Donald Trump is making 60 Minutes must see TV

fish82

Well-known member
Biden should answer the question but we all know what he is trying to do. He does not advocate court packing but does not want to alienate the far left vote. Trump on the other hand refuses to answer questions on 2nd term agenda. He offers absolutely nothing despite being asked multiple times. The two are not comparable.
They're obviously 100% comparable. Joe is refusing to answer questions on his agenda. 🤷‍♂️

Hopefully you're just being dumb on purpose here in order to deflect from your usual lack of objectivity.
 

fish82

Well-known member
Court packing is a wedge issue now. It’s like asking a Republican candidate if they will ban abortion. They dodge.

Thencourt packing question is a tough one, and Biden is smart to dodge it. I’m for balance on the courts. It shouldn’t lean heavily one way or another. If you have to expand the court to do that, then they should do it.
Or, (and I'm just spitballing here mind you) you could actually just win elections and then fill all the court vacancies as you see fit...and as that Constitution thingy says. 🤷‍♂️

Hope this helps.
 

Happygoluckky

Well-known member
Biden should answer the question but we all know what he is trying to do. He does not advocate court packing but does not want to alienate the far left vote. Trump on the other hand refuses to answer questions on 2nd term agenda. He offers absolutely nothing despite being asked multiple times. The two are not comparable.
He is running on Hillary's emails, a mythical healthcare plan and silencencing health officials on the virus as it rages. Hope and pray.
 

4GX

Well-known member
Wow the morons really love their 60 Minutes lol
Must be a lot of morons out there— 60 Minutes’ audience DWARFS any of your favorites on Fox News, EVERY WEEK— it is the most watched news program in the US, on any distribution platform— and it’s actually a news program, as opposed to just editorializing (which is all that Carlson, Hannity, et al., offer).
 

4GX

Well-known member
The worst part is that most of these were not “tough.” They are legitimate questions that any journalist would ask outside of his FOX & Friends bubble. Every time a journalist asks him a question that requires some sort of actual thought (Wallace, Guthrie, etc) he goes into a tailspin on social media.

“What are your goals for your second term?” should be an absolute softball question for a candidate to answer. All the answer requires is some policy explanation. Unfortunately there is next to no long term policy plans in the entire Trump Administration.
There aren’t any goals for his second term, first and foremost because he‘s known for some time that there won’t BE a second term. There weren’t any goals for his first term, either— he didn’t expect to win that one either...
That’s not to say that there would have been goals, had he thought he was going to be elected— he doesn’t read, so he doesn’t plan— his only goal, his whole life has been to enrich himself. Currently, his only goal is to try to stay out of jail, once he is voted out of office in November 2020– which is why he is already talking about how he “might need to leave the country, if I lose to ‘this guy’”...
 

fish82

Well-known member
It's going to need unpacked. Trump likes to question why Obama didn't fill judicial openings, but neglects to mention that the GOP Senate wouldn't allow judges to be confirmed at any level. The GOP have already packed the courts.
Patently false lol. Obama had over 25 circuit court judges and 120 district court judges confirmed between 2013 and 2017. Not sure why you feel the need to lie about something so easily verifiable. 🤷‍♂️

1 of a Biden administration- expand the Supreme Court to 11 or 13. Balance the courts.
You seem confused.
 

4GX

Well-known member
It's going to need unpacked. Trump likes to question why Obama didn't fill judicial openings, but neglects to mention that the GOP Senate wouldn't allow judges to be confirmed at any level. The GOP have already packed the courts.

Day 1 of a Biden administration- expand the Supreme Court to 11 or 13. Balance the courts.
I really hope (and I strongly believe) that you are completely wrong— that way lies chaos. As Mitt Romney astutely put it ”Having a liberal/progressive leaning majority on the Supreme Court is NOT written in the stars.” Liberals got used to that state of affairs because it was largely the case from the 1960’s to the 1990’s— and that left-leaning majority used judicial activism to create a large number of new legal standards that could NEVER have been enacted directly by the country’s duly elected legislature-- but it is not some inalienable right, to have a left-leaning majority on the Supreme Court.
 

ProV1

Well-known member
They're obviously 100% comparable. Joe is refusing to answer questions on his agenda. 🤷‍♂️

Hopefully you're just being dumb on purpose here in order to deflect from your usual lack of objectivity.
No. And he also answered it this week. Trump refuses to answer a single question on his entire agenda.
 

MrPearson

Active member
I'd go beyond packing it. I'd cram it. Show the GOP what the results of their games are. You want to destroy norms? Spout off elections have consequences? Flip it right back on them.
 

Harrycrane

Well-known member
I think that’s about to happen.
It's as if some people think it's only about winning elections in terms of getting Supreme court justice slots filled. Luck , timing of when people die has a bit to do with it as well . A party can have the WH for 8 years and the senate for most of it and still get zero judges confirmed because there just happened to be no vacancy during that time
 

sapientia et veritas

Well-known member
Democrats will not pack the court. It's already too big. Add two people and the number of cases per year gets halved. Writs go from 100-150/yr down to 60-80 tops. They'd be lucky to hear one case per day. And you can be sure that if that kind of naked politicizing happened that the Conservative judges will suddenly have a whole bunch of questions on every case. And extended pontifications on conference days. Filibuster on the court. It's unworkable. What's the point of activist judges if they don't get to do much activism? Just not practical and the entire bar knows it. There's a reason that the appeals courts are just 3.
 

sapientia et veritas

Well-known member
I haven't watched 60 minutes in 20 years. Their Y2K coverage was laughable. I figured that if they were completely stupid about information technology, they were probably stupid about a lot of stuff.
 

fish82

Well-known member
Clearly the democrat party doesn't really have the balls to actually pack the SCOTUS if they happen to win this cycle.

That said, it remains fun to watch them throwing such a tantrum over this confirmation lol.
 

MrPearson

Active member
Y
2008 is calling lol.
You mean 2008 when the dems expanded their leads in the house and senate, and took the White House? Yep. Happening again. Only this time you have a president that makes George W. Bush look like George Washington. Republicans won’t be in control ever again unless they rebrand them selves
 

MrPearson

Active member
Democrats will not pack the court. It's already too big. Add two people and the number of cases per year gets halved. Writs go from 100-150/yr down to 60-80 tops. They'd be lucky to hear one case per day. And you can be sure that if that kind of naked politicizing happened that the Conservative judges will suddenly have a whole bunch of questions on every case. And extended pontifications on conference days. Filibuster on the court. It's unworkable. What's the point of activist judges if they don't get to do much activism? Just not practical and the entire bar knows it. There's a reason that the appeals courts are just 3.
They're smart people. They'll work it out.
 
.
Top