I am curious... how is court packing any more offensive than what multiple Republicans claimed they would do if Hillary got elected, which is refuse to confirm any nominee she made.

That new standard(Senate won't consent to any nominee put forth by a president of the opposite party) would be insanely anti-democratic, destructive for the legitimacy(and utility) of the Supreme Court, and harmful to our democracy.

yeah right, because the "fake news" crowd is totally basing their constant and targeted attacks against critical press on justified grievances, and critically distinguishes between deliberately biased journalism and honest mistakes - totally not just blindly attacking every single outlet reporting critical of their emperor.

seriously, people like you and goon-shill, trying to rationalise and spin the orchestrated and dangerous undermining of public trust in the media as reasonable or justified, are even worse than the vast majority of simply braindead trumptards (like bi-ghot and endlesscry), who just uncritically follow everything their dear leader says because he happens to play for the red team and hates brown people as well...

So what the democrats have been doing all of trumps term.

Yes, it would be harmful... which is why Biden has to lose the election.

Keep in mind that the people, elect the Senators.





This post was edited by Ghot on Oct 11 2020 09:45am

This harmful new standard would not have stood imho. It would have been up to the American voters to punish the GOP obstructionists and vote a sufficient number of them out, and I think they would have if the GOP senate had really tried to obstruct the president's nominees for a full 4 years.

What they did in 2016 with Garland was already pushing the limits of what you can do in tems of obstruction without risking a backlash. Perhaps they only got away with it because the Trump show was already in full swing and sucked up all the oxygen from politics and political coverage.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Oct 11 2020 09:46am

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/barr-unmasking-review-no-charges/2020/10/13/0f63fd2e-0d67-11eb-8074-0e943a91bf08_story.html

Imagine that, ending without a public report or finding any wrongdoing and the attorney tapped to lead the investigation resigning the week prior. So much winning.

https://www.washingtonpost.com./national-security/barr-unmasking-review-no-charges/2020/10/13/0f63fd2e-0d67-11eb-8074-0e943a91bf08_story.html

idk why but a few sites, including wapo let you see the article without being subscribed if you add a . after .com

But John Durham is running the investigation.

Makin America metal Again

https://www.yahoo.com/huffpost/trump-unmasking-flynn-obama-024404364.html

LOL i am sure they were banking on blowing a small finding out of proportion just before voting day.



i am slow because i have to wait for huffpost articles to be reposted on yahoo, its the only source i trust.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Oct 14 2020 10:45am