Why won't Biden answer the "court packing" question?

[musicblind]

Last edited Fri Oct 9, 2020, 04:35 AM - Edit history (1)

The next time someone asks Biden that question, this is what he should say:

"You're asking this because you're worried about the integrity of our courts, but there is irony stuck between the teeth of your concerns. You weren't worried about protecting the integrity of our courts when you unconstitutionally blocked Merrick Garland for nearly a year; you weren't worried about protecting the integrity of our courts when you removed the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees, and you sure as hell weren't worried about the integrity of our courts when you prevented a rightfully sitting president from appointing 105 justices your constituents were entitled to.

But now... NOW, you want to talk about the court's integrity? The only court you care about is the court of public opinion and how you can obfuscate and manipulate compassionate Americans into voting for an anti-gay, anti-woman agenda they don't agree with.

You don't care about our court's integrity, but I do. I want a court that represents both sides of this country, balances the scales of justice for all, and is blind to politics. I plan to do everything in my power to restore the integrity you ripped from the throat of this court, and if that means supporting reasonable reforms backed by the majority of my fellow citizens — so be it.

I will not "pack the court" for the left, but what I will do is remove the boulder of partisanship you've placed on the shoulders of Lady Justice. I will make sure our courts value democracy over theocracy, and I will institute reforms to insure the Supreme Court will never again have the pockets of its dignity picked by the likes of you."

Answering "yes" would help Biden, not hurt him.

[LakeArenal]

1. I'd at least admit that it's up to Republicans actually.

Reps pack your way, Dems pack our way.

[MissB]

2. .

Boulder or bolder?

[kag]

21. I caught that too.

And it should be "boulder". "Bolder" is an adjective: more bold. A boulder is a big rock.


(I live just outside of Boulder, CO where we have--or did until the pandemic--a yearly 10k called the "Bolder Boulder.&quot )

[musicblind]

26. Thank you. I appreciate you catching that, and I've made the edit.

I wrote that rant on my phone using Swype, and I tend towards typos when texting while mad — lol

[Sogo]

3. Well stated!

Did you write that?

Bravo!


(....and I agree that it should be "boulder.)

[musicblind]

32. Thank you! And I did write that.

Part of me always wished I could grow up to be a speech writer lol

[AnnaLee]

4. Because answering it is premature.

Nothing has happened. Support from the people will only come when they realize what they are losing by doing nothing. That is unfortunate. The demand to do this MUST come from the people or else the Supreme Court as an independent body will be lost forever in a sea of expansions as various different ideologies win power.

[Chili]

8. exactly

[BeyondGeography]

12. So pivot to Republican hypocrisy instead of filibustering the question

Both of our candidates have blown gift opportunities to remind voters what happened in 2016 and why it makes Barrett’s confirmation unacceptable. Not only that, Barrett herself went on the record during the Garland non-process to say that his nomination represented a shift in the balance of power of the Court, making it all the more unacceptable (her words) in an election year.

Instead of making these points, our ticket is somehow convinced that talking about Abraham Lincoln in 1864 is a better way to go. Ok.

[uponit7771]

25. +1

[diva77]

5. I think a lot of the rethugs who are backing Biden would like for the courts to be

packed with more judges like the wingnuts Dump/Turtle have been ramming in.

[babylonsister]

6. That's to be determined. Pence was wasting time

imo, so there'd be less time for him to be in the hot seat.

[Cracklin Charlie]

7. I agree with your post, and Joe could score points that way.

But, Trump and Pence don’t get to ask the questions. They are the ones that keep bringing this up. And their blithering insistence for their question to be answered hints at their desperation.

It’s a bogus question, with no foundation in reality. Kind of a straw man...they bring up some out of context issue, imply something underhanded, and use any answer to hit at their opponent. They’re trying to get the Democratic candidate to produce a sound bite they can use in their dwindling ad buys.

[CousinIT]

9. another version...

Courts have ALREADY been packed by Mitch McConnell, Donald Trump and Senate Republicans who have spent the last three years packing our courts, including the US Supreme Court, with dangerous extremists in lifetime appointments.

Mitch McConnell, Senate Republicans, Trump and Pence are PROJECTING their own dirty court-packing operation, which they've been carrying out for THREE YEARS, onto Democrats. Republicans have appointed THREE extremist USSC justices in as many years:

ONE was a STOLEN seat from Merrick Garland who wasn't even given the respect of meetings with Republican senators or a confirmation hearing;
Yet another seat was given up under a dirty backroom deal (Kennedy) with Donald Trump;
And the third is being RAMMED through (in a form of judicial rape) against the deathbed wishes of a beloved deceased justice and against Republicans' own rules from 2016 when Mitch McConnell refused to confirm Merrick Garland leaving the court with only 8 justices for a YEAR.

Democrats may have to restore & rebalance the courts due to REPUBLICAN court-packing that they THEMSELVES have carried out for the past THREE YEARS. Republicans should stop projecting their court-packing guilt onto Democrats. Democrats didn't pack the courts, REPUBLICANS have.

Democrats have an obligation to restore integrity and balance to our court system so that it isn't crushed under the weight of the dump truck of extremist nominees confirmed by Republicans in the past three years.

Republicans packed our courts, especially the Supreme Court. Now, Democrats have an obligation to UNpack it so that our justice system works as intended.

[gratuitous]

10. I'll have an announcement about that in two weeks

"You'll just have to wait and see."

It works for Trump. Everyone shuts up and pretends to believe him, and then never asks him about it again.

[TheRealNorth]

19. +1

I was gonna say, "We'll see what happens."

[kairos12]

11. I have a different one.

Before the election, say no.
After the election, say yes.

Then say, elections have consequences.

[OnDoutside]

28. Lol, nice one....

[GulfCoast66]

13. There is nothing to gain by doing so.

[NotANeocon]

14. He should give a Kavanaugh variation answer.

I assure you I will follow Republican precedent!

[roamer65]

15. It's the decision of Congress, not a president.

It would require legislation to alter the composition of the SC.

I don’t know why they don’t clarify the exact process.

So his answer should be IF Congress passes it, I will give it consideration.

[Thekaspervote]

16. Now is not the time. There many ways the judicial branch could be reigned in without increasing

Judgeship.

I’m sure he will reply when the time is right.

[patricia92243]

17. Answer no, I will not pack them. Then actually do what is needed when he is Prez.

[tirebiter]

18. Having been and still remaining a sometime stutterer

I saw him groping for something more polically universal
I mean FDR lost a lot of Democrats as well as Republicans when he proudly stated he would pack the court in 1937, iirc. It should have seemed reasonable, they kept finding New Deal legislation problematic and/or unconstitutional. Biden knows his history. Besides he couldn’t get a whole sentence out due to Donnie Numbnuts throwing a fit.
I’d recommend Joe saying, “Actually Trump has packed the court, we are going to expand it a bit to achieve EQUALITY.” Not traveling regularly in Joe’s circle he hasn’t heard that yet from me just ye

[c-rational]

20. Well said.

[chowder66]

22. Wow. Who are you? Can I vote for you somewhere? That is a fantastic answer. nt

[musicblind]

33. Oh wow! Thank you so much.

I'm an author, but not a famous one. I've published a couple of things years ago, and I'm currently querying (unsuccessfully) a novel about guns in America.

I've always dreamed about being a speechwriter or similar.

So, thank you. Reading your post made my night.

[BigmanPigman]

23. Because he's smart.

[OnDoutside]

29. True, but you can see the formulation of traps being set on that, so cut Biden's lead. Thankfully

Trump is stepping all over their messaging, so it's not getting a lot of oxygen on this. However on the chance that it does come down to having to give an answer, they need to have something ready.

[Nasruddin]

24. Joe's trolling

He wouldn't call it that, but ...

[JCMach1]

27. RW has packed since 2015, and Garland

So no, time to full-court press when we win.

Do we need to talk about it? Maybe not. There is much to do before Jan. 2021

[The Mouth]

30. We need to call it "Rebalancing"

What is really needed is term limits as well as a larger court, so the replacement of any one justice is not as big a matter. The court should (IMHO) reflect the make-up of the country, about 1/3 progressive, 1/3 original constructionist, and 1/3 moderate.

[Mr. Ected]

31. It's too close to the election to have that discussion

Let's let the people speak on November 3rd, and we'll take it up accordingly. MMM-kay?

[PufPuf23]

34. The correct answer for Biden is that additional seats on the USSC is a potential

that I need to know more about and see how conditions in the USA unfold before deciding to follow that course of action.

However, insert your very good 4 paragraphs before an absolute yes.

May sound weasel but better than a premature statement.

[Hekate]

35. Because the very question is poison right now, why do you think?

[DeminPennswoods]

36. Biden said why

Heard the clip on either CNN or MSNBC today. He said if he answered now, that's all reporters would write about. His campaign wants to lose focus on covid and Trump.