Nancy Pelosi once said that we needed to pass Obamacare to figure out what's in it.
Now Joe Biden is saying he won't tell us if he's for the unconstitutional practice of packing the Supreme Court with judges who will do what the DNC tells them to until after he's elected.
This is truly amazing. Joe's saying that his position would be controversial, ie it would lose him votes, but he won't tell us what it is so that we can intelligently decide if we should vote for him.
Of course Joe's belief that he doesn't have to actually answer to the voters or tell them what he really thinks is nothing new.
He refused to open his Senate archives when he was credibly accused of sexual assault because he said it contained conversations he'd had with foreign leaders which would hurt his election prospects if people could see them.
More recently he's refused to release a list of who he'd consider for the Supreme Court.
This idea that keeping the voters in the dark is ok is based on the fascist tendencies of all modern Federal level Democrat politicians.
We're stupid rubes who wouldn't vote for the "right" candidate if we knew what they would do but since the "right" candidate, inevitably a Democrat, knows better than us how our country should be run it's ok for them to lie to us and conceal what they will do if elected.
The absurdity is clear. Joe's saying that people should vote for him without knowing what he will do as President meaning that he thinks that he should really be coronated not elected since he clearly feels that we the people have no right to know or any control over what he chooses to do; more like a king than a President.
Posts
3 comments:
how can you have a post titled
> Biden and Harris announce they will support packing the Supreme Court
and the very next post saying
> Now Joe Biden is saying he won't tell us if he's for the unconstitutional practice of packing the Supreme Court with judges
It's not coherent. Either he has made his intention clear or he is hiding them. You can't have it both ways.
Also, court packing doesn't violate the constitution.
Apparently you either didn't read the article or you were incapable of understanding it
We can say things without uttering the words and we use the word say for both options.
Once again did you read the post? Court packing only works if the new judges rule based on what the DNC wants not on what the constitution says and the Constitution doesn't give the Supreme Court that authority.
> Once again did you read the post? Court packing only works if the new judges rule based on what the DNC wants not on what the constitution says and the Constitution doesn't give the Supreme Court that authority.
You said:
> unconstitutional practice of packing the Supreme Court with judges who will do what the DNC tells them
There is nothing unconstitutional with putting anyone into the SCOTUS who will decide to vote in any manner. Obviously no justice would ever make decisions as you describe, but even if they did placing them into the court would still be constitutional.
> We can say things without uttering the words and we use the word say for both options.
You cannot at the same time complain Biden is refusing to indicate what he will do and say that it is very clear what he will do. That is what you are doing. You claim to know where he stands on court packing but also say "we won't know what he stands for until we elect him". It's a straight up contradiction no matter what linguistic games you want to play.
Post a Comment