October 15, 2020 at 7:27 pm #48305
Why can’t the Biden camp answer the god damn question?
The GOP has now stolen 2 seats on the SCOTUS. They are the court packers!
The answer should be: We will see how it goes but we reserve the right to take Constitutional actions should we see the need to do so.October 15, 2020 at 8:06 pm #48306
Did you watch Biden’s town hall tonight? That’s basically what he said tonight: we’ll see.October 15, 2020 at 8:12 pm #48307
Kamala missed that message in her post debate interview.October 15, 2020 at 9:20 pm #48308
He’s not going to answer the question directly because he would lose the leverage he has over McConjob. If Moscow Mitch follows through installing the SCOTUS nominee, he will probably give an immediate response that he will add justices to the court. If McConjob backs down he won’t have to commit to it, thus avoiding alienating a block of voters that are against that before they vote for not only POTUS but also for Senator(s).October 15, 2020 at 9:23 pm #48309
This point in time is when some of the the Republican Senators start to distance themselves from drump.October 15, 2020 at 9:56 pm #48312
It seems extremely unlikely that Republicans won’t confirm Barrett to the Supreme Court as promised. I’m guessing McConnell doesn’t give a rat’s ass what Biden thinks about court packing.
Biden is just trying not to take a hard position that might alienate swing voters, many of whom would be opposed to court packing. Remember, although most Democrats would support packing the Court, there are a number of independents and Republicans supporting Biden who might not – no reason to give them any reason to think twice about that.October 16, 2020 at 12:41 am #48313edselehrParticipant
I’m still trying to understand the GOP calculus on the push to confirm Barrett before the election.
Do they think that this will energize the vote for the President and/or vulnerable GOP congresspeople, even if it might actually energize the left instead even more?
Is it all about having Barrett installed in time to hear the ACA case?
Is it about packing the SC for any election result challenges?
Maybe all of the above?
I remember Nixon was motivated by his desire to be remembered well by history. Are there any on the right that care about their legacy anymore? Or is it all just about raw power, here and now?
I think I’m answering all my own questions…October 16, 2020 at 1:47 am #48314semoochieParticipant
Biden seemed to be referring to whether or not Barrett’s confirmation is a fair process. Kavanaugh’s was not! He said that he would make his position known after the hearings but before election day.October 16, 2020 at 7:32 am #48318radiogeekParticipant
Leave the ideology of each Justice aside for a moment … (yeah I know but just go with it)
Barrett seems from her answers way more qualified than Kavanaugh or Gorsuch. Had Garland not been blocked by McConnell, Barrett would have seemed an appropriate replacement for Scalia … and perhaps one that will deviate from Scalia in helpful ways that were hinted at during the hearings.
It’s a dammned shame that McConnell had to screw this entire thing up. I wish we had Garland, Barrett, and someone more qualified than Kavanaugh/Gorsuch for the legacy of this period.
October 16, 2020 at 12:22 pm #48320semoochieParticipant
- This reply was modified 1 week, 4 days ago by radiogeek.
I’m a little concerned that she hadn’t been a judge until Trump appointed her but there’s no question that she knows the law as well as anyone!October 16, 2020 at 12:24 pm #48321
Eddie Van Halen endured a ‘horrifying racist environment’ before becoming a rock legend. In an interview with Marc Maron, former bandmate David Lee Roth revealed just how painful the experience was for the late artist, who was of Indonesian and Dutch descent.October 16, 2020 at 1:35 pm #48322
edselehr: “I’m still trying to understand the GOP calculus on the push to confirm Barrett before the election.”
Simple: they fear they are going to lose both their Senate majority and the presidency, and they of course want that Supreme Court seat vs. having the Democrats filling it.
The new Congress starts January 3. So has to be well before that. If they don’t do it before the election, they have to do it in the lame duck session. Several reasons not to want to do that: one, it makes them look like sore losers to appoint someone after they’ve clearly lost. But also – what if something happens like a big Covid outbreak that closes the Senate and they can’t actually hold the hearing or the vote?
Better not to wait – do it while you can.
Sure, there is also the matter of having another pro-Republican justice on the Court to try to repeal the ACA and also rule in favor of Republicans on any election-related matter. And yes, it might help motivate their base.October 17, 2020 at 5:24 pm #48344edselehrParticipant
That’s my point – why not do it during the lame duck session? Why take the chance of building up so much anti-Republican animus before Nov. 3? They have the time to do between Nov. 3 and the end of December. Or are they so beholden to their holiday break that they can’t take a chunk of it to seat a SC justice? “I’m a staunch partisan, willing to violate our democratic norms, as long as it doesn’t intrude on my tee time at the club?”
Whatever – I’m done trying to figure out the radical right. Just vote the f’ers out.October 27, 2020 at 1:18 am #48517
I read today about another process whereby the Congress can limit what kinds of cases the SCOTUS is allowed to take.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.