During his nearly 50 years of public service, Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden has been a rather frequent gaffe machine. Some of them have been harmless in nature and have been excused by many as just Joe being Joe.

More recently, during the course of the presidential campaign, some of Biden’s pronouncements relating to the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the highest court in the land are anything but amusing.

To the contrary, they are cause for concern.

“It’s not constitutional what they are doing,” Biden proclaims.

Biden’s running mate, Sen. Kamala Harris, has chimed in with an assertion that this is an “illegitimate process.”


Biden and Harris both need a quick refresher course on the Constitution of the United States. Article II, section 2, of that document unequivocally empowers the president to appoint judges to the Supreme Court with the advice and consent of the Senate. Nothing in that article even remotely suggests that this power to appoint does not extend to the final hour of a president’s term.

One can only come away with two conclusions.

The first would be that they are woefully ignorant of our Constitution, which they have both sworn to protect and defend.

The second and more likely option is that they hope many of their fellow citizens will accept this falsehood as truth. This suggests contempt for those they would lead.

There is no rational explanation to explain why taking an action mandated by the Constitution would be unconstitutional. In a perfect world, reporters from national media outlets like CNN, The New York Times and The Washington Post would press Biden and Harris for an answer to that question.

We urge our readers not to hold their breath. Hell could very well freeze over before that happens.

Of equal or greater concern is the Biden ticket’s refusal to answer questions about whether they would pack the Supreme Court. Biden even doubled down and told a reporter the voters don’t deserve to know before the election.

We beg to differ. If the court is packed in such a way that it is no longer an independent co-equal branch of government, but simply an extension of the legislative branch, then the separation of power and checks and balances in our carefully crafted Constitution will be at grave risk.

This question is too important to be brushed off.

An answer is required in the interest of transparency. This newspaper demands an answer. Despite Biden’s contempt for voters’ right to know, all Americans who revere the Constitution should demand an answer as well.

(5) comments

Enough Already 2

Senate records show that there was a Supreme Court vacancy during the 1864 election.

Chief Justice Roger Taney died in October, just weeks before the vote.

And Lincoln didn’t nominate a replacement until December, after the election.

Now if I were in Mr. Biden's shoes, I would not give any indications of what I would do until after the election. If tRump is defeated and the Senate is flipped, I would let the dust settle. At that time, I would ascertain if the opposing party is willing to modify their behavior.

At that point in time, I would clearly articulate what I am going to do. I would definitely look to guidance from Mr. McConnel standards and examples, but be assured everyone would know what and why I do whatever I do!

What say ye?


Are u really saying Biden should be open and honest? we have the most dishonest President on the globe. We have a Senate that would not give the former President's SC nominee a hearing. So now you want Joe Biden to show his Trump card? What kind of fool do u think he is? He will disclose his plans when Trump shows his taxes and transcript.

Enough Already

I completely disagree with you about the president and it seems that your response is something along the lines of, "two wrongs make a right". This is typical flawed democrat thinking and demonstrates their current motto, "the end justifies the means". Democrats have been working unsuccessfully to overturn Trump's election for almost four years now on nothing more than accusations and political dirty tricks. The voters are about to bring this chicken home to roost. There will be many unemployed democrat politicians when this is over.

As for the Senate and SC nominees you might want to do a search of history. You will find that in election years when a vacancy occurred on the SC that both parties actively nominated and confirmed supreme court justices when they held a majority in the senate AND a sitting president. In years where the opposition party held one or the other no such nomination or confirmation took place. Simple politics 101.


Right on!

Dr. Strangelove

Thank you. Your points are spot on.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.