The Third Rule of Court Packing Is You Only Talk About Court Packing After The Election

Uncle Joe forgets the first two rules of Court Packing: "You’ll Know My Opinion On Court Packing When The Election’s Over”

|The Volokh Conspiracy |

The first rule of Court packing is you do not talk about Court packing.

The second rule of Court packing is you do not talk about Court packing.

The third rule of Court packing is you only talk about Court packing after the election.

NEXT: An Imagined #SCOTUS Group Chat for FDA v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. It’s actually Sleepy Joe, not Unc Joe.

    1. Dementia Joe, Hospice Joe, Demented Joe, Pedophile Joe, and Quid Pro Joe work equally well.

      1. Funny, those adjectives apply to Trump as well.

        I guess it takes a certain type to become president (sheds a tear).

        1. Sorry, you must have missed the Lefty memo, “Trump is Hitler”. Try to keep up.

        2. OK, How about “Basement Bunker Biden”?

          1. Trump literally hid in the bunker of an already heavily fenced white house during the spring protests.

    2. Wasn’t Stalin called Uncle Joe by journalists?

  2. Biden (and Harris as well) would never talk about court packing if they were not asked about it. In fact the dems in general don’t like to mention the term. In both the prez and VP debates the moderators failed to bring up the question and it would never have seen the light of day if Trump and Pence had not raised the issue. It still did not see much light of day as the debate moderators seemed as anxious at Biden and Harris to quickly burry the issue.

    1. “Vice President Biden, some of your greatest supporters are raging around, claiming you’re gonna cram court packing down ‘the clingers’ ” throats. Are you planning to pack the court with people who will outrage half the country?”

  3. Can’t wait the Impeach Joe 2022 movement. It is going to be fun (and sad) to watch this country turn into a Banana Republic because you know “Orange Man Bad” required pulling out all the stops to get him.

    1. Was it your plan to sound like RAK but for impeachment?

      1. Why not? Arthur is the new normal for libs. Every one of you will support court packing if you don’t already. If Trump wins it will be non-stop impeachment cycles until the Reps take back the House. If Biden wins and the Reps get the House in 2022 he’ll get the impeachment treatment non-stop. Or rather Harris will. Fun times ahead.

        1. How soon would you expect Republicans to control an enlarged House of Representatives? Republicans could still count on the Wyoming seat, and the Dakotas, but how many of California’s 75 seats would be available to Republicans? How many of New York’s 40 seats? Illinois’ 28 seats?

          Enlargement of the House would bring membership closer to citizens’ preferences, which would devastate Republicans.

          1. Right, and in 2016 you were rubbing the fact that Hillary would win in people’s faces.

          2. How many of Illinois’s congressional seats would the Dems control without gerrymandering? Would the Dems win as many statewide elections in Illinois if dead humans and live dogs were not voting in Cook County? I think you overestimate the actual preference voters have for the Dems. I suppose it’s a good talking point for you though.

          3. An enlarged House of Representatives would simply pave the way for third parties. It would encourage the liberal wing of the Democratic Party to fracture off.

            I’m unsure why you think that the Democratic Party would stand united if the HoR were to be enlarged.

      2. Still convinced RAK is a Republican doing his best to be a caricature of a Democrat.

        1. No, he’s a delusional 30 year old still living in his parent’s basement.

        2. “Still convinced RAK is a Republican doing his best to be a caricature of a Democrat.”

          I’ve questioned that too. He is either an amazing satirist, or even more brain dead than Biden.

        3. My vote is for a poorly coded bot – – – – – –

  4. Selected jurist should just say no to newly created positions. The Federal government should start reducing the number or Federal judges.

    1. The Federal government should start reducing the number or Federal judges.

      FTFY

  5. Don’t know why anyone thinks it makes sense to press presidential candidates about court packing. It would not be their power to exercise. The Congress has the constitutional power to adjust the size of the court.

    Joe Biden should answer the question:

    “I will not have that power. The Constitution does bestow a power to adjust the size of the court on Congress. It has used that power multiple times previously, both to enlarge the Court, and to reduce it in size.

    The question whether this is another such time is understandably of widespread concern, given the Republican Senate’s recent erratic and overly partisan management of its responsibilities during the appointment process. If I am elected, my advice to the Congress would be not to change the size of the Court, unless Congress first concludes that political manipulation of appointment confirmations has too much damaged the Court’s standing and legitimacy among the public.

    The Congress should also ask whether enlargement or reduction of the size of the Court is the only way to correct any problem. That would suggest, at a minimum, that Congress should not act hastily, but instead wait to see whether the recently-altered Court can win back public faith that it acts legitimately as a judicial body. If the Court cannot do that, or if it leaves the public with a continuing sense that it acts too often as an unaccountable dictator of political policy, then Congress may have to act. Public faith in the Court’s legitimacy is indispensable to the political health of the nation.”

    1. A more candid answer for Biden would be “if Congress passed a bill to enlarge the Court I would not veto it, but would instead sign it with enthusiasm.”

      Unless he can duck any question about Congressional legislation by ignoring his veto power and pretending it’s out of his hands.

      1. Don’t ask Senate candidates if they support raising taxes. Bills for raising revenue come from the House.

      2. Cal, it is out of his hands, unless Congress acts first. The point of my comment was to suggest a few criteria, and an appropriate time interval, for making a decision—a decision to be based on facts as yet unknown. Given uncertainty about future relevant factors, who can fault Biden for not committing now?

        1. I suspect Biden would sign on to Ilya’s proposal that the moderate members of the two parties (if there are any left) enter into an agreement that no confirmation vote will be held on Barrett unless Trump is reelected, in exchange for which the Democrats agree not to pack the courts if Biden’s elected and the Democrats win control of the Senate. But he can’t say it publicly. He showed no enthusiasm for court packing during the Presidential primaries, but if the Republicans rush through Barrett’s confirmation after refusing to allow a vote on Garland and the Democrats prevail in November the pressure within the Democratic party to retaliate may leave him with no choice.

    2. The Congress has the constitutional power to adjust the size of the court.

      The Congress also has the constitutional power of the purse. But that certainly hasn’t stopped Biden from trumpeting “his” tax plan.

      1. Wait, a presidential candidate is making promises without the ability or intent of keeping those promises? No freakin’ way!

    3. Its not in the presidents power to raise taxes either.

      However, the president is one that l signs legislation passed by congress.
      The president either supports the legislation or disproves – So it is does matter what the presidents position is on the issue.

    4. It’s not in the power of a President to raise or lower taxes either; or increase or decrease spending on “X”; or put into place a healthcare program. Et cetera, et cetera.
      But we ask them about their views on such issues because they can stop or allow, encourage or discourage, such measures.

    5. Incorrect, on two levels.

      1. Any court packing would require a new bill, signed into law. If a President opposed court packing, he or she could easily veto any bill, making it significantly harder to pass.

      2. If the Senate and Congress decided to pass a court packing bill over the President’s veto, the President could simply decline to nominate judges, effectively neutering the bill.

    6. So you’re saying that it makes no sense to ask any presidential candidate what their position(s) would be on legislation that might come before them? That’s idiotic even for you.

  6. Biden knows that Republicans can get away with hypocrisy (Garland vs. Barrett) but Democrats can’t. He’s being smart.

    1. Really? You think the whole “I’ll show my tax returns after the election” and not doing it song and dance didn’t bite Trump in the ass? Or perhaps you never heard GHW Bush say “no new taxes” before he raised taxes?

      Point is, Biden wants the radical left such as yourself to come out and vote for him, and if he denies them their court packing a priori, he knows they won’t come out.

      1. The closer equivalent is probably Clarence Thomas telling the Senate Judiciary Committee that he never really thought about Roe. It’s all in the stupid dance they do, pre-determined strategy, what to say and not say. It’s why Presidential candidate debates are garbage. One of the reasons.

  7. I think it is abundantly clear that Brain-Damaged Biden and Heels Up Harris will gladly do away with the filibuster and gladly pack SCOTUS (and the federal judiciary).

    No need to be coy about it. They should loudly proclaim it.

    1. Pretty sure the debate removed any doubt Biden was brain damaged.

      And don’t be gross about Harris. *Lots* of ways to criticize her without misogyny.

      1. Biffed that construction – change to removed any concerns that Biden was brain damaged.

        1. Nah, I think you got it right the first time. Two brain damaged debaters, moderated by a brain damaged Biden supporter.

        2. He has dementia. He is in the good days/bad days phase, aided by drug cocktails for the debate. When my father was at that stage he was a year away from being unable to speak. Rates differ but it only goes in one direction.

          1. VP Biden had a brain aneurysm removed. It is literally not possible to remove a brain aneurysm and not damage surrounding brain tissue. So it is literally correct = Brain-Damaged Biden.

            The decline in the man is shocking. I remember BDB in his younger days, when he was smart enough to plagiarize Neil Kinnock and sound convincing. Now he is merely a shadow of what he was.

            Let’s be brutally honest about this. You think you are voting for ‘J Biden’ and you would be: Jill Biden. Jill Biden will be the modern day version of Edith Wilson. No need to sugarcoat that, either.

            And Heels Up Harris as POTUS? She is weak, and vain*. When people who are weak and vain get into office, it has not turned out well, historically.

            *I know what you’re going to say…what about POTUS Trump? He is certainly vain (to a fault), but the man is not weak.

            1. He was cognitively fine in the debate.

              You have no evidence of your Edith Wilson narrative.

              How is Harris weak?

              1. How is Harris weak?

                In the same way Crooked Hillary was on election evening 2016.

            2. He looked pretty weak trying to breathe a couple days ago. And he’s only going to get weaker.

      2. “And don’t be gross about Harris. *Lots* of ways to criticize her without misogyny.”

        No complaints about “tiny dick” Trump comments though.

        I agree “Lock ’em Up Harris” is better. Or “Put ’em Away Harris”. Hmm or, Capt of the Drug Warriors “but I’m totally reformed, and yet still tough on crime” Harris.

        1. First of all, tiny dick is not the same as slutshaming.

          Second, I haven’t seen anyone here talk about Trump’s dick.

          Third, dinging Harris on her criminal justice record is fine and good.

          1. First of all, tiny dick is not the same as slutshaming.

            Right. The former is with regard to a physical property that one cannot control. The latter regards behavior that one most certainly can control.

            1. Do you people not see the irony in criticizing Harris’s sexual history when the presidential candidate on the other side is a self-admitted and world famous whore monger, serial sexual predator, and repeat rapist?

              1. No. They don’t. According to their depraved notion of what makes a man alpha, Trump’s depredations, misogyny and cruelty are a feature, not a bug.

        2. Vinni…I may change my moniker for Horizontal Harris because of the VC delicate flowers who appear to have a problem with dealing with objective reality. Perhaps I will change it to Hypocritical Harris.

          1. I think they have a problem with the blatant sexism. Unless you have nicknames for every other cheating male republican or conservative figure we are not aware of?

            1. Yeah, I guess you’re right. But tell me, did Trump sleep with NY politicians in return for political favors?

              I have plenty of nicknames, LTG. 🙂

              1. “Yeah, I guess you’re right. But tell me, did Trump sleep with NY politicians in return for political favors?”

                Only if he could rape them.

                As we all know, Trump either pays off pron stars or just rapes women.

                Then again, Slut Shamin’ Comment_XY loves some Rapin’
                Trump?

                Almost like the misogyny is transparently obvious.

                1. Yeah loki13, I guess it is misogyny to correctly point out that Kamala Harris is an adultress and did receive political favors from her sex partner, Willie Brown. You’re right, it is transparently obvious that this is misogyny. Totes. /huge eyeroll

                  As for The Donald….AYFKM? The man was a NYC businessman in the real estate and construction trades. It was glaringly obvious voters knew what they were getting. And if they did not, they’re dumber than hell.

                  But I am an eminently fair man loki13. Tell you what…if you would like to name the NY politicians who The Donald slept with in order to get political favors, I will gladly call him a whore also. 🙂

                  1. No, what is misogyny, Commenter_XY, is what is exceedingly obvious to everyone who has been reading this thread.

                    You come up with your not-at-all clever, slut-shaming nickname for a behavior that you personally don’t think is correct for a woman (although as has been repeatedly pointed out to you, most rational people do not think of dating someone who has been separated for over a decade as anything shameful).

                    Yet you repeatedly hold your fire when it comes to a man who repeatedly cheated on all three of his wives, bragged about it, and then threw in a bunch of rapin’ as well. Your support of Rapin’ Trump is your own business, but your blatant misogyny is neither cute, nor clever, but simply a symptom of your deep and nasty pathology.

                    But fine. Be a rape apologist. It’s oh-so-funny. You’re a very funny person. People laugh at you all the time.

                    1. Still waiting for those names loki13…

                      If you can’t stand the heat…well, you know what to do.

                    2. Sure, Slutshamin’ XY.

                      I mean, we all know that Rapin’ Trump slept with Anthony ‘Fat Tony’ Salerno.

                      I believe that Fat Tony was the top. I saw that not to shame Trump, because there is nothing wrong with playing both sides, but to remind you that he love to get in bed with the Mob.

                    3. Loki:
                      “I believe that Fat Tony was the top. I saw that not to shame Trump, because there is nothing wrong with playing both sides, but to remind you that he love to get in bed with the Mob.”

                      Then we should call him “Reach Around Trump” nttawwt.

                  2. Trump’s sexual proclivities were and are an important part of his “brand” as a playboy NYC businessman who people with limited imagination think is the archetype of success. So I would say it is related to his career “advancement.”

                    1. Exactly correct = Trump’s sexual proclivities were and are an important part of his “brand” as a playboy NYC businessman

                      LTG, did you happen to live in the tri-state (NY, NJ, CT) metro area back in the 80’s and 90’s? Because if you did, then you’d know why I happen to agree with your brand comment. It is true.

                      As for the archetype of success part? People define success in many different ways. It is less clear to me that it stems from a limited imagination.

                      I will say this….I have not run into too many people who are billionaires and got elected POTUS. Objectively speaking, is The Donald a successful man? That is very much in the eye of the beholder. The Donald is a mixed bag, IMO.

                2. Almost like the misogyny is transparently obvious.

                  I’m really curious to hear the basis for your position that having sex in exchange for career advancement is such an inherently female behavior that criticizing it constitutes misogyny…and how such a presumption about women does not.

                  1. “I’m really curious”

                    Ha ha! No you aren’t. You’re not curious at all!

                    Instead, you think you made a really really clever point. But let me show you what you just said:

                    “Hey, is making fun of a woman for dating someone 25 years ago, who happened to be separate for more than a decade, as if to claim some moral high ground, while completely ignoring men who rape, molest, and adulted …. wait, that’s okay, right? I mean, if I try to get it all confused in my head, because I don’t understand how it is that I keep hating on these uppity Democratic women while excusing the RAPIST IN THE WHITE HOUSE, then I’m sure I’ll confuse someone else…. right?”

                3. The misogyny is obvious. The cruelty is the point.

                  How that, or some variation thereof, isn’t on Trump campaign merchandise is beyond me. Not like Trump to miss a marketing opportunity like that.

      3. Sarcastr0, you might think it is Ok to sleep your way to political positions. But when you think about, it is no different than being a whore. That isn’t misogyny; that is what objectively happened.

        Kamala slept with Willie Brown and received political favors for it.

        1. No proof of political favors.
          All you really know is that she dated someone.

          1. Sarcastr0….It is a matter of public record. You’re entitled to your own opinion. You are not entitled to your own facts. Heels Up Harris is an adultress and she did receive favors in return for sex from Willie Brown.

            1. “You’re entitled to your own opinion. You are not entitled to your own facts.”

              What’s wrong with conservatives’ brains that makes them think this is a clever or profound statement? Do you guys get paid money for repeating this? Or is it just an outgrowth of the “own the libs with facts and logic” Ben Shapiro-style discourse?

              1. Well, to be honest, we are just borrowing that quote from noted Democrat Daniel Patrick Moynihan. Proof positive that a broken clock is right at least twice a day.

                1. It’s just a re-wording of John Adams, proof that some Democrats respected the Founders. Old school Dems like Moynihan at least.

                  “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” – Adams

                  1. I mean, it’s not wrong – it’s just not particularly insightful. Pence seemed to think it was a real zinger during the debate, and apparently it’s now trickled down to the lumpen. It is pretty funny to see Trump sycophants now insisting on factual accuracy in politics though.

                    1. It’s naught but the same vein of “facts don’t care about your feelings” that Ben Shaprio has popularized.

                      It’s kind of a right wing version of “I believe in science” that the left thinks was a zinger that Harris slung at Pence. Just red meat for the base.

                      And seriously, you’re using lumpen proletariat as a moniker for the conservatives?

          2. And all you really know is Anna Nicole Smith dated a nonogenarian billionaire.

        2. “Sarcastr0, you might think it is Ok to sleep your way to political positions…”

          She won two California statewide elections. That’s a hell of a lot of “sleeping.”

          1. By that standard then an actress who had a hit movie as lots of people bought movie tickets, but who slept with Harvey Weinstein to get her role, did nothing wrong (and neither did Harvey).

      4. How is it misogyny to point out that Harris got an awful lot of her political prominence thanks to her intimate relationship with a (married-to-someone-else) political mentor? Calling that criticism misogyny implies that such behavior is characteristic of women, which it is not.

      5. Nah, it did remove doubt about dementia, but nobody that age lacks a bit of brain damage. You think us seniors have “senior moments” because everything up there is in tip top shape? I’ve got brain damage, (Mostly from chemo.) you’ve got brain damage, Biden’s got brain damage, and Trump’s got brain damage. Really, we need an upper age limit on public office, to go with the minimums, it’s stupid pretending people reach their 70’s with their wits entirely intact. Experience partly makes up for it, but only partly.

        But it clearly hasn’t accumulated to the point where everything snowballs and you start to be non-functional, for either of them. Yet.

        Upper age limit! It really needs to be done.

        1. Biden also has brain damage from two aneurysms, one of which required them rooting around in his brain to fix.

        2. It always sort of amuses me when states have upper limits for judges but not legislators, governors, or other executive officials. Apparently you can be too old to interpret the law but never can be too old to write it or enforce it.

          1. LTG….after age 80, my thought is that it is time to step aside – judges, politican, whatever. I would rather have people do this for themselves by their own free will. I mean, it is just biology….you are not what you were at age 50.

            Advanced age is no guarantee of wisdom.

          2. The distinction make some sense, at least in states which appoint judges for life. The others the voters can kick out office.

      6. If everyone can criticize Trump for his philandering, why can’t we do it for Harris, who used sex as her way into power with a married man? Harris’s story is as old as humanity.

        1. The problem is, the erstwhile party of family values, doesn’t actually criticize him for it and never has…so they’re not really in a position to condemn anyone else.

          1. Also? Philandering is a nice euphemism for rape, isn’t it?

            Oh wait, we’ll just ignore the more than score of women and the “grab em by the kitty” comments, won’t we?

            1. This is true. And while I personally think it is more likely than not that Trump has raped women, the cheating is absolutely indisputable, so the fact that the Republicans completely ignore it is more glaring.

              1. It’s not ignoring it, it’s supporting him *despite* it because Hillary was a cacking evil shrew and Biden is a dementia addled old fool who is going along with the radial left wing in his party that deliberately targets religion. Yes, yes, you can call it something other than targeting religion, but the religious don’t see it that way.

                1. “Hillary was a cacking evil shrew”

                  And there it is!

                  He supports Rapin’ Trump because, you know, women. Can’t stand ’em, can’t believe ’em, can you? Always so lyin’, and shrewish.

                  Heck, Trump probably only raped 10 or 15 of those ladies, amirite?

                  1. “Rapin’ Trump” Oh, that’s funny.

                    Do you support “Rapin’ Biden” who, according to one of his former staffers, Lucy Flores, said he sexually assulted her by putting his finger in her vajay-jay? Did you support Bill Clinton, who according to Juanita Broaddrick raped her? Both of their accusations are, ahem, more credible.

                    (*psst*, Hillary is an evil woman, regardless of Trump’s sins)

                    1. Hey look, it’s a squirrel!

                      If I try and change the topic, maybe no one will notice that I keep defending Rapin’ Trump.

                      And hey, perhaps no one will think I’m a misogynist if I both defend Rapin’ Trump and double down on attacking women!

                      I AM SO CLEVER!

                    2. Nice dodge! Actually no, it wasn’t nice. It was lame. Very lame. The kind of lame that got you beat up in high school if life was an 80s movie.

                    3. Woah. Keep on doublin’ down on your support of Rapin’ Trump.

                      I love it!

                      Mad Kalak: “Hey, let’s not talk about my four years of support for Rapin’ Trump. I’d rather talk about the 90s, dude. I mean, it’s not like Rapin’ Trump is up for election now. The 90s are so much more relevant, because that’s when my women-hating was much more in fashion. Oh, wait, Rapin’ Trump is up for election? I mean, how about that FDR? He was the real commie, right?”

                    4. Silly, “Rapin’ Biden,” or also Creepy Uncle Joe who has a problem keeping his hands off little girls is on the current ballot.

                      Try harder so you keep embarrassing yourself.

                    5. I love the Mad Kalak LOGIC!

                      “So, if I support a pedophile … then what I have to do is ignore the fact that I love pedophiles, and instead …. ask everyone else if they support someone I think might be a pedophile! Because then it’s okay for me to support pedophilia, because …. LOGIC!”

                      Dude, you love Rapin’ Trump. Own it. It doesn’t matter what anyone else thinks, or acts, you just got to learn to live with you Rape-loving. It’s okay. We understand.

            2. You mean accusations of rape, usually made decades after the fact, and often in conjunction with some play for cash.

              1. That’s how you want to play it? Really? It must be amazing to be as oblivious as you.

                I mean, it’s not just that he’s had multiple instances of known creepy behavior, from the whole “grab ’em by the kitty” to the boasts about running a pageant so he can see women (some of them underage) naked by walking into the dressing room without any of them stopping him….

                or the multiple proven allegations of extramarital affairs …

                but you’re just going to sweep under the rug the more than score of women that have come forward, with no pecuniary gain, to recount the same similar stories … ones involving his abuse, that are corroborated by contemporaneous accounts, because you chose not to.

                If you want to vote for Rapin’ Trump, like Slut Shamin’ Commenter_XY, that’s your right. But don’t get sanctimonious about it. Your misogyny is showing. Oh, wait, do you have a clever Hillary or Kamala comment to make? I’m sure you do.

                1. See my comment above, joker.

                2. Sanctimony…Pfffft. But yeah, I have plenty more clever Crooked Hillary and Horizontal Harris comments. Would you like me to demonstrate? 🙂

                  1. You’ don’t have to demonstrate; your love of rapin’ is clear, Commenter_XY.

                    At this point, I’m sure you will think of other ways to beclown yourself. Knock yourself out.

                    1. loki13, I know it bugs you. One can imagine how you felt the day after the election in 2016. Sort of like the Brits did in Yorktown when the band played, And the World Turned Upside Down’. Shock. Disbelief. How could that happen? One empathizes…sort of.

                      It has been a long four years for you, I know. With a modicum of luck, the next four years will seem even longer as more federal district court judges, circuit court judges, and maybe even another SCOTUS justice get confirmed.

                      As for Harridan Harris, be careful what you wish for. You might actually get it.

                    2. No, Slutshamin’ XY.

                      You miss the point entirely.

                      What I object to is the callous, obnoxious, and misogynistic terms you use.

                      That’s what I’m getting at. Elections happen. And, honestly, the damage done wasn’t to the Democratic Party. It was to the country as a whole.

                      But your continued women-hating rhetoric, in support of a Rapist, is truly mind-blowing.

                      That’s what bugs me. So, Incel_XY, why don’t you take your Rape Apologetics somewhere else?

                    3. Nah….I’ll be right here loki13. And you’re right, elections do have consequences. Here are some. 🙂

                      3 SCOTUS justices. Yes, ACB will be confirmed.
                      53 circuit court judges. Number 54 to replace ACB coming soon.
                      161 district court judges, with 35 more on deck.
                      21 Article I judges, with 9 more on deck.
                      1 Article IV judge.

                    4. Slut shaming isn’t a thing, because sluts have no shame.

                    5. “Nah….I’ll be right here loki13. ”

                      That’s okay, Incel_XY.

                      To be honest, if you had kept your gloating simple, “Yeah, I support Rapin’ Trump because I don’t much care about his Rapin’, or this country, but I do care about the judiciary,” then I could understand that.

                      But when you choose to come up with your misogynistic nicknames for women, while basking in the adoration of Rapin’ Trump, we shall all know exactly what type of person you are, Incel_XY.

                    6. “Slut shaming isn’t a thing”

                      Mad Kalak, desperately trying to help Incel_XY by showing that Incel_XY is not the biggest misogynist on the thread.

                      …mission accomplished?

                  2. Awful lot of rage in these comments from Right-types, who know they face overwhelming defeat.

                    They’re already over Denial as the first stage of grief. Depression & Acceptance will follow Election Day. That leaves twenty-six more days for them to rant & fume.

                    We must help our Rightist fellow citizens through this difficult transition in their lives. It can’t be easy abandoning a cult lord, even if he’s dyed a hideous shade of orange. Gentle understanding is the watchword, to shepherd them thru this period of trauma.

            3. I don’t know how you get from that “grab em” remark to rape, when the remark was that they’d let you do it.

              And this is not approving, but it’s not sexual assault if it’s consensual.

          2. But the people who attack him for it also don’t have a problem with it when it’s one of theirs as the Harris defenses prove.

            1. Really? You’re saying that Kamala Harris raped more than 20 women like Trump did?

              That Kamala Harris married multiple women, and then had numerous affairs (including with pron stars), like Trump did?

              Do tell!

              1. On a serious note, please give me some source where we can get a list of all 20 women (or more!) who said they were raped by Trump. I would like to see such a list, that is supported by the press release or public statement of all 20 saying “Trump raped me”.

                1. Google it, Rapin’ Trump supporter.

                  Outside of your beloved world of Brietbart and PJ Media, it’s not hard to find.

                  You just don’t want to find it.

                  1. You made the claim, you provide the evidence. Thanks! That’s usually how science and debates and stuff like this works.

                    (psst, I despise Breitbart after its namesake’s death, and I wouldn’t consider PJ Media beloved, just sorta liked”)

                    1. “You made the claim, you provide the evidence. Thanks! That’s usually how science and debates and stuff like this works.”

                      HA! You and science? You’ve got to be kidding me.

                      It will take you exactly 3 seconds on google.

                      I mean, how can you not trust a close and personal friend of Jeffrey Epstein, amirite?

                      Rapin’ Trump- he loves him some Epstein!

                      https://static01.nyt.com/images/2020/08/21/nyregion/21trumpmaxwell-sub/merlin_157769460_538bae98-93ab-4340-808b-7d1355e66dc5-articleLarge.jpg

                    2. “Rapin’ Trump- he loves him some Epstein! ”

                      I know there’s a whole Epstein thing going around, but how does knowing, or being in a photo with Epstein (or even being friends with him) proof of being a rapist? That’s some tortured logic.

                    3. At some point, VinniUSMC, you have to wonder.

                      One drop of water is just a drop of water. But when you keep getting hit by water, you have to wonder if its raining.

                      Whether it’s his long friendship with Epstein. (Check)
                      His vocal support of Maxwell. (Check)
                      His long documented history of extra-marital affairs. (Check)
                      His numerous recorded comments about how he treats women, including (BUT NOT LIMITED TO) “grab ’em by the kitty.” (Check)
                      The numerous corroborated instances of Trump deliberately walking in on undressed women, some underage. (Check)
                      Or his comments that he specifically owned beauty pageants so that he could walk in on women and they couldn’t stop him. (Check)
                      Or maybe the numerous accusations of him cornering women and forcibly kissing them, groping them (grabbin’ em by the you-know -what), penetrating them, and demanding sex?
                      Or just the rape?

                      I mean, sure, it’s possible that it’s all one-big-misunderstanding. It’s also possible that I could pee on your leg and tell you it’s raining, and you’d believe me!

                      But at a certain point, you either acknowledge that you like Rapin’ Trump ‘cuz he’s ownin’ the libs, or something, or you realize that you just support Rapin’ Trump because of, um, the rapin’.

                    4. For a moment loki13, I thought you were talking about POTUS Trump.

                      Alas, you were talking about Slick Willie Clinton.

                    5. Hey, look, it’s Incel_XY.

                      Isn’t there a family court decision somewhere for you to be angry about?

                      Why don’t you let the adults talk about politics, while you go rage against the fact that the girls don’t like you?

                    6. loki13 : One drop of water is just a drop of water. But when you keep getting hit by water, you have to wonder if its raining.

                      It’s my painful duty to remind you of another addition to the list : Trump’s gross tendency to talk about his own daughter as a choice piece of a** he’d like to date. This isn’t just one comment that slipped from Trump’s broken mind in an unguarded moment, but a steady stream of filth stretching back over twenty years. The man isn’t just fixated on Ivanka that way, but can’t stop himself from talking about it in public.

    2. So you truly are a gutter Republican.

      To bad.

      1. As opposed to what bernard11? That you’re a virtuous democrat?

        Grow up.

        1. So you come up with juvenile and not very clever nicknames and then tell bernard11 to grow up?

          1. LTG…Biden is literally brain damaged and Harris literally advanced her political career through adultery and whoredom. Those two things are objectively true. There is nothing to dispute there; it happened.

            Now LTG….Is the deal that only Biden partisans are allowed to mix it up? I don’t think so. Those days are over. The Team D ticket is a direct threat to our American way of life. Their stated platform is more regulation, more taxation, less liberty, and packing the Judiciary.

            1. What’s that have to do with the incongruity in you telling someone to grow up after coming up with juvenile nicknames?

              1. Calm down, guys.

                You need to learn to ignore what people say as they squirm with your foot on their neck. Show some “restraint.”

                Haven’t you guys ever won a culture war before?

                1. you’re never funny or clever.

      2. Politics ain’t beanbag, yo.

    3. Sorry to repeat myself, but as today’s comments show, for a lot of Trump supporters — far from all, but a lot — the cruelty is the point. The misogyny is the point. Trump validates their inner asshole. He gives them permission to put the blame squarely where it belongs (on the libs) for girls not wanting to be touched by them. Their idols aren’t even the guys who did get the cute girls, the Tom Bradys and Aaron Rogers’ (pro-BLM cucks), but rather the Stephen Millers and Seb Gorkas. Sad.

  8. “I refuse to answer this because lots of people are not going to like the answer, and the news is going to talk about this newsworthy thing, which will take away from the fact that I’ve been in DC for 40+ years, but now I will fix everything for sure, this time. Hope and change.”

  9. Because Trump and Pence never evade a question.

    Gee, Blackman, you really are a Trumpist sycophant. Still hoping for that appointment?

    1. “Gee, Blackman, you really are a Trumpist sycophant.”

      To the extent that the GOP ever returns to normalcy, Blackman’s bootlicking (to the extent that we ignore the other body parts he has been kissing) needs to be brought up at all opportunities. He should never be considered for any political appointment by any serious party, as shamelessness is not a virtue.

      1. But what is your position as to whether he should be considered for any political appointment by the Silly Party? Let’s say Jethro Q. Walrustitty needs a legal advisor. Would your opposition still stand?

        1. No, not the silly party. Because Josh Blackman does not have a sense of humor.

          Which means, I guess, that there would be a serious party (the Party of Inept #Humblebraggers?) that would nominate Josh Blackman, but no non-serious party would.

  10. “You’ll have to elect me to find out what I’ll be told to do.”

  11. Did anyone who wrote or commented with respect to this post ever work on a political campaign?

    For an office more substantial than rural fence post inspector or junior class treasurer?

    For a candidate who received more than 10 percent of the vote?

    In a position that involved more than fetching Sprites and counting out bags of knock-and-walk hangers?

    1. I worked for a Libertarian Senate candidate who got about 25% of the vote in my county. Substantially less than that state-wide, guess the other counties were being handled by slackers.

  12. Anybody else note that it wasn’t made public by the FBI, but the plotters to kidnap Whitmer where not right wing militia, but anarchists?
    https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/victoria-taft/2020/10/08/at-least-two-of-gretchen-whitmers-kidnapping-conspirators-appear-to-be-anti-trump-anarchists-n1024917

    1. I’ll be honest. These guys should be in a cage for a very long time if they actually took concrete actions to kidnap a sitting governor. There must be zero tolerance for that, by everyone.

      That said, I no longer trust the FBI.

      Hopefully, there will be a ton of unedited/unaltered video showing just what these a-holes were doing. By that, I mean unequivocal. I don’t want any lingering questions.

    2. Despite PJmedia, their social media is full on Trump, QAnon, photographs with Charlie Cook, anti-immigration, Joe Biggs, Kyle Rittenhouse stanning, etc.

      With mass shooters, etc. I tend to think it’s a dumb idea to figure out which ideological box they fit into. But this is full-on partisan political violence and it says a lot about you that all you can do is look for ways to deflect blame.

      1. “At least two of the six people indicted on Thursday were not right-wing militia members, Trump supporters, or Proud Boys, as Whitmer irresponsibly represented. According to information coming out on Thursday evening, one of the ring leaders of the plot is a leftist insurrectionist anarchist who hates President Trump. Another, Pete Musico, shares the same philosophy.”

        1. Is your argument seriously “only 2/3 of these guys were right-wing Trump supporters, so it’s all cool?”

          1. How about simply, “the fact that the ringleaders of the group actually hate Trump breaks the narrative that Trump incited them to do this”?

      2. I doubt Proud Boys and conservatives were hanging out with Antifa anarchists and plotting together to commit crimes. They are not birds of a feather.

          1. Any specific material in that grab bag that you feel supports your point, or are we playing Go Fish?

            1. From Sarcastr0 link about Pete Musico, who mad_kalak above is rebranding a leftist :

              “Musico was found to have a profile on the Gab, the infamous social network used by white supremacists and neo-Nazis. In one post, Musico called for Michigan representative Debbie Dingell to be hanged for her support for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals immigration policy.

              Boycott Debbie Dingell of Michigan she does not care about our troops…she is a strong supporter of DACA and needs to be hung for treason or at least arrested for treason,” he wrote. In another post, Musico claimed that “in South Africa they are killing White people” according to an unnamed person that is “so worried about her family back home.”

              Musico also shared a number of posts on Gab by Joe Biggs, a leading figure of the far-right Proud Boys group. On Twitter, Musico posted a number of pro-Donald Trump and pro-gun messages, although the account has been dormant since 2016. In one tweet, Musico accuses former democratic presidential nominee Hilary Clinton of hiding the “illegitimate black child” of her husband, former president Bill Clinton. Musico also retweeted a conspiracy theory which suggested that senator Ted Cruz’s father is linked to the assassination of John F Kennedy.”

              Sounds like Trailer-Park-Trump to me…..

        1. Shouldn’t be surprised that when you get crackpots all excited about civil war and armed insurrection that not all the wankers are radical right cranks. You’re shaking up a can of mixed nuts.

  13. Certainly Biden is ducking the question, and voters should be critical of any candidate who won’t answer important policy questions, but I doubt it is because he is afraid to answer. I think he realizes that any answer will cause a media reaction that will attract attention away from Trump’s self destruction and it is to Biden’s advantage to stay in the background while the President finds new feet to shoot himself in. I can’t say I approve, but I understand the logic.

    1. “voters should be critical of any candidate who won’t answer important policy questions,”

      For example, voters should expect Trump and Pence to tell us about this wonderful health care/insurance plan that they have and how it would protect people with pre-existing conditions. Or, to give at least an outline of what they believe should be in the covid stimulus package.

      1. Of course. The candidates are interviewing for a job, and they should honestly answer the interviewer’s questions. That goes for all of them.

  14. By the way, right wingers who are in a lather about Democratic tendencies toward court packing have a good remedy. They just don’t want to use it. They could always announce that Senate consideration of the Coney Barrett nomination will be suspended until after the election.

    If Trump wins, they could confirm her then, without any fear that the Democrats would pack the Court. It’s only because the political right wants to make its desperate lunge for multi-generational politicization of the Court that the, “court packing,” peril arises at all.

    And it is the desperation of that lunge which furnishes the single best justification for enlarging the Court. No party on the utter brink of losing power ought to be able, on its way out the door, to impose its will on politics and policies for decades to come. Let the Rs win the election and confirm Barrett after, and in so doing they will also put the court packing issue to bed for the foreseeable future. Doing it before the election—doing what the Rs are doing now—is what lends legitimacy to court packing.

    1. lathrop, your proposal relies on trust. There is none.

      1. You don’t need trust, just politics.
        If the GOP says they’re holding off specifically to avoid court packing, it’ll be very politically expensive for the Dems to pack the court nevertheless.

        They may still do it, but if they don’t pay a steep political price then there never was anything you could do to stop them.

        The issue here is not a lack of trust, it’s that the GOP cares less about stopping court packing than getting this political win. Symbolism versus results!

        1. No, here I disagree Sarcastr0. The issue is trust, meaning there is none. And really, with the amount of lying, hypocrisy and corruption in DC, why would we even expect to have trust.

          If we could teleport ourselves back to 1802, I suppose we could rely upon the trust and honor of the men elected to office. But no longer. And honestly, why would we expect that…considering what people have to do (and have done) to get there.

          Politics = the law of the jungle. Trust no one, ever. That is reality.

        2. I think the issue is that the Senate GOP has correctly figured out that they don’t need to ever act in good faith or be truthful about anything because Democrats will always care about norms and morals more than they will. Therefore, they can get what they want all the time always while Democrats fret about the consequences of their actions and maybe take half-measures in response to their concerns. Look what happened with this most recent nomination: there is zero concern from Senate Republicans that they broke their promise or that they were lying the first time. They don’t think there is anything morally wrong with lying and they’ve completely surrendered to a completely sociopathic approach to governance.

          Meanwhile, Democrats are actually meeting with Barrett, because they apparently are concerned about being rude, and are internally debating about the merits of “court-packing” and its long-term consequences.

          1. “I think the issue is that the Senate GOP has correctly figured out that they don’t need to ever act in good faith or be truthful about anything because Democrats will always care about norms and morals more than they will.
            ….
            Meanwhile, Democrats are actually meeting with Barrett, because they apparently are concerned about being rude,”

            Bingo.

            Not only should the Democrats have continued to refuse to meet with her, they should not attend any hearings. The whole thing is a farce, and they Democrats should not have given it any legitimacy. If they GOP wants to force it through, let them.

            1. I would attend the hearings and ask Barrett the following questions:

              1. Is it okay to lie to get what you want? (I assume she will say no)

              2. Okay, since you believe lying is wrong, why are you accepting this nomination? You are benefitting from the acts of liars. Are you not sending the message to everyone that lying should be rewarded?

              1. I think that it seems like a good idea in practice, but Barrett gets to answer. And she will spin some blah blah blah.

                The most effective answer is the simple visual- everything empty. I mean, normally you could do something by simply refusing to pass anything if they attempted this, but as we all know, the GOP has no interest in governance (and basically think governance via executive order is just dandy, so long as Trump is doing it), so that’s not a credible threat.

      2. Weird how there isn’t any trust when one side is about to get everything they want through simply shamelessly lying about American voters deserving a voice.

        1. It’s worse when one side both shamelessly invokes the American People constantly in their rhetoric, while doing everything they can to deny as many people as possible the ability to exercise their right to vote, and enabling the head of the party to blather on when it comes to key features of our system, such as the peaceful transfer of power.

        2. LTG…I used to think the same way = Weird how there isn’t any trust when one side is about to get everything they want through simply shamelessly lying

          The insight I had was that once you adopt the ‘law of the jungle’ mindset, it was totally logical. Completely twisted in a moral sense, but logical.

          That is where we are: The law of the jungle.

      3. Commenter_XY, my proposal does not rely on trust. If the Republicans win, the Democrats will be powerless to pack the Court. The Republican political win will be also a Court win, about which the Democrats can do nothing.

        If instead, the premise is that the Democrats will win, and then pack the Court, then the Democrats will do so whether or not the Republicans have put Barrett on the Court. If they have, the Democrats will act more gleefully, and with less restraint. They will sufficiently pack the Court to make sure Barrett’s appointment remains inconsequential.

        Under your premises, the only way for Republicans to improve their outcome is to wait until after the election, and confirm Barrett if they win. That way, they can hope it takes enough steam out of the Democrats’ court-packing faction to force them to hold off after some subsequent Democratic win at least 4 years hence. And that might be a wise bet.

        Oh, I forgot one other possibility. There is also the case where Republicans put Barrett on the Court, and then Trump loses this presidential election, but because Barrett is on the Court, the election somehow turns into a Court-ordered, “win,” for Trump. Note that is a much worse outcome for Republicans than if they had not yet appointed Barrett, but got the Court-ordered “win” anyway, without her, and then afterwards appointed her.

        So there remains that one alternative out of several, where Barrett on the Court before the election “helps” Republicans. It is the one where Trump loses the election, and exactly one of the other Republican Justices defects, and refuses to hand the election to Trump anyway. In that unlikely case, Barrett on the Court swings the result (if she will do it), and ta da, Republicans made the right political choice to put her in position to swing the election!

        I suggest that, “victory,” would presently turn into the very worst Republican outcome possible for Republicans—maybe resulting in the permanent end of the Republican Party no more than 4 years hence.

        No matter how this election turns out, 2024 will be a wave election, delivering a historic generational transition in political power. The baby boomers will be utterly out of gas, and the question of who succeeds them will be a major electoral focus.

        Even without a corrupt continuation of the Trump regime, Republicans will struggle to survive in 2024. Democrats might also struggle. The last thing struggling Republicans would then want on their record would be a corrupt deal to put an illegitimately appointed Trump back for 4 more years of Trump-style misrule. That could sink the Republican Party forever.

        See, trust plays no role in either improving Republican outcomes, or hurting them. This is a case where the wise political choice for Republicans is to restrain themselves, no matter what. I don’t expect them to do it unless forced by happenstance. I can only hope the harm to the Court, and to the nation, will prove less than catastrophic.

      4. Commenter_XY : lathrop, your proposal relies on trust. There is none.

        Bull. This is the party-line to avoid taking responsibility for your side’s choices. There was little support for court packing among Democrats before Barrett. Joe Biden was happy to say it was a bad idea.

        But Barrett following Garland is an escalation; there will definitely be a response. If just a few GOP senators vote country over party then support for court packing will dissipate like morning mist.

        Commenters like Commenter_XY don’t want to accept that. They’re have too much fun to admit their cheerleading has a cost. Better to pretend every bad result is inevitable than consider the repercussions of their decisions.

  15. “Biden continues to refuse to deny court packing plan and senate/house packing plan by adding two democratic states”

    1. Hopefully three states including NYC.

  16. I’d argue that he actually answered that he’s definitely for packing the court. If he said he’s against the expansion of SCOTUS he could just say so and while it might make the front page it would be a very short article below the fold if it did and would only be a big news story when he flipped after the election. In contrast if he admitted that he was for packing the court it would be the top headline for weeks as he said and the voters would know what they were getting into.

Please to post comments