Now that it looks like the "court packing"

[kairos12]

question is the “but her emails” GOP distraction weaponized by the MSM this election perhaps Dems should answer this way.

To MSM: “ Let’s be clear, the courts don’t exist without a peaceful transfer of power.” “Please follow up with Trump on this issue.”

[Walleye]

1. Say we'l Tell them in a couple of weeks. Or, we'll see what happens,they let that go whenTrump says

Plus it’s a hypothetical question. See if we can get their supreme court nominee to answer any direct questions like that. I doubt it. A president couldn’t do this all by himself anyway.

[somaticexperiencing]

2. Not strong enough. A man who won't agree to a peaceful transfer of power should not be

Last edited Sun Oct 11, 2020, 07:33 PM - Edit history (1)

accorded a Supreme Court justice pick, especially this close to an election which he hopes will be decided by this judge.

Or in general, she should not be up for consideration at this point. The American public wants to decide on a President and then let the winner choose. This is what the principle was before, and it is more relevant now. The related election has already started

Withdraw the nomination, and we'll talk about packing the courts.

Hardball. Hardest ball we can throw while sticking to high principles.

[kairos12]

3. Excellent!

[SoonerPride]

4. "We'll see what happens."

That’s Donny Dumbfuck’s go to line.

Throw it right back at them.