• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

2020 Presidential Election: Biden v. Trump

I completely agree as to vectors 1 and 2 but believe he should continue to sidestep on 3. Adding 2 justices should not be something taken up in his 1st year. That said, I would not take it off the table. The SCOTUS continues to get more and more political. If and when you get a handful of unpopular decisions (especially 1 overturning the ACA and leaving us in healthcare limbo during the latter stages of a pandemic or overturning Roe v. Wade), I don't think you'd have to expend that much political capital to add a couple of justices. It would be seen as tit for tat and undoing the injustice of what Pubs did with Garland and RBG.
 
Republicans sure love to fall for propaganda with no evidence provided to them.
 
Demonwolverine said:
Something else that really stuck out to me during the debate was how often Trump tried to tell Biden what Biden's own positions are, as if he is a radical leftist. It's very clear Trump has no idea what Biden's platform actually is, and simply wanted to project Fox News' portrayal of AOC and other further leftwing representatives onto him. As much as I wish Biden was more liberal, that's not why he got the nomination. I just have to hope that the way he handled Trump was in a manner people in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan can relate to.
Click to expand...

I don't think Trump is trying to project a Fox News portrayal onto Biden. I think Trump earnest believes what he sees on Fox News. That's why Trump thought there was a Republican health care plan when there was none. I think Trump honestly believes Biden is a socialist. Trump honestly beliefs Biden is a senile old coot who hides in his basement. Fox News and campaign staffers who trust Fox News are briefing Trump about Biden.

DeaconCav06 said:
My parents did not watch the debate but saw highlights and my dad’s impression was that Trump was a bully but that Biden stooped to his level doing things like telling him to shut up.

My parents were split voters in 2016 with my dad voting for the economy. Unclear what will happen this time around but we were on the lake during a recent Trump parade and he said he just doesn’t get how anybody could openly and brazenly support Trump like that.
Click to expand...

Classic false equivalency. Sure the bully was bad and he made the debate unwatchable, but it was classless to tell him to shut up.

The big problem with the Republican socialist scare strategy is that they're scaring a shrinking portion of the population. Meanwhile if Biden does "bow down" to the socialists, he'll be much more popular with young voters including the next cohort of new 2024 voters who will be <50% white, are very skeptical of capitalism, and open to new approaches.

Biden is in an interesting spot. His platform is further left than people think while definitely not "socialist." He has a strong lead. It doesn't make sense for him to overtly move hard to the left. It doesn't make sense for him to pivot to the middle because he'll lose any tepid support from the left. It does make sense for him to clarify his positions and let Trump and Republicans cry socialist wolf. We're so polarized that it doesn't benefit Biden to try to appeal to everybody. He benefits from just being who he is and letting people adjust around him.
 
cville deac said:
I completely agree as to vectors 1 and 2 but believe he should continue to sidestep on 3. Adding 2 justices should not be something taken up in his 1st year. That said, I would not take it off the table. The SCOTUS continues to get more and more political. If and when you get a handful of unpopular decisions (especially 1 overturning the ACA and leaving us in healthcare limbo during the latter stages of a pandemic or overturning Roe v. Wade), I don't think you'd have to expend that much political capital to add a couple of justices. It would be seen as tit for tat and undoing the injustice of what Pubs did with Garland and RBG.
Click to expand...

Vector 3 is the 2nd most important vector IMO and could become a lightening rod - the most important being the violence in the streets. Something like 25% of Trump voters in 2016 voted for him based on the USSC. If Biden plays into this game it could turn into a defining issue for the remainder of the campaign. I know I personally am firmly against any notion of changing the size of the court. We don't need 9 becoming 11 and then in another decade 15 and then 21, etc. Not wise. Biden has traction because so many Americans want a pivot to something more "normal". Stay the course.
 
there's really nothing worse than the mindset of "both candidates are bad, this leaves me with no choice."
 
Trump calls for poll watchers. Election officials call for calm.

On Tuesday, a deputy sheriff escorted James Fitzpatrick, Trump’s Pennsylvania director of Election Day operations, out of the satellite election office at Philadelphia City Hall, where he was recording video on his cellphone, according to election and sheriff aides. Election officials said Fitzpatrick was being disruptive and refused to leave when asked.
Click to expand...
 
DeacMan said:
Vector 3 is the 2nd most important vector IMO and could become a lightening rod - the most important being the violence in the streets. Something like 25% of Trump voters in 2016 voted for him based on the USSC. If Biden plays into this game it could turn into a defining issue for the remainder of the campaign. I know I personally am firmly against any notion of changing the size of the court. We don't need 9 becoming 11 and then in another decade 15 and then 21, etc. Not wise. Biden has traction because so many Americans want a pivot to something more "normal". Stay the course.
Click to expand...

Why are you firmly against changing the size of the court?
 
avalon said:
Trump calls for poll watchers. Election officials call for calm.
Click to expand...

86402714.jpg
 
Last edited:
DeacMan said:
Vector 3 is the 2nd most important vector IMO and could become a lightening rod - the most important being the violence in the streets. Something like 25% of Trump voters in 2016 voted for him based on the USSC. If Biden plays into this game it could turn into a defining issue for the remainder of the campaign. I know I personally am firmly against any notion of changing the size of the court. We don't need 9 becoming 11 and then in another decade 15 and then 21, etc. Not wise. Biden has traction because so many Americans want a pivot to something more "normal". Stay the course.
Click to expand...

Most Americans recognize and disagree with the way Pubs have played the Scalia and RBG vacancies. As I said, this should not be a day 1 thing, and we should let it play out. But if we start seeing outrageous opinions that start affecting the lives of regular citizens, then at that point I do not think it would be impossible or even unwise to add 2 justices. Obama followed previous norms and nominated an older moderate the same way Ford did with Stevens at a similar point in his term. McConnell and the Pubs declared war on replacing justices. And Trump has made a mockery of the process. I otherwise agree with a return to normalcy campaign theme ala Harding.
 
Disagree with any move to pack the Supreme Court, but will worry about that issue after the election.
 
cville deac said:
I completely agree as to vectors 1 and 2 but believe he should continue to sidestep on 3. Adding 2 justices should not be something taken up in his 1st year. That said, I would not take it off the table. The SCOTUS continues to get more and more political. If and when you get a handful of unpopular decisions (especially 1 overturning the ACA and leaving us in healthcare limbo during the latter stages of a pandemic or overturning Roe v. Wade), I don't think you'd have to expend that much political capital to add a couple of justices. It would be seen as tit for tat and undoing the injustice of what Pubs did with Garland and RBG.
Click to expand...

SCOTUS will always be political, they are appointed by politicians after all, so I don't think Dems should be afraid to exercise their political power when they have it. Why would you wait for the inevitable terrible ruling, instead of preempting it from the start?
 
ImTheCaptain said:
uh, his reason, based on the one time court packing was an issue, is literally "these sorts of things have a way of sorting themselves out"
Click to expand...

It's also a 2019 argument that ignores the current context.

Pilchard, would you have a problem with a plan like the one Democrats have in the House that allows for two nominees to 18 year terms during each Presidential term? That's not court packing. It's changing the nomination process to move us away from the current chaos of lifelong appointments.
 
PhDeac said:
It's also a 2019 argument that ignores the current context.

Pilchard, would you have a problem with a plan like the one Democrats have in the House that allows for two nominees to 18 year terms during each Presidential term? That's not court packing. It's changing the nomination process to move us away from the current chaos of lifelong appointments.
Click to expand...

Likely have too much faith in the system, but I'm generally against changing the rules of the way the Supreme Court has operated since 1869. There have been times when the Court has been considered too liberal or too conservative, but everything runs in cycles. Also, while I detest the hypocrisy of the way the nomination process operated in 2016 versus 2020, it's not like Trump's two nominees Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are in lock step during their brief time on the Court; the fact is that both those guys are qualified for the Court, and don't think they will follow a strict conservative line. They have already disagreed on opinions. Even with Amy Coney Barrett and her weird People of Praise background, I'm not convinced that the Supreme Court will be as much of a problem if Biden is elected and Dems control the Senate (which is an assumption that may not be realized).

Finally, if the Dems take the step of changing the structure of the Court, that further opens pandora's box for future changes when control shifts back.

All of that said, I'm not concerned about packing the court or changing the rules for the Judge's tenures right now, and agree with Biden's position to not address the issue for now. Let's get Trump out; take as many seats as we can in Senate, and then assess.
 
Trump's latest nominee is 48 years old. I'm sure we can just wait this thing out for another 35-40 years.

Or, as soon as Biden is elected, I'm sure some of the older conservative justices will retire to allow Biden to nominate some liberal justices.

Pandora's box was opened when McConnell allowed filibustering of Obama's judges and then refused a vote on Garland.
 
Kavanaugh is not qualified for the court. They way he behaved during testimony was ridiculous. Justice Roberts threw out something near 100 complaints of misconduct lodged against him because... he was seated on the court. I'd be ok if a dem controlled congress impeached him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top