Biden Makes False Claims: Republicans Are The Ones ‘Packing The Court Now,’ ‘Not Constitutional What They’re Doing’

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
A reporter asked Biden about his controversial stance of not telling voters before the election whether he supports court-packing. The reporter’s question comes after Biden said late last night that voters don’t deserve an answer from him on the issue.

“…court-packing before they cast their vote,” a reporter shouted at Biden. “Why wait until after the election?”

“The only court packing that’s going on right now is going on with the Republicans packing the court now. It’s not constitutional what they’re doing [inaudible] focus on what’s happening right now. [Coughs] The fact that is that the only packing going is this court [inaudible] by the Republicans after the vote has already begun. I’m gonna stay focused on it [so we] don’t take your eyes off the ball here.”

 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
This is the same misinformation peddling that they do with mail-in voting and absentee ballots. They are two different things and the Democrats lie and conflate them to score political points with the ignorant.

  • Court packing is NOT when an elected President nominates judges to various courts. That is his duty and fully within his constitutional power.
  • Court packing IS increasing the number of judges in a particular venue in order to install those of your ideology.
Nominating a Supreme Court Justice - NOT court packing.

Nominating judges to fill various federal court seats - NOT court packing.

Increasing the number of Supreme Court justices to tip the political bent in your Party's favor - COURT PACKING.

This isn't hard or complicated so it's kind of amazing to see supposedly educated people trying to say it's the same thing.
 
Reactions: BOP

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Chairman Of House Dems Accuses GOP Of Court-Packing, Demands Dems Not Be Asked About It




The Democratic chairman’s tweet contains two Democratic talking points that have grown in popularity over the last few weeks. The first talking point? Republicans are actually the ones in favor of court-packing, and have been doing it for years.

To make this argument, Democratic politicians have recently been blurring the historical definition of court-packing—which has deep associations with President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s attempt to expand the Supreme Court—in favor of defining the term “court packing” as filling judicial vacancies as they become available, as permitted by the U.S. Constitution.

During an NBC News interview on Sunday, Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL), the second highest-ranking Democratic senator, ignored a question about packing the Supreme Court by accusing the GOP of “packing the court over the last three and a half years.”

“They’ve taken every vacancy and filled it,” said Durbin.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
How The Left Is Trying To Gaslight Americans On ‘Court-Packing’


Court-packing is a specific action, or set of actions. As The Daily Wire has reported, what is widely understood to be “court-packing” originated when President Franklin Delano Roosevelt attempted to add justices to the Supreme Court in the 1930s.

History writes:
Largely seen as a political ploy to change the court for favorable rulings on New Deal legislation, the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937, commonly referred to as the “court-packing plan,” was Roosevelt’s attempt to appoint up to six additional justices to the Supreme Court for every justice older than 70 years, 6 months, who had served 10 years or more.”
Joe Biden, Democratic vice presidential nominee Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA), and other Democrats are being asked repeatedly about packing the courts following statements from progressives indicating that such a plan is on the table as revenge for Republicans confirming Barrett to the Supreme Court. However, despite the efforts by reporters, Biden and Harris have refused to provide direct answers.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Tapper played comments from Biden where the Democratic presidential candidate falsely claimed that what the Senate was doing by moving to confirm Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett was “not constitutional.”

“How is it not constitutional what they’re doing?” Tapper asked.

“His point is that the people have an opportunity to weigh in on this constitutional process through their vote,” Bedingfield claimed. “And we are now in the midst of the election. Millions of people have already cast their votes. And you see that the vast majority of people say that they want the person who wins the election on November 3 to nominate the justice to take this seat.”

“That’s a poll,” Tapper mocked. “That’s not the Constitution.”








 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
I like where she says "he's given an answer". Yep. But that's not the same as actually answering the QUESTION - which he won't do.

Because the answer is yes. If it was NO, the answer would be easy.
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
Elections have consequences.
Trump was elected and he is well within his rights to nominate a person fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court. The senate has every Constitutional right to approve this nomination.

I didn't see the Democrats crying when Obama appointed two Bull Dykes to the court
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
I like where she says "he's given an answer". Yep. But that's not the same as actually answering the QUESTION - which he won't do.

Because the answer is yes. If it was NO, the answer would be easy.
And it makes me wonder why he doesn't just lie and say no. It's not like he has a problem lying about anything else. Why all the gobbledygook about court packing?
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
My broken record reply is always going to be: these people count on us being too stupid to know the truth.

Liberals throw the constitution around as though it were a tool for their own purpose, and any other purpose is invalid. Biden calling Barrett's confirmation unconstitutional is stomping out the constitution. I'm not sure, outside of protecting our rights and limiting the powers of government, there is anything more constitutional than the right of a sitting president to nominate a Supreme Court justice.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
My broken record reply is always going to be: these people count on us being too stupid to know the truth.

Liberals throw the constitution around as though it were a tool for their own purpose, and any other purpose is invalid.
That's pretty much what they MEAN when they say "it's a LIVING document". They don't mean that, say, over time new things will arise where Consttutionality needs to be re-examined - such as cases involving intellectual property or the Internet. No - they mean they can add or subtract from it as desired. They regard it as an antiquated relic from a time long gone - they pay lip service to it the way they treat the law or ethics. They pretend to honor it - but really don't intend to operate within its confines.
 

Kyle

Having a Beer while the world burns!
PREMO Member
It's not living... It's a contract.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
It's not living... It's a contract.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
I've always hated calling the constitution a "living document". But, I do agree with the original intent of the phrase; which is, it can be changed............ amended. While contracts can be changed, typically they are fixed and do not get modified until the contract expires and is up for some kind of renewal where, at that time, can be modified. The constitution is the ongoing standard for law, and never expires. However, the founders knew times might change, therefore requiring the constitution to change.

What I really hate is seeing pompous lawyers and "legal scholars" manipulate the meaning of certain parts of our constitution; such as the 2A.

No one said you couldn't own a gun, you just can't own certain kinds of guns.
No one said you couldn't carry a gun, you just can't carry without our permission.

Reading the 2A and the words of our founders, it's clear they intended for EVERYONE to be armed, and carry - if they so choose. They understood the demise of a free people being disarmed so a government can establish tyrannical rule.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
..... but really don't intend to operate within its confines.

Authoritarians Do Not Like Restrictions ..... Peon, they want to TELL you how to treat your neighbors - your business WILL put up a BLM Poster - YOU will Raise a Fist to BLM or you will be fire from your job, have your business burned down for being Racist
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
Authoritarians Do Not Like Restrictions ..... Peon, they want to TELL you how to treat your neighbors - your business WILL put up a BLM Poster - YOU will Raise a Fist to BLM or you will be fire from your job, have your business burned down for being Racist
"Racist" is the 2020 version of 40's and 50's "commie" or communist sympathizer. You get labelled that - your life is over.
It doesn't have to based on anything substantial. Make the charge stick and they're toast.
 

Kyle

Having a Beer while the world burns!
PREMO Member
"Racist" is the 2020 version of 40's and 50's "commie" or communist sympathizer. You get labelled that - your life is over.
It doesn't have to based on anything substantial. Make the charge stick and they're toast.
My answer to them calling me racist is the call them a pedophile.
 
Top