Posted on 10/09/2020 6:19:03 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
The Commission on Presidential Debates will become irreversibly illegitimate unless it reverses course on in-person debates, which alone can force Joe Biden to answer the single most important question in this election: whether Biden would pack to the Supreme Court with additional seats, forever transforming our Constitution's three-branch form of government into a two-branch system. \
The Constitution allows Congress to set the number of Supreme Court seats. After several decades of trial and error, in 1869, Congress settled on nine seats, which has been a bedrock of stability in America's form of government for 151 years.
For more than half of our nation's existence, there has been only one attempt to change that number. Franklin Roosevelt in 1937 proposed increasing the number of justices to guarantee a pro–New Deal majority. Even fellow Democrats joined Republicans in opposing the idea, a repudiation that helped fuel massive Republican congressional gains in 1938.
Independent courts are essential to safeguarding a free nation, with judges who stand against the political majority — or the mob — when the government seizes unjust power or tramples on individual rights. In 2018, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg called an independent Judiciary "our nation's hallmark and pride."
It is not surprising that Ginsburg declared in 2019 that the Supreme Court should stay at nine justices, criticizing FDR's court-packing scheme. Packing the Court would make the Judiciary just an extension of the two political branches, subservient to Congress and the president.
Yet during the Democrat primaries — before Ginsburg's passing — candidates like Kamala Harris openly discussed passing a law to create new Supreme Court seats to ensure justices would rubber-stamp liberal agenda items.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Thursday, Biden declared that we will get his answer "on court-packing the day after the election."
Doesn't this remind you of Pelosi's "We have to vote for it to see what's in it" remark regarding Obamacare?
“You can’t handle the truth”.
The refusal to answer the question is an answer.
And about Kamala’s debate pledge that they would not raise taxes on anyone earning less than $400,000... Obama-Biden pledged something similar and then delivered Obamacare which was a tax on everyone.
If they don’t say no, I am going to assume they are saying yes.
Trump is going to pounce on Biden with this issue if he hasn’t answered yes/no by the next debate. I’m sure Hiden’s team is working hard to have him memorize some kind of response because they know Trump will be “going there”, bigly.
If the Scully/Scarramoochie moderator won’t bring it up, Trump needs to find a way to do it and I’m sure he will.
I’m surprised they aren’t just lying about it.
“I would NEVER pack the court!”
January 2021 — first initiative: pack the court.
RE: The refusal to answer the question is an answer.
Wise people will take their non-answer as a ‘YES’.
Eventually he will lie and say no.
Just as he and Kamala flip-flopped and now say they would not ban fracking.
Just as Obama said he was against Gay Marriage and then “evolved” later.
Just as Papa Bush said “Read my lips, no new taxes”.
We’ve seen this movie before.
Kamala tried to play the race card in the debate by saying that Trump had not appointed any black judges for a certain category of appointments (which probably means there are some in the full roster of his appointments). Of course the liberal black judges probably greatly outnumber the conservative ones so Trump would not have a lot of people to choose from.
Yep. Same as when a violent crime is committed by “youths” without any physical description.
The media is afraid to push this issue, they might be criticized for being true non-partisan journalists.
But the more I thought about it the more I realized, heck, Joe and Kamala have lied about everything else, what's one more lie? Just say you're not going to pack the Court, and ramp up to 25 or 50 justices when you get in. Who's going to stop you (if they get the Senate)?
I then realized the problem for them is not in answering the question for the general public. The problem is answering the question for their CONSTITUENCY! Die-hard leftists know the only way to counter ACB will be to pack the Court, but left leaners and moderates won't be thrilled about it. They'll see it's pushing a radical agenda down our throats. They'll turn on Biden, and he won't get in.
Trump needs to put the question to Biden and answer it for him. He needs to tell the American people EXACTLY what Biden's plan is and what the repercussions will be.
foxnews.com
Flashback: Kamala Harris said she was open to packing Supreme Court to shift balance away from conservatives
‘We have to take this challenge head-on, and everything is on the table to do that,’ she said
2020 Democratic vice presidential candidate Kamala Harris went on record last year saying she might support adding additional seats to the Supreme Court, in an effort to swing the ideological balance of the judicial branch back to the left.
Beginning with Robert Bork’s failed nomination by Ronald Reagan in the 1980s — and continuing up until the most recent nomination of Justice Brett Kavanaugh — Senate confirmation fights have turned into political do-or-dies for both sides of the aisle, as reflected by Harris’ past comments to Politico.
“We are on the verge of a crisis of confidence in the Supreme Court,” Harris said last March, according to Politico. “We have to take this challenge head-on, and everything is on the table to do that.”
Harris also reportedly shared similar sentiments with the New York Times, saying she was “absolutely open to” packing the court.
The California Democrat was not the only member of her party’s presidential hopefuls to commit to a court-packing strategy if Trump continued to see success in reshaping the high court. Some even offered proposals to add up to 10 more members.
Though justices are nominated by the president — and confirmed with the advice and consent of the Senate — judicial nominees were not thought to be an absolute issue. More often than not, Republicans and Democrats were capable of compromise. In the last several decades, however, the country has seen a historic escalation that has shattered any expectation of bipartisan unity on the matter.
Sens.Cory Booker, D-N.J., Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., all signaled an openness to overhauling the court if they became president. Progressive groups have also devoted funding to push the message to the public, in an effort to tap into perceived liberal anger over Trump’s judicial efficiency.
“First they steal a Supreme Court seat, and then they turn around and change the rules on the filibuster on a Supreme Court seat,” Warren said during a podcast interview last year. “So when it swings back to us what are we going to do? I think all the options are on the table.”—SNIP—
A very different Democrat party in those days apparently.
Well,,,She sure knew what a YES ANSWER can get ya big bucks,,,,Teacher? Ol Willie out there in kalifornicate
bttt
Eventually he will lie and say no.“
Exactly, there is enough pressure now that he will just say no with just enough equivocation to reverse it. I expected Harris to do just that,It would seem they are still working on the wording.
Biden didn’t have his super secret ear phone in so couldn’t answer the question.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.