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 Refuses to Answer If He Will Pack the Supreme Court

page: 1
15
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 28 2020 @ 01:26 PM
link   
Joe is playing it cool with his continuous deflections and red herrings.

One cool tactic is to not answer any questions and to not comment on some direct Trump issues.

Now we have the Biden Campaign (not necessarily Joe) saying they won't say if they'll pack up the SCOTUS with additional Justices to get there little majority back.

Yet we've been told many time that the SCOTUS is supposed to be neutral but at the same time we see lots of decisions based on political siding !!

Joe "neutral" won't work.

People even Democrats want full commitments and sane original promises.

Many if not most of Joe's promises are things that's already in progress (or done already) by Trump LOL




Former Vice President Joe Biden declined to answer Sunday morning whether he agreed with Democrats’ threats to pack the Supreme Court if they win the election.

Democrats are threatening to pass legislation adding seats to the Supreme Court justices, then filling those seats with liberals.

Though Democrats are speaking more openly now about their plans, threatening to move ahead if Republicans confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, many liberals have been pushing the idea ever since the Senate confirmed Justice Brett Kavanaugh in 2018.


Joe Biden Refuses to Answer If He’ll Pack the Supreme Court with Extra Liberal Justices



posted on Sep, 28 2020 @ 01:32 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

First thing Trump should do at the debate, regardless of the first question, is ask Biden if he made his SCOTUS nomination list yet, lol, that would be EPIC!

edit on 28-9-2020 by panoz77 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2020 @ 01:37 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Leftists want to change the US Constitution not by a Convention, but by Supreme Court reinterpretation.

Of course Biden (Harris) will pack the courts if they get the Senate back.



posted on Sep, 28 2020 @ 01:48 PM
link   
We don't need more than nine Supreme Court Justices, all that will do is create chaos.

Funny how there will be no Democrats voting to install a woman on the Supreme Court just because Trump is putting her up to be considered. Just because she is against full abortion, does not mean she is going to vote against allowing some women who have good reasons to get abortions if they go too far backwards. She is still a woman and from what I heard of her, she weighs every decision pretty much.



posted on Sep, 28 2020 @ 01:51 PM
link   
It'll be the House that packs the Supreme Court. If Dems lose control of the House, won't matter what ol Joe wants *if* he gets into office.



posted on Sep, 28 2020 @ 02:06 PM
link   
a reply to: jjkenobi

Exactly.
I don't think he has the ability to pack anything but a suitcase.

Besides.. That's what fascists do and trump was supposed to be the fascist...
edit on 28-9-2020 by Bluntone22 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2020 @ 02:40 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

I read an opinion piece last night about this. Aside from confirming the justice, there should be an amendment proposed that would limit the size of the court to 9. Prevents an FDR type situation from trying to happen again, at least back then the politicians listened to the people somewhat and decided against voting for it. I don't imagine the politicians now give much of a crap what the public outcry would be in regards to this.



posted on Sep, 28 2020 @ 02:57 PM
link   
The Supreme Court failed. Our nation is rife with injustices and the MSM ignores all of it by promoting race wars when racism definitely wasn't a major issue anymore while the SCOTUS picks and chooses cases ignoring most all appeals.

The very fact 99% of appeals are never heard is proof alone they are helplessly backlogged and essentially have become completely ineffective.

We need a new stronger Constitution that addresses this failure among a host of others.

We are suppose to update this thing with lessons learned from our domestic tyrants who abused every loophole they could find.



posted on Sep, 28 2020 @ 03:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: xuenchen

Leftists want to change the US Constitution not by a Convention, but by Supreme Court reinterpretation.

Of course Biden (Harris) will pack the courts if they get the Senate back.



No where in the constitution does it tell us the number of justices in the court. In fact it was changed during the civil war a tenth juror was added. So its happened before only real problem is your going to want to keep it an odd number to prevent ties. This was the problem with having 10 and why they moved it back to 9.



posted on Sep, 28 2020 @ 03:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: muzzleflash
The Supreme Court failed. Our nation is rife with injustices and the MSM ignores all of it by promoting race wars when racism definitely wasn't a major issue anymore while the SCOTUS picks and chooses cases ignoring most all appeals.

The very fact 99% of appeals are never heard is proof alone they are helplessly backlogged and essentially have become completely ineffective.

We need a new stronger Constitution that addresses this failure among a host of others.

We are suppose to update this thing with lessons learned from our domestic tyrants who abused every loophole they could find.


You misunderstand their purpose completely. The supreme court is not an appeals court at all tats not why they are there.

What they do is look at the constitutionality of an appeals decision. They will look into it only if they believe there may be a problem that needs to be clarified. There is no way they could operate as an appeals court they get 10000 requests a year to look into case law and choose 80 cases.

If the Supreme court decides not to look into a particular petition of certiorari then the last decision stands. That's why appeals courts are just as important as the justices themselves. And this is somewhere Obama dropped the ball big time.

He left so many open judge seats during his 8 years as to be insane the number of appointments Trump has done.
edit on 9/28/20 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2020 @ 03:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: xuenchen

Leftists want to change the US Constitution not by a Convention, but by Supreme Court reinterpretation.

Of course Biden (Harris) will pack the courts if they get the Senate back.



No where in the constitution does it tell us the number of justices in the court. In fact it was changed during the civil war a tenth juror was added. So its happened before only real problem is your going to want to keep it an odd number to prevent ties. This was the problem with having 10 and why they moved it back to 9.


That seems like a rare but important flaw in the Constitution that ought to be remediated IMO. As you point out, obviously having odd numbering of judges is key, but also having too few or too many judges is also not desirable.

Not sure if the opinions of 3-5 justices is sufficient to canvas all the angles on an issue (depending on caliber of the justices), and my God, getting into a situation with 9+ judges sounds like a recipe for very long decision making process, and over-analysis of cases.

I'd give it almost 0 chance of happening, but would love to see the number of SC justices locked in at 9, requiring an amendment to change it, and while we're at it (famous last words) set some kind of basic limitations on age/duration of justices. No way RBG should've still been a member of the SC in 2020; sounds like she should've retired loong ago. I'd like to know if her illness had impacted her ability to sit in and deliberate on cases.



posted on Sep, 28 2020 @ 03:40 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Lets cut to the chase here. Joe Biden will NOT pack the supreme court. He is a degenerate loser. Everyone in his family is a degenerate loser. He brings nothing to the table, and he will not win the election.
edit on 28-9-2020 by drewlander because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2020 @ 03:46 PM
link   
Joe will support whatever his handlers(Pelosi/Harris) want.

I'm just surpised they haven't called to abolish the SCOTUS like everything else that hinders their authorianism.



posted on Sep, 28 2020 @ 03:58 PM
link   
a reply to: SleeperHasAwakened

Ginsburg herself was in favor of a 9 member court, which was also in mentioned in the opinion piece. I of course can't find the dang thing now, nor can I find her on record mentioning it. Although I believe the timeframe was 2019, so not exactly far in the past. The Constitution does need an amendment that determines the number, which considering we've used 9 since 1869 with the Circuit Judges Act.

If folks wanted to limit the number of justices able to be appointed by a single president, then we can take precedent from FDR on that one. "By the end of 1941, Roosevelt had appointed seven justices".

Judiciary Act of 1869 for those that want some reading.



posted on Sep, 28 2020 @ 04:18 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

The Supreme court has original jurisdiction but certiorari is hardly different than an appeal, even the filing process is essentially the same in the most generalized sense.

If you could find a way to skip the appeals courts you could force the SCOTUS to hear a case by either right of appeal or some type of jurisdictional arguement.

In theory.

In reality tho nothing in this court system works and it's run by very crappy humans that make horrible choices daily.
edit on 9/28/2020 by muzzleflash because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2020 @ 04:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hypntick
a reply to: xuenchen

I read an opinion piece last night about this. Aside from confirming the justice, there should be an amendment proposed that would limit the size of the court to 9. Prevents an FDR type situation from trying to happen again, at least back then the politicians listened to the people somewhat and decided against voting for it. I don't imagine the politicians now give much of a crap what the public outcry would be in regards to this.


Absolutely not. A new amendment would require a constitutional convention. I hope we never open that can of worms as long as radical are around. We could loose the first two amendments.



posted on Sep, 28 2020 @ 04:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Hypntick

I actually am convinced the only way forward is to eliminate the entire concept of a human judge.

An AI computer (in the distant future) is the only decent judge I can imagine.

It isn't bias or crippled by opinion.

It works purely from math and logic pathways. A defendant ought to able to communicate with the AI at any time any day in order to reason with it and appeal any miscalculations they believe it made so if true it can exonerate them.

You plug the Constitution in and the AI will uphold it.

Even if this idea goes horribly wrong it's better than living a life where immoral ignorant hypocrites think they can judge me and unjustly punish me destroying my life.

Im sorry but I'll be hard pressed to accept any "fix" that fails to remove the human from the equation.

Worst case scenario is still preferred to this.



posted on Sep, 28 2020 @ 04:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nickn3

originally posted by: Hypntick
a reply to: xuenchen

I read an opinion piece last night about this. Aside from confirming the justice, there should be an amendment proposed that would limit the size of the court to 9. Prevents an FDR type situation from trying to happen again, at least back then the politicians listened to the people somewhat and decided against voting for it. I don't imagine the politicians now give much of a crap what the public outcry would be in regards to this.


Absolutely not. A new amendment would require a constitutional convention. I hope we never open that can of worms as long as radical are around. We could loose the first two amendments.


A new Amendment does not require a Constitutional Convention.

In fact, an Amendment to the Constitution has never been passed by way of a CC.

A CC is just one of the two ways to trigger an Amendment.

Normally they are done through Congress.




posted on Sep, 28 2020 @ 04:36 PM
link   
Let's say he did answer? Would that make it any different?

Politicians say what they're "going to do" during the campaign. How often does that sh** stick?



posted on Sep, 28 2020 @ 04:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
Let's say he did answer? Would that make it any different?

Politicians say what they're "going to do" during the campaign. How often does that sh** stick?


Would make it a whole lot different.

Like maybe show some consistency and better "decisiveness" 😆



new topics

top topics



 
15
<<   2 >>

log in

join