Biden campaign reneging on transparency promise.

Charlie24 said:

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.

Click to expand...

The Dems already hold the house and are favored to win the Senate according to the latest data. If Biden wins, it is most likely that the Dems will hold all three bodies needed to add justices to the Supreme Court. It’s not a long shot at all, in fact it is the most likely scenario.

Sparagmos said:

The Dems already hold the house and are favored to win the Senate according to the latest data. If Biden wins, it is most likely that the Dems will hold all three bodies needed to add justices to the Supreme Court. It’s not a long shot at all, in fact it is the most likely scenario.

Click to expand...

If you watch the fake news then, yes, it is likely.

Charlie24 said:

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

Click to expand...

It is not illegal--just rare.

Caliban said:

It is not illegal--just rare.

Click to expand...

It's ridiculous because it begins a war of supremacy.

The Rep. don't want this, only the Dems.

They are starting a war and they know it!

Charlie24 said:

It's ridiculous because it begins a war of supremacy.

The Rep. don't want this, only the Dems.

They are starting a war and they know it!

Click to expand...

The Dem. don’t want to have Supreme Court hearings and a vote while an election is actively going on, only the Reps.

They are starting a war and they know it.

FireDragon76 said:

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

Click to expand...

That's true.

You might want to remind Schumer, Pelosi, AOC, and all who propped up RBG's alleged, unverifiable and private death bed desire to not replace her until a new president is installed. You can't have it both ways.

Charlie24 said:

It's ridiculous because it begins a war of supremacy.

The Rep. don't want this, only the Dems.

They are starting a war and they know it!

Click to expand...

There is a "war?" I must have missed that.

Charlie24 said:

If you watch the fake news then, yes, it is likely.

Click to expand...

That’s what all polls are showing. The same polls that have been quite accurate in previous elections. You can call it all fake news if you like.

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.

Click to expand...

And this is why elections have consequences. Mcconnell utilized his legal power and did NOTHING wrong. I don't understand why it's such a deal. The Senate is not required to vote in the Nominee just cause one is presented.

Stacking the court would also be perfectly legal under the Constitution. Congress would need to pass the requirement and the president could sign it. Which would be a consequence of an all Democrat Congress and presidency. So if the Dems will the house Senate and executive branch they absolutely would have a right to stack the court. The downside of that is it could go the other way as well. Once the Republicans gain power they could stack the court themselves.

It's a dangerous game to play. I think that's why the Dems want DC to be a state. So they can get two more Senators and more representatives. Giving them a good chance of power I perpetuity. A dangerous game they are playing. And goes to show you exactly how they would operate.

You know good a well if the Democrats hold power there is no way they would confirm a Constitutional Judge.

Sparagmos said:

That’s what all polls are showing. The same polls that have been quite accurate in previous elections. You can call it all fake news if you like.

Click to expand...

Yes... that's why President Clinton is president right now. Because the polls showing her winning the electoral college were oh so accurate...

Oh wait.... they were wrong!

Clinton leads Donald Trump in most of the states that Trump would need should he have a chance to win the minimum 270 votes needed to win. According to the project, she has a better than 95 percent chance of winning, if the election was held this week. The mostly likely outcome would be 326 votes for Clinton to 212 for Trump. Clinton far ahead in Electoral College race: Reuters/Ipsos poll

Hazelelponi said:

Yes... that's why President Clinton is president right now. Because the polls showing her winning the electoral college were oh so accurate...

Oh wait.... they were wrong!

Clinton leads Donald Trump in most of the states that Trump would need should he have a chance to win the minimum 270 votes needed to win. According to the project, she has a better than 95 percent chance of winning, if the election was held this week. The mostly likely outcome would be 326 votes for Clinton to 212 for Trump. Clinton far ahead in Electoral College race: Reuters/Ipsos poll

Click to expand...

No, they weren’t wrong. Comey’s letter came out after that poll, and her numbers went down. The last polls before the election had her averaging 4 points ahead and her lead was within the margin of error. Considering how narrow his electoral college win was, the polls were right on. I don’t blame you for thinking otherwise, however, because there was so much misinformation being pushed after the election about the polls being wrong that I believed that to be true myself, until I went back and looked at them more closely.

Aldebaran said:

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

Click to expand...

The people (popular vote) voted for Clinton. The electrical college vote worked out to be in Trump's favor.

That is merely the way the election process works. However, the popular vote (the people) did not go to Trump.

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.

Click to expand...

Packing the court is one way to establish a majority.

It is, however, not the only way, and McConnell and Senate Republicans ignored precedent and the Constitution to establish the conservative majority.

It's convenient, and not particularly surprising, that conservatives only seem conserved with "packing" the court, and not actual wholistic integrity of our justice appointing process.

Charlie24 said:

It's ridiculous because it begins a war of supremacy.

The Rep. don't want this, only the Dems.

They are starting a war and they know it!

Click to expand...

technically the republicans started it when they spent nearly a year refusing to confirm a presidential appointment

Aldebaran said:

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

Click to expand...

People didn't. Trump was outvoted by a 3 million person gap.

He won the election, for sure, but it's disingenuous to suggest that "people" voted for Trump more than they voted for Hillary.

Quartermaine said:

technically the republicans started it when they spent nearly a year refusing to confirm a presidential appointment

Click to expand...

If Obama had a majority in the Senate, Garland would be Justice Garland.

Trump has a majority in the Senate, and Barrett will be Justice Barrett.

That's the way the cards fell, but the Dems can't take it.

Hazelelponi said:

Yes... that's why President Clinton is president right now. Because the polls showing her winning the electoral college were oh so accurate...

Oh wait.... they were wrong!

Click to expand...

not all.


in 2016 Trafalgar Group, correctly predicted Clinton's win of the popular vote and Trump electoral win correctly showing Donald Trump with a lead in Michigan Pennsylvania North Carolina and Florida

Marist Institute for Public Opinion accurately predicted Trumps electoral vote tally. and only poling two states more than 1 point off from their actual count

CBS news poll called the states right except for Michigan, A stat trump won by only about 3000 votes

Charlie24 said:

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.

Click to expand...

And in reality it is thereby the house and Senate packing the supreme court (changing number of seats) with president only making nominations.

Charlie24 said:

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

Click to expand...

The packing that I care about is the packing Trump does when he has to move out of the White House.

whatbogsends said:

People didn't. Trump was outvoted by a 3 million person gap.

He won the election, for sure, but it's disingenuous to suggest that "people" voted for Trump more than they voted for Hillary.

Click to expand...

Trump would’ve won the pop vote if it weren’t for the 3 million Mexicans that voted for Hillary.