.

 

[bver_hunter]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1314938947538214918

Saying the voters don't have the right to know is the wrong strategy.......By not answering you are in fact answering!

The right wing are going to hammer on this till election day.

Biden has every right not to answer that question especially if Trump and The Republicans changed the rules without proper explanation as to why they did so after Blocking Obama's Supreme Court Appointee sometime in March 2016.

Here's what Mitch McConnell said about not filling a Supreme Court vacancy in an election year

Here's what Mitch McConnell said about not filing a Supreme Court vacancy in an election year

"I believe that it is today the American people who are best-positioned to help make this important decision," he said in 2016

www.cbsnews.com

But the fact is that the majority of Americans want the President Elect to Appoint the New Supreme Court Judge:

Majority of voters want presidential election winner to pick next Supreme Court justice: poll

Majority of voters want presidential election winner to pick next Supreme Court justice: poll

A clear majority of Americans believe the winner of the November presidential election should appoint the next Supreme Court justice, according to a New York Times/Siena College poll released Sunda…

thehill.com

Wonder why they right wing reporter did not mention this fact when he asked Biden that question??

 

[wigglee]

If Biden is at some point capable of stacking the Supreme Court, so be it. There is no reason for him to tip his hand about what he may or may not do if the situation warrants. I guess it spoils the fun you alt righters are having dancing on RBG's grave just weeks before the election?

 

[Gooseifur]

I certainly hope so. We desperately need Article III reforms.
But I still think that if the GOP backs down they won't pull the trigger, which will be a tragedy.

Are you talking about treason?

 

[Valcazar]

The health care plan is two weeks away, as it always will be.
I don't get the American fixation with putting heavily religious people in power, or being religious as a necessity for politics.
Makes no sense.

Accident of history, really. People tend to forget that political cultures don't evolve in a vacuum.

 

[Valcazar]

Are you talking about treason?

This I gotta see.

How is Article III court reform treason?

 

[Gooseifur]

This I gotta see.

How is Article III court reform treason?

I wasn't sure if you were talking about that or article 3 of the constitution. If the Democrats pack the courts what type of reforms will they pass? I haven't heard anything about this. They will pack the courts to get rulings to fit their ideology just like the Republicans do now. What would different?

 

[The Oracle]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1315285111055822850

 

[Valcazar]

I wasn't sure if you were talking about that or article 3 of the constitution. If the Democrats pack the courts what type of reforms will they pass? I haven't heard anything about this. They will pack the courts to get rulings to fit their ideology just like the Republicans do now. What would different?

Yes, I am talking about Article III of the Constitution. (I don't know what you mean by "that" in your first sentence.)

How is the Democrats using their powers under Article III to determine the court size treason?

I've already said how I would re-organize the courts - Personally I would have one justice per federal district and either expand the current number of districts to 15 or re-balance them either population wise or case-load wise and bring them down to 12.
Appellate cases should be presided over by groups of 3 justices determined randomly at the beginning of session, with the ability for other justices to petition that a specific case be heard by the full court. (Majority to agree.)

Justices are active on the court only for a period such that one active justice is replaced every two years. (With the senior justices allowed to opine on cases and write concurrences or dissent but not to decide cases should they elect to stay on and not resign.)
This means justices would serve actively for 18 years if we kept it at 9, 24 if we expanded to 12, and 30 years if 15. (It's why I prefer 12.)

All of that would remove a lot of the political gamesmanship from Supreme court appointments.

(The whole 18 years and shift to senior/inactive status is already in a bill the Democrats have proposed.)

 

[basketcase]

Sure there is, its a policy and people would like to know his position.
...

Before the 2016 election, GOP policy was there was no way they could support appointing a SCOTUS judge in an election year. Do you really think it matters what policy a Politician announces before getting elected?

 

[Butler1000]

Yes, I am talking about Article III of the Constitution. (I don't know what you mean by "that" in your first sentence.)

How is the Democrats using their powers under Article III to determine the court size treason?

I've already said how I would re-organize the courts - Personally I would have one justice per federal district and either expand the current number of districts to 15 or re-balance them either population wise or case-load wise and bring them down to 12.
Appellate cases should be presided over by groups of 3 justices determined randomly at the beginning of session, with the ability for other justices to petition that a specific case be heard by the full court. (Majority to agree.)

Justices are active on the court only for a period such that one active justice is replaced every two years. (With the senior justices allowed to opine on cases and write concurrences or dissent but not to decide cases should they elect to stay on and not resign.)
This means justices would serve actively for 18 years if we kept it at 9, 24 if we expanded to 12, and 30 years if 15. (It's why I prefer 12.)

All of that would remove a lot of the political gamesmanship from Supreme court appointments.

(The whole 18 years and shift to senior/inactive status is already in a bill the Democrats have proposed.)

What are the provisions for early death, retirement? Does the replacrment judge only serve out the remaining years? Or a full 18?

And would this create a dynamic of judges timing these things for political purposes?

I will add it could still create an "unbalanced" court as the appt process is still via the President and the Senate.

The solution in imo is the 60 vote threshold with a time limit by law to appoint. It will make them get a consensus candidate.

 

[masspref]

Before the 2016 election, GOP policy was there was no way they could support appointing a SCOTUS judge in an election year. Do you really think it matters what policy a Politician announces before getting elected?

Yeah but saying "no they don't deserve to know" is a little foolish don't you think?

 

[jcpro]

So, he still won't answer the question, eh? The Democratic plan is to pack the Court and use the unelected judges to push their agenda without the "interference" from the voters. Just like in Venezuela...