Joe Biden: voters do not have the right to know.....

[hislegacy]

Biden Says Voters ‘Don’t Deserve’ To Know Stance On Court Packing

Biden Says Voters ‘Don’t Deserve’ To Know Stance On Court Packing

interesting read

 

[Albion]

The issue is important, but the repeated and adamant refusal on the part of Joe Biden to answer does raise a lot of questions about what the reason could be for him to be acting out his obstinacy in the full view of the voters.

By now, we may be able to say he would have been better off answering that he would do it or else that he would not do it. Either one.

 

[A_Thinker]

Biden Says Voters ‘Don’t Deserve’ To Know Stance On Court Packing

Biden Says Voters ‘Don’t Deserve’ To Know Stance On Court Packing

interesting read

Actually, Biden didn't finish the statement in the thread title as shown, rather, in attempting to respond to a reporter's question on whether people deserve to know whether he supports expanding the Court or not, ... Biden started to answer ... but then changed course to his actual answer ... that he doesn't want to entertain the question, in part, because that would be playing Trump's game ... "

The actual interchange is recorded below ...

“Well sir, don’t the voters deserve to know - ” DiMattei began to ask, as Biden interjected “no they don’t deserve,” before asserting “I’m not gonna play [Trump’s] game… he’d love that to be the discussion instead of what he’s doing now.”

 

[chevyontheriver]

The issue is important, but the repeated and adamant refusal on the part of Joe Biden to answer does raise a lot of questions about what the reason could be for him to be acting out his obstinacy in the full view of the voters.

He is an obstinate kind of guy. That will be very apparent after the election whether he wins or loses. What is he well known for saying? That he will cram his rosary beads up some place I probably can't mention on CF.

By now, we may be able to say he would have been better off answering that he would do it or else that he would not do it. Either one.

His response was a slip. The proper position is that he shouldn't do it. That is apparently not his actual position. So he did well to try to avoid answering the question by omission. Yet to finally say we don't have a right to hear what he will do is a blooper on his part. It shows either that he is too confused for the campaign or it shows his utter disrespect for the electorate. One or the other. Maybe both.

If he does appoint as many as six new Supreme Court justices this will be a banana republic where Rex Lex rather than Lex Rex.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Actually, Biden didn't finish the statement in the thread title as shown, rather, in attempting to respond to a reporter's question on whether people deserve to know whether he supports expanding the Court or not, ... Biden started to answer ... but then changed course to his actual answer ... that he doesn't want to entertain the question, in part, because that would be playing Trump's game ... "

The actual interchange is recorded below ...

“Well sir, don’t the voters deserve to know - ” DiMattei began to ask, as Biden interjected “no they don’t deserve,” before asserting “I’m not gonna play [Trump’s] game… he’d love that to be the discussion instead of what he’s doing now.”

So, considering how this stacking would be used, what is Joe Biden's intent? Is he going to leave nine Supreme Court justices or is he going to add as many as six more to the court? If he doesn't answer the question it sure looks like he's gonna do it. It would be transparent of him to say so. It would be non-transparent of him not to say so but leave it as a dog whistle for his devotees.

 

[A_Thinker]

He's likely trying to avoid the political trap the Republicans find themselves in right now ... i.e. justifying not acting in Obama's last Court nominee, ... and now rejecting that rationale in order to seat Trump's nominee.

Don't imagine that Americans don't see that ...

 

[A_Thinker]

So, considering how this stacking would be used, what is Joe Biden's intent? Is he going to leave nine Supreme Court justices or is he going to add as many as six more to the court? If he doesn't answer the question it sure looks like he's gonna do it. It would be transparent of him to say so. It would be non-transparent of him not to say so but leave it as a dog whistle for his devotees.

He's likely trying to avoid the political trap the Republicans find themselves in right now ... i.e. justifying not acting in Obama's last Court nominee, ... and now rejecting that rationale in order to seat Trump's nominee.

Don't imagine that Americans don't see that ...

 

[chevyontheriver]

He's likely trying to avoid the political trap the Republicans find themselves in right now ... i.e. justifying not acting in Obama's last Court nominee, ... and now rejecting that rationale in order to seat Trump's nominee.

Don't imagine that Americans don't see that ...

He's being a bit dumb about it, now making it more about him not answering the question than about anything. He could have said he hadn't decided and left it at that, end of story.

 

[A_Thinker]

He's being a bit dumb about it, now making it more about him not answering the question than about anything. He could have said he hadn't decided and left it at that, end of story.

He could have ... and he may yet ...

 

[Albion]

He is an obstinate kind of guy.

I think that's right.

His response was a slip. The proper position is that he shouldn't do it.

Okay, but he's been asked repeatedly, and it's even gotten to the point that the MSM have been asking.

So I am interested in the fact that he must feel he CANNOT answer. But what is the reason?

So he did well to try to avoid answering the question by omission. Yet to finally say we don't have a right to hear what he will do is a blooper on his part.

It shows either that he is too confused for the campaign or it shows his utter disrespect for the electorate. One or the other. Maybe both.

Well, it could be.

Or there is something more about this that he does not want to face in a follow-up question.

...as many as six new Supreme Court justices this will be a banana republic where Rex Lex rather than Lex Rex.

Indeed. I'm just wondering if hatred of the President will crowd out such legitimate concerns in the minds of those voters who don't follow politics very closely.

 

[paul1149]

Biden is going to regret his patronizing on an important issue on which the public has a right to know where he stands. I've never heard of a candidate playing that game before on this level, and it will come back to bite him.

Biden now preposterously claims that Trump's nomination of ACB is "not constitutional". Here's how it works, Joe. If you hold the Senate, you get your vote; if not, you don't. The Dems would do exactly the same thing were the shoe on the other foot, and everyone knows it. Even Tapper at CNN isn't having any of it.

 

[hislegacy]

Biden is going to regret his patronizing on an important issue on which the public has a right to know where he stands. I've never heard of a candidate playing that game before on this level, and it will come back to bite him.

Agreed

 

[chevyontheriver]

Biden is going to regret his patronizing on an important issue on which the public has a right to know where he stands. I've never heard of a candidate playing that game before on this level, and it will come back to bite him.

I think he clearly blundered, but the blunder revealed a patronizing attitude. It's a losing issue for Democrats so they should try to avoid answering it by totally changing the subject. A more with it candidate could have done that and not looked condescending.

 

[civilwarbuff]

“Well sir, don’t the voters deserve to know - ” DiMattei began to ask, as Biden interjected “no they don’t deserve,” before asserting “I’m not gonna play [Trump’s] game… he’d love that to be the discussion instead of what he’s doing now.”

It is not 'Trump's game" as he so blithely puts it. It is the right of the electorate to know the position of a presidential candidate on something that would affect the course of this country for decades. Of course it is our right to know. Any assertion to the contrary is simply Joe being disingenuous and trying to have things both ways.

 

[paul1149]

It's a losing issue for Democrats so they should try to avoid answering it by totally changing the subject. A more with it candidate could have done that and not looked condescending.

Trump is not going to afford Biden the luxury of just dropping the matter (and this is one reason we'll probably not have any more debates). To be coy about commandeering one of the 3 branches of government is a big deal, and it is emblematic of the dishonesty of the Biden-Harris campaign. The media will eagerly drop it as soon as it becomes too damaging to their anointed one, but I don't think the suppression will be all that effective.

 

[hislegacy]

It is an important and potentially fundamentally changing issues. A President should be forthcoming and transparent.

Has he produced his picks for SCOTUS judges?

 

[Fantine]

I think he is undecided. If the Federalist Society majority rules as expected, there will be massive civil unrest--from feminists, LGBTQ, the disabled, the uninsured, people of color, immigrants.
There will be a huge groundswell of support to undo the harm caused by the McConnell Senate, which held Obama nominees hostage and confirmed 112 illegitimate lower court and 2 illegitimate Supreme Court appointees.

And let's get one thing straight--balancing the courts, especially to avoid a national crisis, is 100% legal and ethical.

Every year our country gets more diverse, younger, and more progressive. By 2024 the coalition of old white men and evangelicals will be smaller than ever.

The Republican Party will survive---if it makes gigantic changes. Goodbye Cotton, Jordan, DeSantis, Pence. And good riddance.

 

[jgarden]

Joe Biden: voters do not have the right to know.....

Given that the Republicans have had no qualms about rallying behind a President who in 2016 received 3 million fewer ballots in the popular vote, how "democratic" of them to have suddenly rediscovered "the right of the voter" just 3 weeks before the 2020 Presidential Election!

With their declining "white" voter base, conservatives have made a "cottage industry" of finding new and innovative ways of "gaming the system," a 21st C version of "Jim Crow" allowing them to effectively bypass the majority - at the expense of fueling growing cynicism as to the legitimacy of successive Republican governments!

 

[BobRyan]

Biden Says Voters ‘Don’t Deserve’ To Know Stance On Court Packing

Biden Says Voters ‘Don’t Deserve’ To Know Stance On Court Packing

interesting read

That's a pretty "odd solution" for any candidate of any party when asked a serious question of such historic magnitude as changing the constitution of the Supreme Court.

Biden also said that it was perfectly reasonable to ask the question about such a significant event - but stated that the news cycle would then be about his agenda in that regard instead of keeping the focus on something else that he thought was more politically expedient for his campaign.

How "instructive" for the unbiased objective voter.

 

[BobRyan]

Joe Biden: voters do not have the right to know.....

Given that the Republicans have had no qualms about rallying behind a President who in 2016 received 3 million fewer ballots in the popular vote, how "democratic" of them to have suddenly rediscovered "the right of the voter"

1. Odd that you are posting a Jim Crow Law document when history shows that it was the Republicans that opposed the Jim Crow laws just like it was republicans that got slavery abolished. How is that helping you?

2. Republicans did not setup any rules in the past 20 years to make sure that democrats would not win in 2016. Democrats were not objecting to the "electoral college" when it was created. That is not a "democratic vs Republican" issue at all -- unless one party decides it no longer helps them.


=====================

from: Democrats & Jim Crow: A Century of Racist History the Democratic Party Prefers You'd Forget
However, it’s a historical anomaly in the United States. The traditional home of the black voter was the Republican Party, due to its historical role in ending slavery and introducing Reconstruction Acts and Amendments to the Constitution. It also did not help that the Democratic Party was the party of Jim Crow, a system of legally enforced segregation present throughout the American South in the aftermath of the Civil War.

see also --
The Democratic Party Is the Party of Slavery and Segregation

The Rise and Fall of Jim Crow. Jim Crow Stories . Democratic Party | PBS

Reasons for the switch are not so hard to understand. Legend has it that President Johnson, after signing the 1964 Civil Rights Act, mourned “we’ve lost the South for a generation.” That quote might be apocryphal, but it accurately reflects contemporary opinion. Fiery segregationist George Wallace would carry five Southern states in his third party run for President in 1968. Southern anger over the Democratic Party’s embrace of civil rights reforms was no secret and no surprise.
Pastors, Not Politicians, Turned Dixie Republican