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

nolivesmatter

Overheal wrote: »

The Capitol Officer who shot and killed that insurrectionist woman with the backpack that climbed through the doorframe during the attack in January, will not face criminal charges.

Seems fair. That was a crazy situation, there's not much he could have done that would have blamed him for TBH.

Overheal

I can't fathom justification for a non lethal outcome there, mostly owing to the backpack and her behavior. If they had tried to detain her and that had been an explosive (who would have known at the time with what was going on?) well, obvious calamity would have ensued.

Overheal

Overheal wrote: »

I can't fathom justification for a non lethal outcome there, mostly owing to the backpack and her behavior. If they had tried to detain her and that had been an explosive (who would have known at the time with what was going on?) well, obvious calamity would have ensued.

If the woman was black, do you think the cop would have been racist to shoot her?

weisses

Student_111 wrote: »

If the woman was black, do you think the cop have been racist to shoot her?

weisses

weisses wrote: »

Trust me - headlines would read "WHITE cop shoots unarmed BLACK woman". And there would be BLM riots in the street.

duploelabs

Student_111 wrote: »

If the woman was black, do you think the cop would have been racist to shoot her?

What do you think?

duploelabs

duploelabs wrote: »

What do you think?

Obviously not - but Overheal and others seem to think that any black person killed by the police means that the police are racist.

SEPT 23 1989

Overheal wrote: »

I can't fathom justification for a non lethal outcome there, mostly owing to the backpack and her behavior. If they had tried to detain her and that had been an explosive (who would have known at the time with what was going on?) well, obvious calamity would have ensued.

Exactly shoot first and ask questions later

duploelabs

Student_111 wrote: »

Obviously not - but Overheal and others seem to think that any black person killed by the police means that the police are racist.

Can you cite the posts where they said this?

Overheal

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

Exactly shoot first and ask questions later

Bit of an exaggeration there. They had given them chances, it wasn’t a surprise to the insurrectionists that they had guns drawn and it wasn’t a secret to anyone involved that “heads on pikes” etc. we’re the agenda of several there. Specifically to the woman, Gun drawn on her, warned to stay back, still crawled through a broken glass window with a backpack to charge at members of congress. Not like they just saw woman with backpack and smoked her

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.