Biden logic on court packing

On ABC Biden said to Skippy Steponallofus that the people did deserve to know his position before they voted. This is amended from the voters didn't deserve to know at all from a couple of days earlier...oops! Joe later pointed out that 16 million people have already voted! So Joe doesn't see the obvious, or he doesn't care, or he doesn't want to say until after the election. Joe wants the people to vote in darkness for a gift whore named Kameltoe.

Joe is avoiding the question. We all know his position is to pack the courts!

yes, butt only because that is what he is being told to say... by ...everyone on the left who is about to lose their power that they have enjoyed for 30+ years....

Time to drain that swamp Mr. Trump .. git er done

Pack the court
Pack the court
Pack the court
Pack the court

Pack the court
Pack the court
Pack the court
Pack the court Originally Posted by 1blackman1

Yeah thats what their ultimate goal is!

Although i bet joe wants a different kind of packing!

Fudge packing that is!

bahahahahhaahhaajajjajahahahaj jajajja

Pack the court
Pack the court
Pack the court
Pack the court Originally Posted by 1blackman1

Old pussy neck won't like that.....

I'm constantly amazed by the logic, meaning lack thereof, of certain posters on this board. Mr. Trump has certainly (as defended by the same group of posters) "packed" the court with conservative appointees. Even to the point of calling for Robert's retirement so a younger conservative justice can be appointed prior to January. All legal, its politics in action. Likewise, if the "other side" should prevail next year and control both the executive and legislative branches, any LEGAL attempts to "pack" the court are de facto foul and subject to dogmatic whining. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. In my opinion (again, labeled as opinion, not fact) lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court have become a problem not recognized by our founders. Personally, I think term limits for all elected or appointed government officials (I did not say hired workers) would solve many of the political problems that plague us today.

I'm constantly amazed by the logic, meaning lack thereof, of certain posters on this board. Mr. Trump has certainly (as defended by the same group of posters) "packed" the court with conservative appointees. Even to the point of calling for Robert's retirement so a younger conservative justice can be appointed prior to January. All legal, its politics in action. Likewise, if the "other side" should prevail next year and control both the executive and legislative branches, any LEGAL attempts to "pack" the court are de facto foul and subject to dogmatic whining. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. In my opinion (again, labeled as opinion, not fact) lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court have become a problem not recognized by our founders. Personally, I think term limits for all elected or appointed government officials (I did not say hired workers) would solve many of the political problems that plague us today. Originally Posted by reddog1951

The Founding Fathers did not envision a fourth branch of government, the administrative branch, that has become more powerful than either of the other three by virtue of lifetime appointments and protection against corruption and incompetence by the Civil Service system. There are a number of solutions, first among which is to limit funding and align civil service fringe benefits with those of the private sector. This goes for mailmen, teachers, policemen, firemen, everybody. There used to be a line of reasoning that government work didn't pay as well, but made up for it with security and generous retirement benefits. That line of reasoning has gone out the door. The explosive growth of government employees has been paralleled with the growth of public employee unions that enjoy almost blanket support from politicians rolling over at contract negotiation time in exchange for votes while the public looks on without representation. This has to stop or we will spiral down to the governance level of Greece and Italy.

Restructuring the court is quite legal. And the Democrats should do so. I actually hope they do it. It’s not like the republicans will follow any set of rules from year to year.

They prevented the seating of 1 SC appointment under Obama and then switched their reasoning 180 degrees to seat 1 under Trump. Both parties with complete control should just pass whatever their agenda is.

People will. Really see what the parties will actually do rather than see their promises and people would then get to vote with some honesty.

Old pussy neck won't like that.....[/IMG] Originally Posted by matchingmole

And what does that have to do with your racist spineless BOY senile joe thumbing his nose at the electorate??
Your usual infantile response...thank you mindless poster.

Restructuring the court is quite legal. And the Democrats should do so. I actually hope they do it. It’s not like the republicans will follow any set of rules from year to year.

They prevented the seating of 1 SC appointment under Obama and then switched their reasoning 180 degrees to seat 1 under Trump. Both parties with complete control should just pass whatever their agenda is.

People will. Really see what the parties will actually do rather than see their promises and people would then get to vote with some honesty. Originally Posted by 1blackman1

Your term "restructuring" has NOTHINGto do with PACKING...the 9 member court has been the same since 1869...right after biten said he was elected to congress in 1840!!
Just as your BOY obummer said...elections have consequences.
When you have a democrap President and a Republican Senate that is what happens...but I don't expect you to comprehend that.
By the way packing the SCOTUS isn't the same as replacing members...I don't expect you to comprehend that either

Restructuring the court is quite legal. And the Democrats should do so. I actually hope they do it. It’s not like the republicans will follow any set of rules from year to year.

They prevented the seating of 1 SC appointment under Obama and then switched their reasoning 180 degrees to seat 1 under Trump. Both parties with complete control should just pass whatever their agenda is.

People will. Really see what the parties will actually do rather than see their promises and people would then get to vote with some honesty. Originally Posted by 1blackman1

You’re feigned outrage is delightfully full of shit. It’s real simple, Republicans will seat the new justice because they can, and they blocked another because they could. Democrats would’ve done the exact same thing.

If the dems miraculously gain control of the senate and presidency and “restructure” the court (I enjoyed the kinder-gentler jargon you used there), the next Republican can simply “restructure” it again. Next thing you know there’s 300 SCOTUS justices and any semblance of a fair judicial system is gone.

Dims are the do as i say not what i do party!

Jacuzzi me, you have hit the nail on the head! We are headed toward stalemate after stalemate. What's wrong with a little give and take and compromise; perhaps a little of logical thinking as opposed to dogmatic responses and knee jerk reaction along party lines...both sides. We all have to eat and there is enough to go around.

You’re feigned outrage is delightfully full of shit. It’s real simple, Republicans will seat the new justice because they can, and they blocked another because they could. Democrats would’ve done the exact same thing.

If the dems miraculously gain control of the senate and presidency and “restructure” the court (I enjoyed the kinder-gentler jargon you used there), the next Republican can simply “restructure” it again. Next thing you know there’s 300 SCOTUS justices and any semblance of a fair judicial system is gone. Originally Posted by Jacuzzme

Don't baffle the libtards thought process...it's strained to the limit already.