Get the latest BPR news delivered free to your inbox daily. SIGN UP HERE
CHECK OUT WeThePeople.store for best SWAG!
Brit Hume has taken to Twitter to mock Joe Biden’s unwillingness to publicly take a position on expanding the membership of the U.S. Supreme Court beyond its traditional nine justices. Hume, the Fox News senior political analyst, seems to imply in a tweeted mythical conversation between Biden, and one of his handlers, the Democrat presidential nominee seems to be under the impression that dodging answering the court-packing question will take the controversy out of the news cycle, when just the opposite is the case.
Biden to aide: What should I say about court-packing?
Aide: Either way you answer will hurt you. And it will make headlines.
Biden: Good advice. I’ll say I won’t answer because my answer will make headlines.
Aide: Wait, what?
Biden has brazenly said that America will learn his opinion about court-packing after Election Day. He has even said that the electorate “doesn’t deserve” to know where he stands on the issue.
At this point, on the basis of common sense, it’s “transparently” obvious, however, that if Biden wins the presidency, his far-left puppet masters will compel him — should Democrats win the U.S. Senate — to add radical judicial activists to the high court as a way to dilute the conservative majority and transform America in ways that they couldn’t achieve through mere legislation.
In a separate tweet, Hume recalled that a court-packing scheme boomeranged on FDR when he tried to appoint additional justices who were more favorable to his New Deal initiatives. The Associated Press apparently now refers to court-packing as de-politicizing the court, which is a form of Orwellian doublespeak.
Biden to aide: What should I say about court-packing?
Aide: Either way you answer will hurt you. And it will make headlines.
Biden: Good advice. I’ll say I won’t answer because my answer will make headlines.
Aide: Wait, what?— Brit Hume (@brithume) October 9, 2020
“Court packing” is a colloquial expression dating to at least the 1930’s when Franklin Roosevelt proposed adding seats to the court. It backfired and failed and has been referred to as court packing ever since. It’s the kind of succinct, well-known term newspeople normally like. https://t.co/fslvlhnXV8
— Brit Hume (@brithume) October 11, 2020
As Tucker Carlson cogently observed during a recent FNC broadcast, “what’s weird is that Biden isn’t trying to reassure you that he won’t pack the Supreme Court. Most Americans don’t want to destroy an entire branch of government. They know that’s a bad idea. But again, Biden is refusing to reassure them. What does that tell you? It tells you that packing the Supreme Court is the one thing Joe Biden is certain to do if he’s elected.”
Democrats apparently have adopted the mantra that confirming Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the seat previously held by the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a form of court-packing, even though there is a legitimate vacancy on the court.
Moreover, the Biden rule, a.k.a. the McConnell rule, that purports to rule out election year confirmations, traditionally only applies when the White House and the Senate are controlled by different parties. Democrats also illogically claim in their messaging that Trump’s nearly 300 lower-court appointments consist of court-packing, even though Trump is merely carrying out his constitutional responsibilities (as any Democrat president would do) to fill vacancies in the federal judiciary.
It takes 2 things to appoint a justice: POTUS's nomination and Senate majority approval. In 2016, if Dems had the latter, Obama would've gotten 3d justice. That would not have been 'packing.' Dems didn't have it, and Obama therefore didn't get 3d. That's how Const'l system works.
— Andy McCarthy (@AndrewCMcCarthy) October 11, 2020
'packing' is the new 'collusion' …
— Andy McCarthy (@AndrewCMcCarthy) October 11, 2020
If Trump is reelected with majorities in at least one legislative chamber, the GOP would be well advised to introduce legislation that would enshrine in law the Supreme Court’s membership at nine. The U.S. Constitution is silent on the matter of the maximum number of justices.
In the meantime, Steve Bullock, the Montana governor now running against Republican incumbent Steve Daines for the Senate, has endorsed court-packing.
🚨 WOW — Democrat Steve Bullocks comes out in FAVOR of the far-lefts dangerous court-packing plan — and Senator Daines OBLITERATES him for it#MTsen #MTpol pic.twitter.com/YSHmUF4tl7
— Nathan Brand (@NathanBrandWA) October 11, 2020
Although liberal Twitter seems unbothered bothered by Joe’s stonewalling and is deflecting with separate issues, others don’t appreciate Joe’s non-answer answer. Here is a sample:
We are interviewing Biden for the highest position in the land, President of the United States.
His refusal to answer this question tells us all we need to know. He won’t be working for us.
I find this very disrespectful.
— Monroe Marie 🇺🇸 (@360uncensored) October 9, 2020
If he won’t court pack the headlines will be small. So, he definitely plans to court pack, which will be a disgrace.
— Quaran-Tina (@superbucks2050) October 10, 2020
I voted for Trump in 2016 and was happy about 401k performance and wage increase which I hadn’t throughout Obama’s tenure but have been been repulsed by Trumps decorum since to the point I was ready to switch affiliation. However, the deceitful avoidance of this topic is worse.
— Jerry E (@JerryE__) October 9, 2020
If he was really up 12+ points his answer wouldn’t matter
— Nick (@NickAtNight128) October 9, 2020
I’ve been following politics all my life.
I have NEVER seen anyone run for any office that wouldn’t answer critical questions.
Worse – I have NEVER seen the press so corrupt that they won’t even ask the question(s)!
Thanks for your integrity Brit. WE NEED IT!
— Charles Smith (@charleswsmith60) October 9, 2020
That’s what I keep saying.
He’s keeping it in the headlines by refusing to answer and defend his answer; although his “non answer” is the answer.
Yes. He will allow the Democrats to try and pack the court, because he’s weak and beholden to them.
— Tony Hallum (@osu_shepherd) October 9, 2020
Haha…..this topic and fracking is dangerous will haunt Biden till the election. He will not answer packing the court which is a joke. People will vote for someone who will say you’ll find out my position after you vote.
— Tom Henn (@twhenn) October 9, 2020
It's a huge issue because the right and independents hate court packing. If he says yes, he loses the middle. If he says no, he loses his base.
— Ben Peterson (@jazzfan71) October 9, 2020
Biden deserves to keep getting hammered on this until he answers the question. Voters do deserve to know what they are signing up for. https://t.co/rTTSr6k46m
— AG (@AGHamilton29) October 10, 2020
DONATE TO BIZPAC REVIEW
Please help us! If you are fed up with letting radical big tech execs, phony fact-checkers, tyrannical liberals and a lying mainstream media have unprecedented power over your news please consider making a donation to BPR to help us fight them. Now is the time. Truth has never been more critical!
[email protected]
Robert Jonathan is a staff writer for BizPac Review. He is a longtime writer/editor for news aggregation websites and has also developed content in the legal and financial publishing sectors as well as for online education. He earned a Juris Doctorate from the University of Connecticut School of Law, “a law school the basketball teams can be proud of.”
- ‘Petty heffa’: The View’s Ana Navarro skewered for cracking on Marjorie Taylor Greene’s appearance - December 4, 2022
- Women’s college volleyball game features incredible rally complete with diving, table-crashing safe - December 4, 2022
- Wild brawl breaks out at Fitness Connection gym, takes deciding turn when woman enters picture - December 4, 2022
Comment
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.
