Biden: Voters don’t deserve to know his intentions

Federalist – Biden won’t answer on court

Apparently we have to pass Biden to find out what’s in Biden.

Seriously, how can anyone vote for such arrogance?

22 thoughts on “Biden: Voters don’t deserve to know his intentions

  1. He can’t “pack the court”. Why not ask him what he will do IF the Congress decides to change the court and passes an Act to do such?

    That would be a question he could answer.

    Liked by 4 people

  2. How can one vote for such arrogance?

    Easily. We elected Trump whose arrogance knows no bounds. Cheats on his taxes and says POW’s are “losers” after dodging the draft. He won’t even acknowledge a peaceful transition unless he wins. Have to wait until after the election. Healthcare? After the election. He has a plan in “two weeks”.

    Of all the issues we face, packing the court is way down the list. Even though this is what the GOP has been effectively doing since Scalia died.

    Such a move would require a Herculean effort by Congress, even a Democratic one.

    Nice try though.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. Then why won’t Biden commit one way or the other?

      After all, he would have the veto. If he agrees that expanding and packing the Supreme Court would be a mistake, he should commit to it BEFORE the election.

      It is an important question, that goes to the basic structure of our government, so refusing to answer should be a disqualifier.

      Like

      1. Where does it set the number of justices for SCOTUS?

        McConnell and Trump are saying they are fulfilling Constitutional duties (even after not doing it in 2016) by fast tracking the appointment.

        I am not in support of court packing and FDR tried it and failed. But for someone such as yourself who praises the Constitution on a regular basis, you sure do have a funny way of showing it when someone who you HATE (your word) uses it to his advantage.

        You and the Federalists, AGAIN, display the rampant hypocrisy of the ultra conservatives of the GOP.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. I didn’t say it was UnConstitutional, I said it was wrong and destructive to our republic.

          And once again, McConnell was wrong to not give Garland his hearing, and then reject him for cause. But having done that wrong does not require him to repeat the error. Your proper gripe is Garland’s handling by McConnell, not with Trump and Barret.

          Like

          1. You did not give a shit that failing to hear and vote on President Obama’s appointment was “destructive to our Republic.” So, your whining sounds pretty hollow to me. What goes around, comes around and it is high time that our government reflect the majority of the people.

            If the Democrats take control of the Senate, House and White House they will have the raw power to undo decades of cynical corruption of the the judiciary by a minority party lead by Presidents who could not win the popular vote. I think that they should. Why not? People like you will be whining and spewing talk of Second Amendment solutions no matter what they do.

            Like

          2. I wrote at the time that McConnell was making a mistake to deny Garland a hearing before rejecting him.

            However, past Presidents have filled seats even during the lame duck session.

            Like

          3. They did not take a vote because they had no “cause” to reject him. So your “solution” of rejecting him for imaginary cause is also “destructive to our Republic.” He is a distinguished jurist with an impeccable record. His record is so impeccable that GOP leaders touted him to replace Comey.

            Liked by 1 person

          4. Garland decided to allow Janet Reno to violate the clear intent of the NCIS section of the Brady Bill for no other reason than he thought it would do no harm.

            Such an absolute disregard for the law in favor of what he thought would be a good idea is sufficient reason to remove him from any court much less keep him off of SCOTUS.

            Like

          5. First of all, I do not accept your characterization of the “cause” which YOU think is sufficient to reject this appointment. How can I after being mislead so many times by your “truthy” statements that did not stand up under a bit of research? In fact, Reno won the case (NRA vs RENO) in the lower court and that decision was upheld 2-1 in Garland’s court. At both levels the Courts held that requiring the retaining of gun purchase records of those who passed a background check for a period of six months for audit purposes was a legitimate interpretation of the law which would have been made toothless without such audit capability.

            You and the NRA don’t like that decision. Fine. But is was not disqualifying in the minds of most people. And that is the point. The real point of the GOP refusing to vote on his appointment – a decision very “destructive to our Republic” – is that they had no “cause” that they could sell to the voters. A no vote would be RIGHTLY seen as raw partisanship so Moscow Mitch sheltered his caucus from having to take responsibility for a an unpopular vote.

            Liked by 1 person

          6. The language of the Brady bill is crystal clear that such records were to be destroyed immediately.

            No matter how many outcome oriented judges supported it, it was a clear violation of the law. and reason for rejecting any judge who cannot see that.

            Like

          7. You are really confused. You seem to think your opinions are facts. No, they are your opinions. Other people have different opinions.

            Regulations written to implement measures passed by Congress frequently have to be more detailed than the necessarily broad language in a bill. In this case, the AG interpreted the intent of the law was to have a MEANINGFUL background check system and that this intent is not possible without some sort of audit procedure which required a short holding period on the documents presented to gun dealers. The lower court agreed with the government and so did the Court of Appeals – albeit with a dissent. If Congress felt hard done by, they could change the bill if the AG was wrong in her regulation.

            I understand that your absolutist love of guns makes it impossible for you to see it as the Court did and that you cannot resist impugning the motives of judges that have a different opinion than your own, but again your opinion is not the point.

            The point is that the GOP was unwilling to let the people hear your argument against him or the counter argument that Garland would have offered. That is not the way the “Advise and Consent” responsibility is meant to be exercised. So, back to the beginning, you are not now in a position to whinge about behavior that is “destructive to the Republic” since you tolerate it so readily when it works towards advancing YOUR opinions.

            Liked by 1 person

          8. …”I said it was wrong and destructive to our republic.”

            I said the same thing about the Coney hearings. So now I am wrong and you are right?

            My gripe is with McConnell setting his legacy. Trump is just the conduit and Coney is the semi-innocent bystander.

            McConnell’s own words are where the true hypocrisy lies. In 2016 he said the voice of the people deserves to be heard. Now it is the will of the Majority Leader, voters be damned.

            Big yellow BS flag.

            Liked by 1 person

      2. Personally, I am glad that Biden and Harris dodge this “packing” question. That tells me that extensive reorganization of the judiciary is on the table. As it should be. “Conservatives” will surely whine to the high heavens should this take place. Too bad. They will be whining about everything anyway. Time for our democracy to follow the will of the majority for a change.

        The Republicans have been packing the courts for decades. Packing them with radicals and ignoramuses. They have done this by egregiously unwarranted blocking of appointments by Clinton and Obama – Merrick Garland is just the tip of a very deep iceberg. And now, under Trump, forcing through hundreds of appointments of unqualified partisan ideologues at every level of the federal court system. It has gotten so laughable that the American Bar Association is now not part of the process because the Trump appointees are so egregiously awful and they were not shy about saying so.

        What goes around comes around. The GOP has exercised raw political power without regard to the people. They have turned the federal courts into legislative bodies who are there to overturn legislative decisions that conservatives don’t approve of. The extremist Federalist Society rules the roost. Enough is enough.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. Fast forward 20 years and there will be more justices on the Supreme Court than representatives in Congress as each time the pendulum swings the court will be enlarged and packed exponentially.

          Like

          1. You are assuming that the Republicans will be returning to power sometime soon. That is a very large assumption. It will take a couple of generations before they will have lived down their descent into Trumpism. And, of course, their remaining supporters are fading in importance demographically.

            The Democrats or anyone else will be constrained by the will of the people in reorganizing the courts. The Republicans have created a unique moment between their treatment of Garland, the parade of jackasses they have put on the circuit and appeals courts and their unpopular litmus tests for SCOTUS nominees. Such GOP malfeasance can be avoided and along with it your scenario of an ever growing court.

            Like

          2. Well, thanks for tipping your hand.

            You betray your intentions to end competitive elections once the Democrats have the unbridled power to use the courts to suppress the oppostion and to shield them when they use the Justice Dept as as their KGB

            As Stalin put it, it doesn’t natter who votes when you control who counts the votes.

            Like

          3. Not too laughable!

            My prediction of a bleak electoral future for Republicans is hardly “tipping my hand” or Stalinist. It is a very reasonable analysis shared by MANY Republicans who are now outcasts from the party of Trump.

            End competitive elections? Like the GOP has been trying to do? Your lack of political self-awareness is quite something.

            Liked by 1 person

      3. Why won’t Trump commit one way or the other on:

        Healthcare
        Infrastructure
        Mask wearing
        Election results
        Peaceful transition
        COVID stimulus

        These are real, kitchen table issues for Americans. Their lives are at stake.

        Biden is dismissing a non-issue.

        Liked by 2 people

  3. Interesting that you are complaining about a non-answer concerning the Court when the 2020 GOP platform is basically “whatever batshit crazy thought shoots forth from the thumbs or tongue of Donald J. Trump. Just like we did in 2016.”

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s