Biden campaign reneging on transparency promise.

Aldebaran · Oct 12, 2020

Back in August, Biden promised a transparent and open relationship with the Press.
Biden campaign pledges 'transparent, open' relationship with press as Biden prepares for convention speech

That shouldn't have been too difficult, since the Press clearly wants him to win, and have been rather "transparent" about that fact. But when it comes to being transparent with the people about what he plans to do if he were to be elected, he has suddenly become far more opaque:
Biden Says Voters ‘Don’t Deserve’ To Know Stance On Court Packing

This should serve as a warning to the voters as to what they should expect to get if they elect Kamalla and Joe.

GoldenBoy89 · Oct 12, 2020

I’ll be honest with you, whatever his answer to that specific question, it doesn’t impact my vote in any way at all.

Charlie24 · Oct 12, 2020

GoldenBoy89 said:
I’ll be honest with you, whatever his answer to that specific question, it doesn’t impact my vote in any way at all.

So you're ok with a party packing the SC?

GoldenBoy89 · Oct 12, 2020

Charlie24 said:
So you're ok with a party packing the SC?

Yes. The GOP has been stacking the courts in their favor for several years now. I’m fine with the Democrats balancing things back in our favor.

Aldebaran · Oct 12, 2020

GoldenBoy89 said:
Yes. The GOP has been stacking the courts in their favor for several years now. I’m fine with the Democrats balancing things back in our favor.

It's "packing". Do you know what it means? The GOP hasn't been doing it at all.

Charlie24 · Oct 12, 2020

GoldenBoy89 said:
Yes. The GOP has been stacking the courts in their favor for several years now. I’m fine with the Democrats balancing things back in our favor.

Obviously you don't understand how the SC nominees work!

GoldenBoy89 · Oct 12, 2020

Aldebaran said:
It's "packing". Do you know what it means? The GOP hasn't been doing it at all.

Sure they have. They outright denied Obama an appointment to the SC for nearly a year to give it to his successor. Mitch McConnell is on video yucking it up with Hannity about how he's purposely stalled on confirming Obama's appointments to the courts. That is packing the courts in favor of the GOP. I'll be happy when the Democrats hit the GOP with a taste of their own medicine.

Charlie24 · Oct 12, 2020

GoldenBoy89 said:
Sure they have. They outright denied Obama an appointment to the SC for nearly a year to give it to his successor. Mitch McConnell is on video yucking it up with Hannity about how he's purposely stalled on confirming Obama's appointments to the courts. That is packing the courts in favor of the GOP. I'll be happy when the Democrats hit the GOP with a taste of their own medicine.

If Obama had had control in the Senate he would have got what he wanted, but he didn't.

Aldebaran · Oct 12, 2020

GoldenBoy89 said:
Sure they have. They outright denied Obama an appointment to the SC for nearly a year to give it to his successor. Mitch McConnell is on video yucking it up with Hannity about how he's purposely stalled on confirming Obama's appointments to the courts. That is packing the courts in favor of the GOP. I'll be happy when the Democrats hit the GOP with a taste of their own medicine.

Since you won't look up the definition, I'll just give it to you. It means to add more justices to the court in order to secure a majority. It's obviously not something people want, even on the Left, which is why Biden's answer to reporters about whether he intends to do it or not is, "You will know my opinion on court-packing when the election is over".

Not very transparent of him. Same goes for Harris, as she repeatedly demonstrated during the VP debate.

GoldenBoy89 · Oct 12, 2020

Charlie24 said:
If Obama had had control in the Senate he would have got what he wanted, but he didn't.

That's silly. It's not about "what Obama wanted." What the country needed was a nine person panel on the Supreme Court which the Senate had a duty to hold a vote on when the issue came up. You're saying that the only way a president can appoint justices to a vacancy on the Supreme Court is if they also have their party hold a majority in the Senate? That's not how this is supposed to work at all. A spot opens up, the president nominates a judge and the Senate holds a vote to confirm or deny the appointment. A spot opened up in '16. Obama nominated Merrick Garland. The McConnell led Senate stalled for nearly a year on the appointment with their only excuse being "it's an election year." If you think that's an acceptable approach to governing then you better hope and pray the Democrats never hold a majority in both Houses again along with the presidency.

Charlie24 · Oct 12, 2020

Aldebaran said:
Since you won't look up the definition, I'll just give it to you. It means to add more justices to the court in order to secure a majority. It's obviously not something people want, even on the Left, which is why Biden's answer to reporters about whether he intends to do it or not is, "You will know my opinion on court-packing when the election is over".

Not very transparent of him. Same goes for Harris, as she repeatedly demonstrated during the VP debate.

There is nothing in the constitution that sets the number of Justices.

The Dems can't get there way so they suggest we will get our way by adding X amount of Justices to take the majority.

Aldebaran · Oct 12, 2020

GoldenBoy89 said:
That's silly. It's not about "what Obama wanted." What the country needed was a nine person panel on the Supreme Court which the Senate had a duty to hold a vote on when the issue came up. You're saying that the only way a president can appoint justices to a vacancy on the Supreme Court is if they also have their party hold a majority in the Senate? That's not how this is supposed to work at all. A spot opens up, the president nominates a judge and the Senate holds a vote to confirm or deny the appointment. A spot opened up in '16. Obama nominated Merrick Garland. The McConnell led Senate stalled for nearly a year on the appointment with their only excuse being "it's an election year." If you think that's an acceptable approach to governing then you better hope and pray the Democrats never hold a majority in both Houses again along with the presidency.

If the people didn't like that, they wouldn't have voted for Trump in that election. But they did.

Charlie24 · Oct 12, 2020

GoldenBoy89 said:
That's silly. It's not about "what Obama wanted." What the country needed was a nine person panel on the Supreme Court which the Senate had a duty to hold a vote on when the issue came up. You're saying that the only way a president can appoint justices to a vacancy on the Supreme Court is if they also have their party hold a majority in the Senate? That's not how this is supposed to work at all. A spot opens up, the president nominates a judge and the Senate holds a vote to confirm or deny the appointment. A spot opened up in '16. Obama nominated Merrick Garland. The McConnell led Senate stalled for nearly a year on the appointment with their only excuse being "it's an election year." If you think that's an acceptable approach to governing then you better hope and pray the Democrats never hold a majority in both Houses again along with the presidency.

That's the way it goes! If you don't have the Senate majority you can forget it, nowadays anyway.

GoldenBoy89 · Oct 12, 2020

Aldebaran said:
Since you won't look up the definition, I'll just give it to you. It means to add more justices to the court in order to secure a majority.

That's fine be me.

It's obviously not something people want, even on the Left, which is why Biden's answer to reporters about whether he intends to do it or not is, "You will know my opinion on court-packing when the election is over".

I don't think you have a clue what people on the left want and if you cared, you'd wait to see the results of the election before making that determination for us. That said, Biden's answer necessarily depends on what the GOP intends to do with the appointment of a new justice. Until that is finalized, Biden doesn't really need to give a definitive answer on that particular issue and like I said earlier, that doesn't really factor into my decision for president. I don't believe it does for anyone else either, but I could be wrong on that point.

Not very transparent of him. Same goes for Harris, as she repeatedly demonstrated during the VP debate.

Meh. Doesn't bother me none.

GoldenBoy89 · Oct 12, 2020

Aldebaran said:
If the people didn't like that, they wouldn't have voted for Trump in that election. But they did.

Most Americans did not vote for Trump and the following election has shown a shift away from the GOP and recent polling continues that trend.

TheBear · Oct 12, 2020

RBG publicly rejected the notion of packing the court.

paul1149 · Oct 12, 2020

Before that he also promised "No Malarkey", but look how far that went. We could well dub his campaign "The Malarkey Express".

FireDragon76 · Oct 12, 2020

TheBear said:
RBG publicly rejected the notion of packing the court.

RBG, or any justice, doesn't have a say in determining the makeup of the Supreme Court.

Quartermaine · Oct 12, 2020

Charlie24 said:
There is nothing in the constitution that sets the number of Justices.

so how could anyone pack the court then?

Charlie24 · Oct 12, 2020

Quartermaine said:
so how could anyone pack the court then?

If Joe wins he will also have to take the house and senate in order to pack the court.

This is a longshot to even attempt.

This would be a law that has to begin in the house with approval, sent to the senate and approved.

The only way it can happen is if Joe wins everything, that is not likely at all.

Biden campaign reneging on transparency promise.

NCC-1701-A

We're Still Here

Newbie

We're Still Here

NCC-1701-A

Newbie

We're Still Here

Newbie

NCC-1701-A

We're Still Here

Newbie

NCC-1701-A

Newbie

We're Still Here

We're Still Here

NON-WOKED

that your faith might rest in the power of God

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Similar threads