Joe Biden Presidency thread *Please read OP - Threadbanned Users Added 4/5/21*

Billy Mays

The woman just wanted to have a chat with the politicians iirc

duploelabs

Billy Mays wrote: »

The woman just wanted to have a chat with the politicians iirc

I'm sure the Hang in 'Hang Mike Pence' which they chanted was slang for 'chat to'

Overheal

duploelabs wrote: »

I'm sure the Hang in 'Hang Mike Pence' which they chanted was slang for 'chat to'

“Hang [around with] Mike Pence!”

everlast75

https://twitter.com/briantylercohen/status/1382418023336714243?s=20

Fingers crossed this gets by the house and through the senate!

Faugheen

everlast75 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/briantylercohen/status/1382418023336714243?s=20

Fingers crossed this gets by the house and through the senate!

Zero chance it gets through the Senate.

Manchin and the two Arizona Senators will likely vote it down because it would mean they lose leverage in the future (even though I can't see how Manchin wins again in 2024) the two DC Senators will be Democrats, and overwhelmingly too.

biko

Manic Moran wrote: »

It might be interesting to have a rule where the court must always have more judges appointed by the opposite party. That means one would have to be fired when the Senate changes hands (with a replacement nominee and alternate selected by the previous congress), it would likely be the most “extreme” judge. That would prohibit this potential court-packing tit for tat we’re talking about and, encourage judges to take a more centrist viewpoint. Of course, zero chance of it happening.

When Trump were to nominate a replacement for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court, some Democrats started returning to an idea that hasn't been seriously proposed since the days of Franklin D. Roosevelt: increasing the number of justices on the Supreme Court.

Democratic leaders have long rejected the idea of packing the court, in large part due to fears of Republican retaliation. But with Ginsburg's death — and what many see as Republican hypocrisy in calling for a vote now after they refused to hold a hearing on Merrick Garland during the last year of Barack Obama's presidency — the once radical idea has started to gain traction.

Today:
Democrats to Unveil Bill to Expand US Supreme Court by 4 Justices
https://www.voanews.com/usa/democrats-unveil-bill-expand-us-supreme-court-4-justices

Overheal

Must be done now. The GOP turned the SCOTUS into a partisan institute and it must be unmade as such.

everlast75

I am a firm believer that if someone consistently punched you for 4+ years, then they deserve one almighty smack back in retaliation.

Expand the SCOTUS, make Washington a state, abolish the filibuster, implement legislation protecting voters rights.

Hande hoche!

everlast75 wrote: »

I am a firm believer that if someone consistently punched you for 4+ years, then they deserve one almighty smack back in retaliation.

Expand the SCOTUS, make Washington a state, abolish the filibuster, implement legislation protecting voters rights.

Throw in Puerto Rico as well.

Leroy42

Overheal wrote: »

Must be done now. The GOP turned the SCOTUS into a partisan institute and it must be unmade as such.

I still think they are simply trying to deal with moral issues through the legal systems, when IMO they really lie with the citizens.

Some document drawn up 250+ years ago cannot possibly be the cornerstone for current events and thinking.

But it is far easier to blame it on the courts, and of course easier to pack that court to your POV than it is to have a proper debate and vote.

For a country that believes so strongly in the fundamental importance of democracy, they seem very reluctant to ask people to vote on important issues.

biko

biko wrote: »

When Trump were to nominate a replacement for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court, some Democrats started returning to an idea that hasn't been seriously proposed since the days of Franklin D. Roosevelt: increasing the number of justices on the Supreme Court.

And why do you think this is being proposed? What happened in the case of Merrick Garland?

biko

Overheal wrote: »

Must be done now. The GOP turned the SCOTUS into a partisan institute and it must be unmade as such.

Trump nominated 3 justices and now Biden wants to add 4, not to replace anyone but to add Dems influence.
Doesn't sound like unmaking anything. Sounds like making the pendulum swing the other way.

Overheal

biko wrote: »

Trump nominated 3 justices and now Biden wants to add 4, not to replace anyone but to add Dems influence.
Doesn't sound like unmaking anything. Sounds like making the pendulum swing the other way.

Pendulum must swing the other way given how far right it has been shoved. Otherwise the pendulum is always either center or off to the right.

ErnestBorgnine

https://twitter.com/HitsugiChan/status/1382360630917730305

ohnonotgmail

biko wrote: »

Trump nominated 3 justices and now Biden wants to add 4, not to replace anyone but to add Dems influence.
Doesn't sound like unmaking anything. Sounds like making the pendulum swing the other way.

that would leave it with 7 democrat appointed justices and 6 GOP appointed justices. a more than fair reflection of voting demographics.

biko

Conservative justices aren't particularly right-wing.

The decision upholding Obamacare’s individual mandate was written by Bush-appointed Chief Justice John Roberts, and the decision legalizing same-sex marriage throughout the United States was written by Reagan appointee Anthony Kennedy.

In Bostock v Clayton county, the Trump-appointed justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in a majority opinion that discriminating against LGBTQ+ employees violates the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

And in Department of Homeland Security v Regents of the University of California, in a 5-4 decision, the court decided that the Trump administration could not proceed with its plan to eliminate Daca, the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program that protects certain immigrants from deportation.


Oh, and even a justice himself says it's a bad idea.
Justice Stephen Breyer is one of the most left-wing justices on the Supreme Court.
Yet, in an address to Harvard Law School on Tuesday, even he is now warning Joe Biden that his plans to pack the Supreme Court are extremely ill-advised, unless his goal is to damage the fabric of America indefinitely by destroying “the rule of law itself.”

salmocab

biko wrote: »

Oh, and even a justice himself says it's a bad idea.
Justice Stephen Breyer is one of the most left-wing justices on the Supreme Court.
Yet, in an address to Harvard Law School on Tuesday, even he is now warning Joe Biden that his plans to pack the Supreme Court are extremely ill-advised, unless his goal is to damage the fabric of America indefinitely by destroying “the rule of law itself.”

Has Biden actually mentioned this? It seems to me he is trying to get a bipartisan group to look at what changes could be made to the Supreme Court and people have just ran away with themselves.

biko

biko wrote: »

Oh, and even a justice himself says it's a bad idea.
Justice Stephen Breyer is one of the most left-wing justices on the Supreme Court.
Yet, in an address to Harvard Law School on Tuesday, even he is now warning Joe Biden that his plans to pack the Supreme Court are extremely ill-advised, unless his goal is to damage the fabric of America indefinitely by destroying “the rule of law itself.”

Did you just source that quote from a severely biased media source that has been shown to have constantly made false claims in the past?

https://100percentfedup.com/left-wing-supreme-court-justice-publicly-scolds-biden-do-not-pack-the-supreme-court/

Stephen Breyer is a moderate liberal. If that makes him one of the most left-wing justices on the Supreme Court then things certainly do need to change.

Why do you use such websites for your news?

Smee_Again

salmocab wrote: »

Has Biden actually mentioned this? It seems to me he is trying to get a bipartisan group to look at what changes could be made to the Supreme Court and people have just ran away with themselves.

He's hasn't, as far as I can remember, come out in favour of increasing the number of justices, he just committed to creating a group to look at Supreme Court reform.

Quin_Dub

biko wrote: »

Conservative justices aren't particularly right-wing.

The decision upholding Obamacare’s individual mandate was written by Bush-appointed Chief Justice John Roberts, and the decision legalizing same-sex marriage throughout the United States was written by Reagan appointee Anthony Kennedy.

In Bostock v Clayton county, the Trump-appointed justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in a majority opinion that discriminating against LGBTQ+ employees violates the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

And in Department of Homeland Security v Regents of the University of California, in a 5-4 decision, the court decided that the Trump administration could not proceed with its plan to eliminate Daca, the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program that protects certain immigrants from deportation.


Oh, and even a justice himself says it's a bad idea.
Justice Stephen Breyer is one of the most left-wing justices on the Supreme Court.
Yet, in an address to Harvard Law School on Tuesday, even he is now warning Joe Biden that his plans to pack the Supreme Court are extremely ill-advised, unless his goal is to damage the fabric of America indefinitely by destroying “the rule of law itself.”

I have to say - I don't quite get that part.

Lots of Pro/Con arguments to have on the subject , not least the risk of it kicking off an arms race any cycle when the "other" side had majorities in all three branches. But just do not see how "the rule of law" is damaged here.

Baggly

ErnestBorgnine wrote: »

link dump

Mod

Please contribute your own thoughts / opinions with your posts, rather than just dumping a link.

biko

Lol, now it's #ExpandTheCourt in NewSpeak.

https://www.bostonherald.com/2021/04/10/markey-calls-to-expand-supreme-court-other-massachusetts-pols-say-theyll-wait-on-biden-commission/

Jones tweeted, “My colleagues and I need not wait for the findings of a commission. We know the obvious: we must #ExpandTheCourt before it’s too late.”

biko

Deleted User wrote: »

Did you just source that quote from a severely biased media source that has been shown to have constantly made false claims in the past?

https://100percentfedup.com/left-wing-supreme-court-justice-publicly-scolds-biden-do-not-pack-the-supreme-court/

Stephen Breyer is a moderate liberal. If that makes him one of the most left-wing justices on the Supreme Court then things certainly do need to change.

I'll add a trigger warning next time.

Leroy42

biko wrote: »

Lol, now it's #ExpandTheCourt in NewSpeak.

https://www.bostonherald.com/2021/04/10/markey-calls-to-expand-supreme-court-other-massachusetts-pols-say-theyll-wait-on-biden-commission/

Well, plenty of people head into commissions with prior views. The point of the commission is to come to a consensus. You don't think that only people that have no feeling, either way, should be involved, as that would rule out many of those that actually follow and understand it.

But the commission is there to hear all sides of the argument and try to ascertain what is the best course of action going forward.

Well, there is nothing inherently wrong with expanding the court. Why is 9 the magic number? Should it be more, less?

As I said previously, I think they are abusing the Supreme court system to avoid and try to manipulate laws to suits themselves, but as that is unlikely to change in the short term, why is having more judges a bad thing?

GOP didn't seem to worry that 8 judges existed for Obamas last year, so 9 can't be that important a number.

Faugheen

biko wrote: »

Trump nominated 3 justices and now Biden wants to add 4, not to replace anyone but to add Dems influence.
Doesn't sound like unmaking anything. Sounds like making the pendulum swing the other way.

The 'packing the court' precedent started when the Republicans ignored Merrick Garland for a year because 'election'.

They then fast-tracked ACB after over 50m people had voted in. If that isn't packing the court I don't know what is.

Leroy42

Faugheen wrote: »

The 'packing the court' precedent started when the Republicans ignored Merrick Garland for a year because 'election'.

They then fast-tracked ACB after over 50m people had voted in. If that isn't packing the court I don't know what is.

Exactly. One of Trumps actual achievements (his only) was that he had stacked the court. It was one of his key selling points.

For the GOP now to feign concern that the court might be stacked is nothing but hypocrisy.

astrofool

It is going to be funny watching the GOP act all aghast at this proposal when their behavior in the senate has directly caused it

Faugheen

The legislation isn't going to go anywhere anytime soon, anyway.

But if it did and it passed through the House, and Senate, where do we think it will end up?

biko

Faugheen wrote: »

If that isn't packing the court I don't know what is.

It's not.
Packing the court means adding more justices to the US Supreme Court.
ACB simply replaced RGB.
These 4 won't replace anyone, they will be an addition.

Tell me how

Leroy42 wrote: »

Exactly. One of Trumps actual achievements (his only) was that he had stacked the court. It was one of his key selling points.

For the GOP now to feign concern that the court might be stacked is nothing but hypocrisy.

GOP and Hypocrisy???

They are one and the same thing.

Faugheen

biko wrote: »

It's not.
Packing the court means adding more justices to the US Supreme Court.
ACB simply replaced RGB.
These 4 won't replace anyone, they will be an addition.

Spare me. They blocked a Democratic on the pretence of 'an election year' when fact is it was the seat of an ultra-conservative Justice.

Then, after 50 million people had voted, they replaced a liberal justice with a one of Scalia's proteges just days before voting closed and ignored their own precedent set four years earlier.

Defend it all you want but that is packing the court. Maybe not in a literal definitive sense, but anyone with eyes and half-a-brain can see it for what it is. It's not a simple 'ACB replaced RBG' as that would remove all context.

If Republicans stood by their precedent in 2015, this conversation wouldn't be happening right now. However, they went back on it in true Republican fashion and did whatever they want when it suited them.

Now, they're getting that attitude back with this and suggestions of adding DC and Puerto Rico as states and they don't like it.

F*ck them.

Smee_Again

biko wrote: »

It's not.
Packing the court means adding more justices to the US Supreme Court.
ACB simply replaced RGB.
These 4 won't replace anyone, they will be an addition.

These 4?

Biko do you realise it isn’t Biden putting this forward? It’s 1 senator and he doesn’t even have the support of the House Speaker so it’s not going to happen until and unless Biden’s bipartisan commission reports on it.

You’ve shot your load too early here.

biko

biko wrote: »

I'll add a trigger warning next time.

Why did you purposefully remove the question I asked you when you quoted me? Do you not want to answer it?

biko

biko wrote: »

It's not.
Packing the court means adding more justices to the US Supreme Court.
ACB simply replaced RGB.
These 4 won't replace anyone, they will be an addition.

And why didn't Merrick Garland simply replace Antonin Scalia?

biko

Deleted User wrote: »

And why didn't Merrick Garland simply replace Antonin Scalia?

I don't know.

ohnonotgmail

biko wrote: »

I don't know.

you do know. don't pretend to be naive.

Faugheen

biko wrote: »

I don't know.

If you don't know then you're not paying attention.

Tell me how

biko wrote: »

I don't know.

Nobody here believes this.

BanditLuke

Biden running away from questions on Russia yet again

Overheal

BanditLuke wrote: »

Biden running away from questions on Russia yet again

If only we had Trump back, you couldn't get the guy to shut up badmouthing Russia.

everlast75

BanditLuke wrote: »

Biden running away from questions on Russia yet again

Do i need to post the pictures of "Reek" in Helsinki?

Brian?

BanditLuke wrote: »

Biden running away from questions on Russia yet again

What questions? Can you show his responses? Hard to have a discussion without context

mcmoustache

BanditLuke wrote: »

Biden running away from questions on Russia yet again

Is that an improv prompt, a running comentary or what?


I appreciate that not all people are capable of making a coherent point but come on. Try to up your game.

Dr. Bre

BanditLuke wrote: »

Biden running away from questions on Russia yet again

Did he slip while running ?

extra gravy

BanditLuke wrote: »

Biden running away from questions on Russia yet again

Yeah he's "running away" so fast he's actually delivering remarks on the matter shortly. There's a link on the Potus Twitter page seeing that you're so interested. Might be a better use of your time than posting dumb comments here.

Overheal

Along with new voter suppression measures doing the rounds, the GOP in Oklahoma today passed through the legislature a bill to the Gov's desk that will give protections against criminal liability to motorists who run over pedestrians exercising their first amendment rights:

https://thehill.com/regulation/legislation/548396-oklahoma-senate-passes-protections-for-drivers-who-hit-protesters?fbclid=IwAR0zS8PHqNv2hpRpGxpTrQPHlYyvnHWzREEoY8tjIfF83bN2FWrrIE60Qus

biko

I don't agree with this bill but why are you standing in the road?

biko

biko wrote: »

I don't agree with this bill but why are you standing in the road?

Wrong thread.
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058091617

Brian?

biko wrote: »

I don't agree with this bill but why are you standing in the road?

It's called a peaceful protest. I thought we all supported peaceful protests?

Brian?

Overheal wrote: »

Along with new voter suppression measures doing the rounds, the GOP in Oklahoma today passed through the legislature a bill to the Gov's desk that will give protections against criminal liability to motorists who run over pedestrians exercising their first amendment rights:

https://thehill.com/regulation/legislation/548396-oklahoma-senate-passes-protections-for-drivers-who-hit-protesters?fbclid=IwAR0zS8PHqNv2hpRpGxpTrQPHlYyvnHWzREEoY8tjIfF83bN2FWrrIE60Qus

Disgraceful