2020 Presidential Race

[clarksvol00]

Could u be more specific on foreign policy? Asking NATO to pay for their prior promised 2% GDP or asking China for more balanced trade. Sounds like he is standing up for our nation to me.

Things like lumber tariffs with Canada come to mind.

 

[newyorkvol]

Perish the thought!

It’s another reason why he won’t say what he would do with the courts. Because once she’s the president, she can’t be beholden to what he was elected on.

 

[clarksvol00]

You mean dutifully appointed judges to fill vacancies?! How dare them!

They also refused to dutifully appoint judges when it was convenient.

 

[volfanjustin]

Think about what this country will be like with Kamala Harris as President -- Biden wont last a year

Beijing Biden is corrupt and a scumbag but he has never worried me much, his life has been meaningless as he’s never accomplished a single thing. But his VP choice always worried me since it’s likely she will take over within 2 years

 

[landscapingvol]

According to the 2016 Republicans, the timeline for no vote was at least nine months before the election. Garland should have gotten a vote, Barrett should get a vote. That happens, we're probably not discussing more justices now.

Democrats didn’t control the Senate and Republicans had the ability to not bring the nomination to a vote just like they have the ability to bring a nomination to a vote now if they choose to. It isn’t complicated. If a vacancy opens under Biden then I would expect the Democrats to approve the nomination. There is a huge difference between that and packing the Court because you are pouting over a defeat. The fact that you can’t understand that basic concept is concerning

 

[landscapingvol]

They also refused to dutifully appoint judges when it was convenient.

Which is their decision, why can’t you seem to grasp that?

 

[clarksvol00]

Democrats didn’t control the Senate and Republicans had the ability to not bring the nomination to a vote just like they have the ability to bring a nomination to a vote now if they choose to. It isn’t complicated. If a vacancy opens under Biden then I would expect the Democrats to approve the nomination. There is a huge difference between that and packing the Court because you are pouting over a defeat. The fact that you can’t understand that basic concept is concerning

Whoever is in power gets to make the rules i guess.

 

[tvolsfan]

The modern dem party doesn’t want the betterment of America.

lol

 

[clarksvol00]

Which is their decision, why can’t you seem to grasp that?

If the Democrats take both houses and the presidency, it will be their decision.

 

[RavinDave]

It’s another reason why he won’t say what he would do with the courts. Because once she’s the president, she can’t be beholden to what he was elected on.

And she's not answering questions on what "their" plans are either.

Pence will try to pin her down, but she's a slippery one.

 

[landscapingvol]

Whoever is in power gets to make the rules i guess.

You do understand the majority party is well within their rights to not approve or vote for a nominee as opposed to packing the courts simply because their isn’t a vacancy when you want there to be one. How do you not see the difference?

 

[landscapingvol]

If the Democrats take both houses and the presidency, it will be their decision.

Like talking to a fence post

 

[volfanjustin]

lol

Your sides idea of betterment would be
Sky high taxes
Sky high unemployment
Government dependance
Riots
And we all use only bikes to get around

 

[RavinDave]

Cure or not if Beijing Biden wins covid is over

I'm not so sure. Might be more lockdowns.

 

[newyorkvol]

I don’t understand the argument that we’ve had more than 9 justices before comes from. We’ve had 9 since the 1860’s. Do we really want to go back to how we were running the country before 1860??

 

[clarksvol00]

You do understand the majority party is well within their rights to not approve or vote for a nominee as opposed to packing the courts simply because their isn’t a vacancy when you want there to be one. How do you not see the difference?

My understanding is that he constitution allows the congress to set the number of justices by law, just like it allows the senate to approve justices. I wish I was wrong, but "that's not fair" isn't an argument with either party anymore, even if its true.

 

[clarksvol00]

Like talking to a fence post

I know the feeling.

 

[volfanjustin]

I'm not so sure. Might be more lockdowns.

I get that thinking but the reason it’s over is because the media won’t allow Beijing Biden to come into office during a manufactured pandemic

 

[landscapingvol]

My understanding is that he constitution allows the congress to set the number of justices by law, just like it allows the senate to approve justices. I wish I was wrong, but "that's not fair" isn't an argument with either party anymore, even if its true.

Your “understanding” is elementary at best.

 

[clarksvol00]

Your “understanding” is elementary at best.

How so? Who sets the number of justices?

Edit: I'm not claiming to be an expert on this stuff. I'd be interested to know if I'm wrong.

 

[Velo Vol]

It's over. The Queen hath spoken.

 

[RavinDave]

I get that thinking but the reason it’s over is because the media won’t allow Beijing Biden to come into office during a manufactured pandemic

You have a point. It will have served its purpose once the election is over with.

But I still think they will not want to give up their new-found power to micromanage our everyday lives.

 

[landscapingvol]

How so? Who sets the number of justices?

Edit: I'm not claiming to be an expert on this stuff. I'd be interested to know if I'm wrong.

The fact that you don’t understand that packing the very courts with extra judges so it will rubber stamp the Constitutionality of your policies is diametrically opposed to the very foundations of the Constitution. We aren’t talking about a probate court. Whether you agree with Trump, Obama, or whomever, they were simply filling vacancies on the Court, not creating them. Packing the Court will undo decades of established precedence and will legitimize “laws” that violate the Constitution. Again, your “understanding” is elementary and this endeavor goes well beyond being “unfair”

 

[clarksvol00]

The fact that you don’t understand that packing the very courts with extra judges so it will rubber stamp the Constitutionality of your policies is diametrically opposed to the very foundations of the Constitution. We aren’t talking about a probate court. Whether you agree with Trump, Obama, or whomever, they were simply filling vacancies on the Court, not creating them. Packing the Court will undo decades of established precedence and will legitimize “laws” that violate the Constitution. Again, your “understanding” is elementary and this endeavor goes well beyond being “unfair”

I didn't write the constitution.

 

[Hunerwadel]

The modern dem party doesn’t want the betterment of America. There is no common ground with these people

Justin that's just dumb, even for you.