It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Joe Biden Says He Will Not Reveal His Plans on Many Big Issues Unless America Elects Him President.

page: 3
38
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 12 2020 @ 01:50 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Thank-you for the detailed and informative explanation. I thought adding seats to the court was an easy process, if the Senate, House, and the Court itself agreed to do so.

Thanks to you, I now realize that it would be a HUGE undertaking...like having Obama, Biden and Hillary arrested for treason.


edit on 10/12/2020 by carewemust because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 12 2020 @ 02:30 AM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

Oh, if the Congress and President want to do it, it's a very easy process to add seats to the Supreme Court! All it takes is a law: 50%+1 House votes, 50%+1 Senate votes, President signature, done. Brand new vacant seats, waiting to be filled.

If the Congress and the President are not in agreement, then it gets hard. That's why it is so important to keep the Presidency or Senate as a minimum this time around.

TheRedneck



posted on Oct, 12 2020 @ 02:38 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Its ironic that Joe Biden very candid about his views on "Court Packing" at one time. In 1983, he said the concept was a "Boneheaded Idea".

www.foxnews.com...



posted on Oct, 12 2020 @ 02:48 AM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

Well, that was under President Ronald Reagan. No Democrat wants to expand the court with a Republican in the White House, or vice versa. That would pack it in the wrong direction.

I still find it astonishing that the concept of "conservative" or "liberal" Justices even exists. The whole point of the Supreme Court is for it to be apolitical. Justices have one damn job: read the Constitution, read the applicable laws, read any precedents and/or treaties relevant to the issue, and state what they say about the matter. They should ALL be Constitutionalists. They can have whatever personal beliefs they want, but they must be able to put those aside and read/follow the law.

Anything else is an abomination to the country.

TheRedneck



posted on Oct, 12 2020 @ 04:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: chr0naut


The most sensible solutions compliant with the Constitution would be to have extra supreme court judges, to hopefully balance things better, or to impose term limits.

So you believe the Supreme Court should be a politically-driven body like the Congress? A rubber stamp on whatever Congress should pass? No need for a check or balance on the power of Congress?


Nope, the supreme court should precisely NOT be a politically driven body. It is supposed to balance both the legislative and the executive branches. The supreme court is not supposed to be 'in the pocket' of either of the other branches. How might one achieve that?



I'm for imposing term limits for supreme court judges through a Constitutional amendment raised by Congress, passed by the Senate, and validated through a public referendum.

You are not a US citizen. If you get to tell us how our Constitution works, I suppose we get to determine New Zealand law. We'll start by removing any restrictions on gun ownership and removing any regulations on face masks.

TheRedneck


In New Zealand, we haven't had any new cases at all, anywhere, for a few days now, and the last person to die from COVID-19 complications in the country was over a month ago.

People aren't wearing masks in public because we don't need to anymore. But things might change. They always do.

Also, in regards to restrictions on gun ownership, when the restrictions were passed, the decision was unanimous by all parties represented in our Parliament. Both houses.

But we also do have some legal public gun ownership. We just limited the high killing power, high capacity semi-autos (and some shotguns).

Firearms and Safety - New Zealand Police

edit on 12/10/2020 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2020 @ 06:14 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut


Nope, the supreme court should precisely NOT be a politically driven body. It is supposed to balance both the legislative and the executive branches. The supreme court is not supposed to be 'in the pocket' of either of the other branches. How might one achieve that?

By making them not seek election or re-appointment so they can make decisions based on the Constitution and their own conscience. By appointing Justices which follow the Constitution above all else instead of political agendas.

In other words, exactly what we do, and the exact opposite of what you suggested.

We also need a Constitutional Amendment to set the number of Justices, since Congress seems intent in trying to politicize the courts. That might take a little doing.

TheRedneck



posted on Oct, 12 2020 @ 01:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: chr0naut


Nope, the supreme court should precisely NOT be a politically driven body. It is supposed to balance both the legislative and the executive branches. The supreme court is not supposed to be 'in the pocket' of either of the other branches. How might one achieve that?

By making them not seek election or re-appointment so they can make decisions based on the Constitution and their own conscience. By appointing Justices which follow the Constitution above all else instead of political agendas.

In other words, exactly what we do, and the exact opposite of what you suggested.

We also need a Constitutional Amendment to set the number of Justices, since Congress seems intent in trying to politicize the courts. That might take a little doing.

TheRedneck


They aren't elected and so that particular 'politicalization' of the office through electoral campaigning could not occur.

The SCOTUS are 'ordained and established' by Congress under the Constitution.

Article III, Section 1.
The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

In practice, this has been interpreted so that the POTUS nominates the supreme court appointment and it is confirmed by the Senate.

edit on 12/10/2020 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2020 @ 02:12 PM
link   
Is this some kind of coded disinformation from Joe Biden to his followers?

twitter.com...



posted on Oct, 12 2020 @ 03:06 PM
link   
Like going to a car dealership and having you sign loan papers without being allowed to read the terms and you don't even know what kind of vehicle you'll end up with.



posted on Oct, 12 2020 @ 03:21 PM
link   
This is why Nancy Pelosi is putting through legislation to remove a president who is mentally or physically sick..

Joe Biden in Ohio today.

mobile.twitter.com...

And

mobile.twitter.com...




posted on Oct, 12 2020 @ 03:24 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

These days the notion of a Constitution is conservative it seems because that means putting limits on what government can tell you to do.



posted on Oct, 12 2020 @ 03:44 PM
link   
I found it! Biden's platform ...




I mean ... it makes as much sense as he does.



posted on Oct, 12 2020 @ 07:26 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut


The SCOTUS are 'ordained and established' by Congress under the Constitution.

Are you daft?

The Congress did not ordain the Constitution! Get that through your head. The Constitution was established by a Convention of our Founding Fathers and ratified by the states. There was no Congress prior to the Constitution, just as there was no President and no Supreme Court. All were created at the same time.

It's statements like this that make no one take you seriously.


In practice, this has been interpreted so that the POTUS nominates the supreme court appointment and it is confirmed by the Senate.

It is stated quite clearly in Article II, Section 2, Item 2:

He [The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

Sit down before you hurt yourself. While you're there, try reading the whole document before you stand back up; you might accidentally learn something.

TheRedneck



posted on Oct, 12 2020 @ 08:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
Is this some kind of coded disinformation from Joe Biden to his followers?

twitter.com...


Just another bad day for Joe all the way around 😃



posted on Oct, 12 2020 @ 08:24 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

There is an Erie, Pennsylvania. What am I missing?



posted on Oct, 12 2020 @ 08:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: chr0naut


The SCOTUS are 'ordained and established' by Congress under the Constitution.

Are you daft?

The Congress did not ordain the Constitution!


I never said that. Please read the words I wrote. Don't reply to the voices in your head.

And, I quoted the relevant section of the Constitution.


Get that through your head. The Constitution was established by a Convention of our Founding Fathers and ratified by the states. There was no Congress prior to the Constitution


There was a Congress of the Confederation, which was later renamed to the Congress of the United States, once the states were, in fact, united.

There were three years of conventions and ratifications of various parts of the Constitution before it was acceptably re-written and wholly ratified by all participant states. Final ratification by the last hold out states occurred 7 years after the initial proposal to federate.

Congress, of sorts, existed and had been convening irregularly, before the Constitution, the Presidency, the Union, and the Judicial Branch/Supreme Court.

Timeline of drafting and ratification of the United States Constitution
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



, just as there was no President and no Supreme Court. All were created at the same time.

It's statements like this that make no one take you seriously.


It's statements like this that make no one take you seriously (wait, there's an echo in the echo chamber! Weird?) LOL.



In practice, this has been interpreted so that the POTUS nominates the supreme court appointment and it is confirmed by the Senate.
It is stated quite clearly in Article II, Section 2, Item 2:

He [The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers, and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

Sit down before you hurt yourself. While you're there, try reading the whole document before you stand back up; you might accidentally learn something.

TheRedneck


Strangely, I thought that was what I posted when I wrote: "In practice, this has been interpreted so that the POTUS nominates the supreme court appointment and it is confirmed by the Senate" .

I would posit that the bit which says "and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for sort of implies that Section II and Section III relating to Supreme Court Judges should be taken as a whole and that all stipulations must be met (you don't throw one away just because there is a further stipulation).

Ant that whole bit about "... all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for" would make this section subjugate to other sections that address the same topic.

edit on 12/10/2020 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2020 @ 08:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: xuenchen

There is an Erie, Pennsylvania. What am I missing?


Biden was actually in Toledo, Ohio.

If you have medical experience, what are your thoughts on Joe Biden's speaking clarity today in Toledo?

Please watch one or more of these little excerpts: twitter.com...



posted on Oct, 12 2020 @ 09:05 PM
link   
Wow, the clip I saw was sad. There were a lot more trump fans there, than cars for bidden.



posted on Oct, 12 2020 @ 09:18 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

Ah, that's the context I was missing. I don't pay much attention to where he is on any given day, so I missed the gaffe.



posted on Oct, 12 2020 @ 10:17 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

There is too much wrong with that post to address it all.

I give up. Stay ignorant.

TheRedneck




top topics



 
38
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join