The Many Faces of US Politics...

[sid waddell]

I think one of the good things about Biden is that he is remarkable at being a man of the people and resonating with middle class voters

He comes across as human

His gaffes - as much as we make fun of them - to a certain extent they make him look human

He's funny and likeable and can resonate with the middle class and working class, he really can speak to the average, everyday American

Whereas Trump just comes across as an out of touch, wealthy tycoon

[whitey]

Congratulations to Justice Barrett.

3 SJ judges in 4 years.....that's some accomplishment by Mr Trump

[omochain]

An accomplishment by Trump but I think you would call it packing the court if the Dems did it.

[whitey]

An accomplishment by Trump but I think you would call it packing the court if the Dems did it.

I'm in the record as saying Garland should have been confirmed under Pres Obama

So Biden and Schumer were both on the record as saying that no judge should be confirmed in an election year.

Then when a vacancy occurred under Obama (upon the death of Scalia), they abruptly changed their tune and said that Obama should fill a spot in an election year

The Republicans in 2016 said that no....you shouldn't fill a seat in an election year and blocked Garland. Then when RBG died they abruptly changed course and confirmed Barrett a week before an election

So again, hypocrisy on both sides....just the Republicans managed to pull it off.

I wouldn't call it packing the court....elections have consequences and the Republicans had the votes to both block Garland and confirm Barrett

If the shoe was on the other foot the Democrats would have done exactly the same (and if you are in any doubt as to their willingness to play dirty just look at their their disgracefultreatment of Justice Kavanaugh)

[sid waddell]

I see Judge Kavanaugh, along with Judge Gorsuch, is now saying that counting the remaining votes in Wisconsin or Michigan or Pennsylvania or Florida etc. from midnight on November 4th onwards would give the impression of impropriety

The ramifications are for democracy are terrifying

There are reasons why there was such money behind Coney Barrett and Kavanaugh's nominations and that money is expected to be paid back in the form of decisions which will deny democracy

[Main Street]

An accomplishment by Trump but I think you would call it packing the court if the Dems did it.

I'm in the record as saying Garland should have been confirmed under Pres Obama

So Biden and Schumer were both on the record as saying that no judge should be confirmed in an election year.

Then when a vacancy occurred under Obama (upon the death of Scalia), they abruptly changed their tune and said that Obama should fill a spot in an election year

The Republicans in 2016 said that no....you shouldn't fill a seat in an election year and blocked Garland. Then when RBG died they abruptly changed course and confirmed Barrett a week before an election

So again, hypocrisy on both sides....just the Republicans managed to pull it off.

I wouldn't call it packing the court....elections have consequences and the Republicans had the votes to both block Garland and confirm Barrett

If the shoe was on the other foot the Democrats would have done exactly the same (and if you are in any doubt as to their willingness to play dirty just look at their their disgracefultreatment of Justice Kavanaugh)

When did you go on record that Garland should have been confirmed?

[gallsman]

I wouldn't call it packing the court....elections have consequences and the Republicans had the votes to both block Garland and confirm Barrett

If the shoe was on the other foot the Democrats would have done exactly the same (and if you are in any doubt as to their willingness to play dirty just look at their their disgracefultreatment of Justice Kavanaugh)

So when the Dems win the House, Senate and Presidency and stick 4 new, liberal justices on the court by the end of February, it'll not be court packing, it'll be the legitimate consequences of elections. Cool.

[whitey]

I wouldn't call it packing the court....elections have consequences and the Republicans had the votes to both block Garland and confirm Barrett

If the shoe was on the other foot the Democrats would have done exactly the same (and if you are in any doubt as to their willingness to play dirty just look at their their disgracefultreatment of Justice Kavanaugh)

So when the Dems win the House, Senate and Presidency and stick 4 new, liberal justices on the court by the end of February, it'll not be court packing, it'll be the legitimate consequences of elections. Cool.

No it will be court packing because that would involve  increasing the number of justices.....that's the definition of court packing!

If the electorate give the Democrats victories in all three branches, then the ball is in their court and they would be perfectly be within their rights to increase the number of justices. I mightn't like it, but at the end of the day it has next to zero impact on me personally so I don't care one way or the other

[J70]

The Dems won't pack the court.

If they do, then they'll get wiped out in the mid-terms and the Republicans will just pack it some more next time they're in the White House. Where does it end?

They should look at changing the constitution or whatever it is that gives federal judges lifetime appointments.

[J70]

I wouldn't call it packing the court....elections have consequences and the Republicans had the votes to both block Garland and confirm Barrett

If the shoe was on the other foot the Democrats would have done exactly the same (and if you are in any doubt as to their willingness to play dirty just look at their their disgracefultreatment of Justice Kavanaugh)

So when the Dems win the House, Senate and Presidency and stick 4 new, liberal justices on the court by the end of February, it'll not be court packing, it'll be the legitimate consequences of elections. Cool.

No it will be court packing because that would involve  increasing the number of justices.....that's the definition of court packing!

If the electorate give the Democrats victories in all three branches, then the ball is in their court and they would be perfectly be within their rights to increase the number of justices. I mightn't like it, but at the end of the day it has next to zero impact on me personally so I don't care one way or the other

Have you not repeatedly stated that one reason you liked Trump being president was his effect on the Supreme Court?

[whitey]

I wouldn't call it packing the court....elections have consequences and the Republicans had the votes to both block Garland and confirm Barrett

If the shoe was on the other foot the Democrats would have done exactly the same (and if you are in any doubt as to their willingness to play dirty just look at their their disgracefultreatment of Justice Kavanaugh)

So when the Dems win the House, Senate and Presidency and stick 4 new, liberal justices on the court by the end of February, it'll not be court packing, it'll be the legitimate consequences of elections. Cool.

No it will be court packing because that would involve  increasing the number of justices.....that's the definition of court packing!

If the electorate give the Democrats victories in all three branches, then the ball is in their court and they would be perfectly be within their rights to increase the number of justices. I mightn't like it, but at the end of the day it has next to zero impact on me personally so I don't care one way or the other

Have you not repeatedly stated that one reason you liked Trump being president was his effect on the Supreme Court?

It gives me great satisfaction to see the reaction of people like Sid but personally I have come to the conclusion that it essentially has no impact on me. What's going to happen is going to happen. I'm just head down making as much money as I can to worry about it

[sid waddell]

The Dems won't pack the court.

If they do, then they'll get wiped out in the mid-terms and the Republicans will just pack it some more next time they're in the White House. Where does it end?

They should look at changing the constitution or whatever it is that gives federal judges lifetime appointments.

They absolutely should

Republicans can't win presidential elections without fraud and the main way you perpetuate that is by having a bought and paid for Supreme Court who are also intent on perpetuating election fraud - as the current one most certainly is

The US currently has a situation which is not very dissimilar to Hungary or even Belarus

As a "democracy" it's the pits

[gallsman]

I wouldn't call it packing the court....elections have consequences and the Republicans had the votes to both block Garland and confirm Barrett

If the shoe was on the other foot the Democrats would have done exactly the same (and if you are in any doubt as to their willingness to play dirty just look at their their disgracefultreatment of Justice Kavanaugh)

So when the Dems win the House, Senate and Presidency and stick 4 new, liberal justices on the court by the end of February, it'll not be court packing, it'll be the legitimate consequences of elections. Cool.

No it will be court packing because that would involve  increasing the number of justices.....that's the definition of court packing!

If the electorate give the Democrats victories in all three branches, then the ball is in their court and they would be perfectly be within their rights to increase the number of justices. I mightn't like it, but at the end of the day it has next to zero impact on me personally so I don't care one way or the other

No, as you said, it would be the consequences of elections. Voters would knowingly give them that power.

The court doesn't have to be 9. There's nowhere in the Constitution or any legislation that sets it. They'd simply be exercising their democratic right

[whitey]

I wouldn't call it packing the court....elections have consequences and the Republicans had the votes to both block Garland and confirm Barrett

If the shoe was on the other foot the Democrats would have done exactly the same (and if you are in any doubt as to their willingness to play dirty just look at their their disgracefultreatment of Justice Kavanaugh)

So when the Dems win the House, Senate and Presidency and stick 4 new, liberal justices on the court by the end of February, it'll not be court packing, it'll be the legitimate consequences of elections. Cool.

No it will be court packing because that would involve  increasing the number of justices.....that's the definition of court packing!

If the electorate give the Democrats victories in all three branches, then the ball is in their court and they would be perfectly be within their rights to increase the number of justices. I mightn't like it, but at the end of the day it has next to zero impact on me personally so I don't care one way or the other

No, as you said, it would be the consequences of elections. Voters would knowingly give them that power.

The court doesn't have to be 9. There's nowhere in the Constitution or any legislation that sets it. They'd simply be exercising their democratic right

Look up the definition of court packing

If you want to redefine it to make yourself feel better, knock yourself out

[gallsman]

You define it for me there chief,  it's not something I've found in the OED.

While you're at it, explain where you've sourced it and how republicans forcing through ACB against the exact precedent they set four years ago, doesn't meet that definition.