October 16, 2020

Joe Biden stumbled into saying he opposed Court-packing but then he got up and bumbled back into obscurity.

Sorry to take so long getting from post #1 to post #2. I'm not doing these posts in the order of importance, and I'd originally intended to put up a quick series of posts using the transcripts from last night's town halls. Please don't infer anything from the fact that the first post — on Trump's evasiveness about his covid tests — remained isolated at the top of the blog for so long. And thanks for all the comments! 

Now, let me move on to the second thing, from the transcript for Joe Biden's town hall. I'm going to focus on what he's said about Court-packing. This is a topic I've been meaning to blog about for a few days — as I've discussed in at least a couple podcasts — but I hadn't seen the right text to get me started. It's generally hard to write about evasiveness, but a transcript like this really helps, and I do think I know what he's been up to. 

That is, as I've said in the podcast, I think Biden is focused on getting elected and only wants to say what will be useful to that end, and he doesn't want to lose either the Court-packing fans or the opponents of Court-packing, so he's just — rather lamely — going with refusing to talk about it. There's an effort to create pressure on the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett, and Court-packing has some effect as a threat, but I think, because the votes are there to confirm, that the pressure is all about the election.

So... to look at the transcript. A questioner, a Democrat named Nathan Osburn, brought up the "polariz[ation]" on the Supreme Court and asked: "So what do you think about ideas from people like Pete Buttigieg and others to put in place safeguards that will help ensure more long-term balance and stability?" I don't know what these "safeguards" are — or even who "people like Pete Buttigieg" are — or who's like Pete Buttigieg. I mean, I'm just being jocose, I know he means Pete Buttigieg, but I haven't been following Pete Buttigieg's plan for the Supreme Court. I could look it up, but let's see if Biden explains the question he's tasked to answer so the home viewers can follow along:
Joe Biden: (44:13) Well, let me start at the last point and work my way back.

Ah, yes, there was a tag on question that I had ellided — what can be said to LGBTQ Americans and others who worry about the "erosion" of rights and of democracy. Biden says "there’s great reason to be concerned." He then opines on the Barrett hearings, though without naming Barrett. He refers to her only as "the judge" and "she": she didn't lay out "much of a judicial philosophy in terms of the basis upon which she thinks [inaudible] in the Constitution." He fretted about losing Obamacare. Then he meandered about the Senate confirmation process: the "way the people have a right to determine who’s going to be on the court is how they vote for their Senators and their President." George Stephanopoulus broke in to remind him that the President was elected for 4 years, and Biden corrected course and argued that "once an election begins, by implication, it is inconsistent with the constitutional principles" to go ahead with a Senate confirmation. 

Now, I wish Stephanoulous would break in and demand that Biden take a position on the safeguards proposed by Pete Buttigieg. Does he know what they are? I took a break to look up what they are and found this nightmare from June 2019:

Under the plan, most justices would continue serving life terms. Five would be affiliated with the Republican Party and five with the Democratic Party. Those 10 would then join together to choose five additional justices from U.S. appeals courts, or possibly the district-level trial courts. They’d have to settle on the nonpolitical justices unanimously — or at least with a “strong supermajority.” They final five [sic] would serve one-year, nonrenewable terms. They’d be chosen two years in advance, to prevent nominations based on anticipated court cases, and if the 10 partisan justices couldn’t agree on the final five, the Supreme Court would be deemed to lack a quorum and couldn’t hear cases that term.
Holy lord! Did I write about that at the time? It's such a horror show! And look at the unexamined premise that there are 2 political parties and only 2 political parties. Maybe Buttigieg has been saying more sensible things lately. 

But, anyway, Stephanopoulus breaks in just to ask about the well-known Supreme Court proposal: 
But how about that question of expanding the court? Here’s what you said exactly one year ago tonight at a Democratic debate. You said, “I would not get into court packing. I would not pack the court.” That’s not what you’re saying now. Is the nomination of Judge Barrett reason enough to rethink your position?

That's a good, focused question: 

Joe Biden: (46:36) What I wanted to do, George, you know if I had answered the question directly then all the focus would be on, what’s Biden going to do if he wins instead of on is it appropriate what is going on now? And it should stay. This is the thing that the President loves to do, always take our eye off the ball what’s at stake.

Biden is evasively introducing the subject of how evasive Trump is! 

One of the things Pete has suggested is...

Ah! He remembers!

... and there’s a number of constitutional scholars have suggested as well, that there are at least four or five options that are available to determine whether or not you can change the way in which the court lifetime appointment takes place consistent arguably with the Constitution. I have not been a fan of court packing because then it just generates what will happen. Whoever wins, it just keeps moving in a way that is inconsistent with what is going to be manageable.

What??!!! Okay. I know what he meant by that last sentence, which initially just looked wacky to me. He means if the Democrats get elected and add seats to the Court so they can put some of their people in, then when Republicans win, they'll add seats for themselves to fill, and the Court will get bigger and bigger and it will ruin the Court. 

Aptly, Stephanopoulus sums it up and tries to pin him down: "So you’re still not a fan?:

Joe Biden: (47:26) Well, I’m not a fan. It depends on how this turns out.

He's pinned down, and then he escapes! It depends.... 

Not how he wins, but how it’s handled, how it’s handled.

I think he means how the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett is handled. 

But there’s a number of things that are going to be coming up and there’s going to be a lot of discussion about other alternative [sic] as well.

Whatever that means. He seems to be trying to scramble back to not giving an opinion on Court-packing after he pretty much gave the opinion he's against it. I'm guessing he knows he's against it but can't just stick to his own opinion and has to give other Democrats something of what they want, which is weaponry to oppose Barrett.

Stephanopoulus is confused enough to say "What does that mean, how it’s handled? How will that determine [crosstalk]."

Joe Biden: (47:43) For example, there’s actually real live debate on the floor, if people are really going to be able to have a time to go through this. I don’t know anybody who’s gone on the floor that’s been a controversial justice in terms of making fundamentally or altering the makeup of the court has gone through in a day kind of thing. I mean, it depends on how much they rushed this. And you think about it, George, here you got a lot of people not to be able to pay their mortgage, not being able to put food on the table, not being able to keep their business open, not being able to do anything to deal with what’s going on in terms of the economy as a consequence of COVID and they have no time to deal with that, but they have time to rush this through.

That's close to a word salad, but I can see what he means. He's just retreating into bellyaching about the speed of the Barrett confirmation process. It's about what the Senate is doing right now. He's not talking about the Court-packing that might go on after he's elected. Stephanopoulos returns to the effort to clarify what Biden meant by "how it's handled" and asks whether, if the Senate votes on Barrett "before the election, you are open to expanding the court?" 

Biden gives a completely evasive answer: "I’m open to considering what happens from that point on." Stephanopoulos begins to chide him, reminding him that he's said "it’s important to level with" people, and Biden says:

It is. Good choice. No matter what answer I gave you, if I say it, that’s the headline tomorrow. It won’t be about what’s going on now, the improper way they’re proceeding.

I guess somebody advised him not to make news or perhaps even to pay attention to what Democrats want to do. Keep it all about how bad the GOP is. Stephanopoulos pleads: "But don’t voters have a right to know where you stand?" 

Biden says, yeah, but not yet: "They do have a right to know what I stand and they’ll have a right to know where I stand before they vote." Oh, really? I thought a large chunk of Americans are already voting

George Stephanopoulos: (48:57) So you’ll come out with a clear position before election day?  

Joe Biden: (48:59) Yes. Depending on how they handle this.

You mean if "they handle" it wrong, you won't tell us what you think about Court-packing? Who knows? He proceeds to implore us to vote... 

But look, what you should do is you got to make sure you vote and vote for a senator who in fact reflects your general view on constitutional interpretation, and vote for a president who thinks is more in line with you. And if you oppose the position that I would not have appointed her, but if you oppose my position, vote for Trump, vote for Republican who shares that view, but that’s your opportunity to get involved in lifetime appointments that have presidents come and go, justices stay and stay and stay.

Those damned Justices with their lifetime appointments and their tendency to stay and stay and stay. That's a bit amusing coming from such an old man who's been staying and staying and staying and wants the biggest grab onto power as he approaches 80. He doesn't want to be tied to any particular opinion about the Court, just to remind everybody that there are "general view[s] on constitutional interpretation" — you know, the views, the rights, the law, the stuff — and you can go vote — vote for the views you want on the Court.

And isn't that exactly what Amy Coney Barrett has been saying all week is not what judges are for? She has no views — no views that affect her judicial work. 

66 comments:

Skeptical Voter said...

Groping Grandpa Weasel will weasel.

BarrySanders20 said...

George Stephanopoulos: (48:57) So you’ll come out with a clear position before election day?

Joe Biden: (48:59) Yes. Depending on how they handle this.

Even this is letting Biden off. As we know from the ACB fuss, "Millions of people are voting! Millions have already voted! We cant confirm in the middle of an election!"

How about bringing that up with Joe, who is actually running for the office as people are actually voting right now! and not letting him skate with disclosing his pro- or anti-packer plan the day before so-called Election day. It's Election Season now, and it's already started.

How stand you, Joe? C'mon Man!

Lurker21 said...


A questioner, a Democrat named Nathan Osburn, brought up the "polariz[ation]" on the Supreme Court and asked: "So what do you think about ideas from people like Pete Buttigieg and others to put in place safeguards that will help ensure more long-term balance and stability?"

Osburn was a speechwriter and director of speechwriting at the Commerce Department during the Obama-Biden administration.

I mean, I'm just being jocose

Congrats. First time any one has used that word this year (or maybe this century).

wild chicken said...

Well *talking* about court packing worked last time, when one Justice Roberts switched his vote over to the New Deal side.

Robert's Switch, they called it.

I fully expect the same to happen before any court packing scheme is proposed.

The Godfather said...

"How they handle it" is pretty clear: If the Senate confirms Barrett, then Biden will support Court-packing. Good to know.

Nonapod said...

"once an election begins, by implication, it is inconsistent with the constitutional principles" to go ahead with a Senate confirmation.

What? First off, when does an election even "begin"? I suppose you could say it starts when people start submitting votes via mail-in ballots that are then officially excepted by authorities. But those votes generally aren't counted until election day anyway. So the election doesn't really "begin" until election day. Or am I wrong? Is there a more official starting point?

And secondly, what are the specific "constitutional principles" he's refering to here?

Mike Sylwester said...

The key consideration is that Joe Biden will restore normalcy and civility.

Nonapod said...

"They’d have to settle on the nonpolitical justices unanimously"

Who or what determines if a judge is "nonpolitical"? Is it that they're not registered to either party? Is it determined by their history of political donations? Or maybe testimonials by their friends and family?

And anyway, aren't judges oestensibly supposed to be "nonpolitical" anyway? I mean, we all know that's not true, but we like to pretend, right?

Pete Buttigieg is just blathering a bunch of nonsense here.

tcrosse said...

Then there's FDR's Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937:
"The central provision of the bill would have granted the president power to appoint an additional justice to the U.S. Supreme Court, up to a maximum of six, for every member of the court over the age of 70 years and 6 months."
All well and good if the Other Guys never take power, which they didn't for another 16 years. In any case, the bill failed.

wendybar said...

I hope if Trump wins, HE packs the court. What's good for the Democrats is just as good for the Republicans. When all you have is threats, don't be surprised if it is thrown back in your face. Problem is, Trump wasn't and isn't planning on doing any such thing. He is trying to give the power back to the states, which the left can't handle, because they want a GIANT Federal Government to think for us and do everything for us.

Achilles said...

Court packing is of relatively low importance at this point. We know who the Democrats are and how much they care about the limitations the Constitution puts on their power.

Joe Biden has been running a brazen extortion racket selling our country out to China, Russia, Ukraine and other foreign powers for decades.

All of his actions over the last 30 years make a lot more sense. Especially the Iran deal and the pallets of cash being shipped around.

Of everything going on right now the only thing that matters is the Federal/Corporate collusion and fascist iron fist being openly displayed to cover up Biden's decades of corruption.

Tyrone Slothrop said...

Biden's evasiveness about court packing is of a piece with his hiding in the basement. He and the Democrat elite think that doing nothing, saying nothing, is the course to victory because everybody hates Trump, don't they? They don't. Enthusiasm for Trump is an order of magnitude greater today than it was in 2016. Voters are not impressed with a candidate who either has no opinions or has them and is fearful of expressing them. Osama bin Laden said it best, people like the strong horse. Joe Biden is a tired donkey.

frenchy said...

When you lose, get a new set of rules. The Democrat way.

tim maguire said...

I think he was clear enough that he won't pack the court, but he has a significant constituency who he needs to believe he will. He can't disabuse them until after the election (in fact, he will never disabuse them, he just won't name any justices until there's an opening). Presidents are generally far more moderate in governing than they are in running, but he's running and he can't tell the crazies on the left that he's not crazy on this issue.

Earnest Prole said...

I’m in favor of court packing. Democrats add three seats next year, Republicans add nine in 2025, and before long the Supreme Court will be a highly efficient mini-legislature undertaking all the lawmaking our House and Senate currently refuse to perform.

cnnenfreude said...

Joe Biden talks really fast, conveys a lot of knowledge about a fair number of subjects but at the end of each time I listen to him I am generally unable to understand what his point is.

I feel like I'm listening to Boomhauer from King of the Hill.

Rory said...

Court packing is unnecessary if the ruling administration fails to secure federal courthouses and the persons and homes of federal judges.

MayBee said...

I don't think he's saying he is against it. Or stumbles toward saying that. I think he knows he has been caught on tape in the past calling it "boneheaded". So that's why he references why he's been opposed to it....but it reconsidering now. Because of all the proposals and the wrongness of what's their names.

#SayHerName

Achilles said...

Analyzing what Joe says is a joke.

We all know that he is a standard politician who will just get elected and do what he wants.

He is a completely dishonest person and looking at what he says at this point is just silly.

Joe Biden is a traitor.

This information is easily available.

doctrev said...

Watching Biden frantically trying to cover up his authoritarian incompetence reminds me that Jimmy Dore has him pegged as more "right wing" than Trump. Which means something very different from what he thinks it means, but the man knows his audience.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZy0rnXSpnw

The hard left thinks, correctly, that the shadowy neoliberals and CIA figures behind Joe Biden will have every reason to dispose of them the second Biden "wins." Which means a hard depression of enthusiasm for Biden, and even more overt fraud required from mail-in voting.

Sebastian said...

"vote for the views you want on the Court."

It's a prog thing. By the way, Althouse, you are not neutral about that, are you? If you aren't neutral about that, isn't that a reason to pick either Trump or Biden, rather than sitting out this election.

"And isn't that exactly what Amy Coney Barrett has been saying all week is not what judges are for?"

It's very nice of her, and I used to think so. Not so much anymore: judging is just part of the culture war now. Of course, nice conservatives like our Amy, and our Neil, and our Brett, deny it, and therefore invariably evolve, which only solidifies prog victories.

alanc709 said...

When Lincoln nominated Salmon P. Chase for Chief Justice, he was confirmed the very same day. The process now drags out seemingly for weeks, and Biden is concerned about how rapidly Barrett is being confirmed? Does no one know history?

Greg The Class Traitor said...

Joe Biden: (46:36) What I wanted to do, George, you know if I had answered the question directly then all the focus would be on, what’s Biden going to do if he wins

Well, yes, Joe, you're running for President

And we voters damn well have a right to know what you're going to do if you win

In fact, I'll go so far as to say that a candidate refusing to say what he or she will do if he / she wins is is an automatic disqualification for any candidate for a political office

Sofa King said...

Mush from the wimp.

Bob Boyd said...

Maybe Biden hasn't been told whether he'll pack the court or not.

Chennaul said...

Now, I wish Stephanoulous would break in and demand that Biden take a position on the safeguards proposed by Pete Buttigieg. Does he know what they are? I took a break to look up what they are and found this nightmare from June 2019:

Under the plan, most justices would continue serving life terms. Five would be affiliated with the Republican Party and five with the Democratic Party. Those 10 would then join together to choose five additional justices from U.S. appeals courts, or possibly the district-level trial courts. They’d have to settle on the nonpolitical justices unanimously — or at least with a “strong supermajority.” They final five [sic] would serve one-year, nonrenewable terms. They’d be chosen two years in advance, to prevent nominations based on anticipated court cases, and if the 10 partisan justices couldn’t agree on the final five, the Supreme Court would be deemed to lack a quorum and couldn’t hear cases that term.

Holy lord! Did I write about that at the time? It's such a horror show!


...................


Pete Buttigieg does merit a much closer look because the Biden campaign is not being very transparent about who advises Biden even if Kamala insists the very opposite.

Biden’s economic advisors have been sworn to secrecy but—

Pete Buttigieg is on Biden’s transition team, not only the transition team but the advisory board.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-transition/democrat-biden-adds-former-rival-buttigieg-ex-obama-officials-to-transition-team-idUSKBN25W0VJ

The horror show might have more weighting than people think.

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

Seeing the Biden family’s corruption as part of this entrenched system is why the social-media censorship of that story should not be seen as a separate, stand-alone scandal. It is integral to understanding how the Swamp’s ecosystem operations, how it defines our politics.

madAsHell said...

Isn't evasiveness part of dementia?

Yeah......It's rhetorical. My friend already knows the answer.

Ice Nine said...

>>Biden gives a completely evasive answer: "I’m open to considering what happens from that point on."<<

A bold stance. Sort of like what every one of us has done every second of his/her life since infancy, then, Joe?

Well, all I can say is that I feel more like I do now than I did a minute ago...

hstad said...

AA states: "...He's [Biden] just retreating into bellyaching about the speed of the Barrett confirmation process..."

Of course Biden is worried because it's the Republicans. On the other hand if the shoe was on the Democrats, Biden would be in favor or confirming 1 day (or even on election day) before the election the preferred Democratic Judge. Pure B.S. I watched this entire charade - not only was this painful but I just don't know how this persuades the everyday voter - not just these experts (Angels) Biden keeps citing. The entire Town Hall was a farce! Not one difficult question (probably gave Biden them ahead of time). We did not see how Biden handles stressful situations, which any President needs to addres.

Now Trump's interview with Guthrie was exciting had some zip and put Guthrie in her place. Loved the interaction. I knew President Trump would destroy Guthrie. I don't know maybe it's me, but the Media and their reporters seem to believe their own propoganda about President Trump. I've seen him now over 20 times - he literally destroys these political hacks. They are not reporters but advocates for the Democrats.

Dave Begley said...

This is all very interesting and a domestic policy issue, but what about China and Russia?

There is really no doubt at this point that Joe has been bribed - via Hunter - by the Chinese, Russians and Burisma. Per Hunter's email, Joe takes half of Hunter's income. The China deals are worth millions.

This is a big, big deal and really can't be ignored.

I predict that after Trump wins, Joe and Hunter are indicted.

Chennaul said...

Bloomberg news had a short video of Sen. Graham giving a hug to Sen. Feinstein and then elbow tapping Sen. Lee after the hearing for Amy Comey Barrett yesterday.

I was so excited about it. I am lame like that. it made me hopeful about the future, —hey we don’t really hate each other. The US has not gone the full Banana Republic!!

Well....that was busted at the speed of Twitter. The pitch forks are out for Sen. Feinstein for being too nice during the hearings. They are saying she is well past her prime and too old. Someone on Right Twitter said—“wait till they get a look at their Presidential candidate.”

I wish I had started watching the hearings earlier, I saw a short clip of Amy Comey Barrett and people were making fun of her voice, so ai skipped watching it as I also expected a lot of evasiveness.

Amy Comey Barrett is a force. This is the first time I could understand why a judge should not opine on certain things.

The clarity was breathtaking.

MayBee said...

The "undecided" voter who asked the question is a former Obama adminstration speech writer.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-town-hall-questioners-former-obama-speechwriter-wife-pennsylvania-democrat

Rick said...

He seems to be trying to scramble back to not giving an opinion on Court-packing after he pretty much gave the opinion he's against it.

Is he "against it"? Or is he "against it theoretically but feels compelled to do it anyway"? You'd think if he was actually against it that would be easy to say. His near total focus on "it depends" and the circumstances which would justify it suggests the latter is really his belief.

Drago said...

Retweeting about "Parrots" gets in the way of Cruelly Neutral "truths" such as how Trump is a russian asset and paid hookers to pee on beds.

And yes, Biden did indeed speak publicly about SEAL Team Six by name regarding the OBL takeout which was followed by a targeted hit on a chopper carrying ST6 members in an Al Qaeda setup ploy.

I am sure its all just a coincidence...in the same way the Benghazi attack started spontaneously due to a video.

n.n said...

a short clip of Amy Comey Barrett and people were making fun of her voice

Ah, diversity dogma, and diversity dogmatists.

Amy Comey Barrett is a force. This is the first time I could understand why a judge should not opine on certain things.

The clarity was breathtaking.


A wife, mother, and Judge soon to be Justice. She is an extraordinary woman. A role model for the People and our [unPlanned] Posterity.

Sydney said...

Dave Begley said "This is a big, big deal and really can't be ignored." Re: Joe Biden, China, Russia, Burisima and the Biden son. You could even say it's a "big f****n deal."

gilbar said...

Who or what determines if a judge is "nonpolitical"?
ooh! ooh! i know! i know! pick me! pick me!

a judge is "nonpolitical", if they Absolutely follow every diktat from the democrat party
a judge is "political", if they do NOT

wildswan said...

The Godfather said...
"How they handle it" is pretty clear: If the Senate confirms Barrett, then Biden will support Court-packing."

How I see it.

tim in vermont said...

He sounded rattled to me. He knows that he is lying to half the people he expects to vote for him, and he knows he can’t get pinned down or he is in real trouble, but he doesn’t have a real plan to answer this question.

I hope Trump goes after him on fracking. He is in the same situation there, but he may have been hurt by replacing PA jobs producing NG with chicken wranglers shoveling poop to be pelletized. Have you ever been in PA and seen one of those long trains of tank cars loaded with natural gas chugging down the line? It’s hard to imagine pelletizing that much chicken poop.

Ann Althouse said...

"Even this is letting Biden off. As we know from the ACB fuss, "Millions of people are voting! Millions have already voted! We cant confirm in the middle of an election!" How about bringing that up with Joe, who is actually running for the office as people are actually voting right now!"

I guess you're not talking to me, since I brought that up in the post.

bleh said...

"Oh, really? I thought a large chunk of Americans are already voting."

I had the same exact thought when he said that. He was saying that Trump shouldn't have appointed Barrett, and the Senate should not confirm her, because voters are already voting. They should have "a say" in it. Well, don't those same voters deserve to know where Biden stands on court packing? Why are they casting votes before all the relevant information is in?

I mean, that's why I dislike early voting. God knows what can happen between the first day of early voting and Election Day. If you vote early, can you come to a voting place on Election Day and recast your vote if you change your mind? I hope so.

Think of the things that have already happened in the month of October. Trump got COVID-19. Judge Barrett's hearings. The unfolding Hunter Biden corruption scandal. There is a debate that hasn't happened yet.

BarrySanders20 said...

Ann Althouse said...

"I guess you're not talking to me, since I brought that up in the post."

Yep, Missed it on the read through.

robother said...

Amy folded like a house of cards, apologized, when confronted by the accusation that "sexual preference" was homphobic. That's when Sen. Feinstein knew Barrett is going to be another Roberts/Kennedy/O'Conner SCOTUS vote. (Can anyone imagine Scalia being bullied into such an apology by the likes of Hironono?)

DiFi's old, but she ain't dumb. Unlike the Progs who're roasting her on twitter, or the earnest Repubs like Graham who think they've finally got an enduring Conservative Majority on the SCOTUS.

BarrySanders20 said...

I want someone to ask Biden: Are not Handmaidens entitled to representation on the court? And see what he says.

I think moms are entitled to representation on the court, whatever that means.

hstad said...

AA - in my previous comment I forgot to mention the "Townhall Interview" of Biden done by Lester Hold from NBC - Guthrie's colleague. Now an article juxtaposing those two interviews would've been interesting. But it's a waste of time for the average voter - similar to the non-issue of "Court Packing". Who cares! We are being guided by 'Experts' around the World who have yet to get the 'Pandemic' right. Well a few countries have - like Sweden and Taiwan. The destruction caused by the "Chinese Covid-19" has been far greater than anything a bunch of Judges sitting on high can ever force on our Country. Despite their (politicians and judges) trying for over 200 + years - the USA is still around.

Qwinn said...

Seriously, I couldn't care less about whether Trump took a test on the day of the debate.

Giuliani says he has an email from Hunter Biden's lawyer to the computer repair man attempting to get the laptop back.

You can't "get back" something that wasn't yours to begin with. And you can't "get back" something that was "planted by the Russians" - incredible that's what they're going with.

If that email from Hunter Biden's lawyer can be produced, Biden shouldn't just withdraw from the race. Biden should be imprisoned. And so should every Democrat who impeached Trump for asking questions about Biden's crimes. Now. NOW.

Chennaul said...

n.n said...
a short clip of Amy Comey Barrett and people were making fun of her voice

Ah, diversity dogma, and diversity dogmatists.

Amy Comey Barrett is a force. This is the first time I could understand why a judge should not opine on certain things.

The clarity was breathtaking.

A wife, mother, and Judge soon to be Justice. She is an extraordinary woman. A role model for the People and our [unPlanned] Posterity.

................


They have a problem, if Diane Feinstein was impressed with her....Susan Collins is in a real fix.

Greg The Class Traitor said...

Mike Sylwester said...
The key consideration is that Joe Biden will restore normalcy and civility.

That was well played, Mike. Have you looked into a job as a stand-up comedian?

Left Bank of the Charles said...

"It depends on how this turns out."

Do you see that there are two aspects to how this turns out?

The first is how the confirmation is handled on the floor of the Senate. That may happen before the election. The second is whether Barrett takes the court off the rails in handling the cases that come before it. That's what I think he means by "there’s a number of things that are going to be coming up" - cases that are coming up. It will be a year or two before we know that.

And isn't packing the Court an appropriate Constitutional remedy if the Court does go off the rails? But there might be other remedies, which is what I think Biden means by "there’s going to be a lot of discussion about other alternatives as well." I am intrigued, for example, by the notion that the Court might be unpacked by establishing a judicial procedure to invoke the "good behaviour" clause.

It's usurpative for the Justices to think they have a lifetime appointment. They don't. They have an appointment "during good behaviour".

JaimeRoberto said...

Biden won't state his position on court packing. In 2016 Trump put out a list of people he would nominate for the Supreme Court. Which one is leveling with the people?

Greg The Class Traitor said...

tim maguire said...
I think he was clear enough that he won't pack the court, but he has a significant constituency who he needs to believe he will.

A bunch of Democrat Senators are refusing to answer whether or not THEY would vote to Pack the Court. And it's apparently hurting them with voters, yet they're still doing it.

You think Joe will be running things, why?

The guy who has to "put a lid" on his campaign before noon, 1 day in 3, is going to be up to being the President, how?

Now, what do you think? Does Harris support Court Packing? How about Jill Biden?

Do you not want Court Packing? then vote for Trump, a GOP Senate, and a GOP House. Because if any one of these comes through, the Democrats can't Pack the Court.

Because the Democrats wouldn't be risking driving off voters, and losing the election, by not answering this question, unless they were positive that an honest answer would hurt them more

Left Bank of the Charles said...

I thought during the Barrett hearings that Senator Whitehouse made a pretty good case for misbehavior against Justice Alito for writing hints into his opinions as to which precedents the Supreme Court might be willing to overrule. So maybe that seat can be "unpacked."

hstad said...

AA - your article on "Court Packing" would've been far more salient had you asked the question of why the MSM has been so soft on Biden answering all these questions including:

Court packing
Medicare for All
Funding for law enforcement
Defense spending
Fracking and the Green New Deal
Reparations

Greg The Class Traitor said...

Left Bank of the Charles said...
"It depends on how this turns out."

Do you see that there are two aspects to how this turns out?

The first is how the confirmation is handled on the floor of the Senate. That may happen before the election.


It will happen before the election. If that's an issue, then Biden needs to say, right now: If ACB is confirmed, before or after the election, and I win, I will try to Pack the Court.

Or else he needs to say what his response will be to the various options. Because the voters DESERVE to know what a canididate will do if elected..


The second is whether Barrett takes the court off the rails in handling the cases that come before it. That's what I think he means by "there’s a number of things that are going to be coming up" - cases that are coming up. It will be a year or two before we know that.

And isn't packing the Court an appropriate Constitutional remedy if the Court does go off the rails?


The Court was taken "off the rails" with Roe, Lawrence v Texas, Windsor, Obergefell, and a whole bunch of other left wing rulings.

If you're going to have a "Supreme Court", not a "Supreme Junta", then no, the fact that the Court is no longing imposing your policy objectives is not justification for Packing it.

Joe Smith said...

And the Democratic shill doesn't pin Joe down.

I'm shocked.

And no Hunter question...only the biggest story on the planet in the last couple of days.

Fuck every single person claiming to be a 'journalist.'

wild chicken said...

One big reason the last court packing scheme failed was the vigorous opposition of the Honorable Senator from Montana, Burton K. Wheeler.

Respect.

tcrosse said...

Biden will only pack the court if he can. Otherwise, he won't. Capisce?

Jon Ericson said...

This is stupid.

Dems are being told: *wink wink* we'll make sure that that nasty mackerel snapper and the rapist can't derail important issues of the day like reparations, abortion and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transexual and questioning issues. Plus we'll keep cheap tools from Harbor Freight available. We'll also cut covid checks for everybody and keep you safe from the plague by keeping you lazing around the house wearing masks. Sounds great, right?

If we told you this before the election, that bastard Trump would just lie to you and make you doubt our good intentions.

TRANSPARENT.

So no, of course he isn't going to say anything about what he's going to do.

Qwinn said...

Left Bank considers any click of the ratchet towards the Right to violated "good behavior". Isnt it understood that all gains by the Left must be locked in forever, and any Justice who fails to uphold precedents that the Left holds dear should be "unpacked". Never mind that pretty much every single one of those gains made by the Left overturned hundreds of years of previous precedents. That ratchet only goes one way, mister, and the Court must be purged of any who disagree!

Yancey Ward said...

Yes, that was the only tough question Biden received all night long- the only one.

It is all pretty simple- Biden knows (or least his staff knows and tells him what to say) he can't support packing the court before the election- that will cost him votes. He also doesn't want to be in the position of having to turn on a dime and break a pledge to not pack the court. The simple fact is this- if the Democrats hold the House, Senate, and Presidency in January of 2021, they will expand the court. Any pledge Biden makes to not do so is worthless because Congress will pass the bills that do it, and Biden will sign that bill. Let's stop pretending otherwise.

Howard said...

Biden foursquare against fudge packing.

Matt Sablan said...

"Yes, that was the only tough question Biden received all night long- the only one."

-- That was the obviously planted question, right? Weird that the question they planned to have... is the one they screwed up.

Francisco D said...

Howard said...Biden foursquare against fudge packing.

Howie,

You seem to have an obsession with homosexuality, anal sex and blow jobs. What is that all about?

tim in vermont said...

"and blow jobs.”

Hey now, wait a minute, we all like blow jobs.

Yancey Ward said...

Matt,

Yes, the question was pre-approved, and I am sure Biden's people wrote out and had him memorize an answer along the lines of, "I can't answer that yet-let's wait and see what happens with Barrett's nomination," but to his credit, Stufflepig didn't let it get asked and answered that way as Biden's people expected- Stufflepig actually pressed Biden for a clarification, and just as I expected, Biden wasn't able to deal with it- complex thoughts are not his forte now, if they ever were. When you ask him for a clarification, he is completely and utterly lost. As it turned out, that was really the last time Biden was pressed last night- Stufflepig realized he was hurting Biden by doing so- back to softball play and a break every 4-5 minutes so Biden could get some more notes from his people for the next question on the list.