Biden botches the Constitution again: Americans get 'to choose who they want on Supreme Court'

Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden says he "taught constitutional law for over 20 years."

He might want to take a refresher course himself. Biden sat down on Wednesday for an interview with Pittsburgh's WTAE-TV. Anchor Shannon Perrine asked Biden whether he would support packing the Supreme Court if elected president, a question he dodged in Tuesday's first presidential debate. "You know, that’s exactly what they want me to talk about so we don't talk about how they're violating the Constitution now," Biden said. "I'm not going to play [President] Trump's game. Right now, my entire focus is seeing to it that the American people get a chance — the election has already started — to have their say on who the next Supreme Court justice is. And that's what I'm focused on." Perrine asked Biden just how Republicans are "violating" the Constitution. "The Constitution says that the American people — I taught constitutional law for over 20 years — says the American people get an opportunity to choose who they want on the Supreme Court by who they pick as their senator and their president," Biden said. But the Constitution says no such thing. In Article II, Section 2, the Constitution states that the president, with the "advice and consent of the Senate," shall pick Supreme Court justices. In fact, until the 17th Amendment was ratified in 1917, Americans didn't even pick their own senators, each state's legislatures did that.

Trump was asked in the first question of Tuesday's debate about his power to pick a nominee to replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who passed away last month. "I will tell you very simply," he responded. "We won the election. Elections have consequences. We have the Senate, we have the White House, and we have a phenomenal nominee respected by all. We won the election and therefore we have the right to choose her, and very few people knowingly would say otherwise. And by the way, the Democrats, they wouldn't even think about not doing it. The only difference is they'd try and do it faster. "There's no way they would give it up. They had Merrick Garland, but the problem is they didn't have the election so they were stopped. And probably that would happen in reverse, also. Definitely would happen in reverse. So we won the election, and we have the right to do it."

Then-President Barack Obama nominated Garland in March 2016, but Republicans controlled the Senate so they never acted on the nomination. Trump won in 2016, so he filled the seat left vacant after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia with Neil Gorsuch. Biden went to great lengths in the debate to avoid answering whether he would pack the court, which means adding more justices. Here's his exchange with Trump: Biden: Whatever position I take on that, that’ll become the issue. The issue is the American people should speak. You should go out and vote. You're voting now. Vote and let your Senators know strongly how you feel. Trump: Are you going to pack the court? Biden: Vote now. Trump: Are you going to pack the court? Biden: Make sure you, in fact, let people know, your Senators. Trump: He doesn't want to answer the question. Biden: I'm not going to answer the question. Trump: Why wouldn't you answer that question? You want to put a lot of new Supreme Court Justices. Radical left. Biden: Will you shut up, man?

https://justthenews.com/government/white-house/biden-botches-constitution-again-americans-get-choose-who-they-want-supreme

Democrats make it official, ask for delay on Trump's Supreme Court nomination

Timetable "incompatible with the Senate’s constitutional role"

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee that will hold a hearing on President Trump's nominee to the Supreme Court, says there's not enough time to do so before the Nov. 3 presidential election. The California lawmaker led a group of fellow Democrats in formally calling for the confirmation hearing for Amy Coney Barrett to be put on hold until after Jan. 20, 2021, when either President Trump or opponent Joe Biden is sworn into the presidency. “The timeline for consideration of Judge Barrett’s nomination is incompatible with the Senate’s constitutional role," Feinstein wrote Wednesday in a letter to Sen. Lindsey Graham, the chairman of the committee. "We again urge you to delay consideration of this nomination until after the presidential inauguration. The Senate and the American public deserve a deliberative, thorough process, and this falls far short.” "This timeline is a sharp departure from past practice," Feinstein also wrote. "Even more, it undercuts the Senate’s ability to fulfill its advice and consent role and deprives the American people of a meaningful opportunity to gauge the nominee and her record for themselves."

Graham announced last week that his committee would begin the confirmation hearing on Oct. 13. Usually, there are two days of testimony, with senators from both parties asking questions, then committee members vote. If approved by a majority, the nomination moves to a full Senate vote. The South Carolina Republican said this week there's plenty of time to vet Barrett, noting that she went through the same process just three years ago when the Senate grilled her before she was confirmed to become a judge on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. "The question for the country is, is she ready to be promoted? I think the answer is yes," Graham said. "I think she’s done everything anybody could hope a nominee for the Supreme Court would do in their life. I think she is one of the most qualified people to ever be nominated to the Supreme Court." The process is already well underway. Barrett has submitted to the committee her 65-page questionnaire on her professional and judicial history and delivered numerous legal opinions for the senators to review before she appears before the committee. But all 10 Judiciary Committee Democrats signed the Feinstein's letter, including vice presidential nominee Sen. Kamala Harris of California, Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey, Sen. Mazie Hirono of Hawaii, Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, Chris Coons of Delaware, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, Dick Durbin of Illinois and Patrick Leahy of Vermont.

While Barrett has been meeting with Republican senators this week, some Democrats are refusing to sit down with the 48-year-old mother of seven. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) won't meet with Barrett, saying on Sunday, "I believe first the whole process has been illegitimate. And second, because she's already stated that she is for overturning the ACA [Affordable Care Act], I will not meet with her." Blumenthal tweeted Sunday: "I will oppose the confirmation of Judge Amy Coney Barrett, as I would any nominee proposed as part of this illegitimate sham process, barely one month before an election as Americans are already casting their votes. I will refuse to treat this process as legitimate & will not meet with Judge Amy Coney Barrett." Republicans hold the majority in the Senate but can afford to lose only three votes in a full Senate vote (in the event of a tie, Vice President Mike Pence will cast the tie-breaking vote). GOP Sens. Susan Collins, Maine, and Lisa Murkowski, Alaska, have said they oppose moving ahead with the confirmation before the election. But Murkowski in recent days has softened her stance, saying she will meet with the nominee as she acknowledged "this process is moving forward with or without me.”

https://justthenews.com/government/white-house/democrats-make-it-official-ask-delay-trumps-supreme-court-nomination

Senator Ed Markey uses Amy Coney Barrett's nomination to expand U.S. Supreme Court

Ed Markey commits to expanding the U.S. Supreme Court if Barrett is approved for the Supreme Court.

Democratic Sen. Ed Markey says he will attempt to end the filibuster rule in the chamber that prevents a political party from adding more justices to the Supreme Court if President Trump and Senate Republicans succeed, as expected, in getting nominee Amy Coney Barrett appointed to the high court. "I will do everything in my power to block the nomination being confirmed of Amy Coney Barrett," Markey said during a recent campaign stop in Massachusetts. "If the Republicans are successful in jamming it through, I will vote next year to end the filibuster so we can expand the Supreme Court to get back the seats which have been stolen by the Republicans over the last four years." Barrett, if confirmed by Senate Republicans, who hold 53 of the 100 Senate seats, would replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died last month. Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden has not supported the so-called "packing" of the Supreme Court in an effort to add justices and dilute what would be a 6-3 conservative majority if Barrett replaces Ginsburg. When asked about expanding the Supreme Court in a Sept. 27 press conference, following Ginsburg's death, Biden dodged the question. "I know you're gonna be upset with my answer, but what I'm not gonna do is play the Trump game, which is a good game he plays — take your eye off the issue before us," Biden responded. "If I were to say yes or no to that, that becomes a big issue," he added. "That's the headline here.”

Some of Biden's fellow Democrats were warm to the idea during the presidential primary season. Democratic vice-presidential candidate Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) and Democratic Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) said they would not rule out expanding the Supreme Court if elected president. "We are on the verge of a crisis of confidence in the Supreme Court," Harris told POLITICO. "We have to take this challenge head on, and everything is on the table to do that." In addition, Biden is getting pressure to "pack the courts" from the progressive wing of his party, which includes Markey. Two Democratic progressive groups, Demand Justice and Indivisible, are also leading the grassroots efforts to expand the Supreme Court, as part of a larger criminal justice reform initiative. They are more than transparent about their motives on their websites. Brian Fallon, a former aide to Hillary Clinton, spearheads Demand Justice. "To balance out Trumps ideologically extreme, illegitimate picks, we should add justices to the Supreme Court to ensure the next Democratic president can nominate justices who will restore balance to the Court. This proposal is immediately actionable. Congress can change the number of justices on the Court at any time, as it has done 7 times throughout American history," reads Demand Justice's website.

The website also states that Obama administration Attorney General Eric Holder and 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigeig "have said that Democrats should consider adding seats to the Supreme Court." A statement on the Indivisible's website reads: "In order to undo the damage that Republicans have done, we need to get serious about reforming the highest court. There are multiple proposals on the table to achieve this (from a 15-justice Supreme Court panel that operates like every other appellate court to a straightforward expansion from 9 to 13), but doing nothing and hoping for the best is simply not an option."

https://justthenews.com/government/courts-law/senator-ed-markey-uses-amy-coney-barretts-nomination-expand-us-supreme-court

https://www.markey.senate.gov/news/press-releases/senator-markey-statement-on-trump-nomination-of-judge-amy-coney-barrett-to-us-supreme-court

>>10875173

>>10875599

Indeed..They never thought she would lose..so they left them wide open to complete their coup of the country..

American cyclist suspended after posting support for Trump on Twitter

The team said he will not be racing until further notice for his 'divisive, incendiary' comments.

After showing his support for President Trump on social media, 19-year-old U.S. cyclist Quinn Simmons was suspended from the Trek-Segafredo team on Thursday. The 2019 junior road race world champion commented on a Dutch journalist's Twitter post criticizing Trump that said, "If you follow me and support Trump, you can go.There is zero excuse to follow or vote for this vile, horrible man." Simmons replied to the post, writing, "Bye" with a dark brown emoji hand waving. A different account referred to Simmons' post, commenting, "apparently a Trumper." Simmons replied, "That’s right" with a U.S. flag emoji.

According to Cyclingtips.com, the dark brown emoji was allegedly the issue, apparently showing a lack of racial awareness from a white rider, not his pro-Trump comments. "Regrettably, team rider Quinn Simmons made statements online that we feel are divisive, incendiary, and detrimental to the team, professional cycling, its fans, and the positive future we hope to help create for the sport," the team sponsor said. "[He] will not be racing for Trek-Segafredo until further notice." Simmons was supposed to race for the first time at the upcoming Northern Classics in Belgium.

https://justthenews.com/nation/culture/american-cyclist-suspended-after-posting-support-trump-twitter

https://cyclingtips.com/2020/10/american-neo-pro-quinn-simmons-benched-by-team-over-racially-charged-tweet/