@hightor,
hightor wrote:
Quote:
How is it an action of the American people if they don't know Biden's position on it before the election?
I never said it should be an issue before the election. If he's elected and if the conservative court continually strikes down statutes and regulations the administration favors, then it would be time to discuss adding seats, not now. Biden would discuss it with advisors and lawmakers and then take his case to the voters. As he pointed out last night, it could become a circus with each new administration adding more seats. It would be a very steep climb and he knows that.
Quote:Biden said that it would be known "after the election."
Yes, assuming Barrett is seated it would be a while before the effect of her presence on the Court is known definitively. There's no sense making it a campaign promise — it's a controversial idea and would only be attempted if his programs were severely thwarted.
Trump was lucky enough to be able to make three appointments during his term, although the deaths that provided that ability are regrettable. This is the way the system works. No responsible person changes the rules of a game just because he lost fairly. You said that if Biden and other liberals don't like Barret's decisions, then he will dilute her vote by adding liberal justices. He doesn't have to like her decisions. If liberals want liberal justices on the court, they should win elections and then appoint liberal justices as vacancies arise.
As far as I'm concerned, if Democrats add liberal justices to the Supreme Court to get the outcome they want, then the next Republican government should add more conservative justices. If you start this game, I guarantee that it won't be good for the country. Accept the fact that Trump had three appointees with a little grace.
