Election 2020

Joe Biden Still Doesn't Have a Coherent Answer About Court Packing

Exactly one year ago, Biden gave a clear and direct answer to this question. Tonight, he completely fumbled his response.

|

Exactly one year ago, former Vice President Joe Biden stood on stage with 11 other presidential hopefuls and got asked a direct question about whether he would "seek to add justices to the Supreme Court."

Biden's answer was clear: "I would not get into court packing," he said. "We had three justices. Next time around, we lose control, they add three justices. We begin to lose any credibility the Court has at all."

On Thursday night, Biden was the only candidate on stage at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia—he and President Donald Trump had dueling town hall events in lieu of a second presidential debate. And he was, once again, asked about whether he'd support an attempt to add justices to the Supreme Court in light of Republican efforts to confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Court prior to this year's election.

The version of Biden who was once clear-eyed about the dangers of expanding the Supreme Court has recently become much foggier on the topic, and ABC's George Stephanopoulos gave Biden a chance to set the record straight. The former vice president declined to take it.

"I have not been a fan of court packing," Biden said, before repeating his concerns about every subsequent president trying to add more and more justices.

"So you're still not a fan," Stephanopoulos pressed.

"Well, I'm still not a fan," Biden hedged. "I didn't say—it depends on how this turns out."

Stephanopoulos, to his credit, did not let Biden off the hook. "What does that mean?" he pressed. "Right now it looks like they are going to have a vote around Halloween. So if they vote on it before the election, then you are open to expanding the court?"

That question elicited the response that best sums up Biden's slippery stance on the whole matter.

"I'm open to considering what happens from that point on," he said.

Which means…well, your guess is as good as mine.

Here's the full exchange:

As Reason's Jacob Sullum noted earlier this week, Biden's sudden reticence to criticize court packing is an alarming development. The former vice president has a long track record of shunning the idea—and for good reason, since it remains pretty unpopular with voters more than eight decades after President Franklin Delano Roosevelt last pushed it. If Biden has changed his opinion on this topic, voters deserve to know. If he hasn't, why can't he just say so?

It's pretty obvious that Biden is making a calculated political maneuver here. If he comes out in favor of court packing, he risks handing Republicans a new campaign issue at a time when he's just trying to run out the clock with a significant lead in the polls. If he says he's against court packing, he trades away leverage that he could use after he's elected. But refusing to commit one way or the other is disrespectful to the people whose support Biden is seeking.

"Don't voters have a right to know?" Stephanopoulos asked near the end of the exchange on Thursday night.

"They do have a right to know," said Biden. "They have the right to know where I stand before they vote."

That's not good enough. Lots of people are already voting. This isn't a new issue, and Biden should have been able to provide a clear and direct answer by now.

NEXT: If Trump Was Serious About Police Reform, He Would Have Addressed Qualified Immunity

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. You have to vote me in to find out!

    But really you don’t. They will pack the court.

    1. Right, everyone pretending like this is some big mystery is full of shit.

      1. Makes $140 to $180 per day online work and i received $16994 in one month online acting from home.Abc I am a daily student and work simply one to a pair of hours in my spare time. Everybody will do that job and online makes extra cash by simply You can check more.

        open this web….Click here

    2. Typical lifetime slippery politician.

      1. Of the DC list of politicians, I’m guessing that Trump is the only one who ever had to deal with even the distorted market he had to deal with.

        1. Trump is dealing with “the distorted market”???

          Seems to me, he’s dealing with a political class that includes the Democrats, the RINOs that dominate the GOP ranks in Congress, and the MSM, none of whom want Trump in office. And so many of them are willing to lie and abuse government power and the public trust to get rid of him by any means they think they can get away with. After all, some of them still haven’t given up their Russian collusion delusion, in which they invested heavily for years (and haven’t apologized for spreading lies, nor have they revealed who the anonymous sources are that provided those lies).

          Maybe you’re saying the distorted market for the MSM, where they seek to satisfy partisan wishes and beliefs with untruths to get ad revenue, instead of providing truthful news to get ad revenue. That does seem to be a problem.

          Throughout US history, until 2016, suggesting a duly elected US president is a foreign spy, would have been met with derision. But that is exactly what the Democrats, RINOs (who mostly just kept quiet and didn’t defend Trump) and the MSM (i.e. the political class) did. And frankly, it’s likely psychological projection, with Hillary/Obama believing Trump was selling out the US, because that’s one thing people in the political class do to get rich.

          1. I get paid more than $120 to $130 per hour for working online. I heard about this job 3 months ago and after joining this JOE i have earned easily $15k from this without having online working skills. This is what I do….. visit here

        2. Google is by and by paying $27485 to $29758 consistently for taking a shot at the web from home. I have joined this action 2 months back and I have earned $31547 in my first month the from this action. I can say my life is improved completely! Take a gander at it

          what I do……………………………….Click here

    3. Maybe that’s why Joe keeps telling people to vote for Trump…

    4. So let’s say they pack the court but don’t introduce an amendment to fix the number of justices. Then they lose control of Congress and the WH to Republicans. What can Republicans do? Would it be possible to remove the added SC justices? Pack it again and then fix the number? What are the options? Republicans need to start thinking about that now, if the worst comes to pass. How do you restore the SC when those Democrat clowns lose power?

      1. It doesn’t appear a justice can be removed once appointed.

        The Constitution doesn’t fix the number of seats, but it does say that those justices, however many there are, have a lifetime appointment.

        1. Exactly.

          If the Supreme Court arms race commences in earnest, by the end of the decade we will have a court packed with hundreds of justices randomly voting their preferences. Oral arguments will follow the Kavanaugh confirmation hearing model, followed by months of riots until the votes can be tallied again.

        2. Well, then, the answer is obvious – – – – – – – –

          1. Unintended consequences…

            1. Makes $140 to $180 per day online work and i received $16994 in one month online acting from home.ghj I am a daily student and work simply one to a pair of hours in my spare time. Everybody will do that job and online makes extra cash by simply You can check more.

              open this web….Click here

        3. It appears the only way a justice is removed is through impeachment and conviction. Even assuming you got the House to impeach conviction requires 2/3 of the Senate. Not a likely scenario.

      2. “So let’s say they pack the court but don’t introduce an amendment to fix the number of justices. Then they lose control of Congress and the WH to Republicans. What can Republicans do?”

        “Introducing” an amendment is irrelevant. Getting it passed is the issue; see the ERA.
        Regardless of the claim that it dealt with “equal” rights, it did nothing of the sort. It established ‘positive’ rights for women as a part of the constitution. And it went nowhere.
        Regardless of the claims of LoS, Tony, jackass, et al, we have the good fortune that the constitution was written such as to make sure lefty shits like them have a VERY hard time inflicting their idiocy on the rest of us.

        1. They will “pass” it the same way the incom tax ammendment “passed”

    5. Easy and easy job on-line from home. begin obtaining paid weekly quite $4k by simply doing this simple home job. I actually have created $4823 last week from this simple jobDo online job Get earned

    6. Just like Obamacare you need to pass it to find out what’s in it.

      Policies so bad they dare not be disclosed.

      1. Google is by and by paying $27485 to $29758 consistently for taking a shot at the web from home. Dfg I have joined this action 2 months back and I have earned $31547 in my first month the from this action. I can say my life is improved completely! Take a gander at it

        what I do………………………………Visit Here

    7. The incessant “He doesn’t have a coherent answer” nonsense is tiresome.

      He HAS a coherent answer. He is doing it. Period.

    8. Google paid for all online work from home from $ 16,000 to $ 32,000 a month. The younger brother was Abt out of work for three months and a month ago her check was $ 32475, working at home for 4 hours a day, and earning could be even bigger….So I started……Visit Here

  2. They WILL pack the court with additional justices. They will remove the filibuster, they will change the Senate rules, they will begin to remove all “offensive” material from the internet. If you disagree you’re a racist white supremacist even if you’re black or Hispanic. They do not care about you. They do not care about the law. They do not care about the Constitution. They will wipe their asses with it and start throwing you in camps if you disagree in the slightest. They have learned well from their Chinese communist masters, and they will use all that knowledge to bend you over.

    1. It goes beyond “not caring” about the Constitution. I know a couple who think it is a positive evil

      1. “An inconvenient truth”

    2. “Oh come on man,” that can’t happen HERE!

      If you were to take an honest and accurate poll, that would be exactly what most Americans would tell you.

  3. “I’m not saying whether I’m for creating new Supreme Court Justices, but I certainly like Green Bay’s football team.”

    1. If he actually said that he might be the first Democrat in 100 years to loose chicago

  4. “But refusing to commit one way or the other is disrespectful to the people whose support Biden is seeking.”

    Biden is not running for President. Once you understand this, the rest is easy.

    1. ^^This, and there are plenty of libs who openly admit as much.

      1. Yep, they tolerate Biden because they know who will replace him very soon. Like people who buy a shabby old house with plans to tear it down and build a new one, or a beat up car to get the engine.

  5. That he won’t answer shows the DNC knows how unpopular the idea is. It won’t be less unpopular id Biden wins.

    There will be no court packing. They know the Republicans will retaliate, just as they retaliated for the Dems waiving filibuster, twice, for judicial nominees. They are solidly blamed for that and the mess (as they themselves see it) it has led to, and they won’t have the nerve to do it a third time.

    1. Popularity is an irrelevant metric.

      If Biden gets elected (and assuming Democrats also win the House and Senate), he will be replaced by Harris within six months (25th Amendment). We will then see months of ungodly riots and violence perpetrated by a vicious army of communist diehards/BLM until the Democrat establishment folds and gives them what they want.

      Court packing. Green new deal. No cops. Medicare For All. You name it. There will not be any restraint. By the time President Harris is up for re-election in 2024, all of this far left rot will be sold to the American public as “a moderate stance,” and any opposition will be met with violence.

      If Democrats take all three branches of government, the game is over.

      1. No cops, but Social Justice Officers will keep the mostly peace

        1. Social Justice Officers will have no problem putting a bullet in your fucking head for political wrongthink. If you have a knife to a woman’s throat, however, they will first ask how you feel about being forced to rape her before letting you do it.

        2. I assume the uniform will include brown shirts?

          1. Nope. Black and silver. Just like last time.

      2. I don’t think you can subvert the Republic that easily and transparently. Remember that the military swears an oath to the Constitution. I don’t think it’s outlandish to think they can be convinced the Constitution is under attack in such a nightmare scenario. If government loses their enforcers they cannot remain in power.

        1. I would not count on the military to rise up in principled defiance. In my opinion, the military will align with whichever faction puts the most bread on the table. And, frankly, that faction may be the military itself, under the command of a general to whom they are far more loyal than any politician.

          1. Then you never served. Most do take their oath seriously. And a good portion are conservatives or libertarian leaning.

            1. Ooh Soldiermedic you’re back! What are you gonna lie about today?
              Have you gotten around to researching Mormons in Nazi Germany? Have you accepted that I’m right yet?

              I bet you still won’t admit(or realize) you’re wrong. Your Mormon family has rubbed off on you. Anything that contradicts their narrow worldview is dismissed and not acknowledged. It’s a big reason why they continue to believe such goddamn nonsense despite overwhelming evidence it’s not true.

              So what ae you gonna lie about this time?

        2. I don’t think you can subvert the Republic that easily and transparently.

          They’re doing it right now. Look at the social media suppression. Look at the mail-in voting debacle, how they’re allowing supporters to burn cities, staging coups against democratically elected president, the FBI collusion/perjury traps, the constant leaking of classified information, how Obama got away with employing the Director of the FBI, the Deputy Director of the FBI, the Chief of the Counterespionage Section of the FBI, the Director of the CIA, the Director of National Intelligence, and members of the Justice Department and the State Department to gather dirt on members of the opposition political party in an effort to ensure his former Secretary of State won the Presidency.

          It’s already a dead rotting corpse.

      3. No it won’t happen that way. It can’t. There simply are not enough resources to do a tenth of what they want to do. Pass all the bills they want, there are not enough resources or workers to do what they want. Take just one part — replace all cars with EV within ten years. It is impossible. They want to bury 300,000 miles of high voltage lines underground, plus all the lesser / city distribution lines. It cannot be done.

        There isn’t enough money either, MMT or no. Money represents resources — materials and labor. No matter how much money they print, there are not enough resources or labor to be bought. Even if the shut down the entire productive economy, imported all food, clothes, and everything else, so all American workers could be diverted to the GND — their goals are literally, physically, truly, madly, deeply impossible.

        FDR’s own party voted down his court packing scheme and he lost a lot of political capitol on nothing. Modern Dems aren’t any more in favor of it. If the Dems thought it was a winning platform, they’d be singing it in every commercial and every campaign stop. The fact they don’t shows they know what a bad move it would be. The fact they don’t denounce it only means they want to keep their extremists riled up to vote; if they were to come out publicly against court packing, the crazies would have that much less incentive to vote for sell-out Joe.

        1. “There simply are not enough resources to do a tenth of what they want to do. Pass all the bills they want, there are not enough resources or workers to do what they want.”

          I agree.

          However, just because something is impractical or, perhaps, even impossible, does not mean it will not be pursued. One terribly consistent aspect of totalitarians is that they tend to stubbornly pursue, with the cruelest vigor, any and every initiative to maintain their ideological momentum. Stalin did not have the resources to make good on his five year plans, either. The people were starving and nothing worked, but the annual reports were stellar.

          There does not have to be any relationship between policy and reality. Failure in fact does not matter. Violence and propaganda do all the heavy lifting.

          1. I couldn’t agree more. And you don’t need Stalin as an example. Ask any Californian: high speed rail.

        2. I’m in almost complete agreement with this post, and certainly it’s conclusion.

          I don’t think there will be court packing. The reason why Biden is refusing to address it is because he needs to keep the hopes up for the minority of far left who do.

          1. Those hopes will turn to riots. What happens then? The Democrats are not going to crackdown on their own supporters, and they cannot afford to lose the votes. That is how you will get court packing.

            1. No. Winter is coming, the lockdowns and extra unemployment will end, classes will start up again, and the election will be over; if Trump wins, the reality of four more years will dampen their enthusiasm, and if Biden wins, they will lose support for their radicalism.

              Those Burn Loot Murder idiots are just kids at loose ends because of lockdowns, unemployment, and no classes. They aren’t even close to serious revolutionaries.

              1. “It can’t happen here” is nothing but blind hope and normality bias, which has proven wrong time and again.

                1. If only someone had written such a book.

                  1. Do you mean somebody writing a book, about his struggle?

              2. I hope you are right.

              3. “Winter is coming”, but in the GRRM sense of the term.

                The *Democrats* might not crack down on their supporters, but it is their detractors who own the vast majority of the arms in this country.

                Antifa is primarily attempting to burn down their own cities at the moment. If they try it elsewhere after the election, it’s very likely to go *poorly* for them.

                If the local DA refuses to prosecute, what can the feds *do* there? Are they going to try and send in ICE agents to defend the same people who are trying to set their offices on fire?

                The mayor of Portland might order “his” police to stand by while the nihilists burn down the city. I doubt the mayor of Dallas will do the same.

      4. If Biden gets elected (and assuming Democrats also win the House and Senate), he will be replaced by Harris within six months (25th Amendment).

        Nah, he’ll get two years in. That way Harris gets to run for 2 full terms of her own (as an incumbent both times)

      5. I can only wish that the communists would commit to open warfare. I’ve been waiting for them for thirty years.

      6. I suspect Trump will lose, but hope – and think that the GOP will hang on to the Senate. I think we’ll have more civil unrest no matter who wins – and there will be a major backlash in the 2022 mid-terms – lots of people will be fed up with the crap the hard left Democrats will have done, or tried to do, or failed to do (like stopping the riots) — and the GOP will take back many seats in Congress.

    2. I disagree, because along with court packing, they are going to add 2 more states, Puerto Rico and DC, which means 4 more Democratic senators for eternity.

      1. 3 states, 6 senators – Guam

        1. But what if Guam flips over?

          1. Then it cancels out DC, and Dems only gain 2 senators.

    3. Yea, a bunch of outright totalitarians would never do something unpopular…

      1. They need a submissive populace to put their totalitarian utopia in effect. It worked for the Bolsheviks because the peasantry had nothing to lose; it won’t work in America, where half the country hates the other half.

        1. The majority of the populations of California and New York are sufficiently submissive to form, should they desire, a totalitarian nation that would give North Korea a run for its money. Totalitarianism need not happen overnight, or at the same time everywhere.

        2. Agreed.

          Political shenanigans leads to Civil War in our case, not instant leftist totalitarianism. This isn’t strict class warfare in a highly unequal society with a few very rich people and an entire underclass of those in destitute poverty. We’re in a nation of 300 million where there it would be a roughly 50/50 split in factions, with a good chunk of 1 of those halves having a strong sense of American independence of the individual and a majority of privately owned firearms. Totalitarianism may well happen at some point, and we need to remain vigilant, but to act as if we’ll all be marched to gulags come January 21 is nonsense.

          1. It’s not nonsense, it’s terrifying. And because it’s a horrible prospect, you brush it off and avoid thinking about it.
            What in 2020 leads you to believe the worst can’t happen?

            1. It’s not nonsense to say that they might *try*, it’s nonsense to claim that it would*happen*. For just the reason Muzzled Woodchipper stated.

              Which isn’t to say that it would not be a horrifying bloodbath.

    4. I think this is probably right. The Dems won’t want to expend that much political capital that early in the administration. In addition, it will be a contentious issue in the Senate (assuming it also flips), and updating law to increase the # of justices won’t be a shoe-in with very close margins. They’d have to eliminate the legislative filibuster and even then it’s no guarantee of passage.

      Biden is pandering to his base by trying to leave the door open but not commit himself. Once has their vote, it’s far less politically risky to “let them down” rather than trigger a political firestorm that undermines him for the next couple of years at least.

  6. The Constitution gave Congress and the President the authority to set the number of judges. We are long overdue for reform. It’s not necessarily about packing the court. We just need to make it more balanced and representative.

    1. “…We are long overdue for reform. It’s not necessarily about packing the court. We just need to make it more balanced and representative.”

      You.
      Are.
      STILL.
      Full.
      Of.
      Shit.
      Fuck off and die pod; the world will thank you, lefty shit

    2. “We just need to make it more balanced and representative.”

      Representative of what? More balanced in what respect? The Supreme Court is not supposed to be a political branch of our government.

      Do you really not understand this? Or are you just pretending not to?

      1. Just pretending that nominating justices in strict accordance to the Constitution is somehow “court packing” or doing something underhanded, which if course it isn’t.

        Court packing as a means to circumvent legitimate court appointments, however, is underhanded and nakedly political.

      2. “Do you really not understand this? Or are you just pretending not to?”

        We’re dealing with, if not the dullest knife in the drawer, what will pass until we find better.

        1. Pod is definitely in the top 5 of dumbest posters.

          1. Well, since it’s well established that you Mac are a lying, gaslighting pos, I’ll take your baseless insult as a compliment.

            1. It’s not baseless. It’s clear to everyone that your IQ is very low.

    3. Pod….Give me a fucking break. At least have the balls to come out and say clearly what you want. You want power and control, period.

      1. Voting to expand the seats the court is the logical reaction to decades of Republican abuses and it makes in a historical sense because we need to introduce a little more democratic accountability into the judiciary. Lifetime made more sense when people barely made it to 60. They are out of place in this modern world.

        1. Jesus, need proofread my stuff but it’s intelligible all the same.

          1. Barely. Like most of your posts. And it’s also wrong. The judiciary was purposely supposed to be independent of politics. Many of our problems is because they’ve drifted from that. We shouldn’t make it worse.

    4. Seems to me, Democrats arguing for adding justices, need to make a case for it. The only reason that is mostly ignored, is because the Democrats can’t get their way in the elections. That’s obviously not a good reason that deserves support from any voter. One potential good reason might be they could handle more cases.

      If there’s reason to add more judges, then a journalist should ask them if they’re OK with the next president adding judges to the court. That’s the question they need to be asked, because then they may get their wish, but with potentially Trump picking the new justices. I’ll bet they won’t agree to court packing, unless Joe/Kamala are in office.

      They also need to ask about the 60 vote filibuster in the Senate, and if the Democrats will eliminate that. They should realize, that when Harry Reid decided to abolish the filibuster for judicial nominations (something that ensured at least minimal support from the other side), it resulted in the election of Trump and Trump getting to nominate 3 SCOTUS judges, plus a huge number of lower court judges. I look at that and think, that’s the voters letting the politicians know what they think about such shenanigans, and is karma for power hungry Democrats.

  7. Biden should say “we are keeping all options on the table, inluding court reform. We need to see what happens with Barrett. McConnell and the GOP packed the court by leaving Scalia’s seat open for 14 months. They manipulated the size of the court for political gain. We then gave them an out. We won’t add or remove seats if they simply hold off on hearings until after the election. It’s what they argued 4 years ago. However they won’t even take the easy out and insist on ramming Barrett through. We need to keep our options open. Obama and the Dems tried playing fair, but if the GOP is gonna play dirty we need to be prepared to.”

    I love the argument of “we need originalists on the court.” Because the constitution was perfect in the 1780s(for white males who owned slaves) and it should be interpreted like it’s the 1780s.
    That is so fucking stupid.

    1. You’re so fucking stupid.

      1. Geiger,
        May I ask why you think I am “so fucking stupid?”

        1. You might be surprised to hear this, but being a genocidal bigot means that while you may ask such a question, you don’t deserve a serious answer.

          1. You’re entitled to your opinion, but my guess is you don’t have a serious or intelligent answer to my post on çourt reform.

            There’s plenty of threads to argue with me about mormons. Are you LDS or something? If you are please stop forcing your beliefs on others.
            They’re goddamn ridiculous.

            1. I do. Only a fucking idiot thinks that 1780 has anything to do with anything.

            2. “Only an idiot thinks 1780 has anything to do with anything.”

              Thank you for agreeing with me.
              These right wing clowns are ridiculous.

        2. Geiger is not alone in that, mind you.

        3. First, you clearly do not understand the meaning of originalism. Second, you also do not understand the purpose of the Supreme Court. Third, you appear to be a racist that despises whites and, to boot, a sexist that despises whites even more if they happen to men.

          That is why I think you are stupid, and it seems many others posters here agree wholeheartedly.

          1. Geiger:
            What is the purpose of the supreme court then?
            I was taught it was to decide the constitutionally of laws and legislation and how to interpret them. That’s it in a nutshell at least.

            I am a white male. I don’t know what makes you think I am racist? Or sexist? If I posted something you interpreted as racist or sexist let me know so I can clear it up for you?

            Maybe you’re one of those snowflakes who’s offended by everything? Toughen up if that’s the case.

            Most the posters on here are far right nutjobs who defend pedophile con artists. I take it as a compliment that these sick fucks don’t like me.

    2. Your momma should have had an abortion to save the world from such idiocy.

      1. She did. It didn’t take.

        1. Unicorn:
          Are you pro choice?

          My mother was personally against abortion, but pro choice.
          She was libertarian when I came to abortion.
          I don’t care about abortion. I do care about liberty, so I’m pro- choice.

          1. This is too complex of an issue for most people to want to have with a genocidal bigot.

            You should go somewhere else to find people that want to converse with you.

            1. Hey why not explaining why you disagree with me? Im not talking about mormons on this thread. There’s plenty that I do, so why not bring it up there.

              Is it because you know I’m right about court reform?

              1. No, it’s because you’re a psychotic idiot leftist who is best dismissed out of hand.

                1. Exactly this.

                2. Exactly. I thought I made that clear. There’s consequences to being a genocidal bigot, and this is one of them.

                3. Mind explaining why? Or are you gonna be a pussy because you know you’re not smart enough to present an argument that makes any sense without restoring to lying.

    3. There’s a process for amending the constitution. If you want changes without civil war, I suggest that you follow it.

      1. Rabbithead:
        I’m for ammending the constitution wen it comes to several issues, but didn’t mention any in my post. So I don’t know why you mentioned it.

        Why did you bring up ammending the constitution?

        1. Luckily we don’t need to amend the constitution to make your genocidal dreams illegal.

          1. Who said anything about genocide?
            If you’re referring to my crusade to save the country from Mormons?
            No one is forcing them to worship pedo con artist. They’re the ones trying to force that nonsense on everyone else.

            I’m a goddamn patriot.

            You’re only making a fool of yourself by defending people who worship con artist pedophiles.

            1. Too stupid to know what genocide means, despite calling for it.

              1. I know what genocide is and I’m not “calling for it.”
                I’m defending my freedom(and yours btw) from Mormons who want to force their wrong, stupid beliefs on everyone.
                No one is forcing them to worship pedo con artists. If they stopped trying to shove their bullshit rules down everyone’s throats I’d leave them one. They won’t leave me alone.

                Go ahead keep sticking up for fascist pedo worshippers. You’re only making yourself look stupid and depraved.

    4. You leftists love criticizing that document because you think you’re morally superior to the ones who wrote it. Yet you live by the teachings of Marx, one of the most repugnant creatures ever to walk the earth.

      1. Lap83: who mentioned Marx? For how much you all talk about hating socialism you sure bring it up a lot.
        Considering many of the writers of the constitution were slave owners and it only permitted white males to participate in government I would say am morally superior to them.

        Now they were a product of their time and we can’t judge them too harshly. There are some great ideas in the constitution and some tht were wrong. The writers included the ammending process so it could be updated and improved. The 11th ammendment was ratified while John Adams was president and the 12th while Jefferson was, so it wasn’t considered wrong to criticize it.
        The right wingers who consider it some kind of divine docment scare me. Thats pretty authoritarian to believe “HOW DARE YOU CRITICIZE THE CONSTITUTION? ITS WITHOUT FAULT!”

      2. I don’t know why you righties try to inject Marx, Communism, or Socialism into everything. Marx had nothing to do with the post and you have no reason to think I’m a Marxist, socialist, etc…

        Using those terms all the time makes them lose their meaning.

        BTW You can disagree with Marx and still acknowledge how influential he was.
        Calling him “one of the most repugnant creatures to walk the Earth” is kind of hyperbole?

    5. The 13th amendment to the United States Constitution provides that “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”

      The Constitution can be changed in order to correct for things like legalized slavery and prohibition. You do so by adopting an amendment.

  8. I don’t know how much clearer Biden can make it that he’s not going to answer the question.

    1. The thing is, to moderate voters, it looks evasive and gutless. I think that helped swing the last election, and it isn’t going to help him.

      Like him or not, Trump tends to say what he means.

  9. “I’m open to considering what happens from that point on,” he said.

    Translated from Bidenese, it means “Kamala hasn’t told me what she’s going to do”.

  10. Biden seems to be offering the GOP an opportunity to back off the game of Calvinball that they are currently engaged in.

    1. “Game of Calvinball” being “following the Constitution”.

      Fucking moron.

  11. “It’s pretty obvious that Biden is making a calculated political maneuver here. If he comes out in favor of court packing, he risks handing Republicans a new campaign issue at a time when he’s just trying to run out the clock with a significant lead in the polls. If he says he’s against court packing, he trades away leverage that he could use after he’s elected.

    The bold part is garbage.

    The reason Biden is reluctant to come out against court packing is because he risks alienating a significant number of Bernie Bros, Warren supports, and other radicals within the Democratic coalition, who are absolutely in favor of court packing–and may not show up to vote for him if he says he won’t do it.

    The Superbowl is in two weeks. Biden isn’t hedging his bets because of what he wants to do after he’s elected. He’d say anything to get elected. Biden is hedging his bets because he’s afraid if he told them he was against court packing, a certain number of likely supporters would stay home.

    Meanwhile, Biden still needs to win in Florida, Ohio, and Wisconsin to win. Because he’s leading in the polls nationally doesn’t mean shit. Do they not teach about the electoral college in junior high civics anymore?

    1. He’s leading in enough swing states to win the EC. The leads are small, and a lot can happen between now and when the election is decided. However, it looks like he’ll win.

      If Trump and the GOP are so sure they’ll win then why not hold off on confirmation of Barrett until after the election? They’d look less like hypocrites?
      I can’t read minds but I think Biden is personally against court reform, but knows it’s a bargaining chip he can use. FDR was able to get the court to rule more favorably to him by threatning court reform. If only the GOP would take notice the court could stay at 9. The GOP isn’t that smart otherwise they wouldn’t be republicans(at least while it’s the party of Trump). Many people understand that the GOP leaving Scalia’s seat open for 14 months isn’t much different than court packing. The GOP opened the door in 16 by not even giving Garland a hearing. They could of de-escalated the situation by waiting to hold hearings until after the election. However, they know there’s a good chance they will lose, and public opinion be damned when they can overturn Roe v Wade and get rid of Obamacare. Nevermind the majority of the country are against it. They only hold power because the Senate and EC overrepresent a rural, ultra religious whites.

    2. 1. The sentence before the bolded is bullshit too. Trump is up big. The behavior of the left shows desperation, not confidence. Gallup found 56% of their sample think they’re better off now than 4 years ago, despite the economic and social devastation of 2020. Trump has significant black support and is gaining (did you see Ice Cube is now in trouble for noting that Trump listened to and incorporated his CWBA ideas while the Ds put him off, and CNN subsequently canceled his scheduled appearance on Cuomo). I don’t know what his support among Hispanics is, but 67% of the Telemundo audience thought he won the debate. Trump rallies are drawing tens of thousands. We are told that Biden and the left are ahead, but there is no evidence of it beyond their word.
      2. He’s not worried about pissing off the radicals on the left, he’s worried (his handlers that is) about the mainstream. Just look at the comments here: we’re 3 for 3 on leftists who are completely on board with packing the court. Who even are the radicals on the left? The mainstream has had a mass psychotic breakdown, and packing the court is a mainstream demand on the left.
      3. He doesn’t want to do anything after he’s elected other than bask in the glory of being called Mr. President. He will do what he’s told when he’s told to do it. He is a sock puppet, and he doesn’t mind.
      4. Biden keeps telling people to vote for Trump (if they’re bothered by court packing, if they think their lives are better today that before Trump, etc) – that is not winning language. It’s basic, immutable psychology.

      The left is waging psychological war on all fronts. They are pumping out narrative and actively suppressing any information not in agreement. They are pushing mass registration, mass mail in voting, and hyperbolic polls because their only hope is fraud. They have given up on persuasion, and will try a combination fabrication and force.

      And, 5. They have managed to make a billionaire, nobel peace prize nominated incumbent president the underdog. Again.

      1. 1. “Trump rallies are drawing tens of thousands. We are told that Biden and the left are ahead, but there is no evidence of it beyond their word.”

        As far as rallies, even not taking Covid into account, it’s not the best way to gauge support. It’s an anecdotal fallacy. Just because more people show up to Trump rallies doesn’t mean he has more support. Maybe more of his supporters are unemployed and can show up to rallies? Factor in Biden supporters taking Covid more seriously, so they are less likely to attend public events, and it becomes futile to gauge who’ll get more votes by rally size.
        fivethirtyeight takes an average of the several polls they use and right now it has Biden 51.2% to Trump 41.9% nationally.
        In Pennsylvania Biden 50.7% to Trump 43.9%
        FLorida Biden 49.1% to Trump 45%
        Arizona Biden 49% to Trump 45.2%
        Georgia Biden 47.8% to Trump 46.6%
        Wisconsin Biden 50.8% to Trump 43.2%
        Nevada Biden 49.7% to Trump 43.2%
        North Carolina Biden 49% to Trump 45.9%
        Michigan Biden 50.5 to Trump 42.7%
        Minnesota Biden 50.7% to Trump 41.6%
        These are averages of multiple polls and I assume some states may not have the best data.
        Polls should be used with caution but they’re pretty accurate for the most part. In 2016 they underestimated Trump, but pollsters will attempt to compensate this time. The public usually only remembers the polls that weren’t that accurate(2016, 2004 they had Bush winning by more than he did) but they are pretty accurate usually.

        2. “Just look at the comments here: we’re 3 for 3 on leftists who are completely on board with packing the court.”
        Again that’s anecdotal. On internet forums and social media you usually get the extremes. Rational Ralph isn’t on the internet posting “CALM DOWN. THE TRUTH IS IN THE MIDDLE. BOTH SIDES HAVE VALID POINTS.” You’re not gonna see many moderate opinions.
        Now I think there are a significant number of Dems who are for at least using the threat of court packing for leverage. They’re sick of the GOP being so cutthroat and the Dems spineless, and court reform is a chance to get a win for once.

        3. That is your opinion. You don’t know what he’ll do if elected or what he’s thinking now. Him being a “sock puppet” is speculation.

        4. “Biden keeps telling people to vote for Trump (if they’re bothered by court packing, if they think their lives are better today that before Trump, etc) – that is not winning language. It’s basic, immutable psychology.”
        That’s just your opinion. Many lives are worse today than before Trump because of Covid, and many people don’t like how he’s handled it.

        “The left is waging psychological war on all fronts. They are pumping out narrative and actively suppressing any information not in agreement. They are pushing mass registration, mass mail in voting, and hyperbolic polls because their only hope is fraud. They have given up on persuasion, and will try a combination fabrication and force.”
        I could say the same about Trump. Before voting even began he was attacking the integrity of the election and sowing doubt. How are they(the left, Dems) suppressing information not in agreement? They’re pushing for mail in voting because there’s an ongoing contagious pandemic and voting by mail is a good way to slow people from spreading it instead of voting in person. There’s already states that vote exclusively by mail(I live in one) where it’s popular and safe. Trump is the one making accusations of fraud with no evidence. “Mass registration” why do Republicans think people voting is a bad thing? If you vote but don’t want others voting because they may not vote how you like that’s actually SUPPRESSING INFORMATION YOU MIGHT NOT LIKE.
        “They have given up on persuasion, and will try a combination fabrication and force.”(I’m curious how you think the left is doing this)
        What you’re accusing Dems of doing is in reality what the GOP is doing by trying to stop people from voting! Dems want as many to vote as possible while the GOP wants the opposite. Maybe the GOP should take a look at their platform if people exercising their right to vote is a disadvantage for them.

        5. “They have managed to make a billionaire, nobel peace prize nominated incumbent president the underdog. Again.”
        A billionaire who inherited his wealth from dad and has had several bankruptcies. What he’s done in the Mid east is promising in some ways and horrible in others. I wanna see how it holds up in the long term. He’s way too friendly to the Saudi Crown Prince, Putin, Ergodon(not sure the spelling), Kim and other dictators. He’s brought some troops home, but pissed off our allies while doing so. I’d like a president who wasnt an Israeli fanboy for once(all presidents have been, but Trump is the worst). Someone who’d tell them to get out of the west bank. Moving the embassy to Jerusalem sends the wrong message in my opinion.

        1. So you’re adding Jews to your genocide list?
          The sooner you end your miserable life, the better off you’ll be.

          1. Where did I mention Jews let alone genocide? Why is it when I present a coherent argument you righties just ignore it and lie about what I post? Do you still think Trump will win because more people attend his rallies? Or did my explanation of why that’s stupid change your mind?

            If you’re talking about my criticism of Israel I think it’s anti-Semitic to lump Jews and Israel together and assume all Jews support Israel and it’s foreign policy.
            If you think criticism of Israel is the same as “adding Jews to your genocide list” your incredibly stupid.

            I don’t advocate or condone genocide. When you use that word for trivial things it’s disrespectful to groups that have been victims, and desensitize people to future attempts.
            I’m simply defending myself and our country from Mormon agression. No one is forcing them to believe their nonsense religion, and they’re trying to force it on others.

      2. The polls are claiming that Biden is ahead to lay the groundwork for when the D’s “find” enough votes to claim that he won, however many weeks down the road that is.

        “See? We *said* he was ahead in the polls…”

        1. The polls are conducted by different media organizations. You’re saying they’re all colluding to inflate Biden’s support? Do you have any evidence?

          Do you have any evidence of voter fraud?

          Whatever you Trump lovers are on it must be good. Because you’re are all fucked up if you actually believe the things you say.

  12. Unique Submission is the most trusted online university assignment help service available today.
    We help students efficiently in completing their due assignments.
    The most distinct feature we offer as a leading assignment help website is confidentiality as customer’s privacy and
    security is of utmost importance to us.

    Assignment Helpers Online

  13. Easy and easy job on-line from home. begin obtaining paid weekly quite $4k by simply doing this simple home job. I actually have created $4823 last week from this simple jobDo online job Get earned

  14. I get paid more than $120 to $130 per hour for working online. I heard about this job 3 months ago and after joining this i have earned easily $15k from this without having online working skills. This is what I do..Usa Online Jobs

  15. I think this is one of the best blog for me because this is really helpful for me. Thanks for sharing this valuable information for free…
    packers and movers in patna

  16. Easy and easy job on-line from home. begin obtaining paid weekly quite $4k by simply doing this simple home job. I actually have created $4823 last week from this simple job….Visit here to earn thousands of dollars

  17. At least Brain-Damaged Biden did not have to debate the moderator. Jesus Christ, it took Savanah Guthrie 20 fucking minutes to let the audience even ask a question of POTUS Trump.

  18. Tough question that Biden obviously won’t be asked (because he obviously won’t ever be asked any tough questions):

    “If an American voter is resolutely opposed to court packing (as you, yourself, used to be), how could they possibly vote for you? How could they be reassured by ‘not a fan’ but ‘open’?”

    BTW, could somebody ask this one of the Reason writers who plan to vote for Biden? It’s not too late to switch to an endorsement of Jorgenson. Reason would surely get some clicks from that.

  19. Biden’s position doesn’t matter. Reporters may as well ask him what he thinks about the Versailles treaty. It matters more that he not articulate clear-cut positions, especially not this close to the election. Biden is there to get the normies not definitely committed to Trump (the few who are left, but it only takes a few) to vote D. These voters use Biden to judge where the Team D position is. Everyone paying attention knows Biden is useless as a weathervane for that, but the voters Biden is there to swing aren’t paying attention to that. They aren’t really paying attention at all. If actual enthusiasm for the *candidate* was what decided elections and we could accurately measure that, Trump would win in a landslide. As things are now, I think Biden, a sham candidate, will win, for sham reasons. The swing voters will vote for Biden thinking he will get the Left to calm down, banish Trumpism like a bad dream, and return the country to an even keel. Instead, the Left will begin enacting every item on their wish list, they’ll continue to batter the populace into submission with lockdowns and riots, and the Trump cohort, an extremely large group of people with an intense, well-established hatred of the Left and a lot of guns, will remain. Talk about a Resistance.

    I don’t want Biden to win, and yet I do think his win will ultimately destroy the Left. I agree that things will get very bad. The Left will pack the Supreme Court, add new states, and do a lot of other shit to ensure they remain in power forever. They’ll wreck this country with their policies, and probably its standing in the world, which is the only thing that can prop up fantasies like MMT. But they win through deceit, manipulation, and intimidation, through people *not* seeing who they are and what they want. It’s no comfort, of course, but the American Left will eventually be regarded the way Nazis are now. It will just take a lot of pain to get there.

  20. Democrats want to keep the court-packing idea floating around in the air, because it puts significant pressure on the current Supreme Court. There is no reason for any of them to make any clear statements about it.

  21. There will be enormous pressure for him to pack the court and the on thing Biden does not have is a spine. He will say/do whatever his audience wants.

  22. The short answer is, Biden will pack the court if he wins. Nobody believes he is going to stand up to the radicals that have taken over his party. His answer last night that he wants to wait and see how the ACB nomination is comical. We already know. The vote is happening before the election. Not answering this question should infuriate any moderate. He’s being deceptive, and taking you for a fool.

  23. “Tonight, he completely fumbled his response.”

    He didn’t “fumble” his response. He scrambled like Fran Tarkenton. (Google him, kids.)

  24. The difference is that things have changed since a year ago. The GOP hadn’t proved to be uber-hypocrites. Also, with an election coming up where Trump is signaling that he will be challenging the election in courts we will get to see how impartial our current supreme court is. If they make wise, impartial decisions Biden could decide court-packing is unnecessary. But if the court makes some wildly partisan decision then why the hell wouldn’t he use his constitutionally given rules to add more justices? As Trump reminds us daily, you do what you can do and don’t worry about what your opponents think. At some point Biden may have to pull that crap too. Buyt for now why should he be obliged to say that he will go low?

  25. If they make wise, impartial decisions Biden could decide court-packing is unnecessary. But if the court makes some wildly partisan decision then why the hell wouldn’t he use his constitutionally given rules to add more justices?

    The judgement of what a ‘wise, impartial’ decision being, of course, made while peering through a strongly colored partisan lens (hence the absurd and Orwellian attempt to refer to court packing as ‘court depoliticization’). And why not do it? Because although the number of justices is not fixed in the constitution, it HAS been fixed in custom for 150 years. And because packing it would lead to counter-packing and a banana republic style of government where an incoming administration with a senate majority routinely either packs the court with loyal supporters or browbeats the existing court to rule its way with the threat of packing backing up the demand for friendly rulings). That, BTW, seems to be Biden’s current gambit (e.g. after I win, maybe I won’t pack the court as long as it keeps ruling the way I want it to in important cases — nice court you got there, it would be a shame, etc)

    This is end-of-the-republic stuff and you’re effing cheering it on.

    1. “Biden’s current gambit (e.g. after I win, maybe I won’t pack the court as long as it keeps ruling the way I want it to in important cases — nice court you got there, it would be a shame, etc)”

      It worked for a previous Democrat [FDR] when he wanted to exponentially expand the reach of the federal government via the commerce clause; it is a well established strategy that he is following.

      1. The fact that FDR tried to pack the court and then intimidated it after the packing attempt failed doesn’t make it a time-tested, well-established strategy any more than putting Japanese Americans into concentration camps makes THAT a time-tested, well-established strategy. In both cases, the verdict of history was that these were egregious abuses of power.

  26. “Joe Biden Still Doesn’t Have a Coherent Answer About _______________”

    Take your pick.

  27. STAY AT HOME & WORK AT HOME FOR USA ►Check it out, and start earning yourself . for more info visit any tab this site Thanks a lotHere………………………Click here.

  28. The only way the number of SCOTUS justices can be increased is by enactment of legislation, which is controlled by Pelosi and, if the Dems win the Senate, Schumer.

    So why haven’t the news media asked Pelosi or Schumer about their intention to pack the SCOTUS (if Biden wins, the Dems take over the Senate and retain control of the House)?

  29. Biden doesn’t have a coherent answer about anything.

    But he knows how to use the powers of government to make his family members multi-millionaires. The Clintons started something that may never end. They let the wealth & greed genie out of the bottle. How can high level government officials say “no” to that. The Clintons may have ended American exceptionalism.

  30. Biden doesn’t have a coherent answer to anything except for his threats to institute national lockdowns, mask requirements, and forced vaccinations.

  31. It would be a great mind blowing comment for Trump or McConnell to say “The Democrats believe the Supreme Court should have 15 Justices if they win the election. Will they accept 15 Justices if they lose?”

  32. Trump couldn’t give you a coherent answer on what color his shirt is. FFS.

  33. You have to elect the politician to know what’s in him?

  34. They have a right to know. But you can see why he’d want not to say. He’s trying to paddle through a swamp that is by now comprehensively poisoned.

    If he doesn’t pack the courts, then he allows Republican abuse of the system to endure for a generation. An important pillar of the Republic collapses. If he packs the courts, he redresses the bias introduced by political abuse, but introduces a bias towards abuse itself. An important pillar of the Republic still collapses, and perhaps more than one. No principled, liberal politician has a palatable way out of this bind.

    I come down in favour of packing, but then I am not that principled. Use the abuse the Republicans created to crush them forever. Pack the courts, eliminate gerrymandering forever and bring in a constitutional amendment, if necessary, to enshrine the rights that the religious wrong are trying to roll back.

Please to post comments