Are you gonna pack the court?
Well, are ya? Asked the question 3 or 4 times, and still no answer. Dangerous people running right now. No respect for separation of powers.
Trending Content
| +96 | Are you “less ambitious” for having long term goals outside of NYC | 24 | 1d | |
| +45 | Interviews Are So Fake | 28 | 5h | |
| +33 | 2024 UK Election - Tories finished? | 21 | 10h | |
| +29 | Being Christian in investment banking | 14 | 1d | |
| +25 | Non-Competes Banned | 26 | 7m | |
| How do I become Sigma | 15 | 23m | ||
| +19 | ADHD ! | 4 | 8h | |
| +19 | Moelis has the cutest Analysts? | 4 | 1d | |
| +18 | Best NYC neighborhood for single 30M | 12 | 3d | |
| +16 | Underage intern, drinking? | 7 | 1d |
Career Resources
Thought pence could have finished stronger with the parallel more clearly about disregard for rules, and the encroachment into people’s lives. He clearly won this debate by a landslide and surprised me honestly, I thought harris was fear mongering and repeated the same sound bites several times.
Both were question dodgy though.
I thought biden and pence were prepped really well and came off polished, which surprised me and all Harris had to do was not alienate and be at least acceptable to win the election but I don't think she did a good job there. Jesus harris is so bad it’s disgraceful, her performance and behavioral cues were terrible- like, has she never been coached on those things? The passive aggressiveness was off the charts and her nervousness was showing from the blinking and constant swallowing and awkward smiling and again passive aggressiveness. She was also weak and passive in asking for time, and tried pulling the Biden ‘will u let me answer’ for the packing courts question, after being given an uninterrupted full minute to answer which is horrible.
I think the poised nature of Biden and pence were amazing, and harris was so nervous and fake it came off horribly. This would be much different race if it was pence v Biden or pence v Harris I think, because ‘the worst’ of each candidate doesn’t matter that much honestly. It just gets swept under the rug, other than for trump really (as coronavirus handling is a huge central issue)
It’s AMAZING how different people will interpret and spin things though, and politics has become a debate of opinions and interpretations rather than truth.
Why are people throwing MS? You're right. Pence is the clear winner of this debate.
Harris had some good moments but she was mostly terrible. She used soundbites when she should've used fact and logic. Pence striked with facts and logic when needed and used soundbites when appropriate.
Harris's attitude was also problematic. She also kept going off topic. But I guess Pence did that as well.
Pence clearly knew how to read the "flow" of the debate. Harris sounded a little tone deaf.
Pence knew exactly what he was trying to achieve (win independents back and project a presidential image that the real POTUS can't). Harris seemed conflicted btw energizing the "woke" crowd and appealing to the independents.
d
I guess you’re going to ignore every question that Pence didn’t answer?
And as usual, a black woman gets called “aggressive” or “angry” even though she pretty much kept her cool when Pence continued to interrupt her. Pence was also aggressive but it scares people when a black woman is the same way. Amazing.
They were both bad, but it doesn’t matter if they answer or don’t answer the question. They say what they think is important and either it matches up with what the people want to hear, and is a good answer, which justifies not answering the question or it’s a shitty answer and they look doubly bad for giving a poor answer while being evasive.
The questions were pretty horrible I thought though, because there was an obvious answer. The climate change one or the breonna Taylor questions were phrased horribly, because neither person or administration actually cares about these issues (let’s be honest) and as a base human we all agree on the core sentiments. So the framing was poor on those and heavy on unimportant specifics while needing to address the larger ones (which both people tried to answer, the overarching stuff)
People don’t dislike Kamala Harris because she’s a black woman, they dislike her because of her horrible track record as DA, inability to answer simple policy questions, and refusal to say she won’t pack the courts. Nice race card though
I dislike her track record as well and I never said people don’t like Kamala because she’s a black woman. But you’re delusional if you think there’s not a stigma attached to black women that choose to be assertive or speak up. They’re consistently labeled as the “angry black woman” or they’re labeled as aggressive and/or rude. That’s the issue but it’s hard to explain that to people (not saying that’s you) that quite honestly don’t really care to know these things because the stigma doesn’t affect them.
Shes indian
She's half Indian, half Jamaican, 100% insufferable hypocrite that got her start in politics from a publicly-flaunted extramarital affair in the 90s with Willie Brown. That's not even touching on her record as DA, which is so abhorrent that when it got brought up in the primaries she dropped out before a vote was cast knowing she probably wouldn't even win her home state of CA. She's disgusting.
Why are you bringing race into this? Packing the courts is a serious issue and strikes at the core of separation of powers. The courts exists to restrain the legislative and executive branch and keep their actions within the constraints of the Constitution. The President and Congress thinking, “Well, I don’t like the court so I’m just gonna appoint more justices who are friendly to my agenda” is pure and utter corruption. FDR tried packing the court in the middle of the Depression when his approval ratings were sky high, and even then, all Americans stood up against it because they understood it was wrong. The fact that we can’t do this today shows how far low we’ve swooped.
Literally your comment
WOOF WOOF. GRRRRRRRRR
I don’t think you understand what separation of powers means. The executive branch has the power to increase the number of judges - it’s absolutely within their right. And judges in America have essentially become political appointees meant to advance certain policy positions, which is why Republicans tried so hard to steal the Garland seat from Obama in 2016 and have a hard-on for pushing a new conservative justice through before Trump’s term is over.
Packing the Supreme Court has been systematically done by South American dictators. Congratulations, that's your level of understanding of separation of powers, the same arguments of Fujimori and Chavez.
You don’t like it? Then vote in a President and Congress who will limit the executive and legislative branch’s power to expand the courts. Good luck with that.
What tf are you saying? I said this above but I’ll repeat: The President and Congress thinking, “I don’t like the court right now so I’m just gonna appoint more justices who are friendly to my agenda” is pure corruption. FDR tried packing the court in the middle of the Depression (to pass his policies) when his approval ratings were sky high, and even then, all Americans stood up against it because they understood it was wrong. The fact that we can’t understand this today shows how far low we’ve swooped.
Separation of powers refers to the separate and independent powers granted to each branch of government, and one of the executive branch’s powers is to expand the number of judges if they so wish.
And oh please, cut the pearl-clutching BS about “stooping this low”. The Republican Party shattered political norms in 2016 by refusing to hold a hearing on Garland’s confirmation with 10(!) months left in Obama’s term, using some BS excuse about letting the voters decide, while now doing a complete 180 and rushing to get a conservative justice appointed when we’re less than a month away from an election. It’s a brazen and shameless power grab by the Republican Party, but hey, they have the power to do so. And guess what? The Democrats, if they take the executive and the senate, have the power to pack the courts and tip it to a liberal majority. Republicans can’t cry foul now. They made their bed and they may have to lie in it.
There’s no practical difference between “I don’t like the court right now so I’m going to appoint more judges who are friendly to my agenda” vs. “I won’t like the court if my rival gets to select more judges, so I’ll refuse to let my rival appoint judges and use every opportunity I get to appoint judges who are friendly to my agenda”. In the end, both parties are using their powers to select judges who they expect to endorse the policies the party wants. This is why the US shouldn’t have lifetime appointments for SCOTUS judges. Canada’s system of mandatory retirement at age 75 and requiring nominees to have at least 10 years of superior court judge experience results in a way more balanced and less politicized court. Our system results in the governing party trying to ram through an ideological zealot judge with only 3 years’ experience who was rated as “unqualified” for her first judgeship, purely because they know her age and political views will ensure their political agenda has a good chance of being advanced over the next 3-4 decades.
Duplicate post
Have the liberal media started already accusing Pence of raping Harris? Can't believe she was the top pick until they brought back granpa from retirement. And she might even be president without being voted in.
Dude, fuck off
Go crawl back in your SJW hole
You support:
- trying to ruin innocent people's lives with false accusations of heinous crimes like rape to score political points
- racial discrimination against my group
- teaching insane, anti-scientific gender theories to kids
- weakening of countries borders, even when that results in the spreading of pandemics
- a culture aimed to oppress people with thought crimes, food crimes, speech crimes
- the vandalization of our heritage and the denigration of the work of our fathers
How about you fuck off instead? Seriously, you are ruining the most successful societies ever existed and contribute to nothing positive.
Honest question: Are you American or not? Do you at least live in America? If not, this isn't for you bro.
He absolutely is not American nor does he live in America.
What the actual hell is this? Straight up poor taste, even if meant as a joke. Also, to your last point about her potentially becoming president, that's how the vice presidency works and has worked for over 100 years. Would you prefer Biden to say that his VP won't actually do what every other VP was assigned to do?
It isn't a joke. That's just who neink is.
Pence for the W, poker face mastered.
Pence won. I only saw the last 30-45 minutes though. Kamala comes off as fake and can’t go one answer without pandering to a certain demographic. And did she really bring up her history as a prosecutor in the middle of a debate about criminal justice reform? What a joke.
deleted
Overall, it was a pretty boring debate and I turned it off at half time. Pence was asked to defend the indefensible, for which there naturally was no reply that made any sense. There was no defense for our debacle of a response to COVID and there was no response to the justice gathering question that led to a COVID outbreak in the white house. Pence's response to to the environmental question was also quite amusing when considering that the administration tried to dismantle the EPA and roll back regulations that keeps people safe. I do not find the green new deal response that bad. Politicians make lots of promises they cannot keep.
It’s not going to change my vote, but one must admit it was a very strong moment for Pence last night, and did not look good at all for Harris.
So you don't find Pence and Trump dangerous? Nothing to say about the number of families they've put in danger because of their horrible response to covid? I hope after this election is over they'll take some time to test the IQ of all the people who're still supporting Trump
Laughable that some on here watched last night and thought Pence won?
Prior to 2016 Pence was extreme even for Indiana. He's a former conservative radio host who will lie to your face with a smile. This is the same Mike Pence that argued in 2001 "smoking doesn't kill" - don't be so fucking naïve.
Ya I always laugh when people say somebody "won" the debate. The whole point these days is to appeal to specific demographics. In my view neither candidate lost support, they both made a case to their base.
Yeah, I was thinking how they both talk to their base and it's unfortunate that there are no more mainstream, national issues where we're united as a country. This is the campaign to select a leader who will represent ALL of us.
It's laughable that someone could've watched last night and thought Harris was more impressive. I thought Pence was a joke going into last night, but Harris didn't even belong in the same building.
It's not about their past. But about how they conducted themselves during the debate.
Pence did exactly what he was supposed to do. Kamala failed to do so.
I thought Senator Harris was a bit patronizing to the audience at times. Like when she said Donald Trump is x million dollars in debt she looked right in the camera and said "that means he owes people money."
Like who are you trying to educate here?
Going to go out on a limb and say her target audience for that statement aren't finance students/professionals.
We talk all the time about how the average American's financial knowledge is near non-existent. It was a fair point to hammer home.
That's like saying everyone who owns a house is X dollars in debt. People take out loans, especially on real estate. Just like the whole "tax" fiasco of last month. Yes, people use legitimate IRS tax code to minimize taxable income and thus ultimately taxes owed. He didn't do anything nefarious.(Yet to be proven)
The above are cheap shots aimed at the hoi polloi, who are as you said financially illiterate.
She's extremely condescending. Defining debt and bounty for the audience - sheesh.
Yeah I'm sure you were her target audience lmao. Trump speaks in laymans terms and hes commended for not speaking like a politician, a democrat does it and they are condescending. We all know that who "won" is entirely dependent upon which party you support.
Changing the number of Supreme Court justices has happened many times throughout American history. We've had more than 9. We've had less than 9. This is hardly a big deal.
It's actually one of the biggest deals, if not the biggest. We've had 9 for 151 years.
We literally had 8 only four years ago when Senate Republicans flat out refused to confirm a rightfully appointed justice because it was an election year. Unsurprisingly, that logic doesn't apply this time.
If Republicans are willing to change long-term norms to suit their purposes, it is comically hypocritical to clutch pearls when Democrats consider doing the same.
So you're for packing the supreme court? That's banana republic dictator move. As is increasing the number of states, are you for that as well?
I'm not sure how you can say this isn't a big deal.
The Republican Senate refused to vote on a Democratic Presidents appointee, which is much different than a Republican Senate confirming a Republican Presidents appointee.
In order:
1. I think it is a legitimate tactic. I worry about the precedent, but I also worry about the systematic politicizing of the courts by Republican interest groups and tyranny by the minority. We live in a country where the overwhelming majority of people support things like Roe v. Wade and Obamacare. If our Supreme Court betrays the will of the people because it is packed full of ideologues, then the Supreme Court should be adjusted. Frankly, the idea of a Trump supporter accusing someone else of a "banana republic dictator move" is comical at best.
2. If regions want to become states, and follow a legal pathway to do so, then of course I'm all for it. It is a bit nonsensical for people to live in this country and not have proper representation.
3. The only difference, of course, being political hackery.
I don't really care much for politics, but I felt embarrassed for Pence. The guy couldn't answer anything, is pro-life while not addressing systematic racism or climate change in the slightest bit, which seems to be a little ironic. Regardless of how "important" those subjects are, I think it's pretty clear that there is a wrong and right answer.
He avoided everything. He was asked point blank "do you believe climate change is an existential threat". All he could muster was, "climate change is real". Pretty ambiguous. He and his boss have a lot in common in that way.
Yeah I don't get those answers. It's such an easy answer to say that humans are responsible for some climate change, sure, but whether it's existential or significant and whether massive investments and reorienting our entire society while China, India DGAF are more important is the issue. "Real or not" is a terrible way to phrase the question but it's also a softball that got a bad answer by Pence. But not a big deal at all unless people make it so as corona economy and other things are more central of course
His comments about climate change were humorous. He somehow managed to spin it by implying the Trump administration is pro environment. The anti-science administration has rolled back environmental regulations
Lots of “it’s laughable that people think x won” in this thread. If you look at the two focus groups run by somewhat reputable shops last night, Frank Lutz (who is a GOP leaning pollster) said it was clear with his group that Pence won and CNN’s pollster had the opposite. So it seems pretty clear this debate was about as inconsequential as every other VP debate.
On the court, the aren’t going to expand it. It’s pretty clear that Biden doesn’t have the stomach for that. He should considering the hypocrisy and corruption that Mitch has presided over, which will now have two conservative activists who actively legislate to try and instill theocracy from the bench, but they won’t. They simply don’t want to make the handwringing over the point (one way or another) the center of the conversation at a time when focusing on the actual issues of governance continues to help him expand his lead in the polls. The more this is about the awful job the Trump administration has done the last four years the better.
I don't think they will pack it either, but since they refuse to answer, it allows Trump and Pence to spend more time attacking them and prevents Joe and Kamala from further attacking Trump's poor record on things like COVID.
Also, instill theocracy - lol, I see someone has been reading MSNBC.
Completely disagree - the news cycle matters more than a trump or pence attack. The second they say one way or another, you get 3 days of news cycles about the topic. No one outside of online forums is talking about expanding the court today, the average American isn’t thinking about it. But once it shows up on the front page of USA Today for three days it’ll distract from Trumps record - that’s clearly what the Biden campaign believes, as well.
On your second point, if you don’t think people like Amy Coney Barrett aren’t actively trying to undermine actual democracy in favor of allowing American Evangelicals clutch to power, under the guise of revisionist readings of the federalist papers, you aren’t paying attention to the actual power struggle that underlies our political divide. And I can say that without having read any msnbc in years. Now if you want to debate how the meshing of actual Christian teachings into just a politically conservative ideology, that favors power at all costs, and away from the basis of the church’s teachings, that’s a different conversation (and makes the word theocracy a bit murkier).
Agree they will not actually pack the court. The biggest issue is that delegitimizes the court (someone above called it a “banana republic” move, that’s exactly what it is). Then you are left with a whole new set of problems the next time a controversial ruling is issued.
Kind of agree re: winning the debate. 0% chance partisans leave their camp in declaring a winner. Also many people just rate the winner based on content they agree with so no surprise reactions are partisan.
But it is useful to talk about how skilled at debating / public speaking politicians are. With this in mind, it is pretty clear that Pence is pretty good as this, and Harris does not do well when challenged (see Tulsi against her in Dem primary debates).
Interesting observation regarding your last paragraph because of you look at the cross tabs of the CNN poll (which is the only scientific poll we have post last night so far), Men agree with you or are about split, but women disagree strongly. After 2016 and then again this year (on top of all the research in the topic), it seems pretty clear that men just respond to women differently than they do men (and differently than women respond to either sex). Obviously perception is often more important than the truth, but worth noting on a site that is probably 98% male.
What the hell is "pack the court"? I will say this did seem like getting back to "normal" politics. A lot of substance in this debate both said and unsaid. Whereas the presidential one sounded like a gunfight. They shot each other, both came out bloody, Trump a little more than Biden.
Maybe use those analyst skills and do a simple Google search of what packing the court is.
If republicans refuse to follow precedent, why should democrats honor American traditions?
The future is all about power. Norms and customs have been trashed, and you can bet your ass McConnell would be planning to add states and pack the court if he was facing a 6-3 liberal majority and a Senate that favored Dems geographically.
I will say I have no interest in living under minority rule for the rest of my life. Once ACB is confirmed, 5 of the 6 conservative judges will have been appointed by Republican Presidents who lost the popular vote. By 2040, it is expected that 66% of Americans will live in just 15 states - the other 33% will have 70 Senators ruling over the populous majority. This is, and will be, untenable to younger generations.
I don't necessarily love it, but I don't see any way to mutually de-escalate. It is what is.
The future of the Republican party is not its current form. This current form has no future, given the demographic makeup of millennials and zoomers, so we are witnessing its last grasps for power.
In most western democracies, the Republican party would simply die off, but that doesn't really happen in America. It'll change and adapt however it needs to in order to win power again. The question is - how long does it take and what coalition does it need to assemble in order to return to prominence?
Yeah things are escalating in the wrong ways. But the idea of the original structure is to devalue high populous areas because there should be enough power at the state level to make any needed changes. I think decreasing federal power and returning it to the states, accounting for this change, is the best way going forward. But power hungry politicians won't do the right thing of course. People look too much to the fed government for support and "individual help" for their personal beliefs, which is not what the fed government is for. Push more things to the state level and allow people to live with their good / bad decisions and government that they personally want. Not broad based things at the fed level that affects everyone
Wow, it's almost like the Senate was designed that way! To have one body that is less subject to the tyranny of the majority. And for all the bellyaching the left has done, it's not like the Senate is some permanently lost or elusive thing - according to 538, the Democrats are likely to take the majority there as well this November.
I know it's hard when you can't just tear up the Constitution and remove the founding fathers from history.
Voluptatibus cumque saepe totam qui inventore non architecto. Est ad quam rem et libero. Rem occaecati nisi totam optio. Provident enim ut illo molestiae veritatis.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Excepturi veritatis laborum et. Animi ab animi corrupti. Amet laborum inventore unde quisquam quia deserunt maxime minus. Mollitia nihil id ad nulla ut. Consequatur praesentium dolore eos et atque adipisci. Quisquam molestiae ipsam repellendus facilis nihil.
Distinctio voluptatem tempore earum enim in. Atque natus velit sed beatae ut et qui.
Quidem rerum amet reprehenderit tempora quos nulla. Incidunt qui enim corrupti quis delectus nam fugiat in. Quas consequatur ipsa omnis architecto repellat. Accusantium dignissimos itaque temporibus sint. Ipsa neque dolor sequi nihil vero doloremque.
Magni molestiae totam hic omnis rerum ut eius. Doloribus eaque ab odio eveniet quo sit. Iste est omnis officia molestias magnam velit ex totam. Numquam in neque possimus et magni ut. Et fugit est cum dolorem earum totam atque. Reprehenderit at nihil voluptate at dignissimos vero voluptatem ex.
Recusandae rem qui vitae nesciunt laborum voluptas consequatur. Sit quis et voluptatum reprehenderit et vero ut. Inventore odit ut cumque. Temporibus minus eum perspiciatis et.