Biden campaign reneging on transparency promise.

[RestoreTheJoy]

First of all, the term is court packing, not "stacking". And it doesn't mean appointing someone to fill an empty seat. It means adding seats. Currently, there are nine. Those who want to "reimagine" the system want to add more seats if Biden gets elected so they can fill them with the type of people his administration would rather be in power.
What Does It Mean to Pack the Court?

If I never hear that perverted word of 2020 - "reimagine" -again, it will be too soon.

It's just a petulant childish game. Instead of stand back as decisions they don't like come down - as others have done for decades - they are just going to change the number of the Supreme Court justices in order to maintain their power. It's beyond ridiculous.

 

[KCfromNC]

If I never hear that perverted word of 2020 - "reimagine" -again, it will be too soon.

It's just a petulant childish game.

Reminds me of the GOP attempt at "reimagining" the court to have only 8 seats when there's a Democrat in the White House.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Reminds me of the GOP attempt at "reimagining" the court to have only 8 seats when there's a Democrat in the White House.

Except it is nothing like that. There was merely a vacancy. It happens.

 

[GreatLakes4Ever]

Except it is nothing like that. There was merely a vacancy. It happens.

Except for the ones that did say they were planning to do that if Clinton won in 2016 Republican senators vow to block any Clinton supreme court nominee forever

 

[MIDutch]

Except for the ones that did say they were planning to do that if Clinton won in 2016 Republican senators vow to block any Clinton supreme court nominee forever

Hypocrisy, thy name is Republican.

 

[Aldebaran]

If I never hear that perverted word of 2020 - "reimagine" -again, it will be too soon.

It's just a petulant childish game. Instead of stand back as decisions they don't like come down - as others have done for decades - they are just going to change the number of the Supreme Court justices in order to maintain their power. It's beyond ridiculous.

I know. When they don't like the rules, they change them. When they don't like what words mean, they pervert them. When they don't like the laws, they break them.

 

[Aldebaran]

Reminds me of the GOP attempt at "reimagining" the court to have only 8 seats when there's a Democrat in the White House.

They didn't. It still had 9 seats, which is why they had one to fill.

 

[SimplyMe]

I know. When they don't like the rules, they change them. When they don't like what words mean, they pervert them. When they don't like the laws, they break them.

Again, just like Republicans. McConnell didn't like the rules to get a Supreme Court Justice approved, so he changed the rules. Trump didn't like various rules and laws, so he signed Executive Orders and declared National Emergencies.

 

[Aldebaran]

Again, just like Republicans. McConnell didn't like the rules to get a Supreme Court Justice approved, so he changed the rules. Trump didn't like various rules and laws, so he signed Executive Orders and declared National Emergencies.

McConnell didn't change any rules. The votes simply weren't there.

Also, the president has the authority to sign executive orders and declare national emergencies. No rules were changed, unless Obama's issuing of executive orders was when the precedent was set for that.

 

[SimplyMe]

McConnell didn't change any rules. The votes simply weren't there.

McConnell changed the rules at least twice -- if he hadn't Barrett would not be confirmed yet and wouldn't have been confirmed at all. First, McConnell removed the filibuster rule on Supreme Court nominees -- if that filibuster rule was in place, then the Democrats could have blocked the current Supreme Court nominee until after the election. Next, that wasn't enough for McConnell so he changed the rule on debate, limited the amount of time each nominee can be debated. Had this rule not been changed, Barrett likely still would have been approved but it would have taken a couple of weeks longer.

Also, the president has the authority to sign executive orders and declare national emergencies. No rules were changed, unless Obama's issuing of executive orders was when the precedent was set for that.

I'm not arguing that the President doesn't have the right. I'm merely pointing out the hypocrisy of the Republicans who seemingly had no issue when Bush signed executive orders but then screamed about how Obama was threatening the Republic when he used Executive Orders. Then, when Trump was in office, Republicans were cheering him on.

The Republicans have proven their hypocrisy and that they will put politics first.

 

[Aldebaran]

McConnell changed the rules at least twice -- if he hadn't Barrett would not be confirmed yet and wouldn't have been confirmed at all. First, McConnell removed the filibuster rule on Supreme Court nominees -- if that filibuster rule was in place, then the Democrats could have blocked the current Supreme Court nominee until after the election. Next, that wasn't enough for McConnell so he changed the rule on debate, limited the amount of time each nominee can be debated. Had this rule not been changed, Barrett likely still would have been approved but it would have taken a couple of weeks longer.



I'm not arguing that the President doesn't have the right. I'm merely pointing out the hypocrisy of the Republicans who seemingly had no issue when Bush signed executive orders but then screamed about how Obama was threatening the Republic when he used Executive Orders. Then, when Trump was in office, Republicans were cheering him on.

The Republicans have proven their hypocrisy and that they will put politics first.

Hypocrisy is seen on both sides, and both sides will use whatever advantage they have at the time to further their goals.

 

[SimplyMe]

Hypocrisy is seen on both sides, and both sides will use whatever advantage they have at the time to further their goals.

I believe I've said that a few times around here recently. At the same time, it changes nothing that I stated.