Debates 2020

Kamala Harris Refused To Answer a Direct Question About Whether a Biden Administration Would Pack the Supreme Court

Two debates. Two dodges of an important question about the top court's future.

|

Sen. Kamala Harris (D–Calif.) was asked directly whether she and Vice President Joe Biden would try to expand or pack the Supreme Court if they were elected—and she did not give an answer.

The question came not from moderator Susan Page, but from Vice President Mike Pence. In response to a sparring session about whether President Donald Trump should continue with the nominating process for Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court or wait until after the election, Pence took the moment to ask Harris for a straight answer.

She did not give one. Instead she gave a history lesson about how President Abraham Lincoln once declined to nominate a Supreme Court justice prior to the election, insisting that the American people should choose the president first.

"Joe and I are very clear," she said. "The American people are voting right now. It should be their decision about who will serve on this most important body for a lifetime."

Moderator Susan Page attempted to move on, not noting that Harris hadn't answered the question. Pence then broke in to point out that because Americans are voting right now, they should know if Harris and Biden "are going to pack the Supreme Court if [they] don't get their way with this nomination."

Pence pointed out that she had given a non-answer, as has Biden previously. Harris insisted that she was trying to give him an answer right now.

"Let's talk about packing the court then," she said. And then she continued to not talk about expanding the Supreme Court. Instead she talked about the Trump administration's filling of open federal court seats with "people who are purely ideological, viewed by professional legal organizations to have been not competent or substandard." She also noted (accurately) that Trump had not nominated a single black person to a court seat.

And then Page simply moved on. Pence jumped in as Page started a new question: "I just want the record to reflect she never answered the question."

It was an odd exchange. Harris confidently acted throughout as though she was going to answer the question, but she never did. Biden similarly declined to answer the question when he was asked at the last debate.

Americans still do not know whether the people on the Democratic ticket plan to pack or expand the Court, leaving voters to make assumptions based on their refusal to respond clearly.

Advertisement

NEXT: Both Pence and Harris Dodged the Only Important Question at the Vice Presidential Debate

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

    1. That invisible pink one, behind your left shoulder — no, your other left shoulder.

      1. I quit working at shoprite and now I make $65-85 per/h. How? I’m working online! My work didn’t exactly make me happy so I decided to take a chance on something new…ZAs after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job but now I couldn’t be happier.

        Here’s what I do…>> Click here

    2. I quit working at shoprite and now I make $65-85 per/h. How? I’m working online! My work didn’t exactly make Abw me happy so I decided to take a chance on something new…CMs after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job but now I couldn’t be happier.

      Here’s what I do…>>Visit Here

  1. We all know that’s exactly what they want to do.

    1. We actually don’t. We know that some Democrats are advocating for it, and we know the two candidates at the top of the ticket are not being forthcoming about their position.

      I’d believe Kamala would, but Joe is more middle-of-the-road.

      Anyway, they should answer the damn question.

        1. Insightful comment. Really adds to the discussion.

          1. As much as your squawking Dee.

            1. Corona is big threat of the century which effect physically, mentally and financially/ JOU To over come these difficulties and make full use of this hostage period and make online earning.

              For more detail visit the given link…………► Click Here

      1. I’d believe Kamala would, but Joe is more middle-of-the-road.

        Joe is elderly and infirm at best, and still susceptible to COVID.

        Harris/Biden will pretty much guarantee that Harris will call the shots and eventually be president.

        1. Trump is only three years younger, and even has COVID-19. Why do commenters here constantly talk about how infirm Joe is, yet give Trump a free pass? If anything, Joe Biden appears to be keeping his weight in check and exercising, while Trump eschews exercise and diet.

          1. Because Trump has proven that he’s indestructible!

          2. Because you refuse to recognize the energy level differences between 9 amidst and trumps many multi hour speeches at rallies.

            Not everyone is willfully blind to reality.

            1. That’s what I’ve been told over and over. Trump is in better health because he talks a long time at his rallies. That’s your super-oh-so-scientific proof with no confirmation bias at all.

              Meanwhile Trump is old, overweight, has a poor diet, and has trouble walking down a ramp while Biden is out riding a bike.

              CACLLs just see what they want to see, and disregard the rest.

          3. “…Why do commenters here constantly talk about how infirm Joe is, yet give Trump a free pass?…”

            Why do lefty shits hope they can successfully wish Biden’s senility away?

    2. Google pays for every Person every hour online working from home job. I have received $23K in this month easily and JOW I earns every weeks $5K to 8$K on the internet. Every Person join this working easily by just just open this website and follow instructions………….. GET MORE INFO

  2. “Americans still do not know whether the people on the Democratic ticket plan to pack or expand the Court, leaving voters to make assumptions based on their refusal to respond clearly.”

    Well, let’s see…would she be ducking the question if they intended to leave the Court at 9? She’d only be ducking the question if they supported packing the court but didn’t want to discuss it.

    1. I think the Dems realize what a shitstorm packing would lead to, retaliation-wise. I don’t give Harris or Biden much credit for any advanced thinking, but I do think that as much as they would like to pack the court, they won’t, because they don’t want to waste political capital too early.

      IOW, they want to leave the issue unanswered, because a NO would be too on-the-record, and a YES would divert attention in a close election.

      1. If the P/VP candidates say yes to packing, the R’s get to confirm as pre-emptory strike. If the P/VP candiates say no, the R’s get to confirm and have the campaign statement as cudgel next year. A non-answer has the best chance of getting what the D’s want. This is obvious.

        The best outcome is always mixed party control of branches. This is why.

      2. I’m not sure the Dems who are actually in the Senate have yet figured out the problems that have come from Harry Reid nuking the filibuster, and I’m almost 100% convinced that the Dem “base” voters see any consequences of it as entirely being the fault of the GOP.

        In a way I’m glad that most Dem voters never realized that the Obama administration handed over a presidency with an open claim to having the authortiy to order the extrajudicial killing of any U.S. Citizen (on the condition that the POTUS decides that it’s “necessary”).

        If Biden wins, is Wapo going to change its masthead from “Democracy dies in the dark” to “Break time, find some shade”?

    2. Actually they would duck the question. No matter which way they answer someone will be displeased.

    3. Even if they dont plan on expanding the court they must leave it as an open question – as a wink and a nod to their rabid proggy followers that want that court to be turned into a super legislature.
      Otherwise they may lose the crazy prog vote to apathy.

      1. How important is the prog vote in battleground states?

        1. They need every student at UW in Madison to vote both at school and at home if they want to be sure of taking Wisconsin back.

  3. The question came not from moderator Susan Page, but from Vice President Mike Pence.

    Pence is good at that vice-president shit. Boy’s got a future.

    1. When he was first added to the ticket, I thought he was just a mannequin.
      But he’s proved over the years that he’s actually a mannequin with really good AI.
      Perfect right hand man.

      1. Ha! I laughed… thx for that

  4. Page did the dems bidding by trying “move on” as it were.

    That’s how good bootlickers protect their patrons.

    1. She did a fine job compared to Chris Wallace. Reminded me of back in the ’90s when the McNeil-Lehrer News Hour was the straightest ‘lectronic journalism outfit goin’.

      1. She was almost as bad as Wallace, but maintained her composure much better.

        She also tried to cut Pence off when he brought Kamala’s record as AG.

        1. 15sec as a rebuttal. Laughable. You cannot say anything meaningdul to ridiculous loaded questions and Party of slavery responses in 15 secs.

          As intended.

          Lefties need sound bites to twist and images of pence and harris playing nice to create anti American narratives around.

  5. Susan Page did an even worse job than Chris Wallace of moderating an objective debate, as most of her questions were prefaced with a false accusation about Trump or phony left wing propaganda.

    Pence won the debate hands down, and like Trump, had to take over the role of the moderator so that important questions were posed to Harris.

    1. By 2020 journalism standards Page was fine

      1. The questions were absolute shit though.

        1. When did you stop beating your wife?

          This is the type of bullshit moderator questions they deemed worthy.

          Did anyone else catch the harris slip? With the pence response being a perfect Segway into the next question and harris agreed as if she the knew the question before hand.

          1. They have to start their answers by calling out the moderator on this crap. And then noting that the time doesn’t allow for debunking the premise of the preamble to the question and then addressing the actual issue. (just like as noted above that 15 sec isnt time to address all the lies in ones opponents attacks) And then yell FAKE NEWS….
            Well maybe not that last part…

  6. That’s ok. According to Boehm, that not actually an important question.

    1. “You need to vote for the candidate to see what’s in the candidate.”

      1. There are other ways to see what’s inside a candidate…

      2. Well, another option is to use the party platform, openly available on the website of that party.
        So far as I can tell, the dems do not yet put up a different platform based on all the Google spy data on you as you click onto the page.

  7. Regarding packing the court: if the Democrats keep trying to grab power by undermining the judiciary, they’ll find themselves facing the second constitutional convention, where all states have the same representation, and the blue states don’t get any population advantage.

    The convention can put anything up for the states to ratify, like fixing the number of supreme court justices, returning the senate to being delegates of the state legislatures, overturning roe v. wade, whatever.

    If there are any thinking Democrats left, they should be cursing Harry Reid.

    -jcr

    1. Abolish the senate. Any system that gives the 600,000 inbred shit kickers in Wyoming the same representation as the millions in California is broken.

      We should become a parliamentary system.

      1. Hey look, the genocidal bigot wants to get rid of our Republic.

        1. Communism is a hella of a drug.

          When your a ditch digger, you might want to punish people who create wealth.

          1. What does my post have to do with Communism?

        2. “Genocidal bigot” I don’t care if you call me bigot because Mormons are bringing their destruction on themselves. No one is forcing them to worship pedophiles, breed lke goddamn rabbits, or try to destroy our country. I’m a goddamn patriot.

          Your welcome

      2. We should become a parliamentary system.

        Parliamentary systems have upper houses, and if they are federations, those upper houses represent the state governments. To be like them, we can simply abolish the 17th Amendment. I’m all for it!

        Abolish the senate. Any system that gives the 600,000 inbred shit kickers in Wyoming the same representation as the millions in California is broken.

        No, it’s working as intended, because that’s the only way that states agree to be members of a federation.

        If California wants to determine its own destiny, it is welcome to secede.

        If the Senate is abolished, that will effectively abolish the US as a whole.

        1. Unilateral secession is illegal. The Civil War settled that issue by force. The Supreme Court agreed in White vs Texas. So California can’t secede.

          The UK’s House of Lord’s is appointed by the Monarch and can’t really affect legislation.
          Canada’s senateis appointed and doesn’t do much.
          I was thinking something along those lines.

          1. If California can’t secede, can the rest of us expel them?

        2. Cali would have a tough time in a Civil War over secession. Until 6 months ago, most of the private gun owners in the state wouldn’t back the state’s secession play and all the new gun owners who panic-bought mostly 9mm pistols when the pandemic got them scared can’t have put more than a few hundred rounds through them yet and aren’t likely to be able to hit much beyond maybe 25 ft.

          Just the Marines stationed at Pendelton and at the MWTC would probably be sufficient to take down the level of actual resistance that could be mounted by the portion of the public willing to support the cause.

          1. Hell, the Park Rangers at Yosemite could put down a rebellion by those left wing whiners.

      3. I love when children prove to everyone why the failed 5th grade civics.

        1. Someone can understand why we have a senate and still want to reform or abolish it.

      4. “Abolish the senate”?? You seem to ignore the fact that the federal government is a Union of States NOT a Union of citizens under one state.

        Typical lefty; dumb as rocks.

        1. Not dumb at all. They start talking this shit now, and in a generation, the Senate will be a memory on the trash heap of the first and second and fourth amendments.

      5. I can’t be the only one around here old enough to remember when people who called themselves “liberal” were actually opposed to the tyranny of the majority, can I?

        I know it’s been ongoing since at least the 90’s, but I guess I missed the tipping point where the agenda shifted into full-throated support for enacting that as the law of the land at every possible level as soon as possible.

        I do sometimes wish that my leftist friends in MT could be really made to recognize the level of contempt their bi-coastal “elite” heroes actually have for them based solely on their ZIP code.

  8. Sure Team Blue are probably going to try to “pack the court”. I don’t relish the thought of living under a court of left-wing ideologues. It was a bit amusing though to see Pence try to insinuate that expanding the court was some underhanded deceitful trick. It’s not. It’s right there in the Constitution, the size of the court is set by Congress and the President. There is no separation of powers issue. There is nothing magical or special about the number 9.

    But the larger point here, is that this desire for/freakout over ‘packing the court’ is just a symptom of a larger problem: the court is too powerful in the first place! The libertarian answer ought to be to make the court more irrelevant in everybody’s lives, so that it doesn’t really matter all that much if it is full of RBG clones or ACB clones. This idea of treating the court as some partisan prize that should be fought over as much as fighting over a legislative or presidential election really is unhealthy for the republic.

    Finally I can’t help but notice that there is an awful lot of hypocrisy in the Team Red response to the Team Blue plans to pack the court. It is like those cases where Team Blue complains about Trump’s “abuse of power” but never propose anything concrete to do anything about it. They’ll hold hearings and impeach him, but will they actually remove the source of the power that Trump is abusing? No, because they want to reserve the ability to abuse that power for themselves when THEY are in charge. So it is for SCOTUS. Team Blue wants to pack the court and fill it with left-wing ideologues. Well, Team Red wants to fill the court with right-wing ideologues, just slower. Neither one is willing to actually remove SCOTUS’ power in a substantive way, they both want to reserve the right to pass flawed vague ill-considered and likely unconstitutional legislation, and leave it to the courts to sort it all out. If the courts side with their team, then they can take credit; if the courts side against their team, then they can blame “partisan judges” or “legislating from the bench” for their own sloppy legislation and evade blame for their role in causing the mess.

    1. There’s no hope for this one.

      1. He literally defended biden and Harris in every thread and then claims no team. It is just sad to see.

        1. The sad thing is that he thinks anyone believes his lying ass. I really think he might be a sociopath.

        2. Wasn’t there a thread a weekend or two ago, where the fat lump of shit came out, because of Tulpa or Jesse’s needling, and openly admitted he was a Leftist?

          Like with Tony, I don’t bother engaging with it 95 percent of the time.

    2. But the larger point here, is that this desire for/freakout over ‘packing the court’ is just a symptom of a larger problem: the court is too powerful in the first place!

      We shouldn’t worry about more people falling victim to the One Ring because the Nazgul are just too powerful in the first place!

    3. I’m not sure I agree. The Supreme Court is the one branch that is there to enforce the Constitution and restrain the other two branches. They need power to keep the other branches from exercising runaway power.

      I’m becoming convinced the fundamental problem with the United States is that it is too big. There is an optimal size for a nation-state that balances a healthy internal economy, etc. against being governable and accountable, and the United States vastly exceeds that size.

      We’d be better off splitting the country up into about six separate nations.

      1. “The Supreme Court is the one branch that is there to enforce the Constitution and restrain the other two branches.”

        And yet the power of judicial review cannot be found anywhere within the text of the Constitution.

        “[T]he fundamental problem with the United States is that it is too big … [w]e’d be better off splitting the country up into about six separate nations.”

        How about fifty separate … states? Size is an irrelevant metric. The problem stems from the fact that the federal government has grown too big and assumed powers over state affairs that it was never intended to possess.

        1. “And yet the power of judicial review cannot be found anywhere within the text of the Constitution.”

          That issue was settled a long, long, long time ago.

          “The problem stems from the fact that the federal government has grown too big…”

          And the size of the nation does not significantly contribute to that growth?

          1. Size is determined by how much the government does, not how many people its laws governs.

            The government needs to *do less*, not necessarily govern fewer people.

            1. Not just people. The physical size of the nation. If you live in Montana, you can’t just drop in to your nation’s capital to speak with your Senator in person.

              He or she is off in some city on the east coast, with little accountability to you.

              1. And so are all the bureaucrats that control more and more of our lives than they used to.

                Are you being obtuse on purpose Dee?

          2. Ever hear of this term: Enumerated powers

            Look it up. You might actually find it enlightening.

            1. Seriously, this is the hill you are going to take a stand on?

              Marbury v Madison, 1803. Look it up.

              1. Yes TWK, that is the only hill to stand on that appropriately addresses your point about the Federal Government being unwieldy and the country too big.

                Your premise is entirely wrong.

              2. Pop Quiz:

                Where in the Constitution is the holding in Marbury v. Madison written down?

                We’ll wait.

      2. Sorry but I gotta disagree. Imagine if there were just fewer laws in the first place. Squirreloid below gets it – the government just needs to do less. Then it wouldn’t matter so much who was on SCOTUS.

        As for breaking up the US – that is not even a topic worthy of serious consideration.

        1. not worthy of serious consideration until the country’s inertia brings it to the forefront

          1. Of which it should – The Union of 50!!! States never gave the U.S. federal government so much power over them. That is the blazing failure here.

      3. Or 50-separate States… All with hundreds of counties and city governments… Ya; the Constitution already ADDRESSED your proposition to a T. And it’s the Supreme Court’s job to enforce that proposition; of which it has failed to do under liberal-seats.

        Lefties hate our country it’s clear as day – and proven by their hatred of our Constitution.

    4. SCOTUS is a partisan prize because progressives started abusing it for making law. One way to counteract that is by sending originalists to the court, people like ACB.

      Another way to counteract it is for states to assert supremacy of state courts over SCOTUS again, but that’s not realistically feasible.

      The only way federal overreach will ever get under control is for splitting up the union to become a real possibility.

      1. SCOTUS is a partisan prize because progressives started abusing it for making law.

        What about Dred Scott? What about Plessy v. Ferguson? What about Buck v. Bell? More recently, what about Kelo? The problem is not just with progressives. This really is a “both sides” type of thing. Putting more ACB’s on the court will not change the root problem – the court just has too much power in the first place.

        1. “Dred Scott…Plessy v. Ferguson…Kelo”
          I don’t think these cases mean what you think they mean if you’re referring to them as ‘both sides’. While the term progressive might not be in effect during the time of some of those cases, the soul of it certainly fits the bill.

          The ‘Buck vs. Bell’ one I might give you. I’d really like to read some history of eugenics in the 19th and 20th centuries, since it went from hugely popular to ‘let us not speak of this again’ in the span of about 20 to 30 years.

      2. You’re probably right… I was going to say the convention of states might work; but they utterly ignored the Constitution ALREADY so what’s one more section added to it to be IGNORED..

    5. You can use the word “we” instead of team blue.

    6. Limiting the power of the USSC would have to be done indirectly. Since the court can’t really enact meaningful laws on its own, and can’t enforce them if it did, the extent to which its power bears on people’s lives directly lies only in how the members of the court choose to apply the constitution to put the brakes on the abuses by Congress and the Executive Branch. I think “Team Blue” sees it as more of a political prize to be won than “Team Red” because the courts have been confounding major parts of the “Blue” authoritarian agenda since the days of the New Deal. “Team Red” projects an interest in controlling the court over a couple of issues (one of which is tied directly to upholding the Constitution), but would be strategically foolish to ever actually accomplish most of the “social conservative” agenda since it would likely leave their supporters complacent and not put them in a position to regain any real influence in most of the nation’s major urban centers.

      A lot of “Team Blue” sincerely believes that if the world were “fair” that they’d never ever ever be out of power at any level, and if they could keep the court “packed” in their own favor for long enough, there’s a conceivable path for them to possibly establish the kind of one-party rule that has had taxpayers fleeing California for decades, and may now have the state driven into a state of perpetual (if the Governor gets his way) terror over a virus that really presents a negligible level of danger to most of the population.

    7. Good comment; but lets not forget the backbone here; ‘ideologues’.. Compare the “Constitutional Support” between the DNC and GOP platforms (on their website). The DNC-ideologues are all [WE] mobster foundation (no constitution support); one of top GOP-ideologues is the Constitution.

      The only enforcement of the Constitution that we have (as many have already stated) is the SCOTUS; without enforcement it amounts to nothing so the power there is severely needed (of which seems judges ignore their sole duty; as well as most of congress and the presidents).

      This wasn’t always the case; FDR really sabotaged this process during the great depression pitching his ‘New Deal’ that at first got instantly thrown out of the SCOTUS as UN-Constitution. Which is a funny coincidence that the DNC is now pitching the same old name ‘New Deal’ and packing courts talk (so much like 1934 again; its not even funny).

      “They’ll hold hearings and impeach him, but will they actually remove the source of the power that Trump is abusing?” — This right here is spot on the money — “they both want to reserve the right to pass flawed vague ill-considered and likely unconstitutional legislation”

      Now, the GOP is FAR from perfect and the amount of RINO’S is astounding; but the GOP at least pretends to nominate Constitutional Supporters (Scalia is an excellent example) where-as I’ve yet to even hear the left even pretend their nominee’s are actually going to enforce the constitution at all. It’s all about …. “partisan judges” for them. And you’re right – there’s no sense in having a SCOTUS if all it’s going to contain is “partisan judges”… So back to the backbone. Nominee’s the ACTUALLY do their duty/job are wildly needed especially after FDR.

      All this goes right back to the ideological differences between Democracy (i.e. mobster-partisan, socialist, gangster affiliation) mentality and a Constitutional Republic (i.e. Supreme Law that must persist)

      1. Summary:
        A Democracy = Sell your souls to the [WE] foundation because you don’t own you; [WE] own you.
        A Constitutional Republic = Individual Freedom and Justice by having a “Supreme Law” above and beyond the power of the [WE] foundation.

  9. The GOP opened the doorby being hypocrites and leaving Scalia’s seat open 14 months. It was manipulating the court’s size for political gain.

    Fuck Trump for putting goddamn Mike Lee on his SC list. Anyone who worships a pedo con artist should be disqualified. What Mormons believe is fucking nonsense. They’re morons who need to be exterminated for the good of our country.

    1. Now do Jews.

      1. Democrats already did the jews. They conspired with socialists in nazi germany to exterminate 6 millions jews.

        1. What are you talking about?
          Do you love EVERYTHING in the Constitution?
          The 3/5 clause?
          Fugitive slave clause?
          18th amendment?
          Conservatives who have a huge boner for the constitution are such goddamn morons.

          1. LEAVE! You hate the USA so much MOVE!

          2. Haha the bigot doesn’t understand the 3/5 rule.

          3. The 3/5 clause?
            Fugitive slave clause?

            Totally relevant given the rampant slavery here in the USA…

            1. I think it’s relevant if he claims to “loveconstitution?”

              What on earth would make you think I don’t understand the “3/5 rule?” Why do cons have to lie and deceive to argue with people?
              I’m serious so many people on these comments straight up lie or play dumb! Goddamn inbred shitbags.

        2. Nazis werent Socialists you moron. All cons are doing when they repeat that lie is exposing how backwards and uneducated they are.

          Hey bonesconstitution1789 kill yourself you sister fucking moron.

          1. I’m reasonably sure this is a wasted effort but…

            Nazis are socialists. It’s right in the name, *National Socialist*. They’re also socialists in practice (all fascists are) – they think individuals should live for the good of the state. (The Nazi’s made their socialism *racial* as well as national, a component not present in all fascist systems). It’s different in important respects than class-based socialism, but it’s still socialism.

            The opposite of socialism is individualism. Socialism sees people solely as means to the ends of the system/government/society/etc… Individualism sees systems as means and people as ends in themselves.

            1. They put socialist in their name to appeal to left wing parties. Why do almost all historians classify them as a right wing ideology? I’ll admit they had a lot of far left policies, but had right wing ones to.

              Not all fascists are Socialists.

              1. “Why do almost all historians classify them as a right wing ideology?”

                This is not true.

                1. Yes it is true. The few who disagree are just inbred right wing loons. Like 90% of reason commenters.

      2. Why? Jews aren’t forcing their religion on everyone like the goddamn evil mormons

        Fuck all the goddamn people defending Mormons on here. You’re defending pedophile worshipping morons.

    2. If you’re going to go off on a vendetta against people who believe in nonsense, that’s a lot more people than just Mormons.

      1. This is your response to a bigot that wants to exterminate a whole religion?

        Oh that’s right, you’re a White supremacist yourself.

        1. Yes, I’m totally encouraging him to hate even more people. That’s what I’m all about. And I also want to convince KillAllRednecks to hate on Canadians (except Neil Young).

          1. Neil Young’s fucking awesome. Love visiting Canada. Friendly motherfuckers. Mormons want to force their bullshit religion on everyone. Fuck them and fuck the people sticking up for them.

          2. We all know it’s Nickelback that you love.

            1. He has a Nickelback poster in his bedroom, right next to his Celine Dion poster.

            2. That’s pretty funny.

    3. Leaving a seat open with no vote while a party is in opposition to the president has happened almost a dozen times in the past half wit.

  10. VP Pence correctly called out Senator Harris on SCOTUS. Neither Brain Damaged Biden nor Heels Up Harris answered the SCOTUS packing question.

    Make no mistake. Brain Damaged Biden will pack SCOTUS. And turn the Judiciary into an unelected super-legislature.

    For this reason alone, Brain Damaged Biden and Horizontal Harris should be rejected.

  11. You have to elect this ticket to find out what’s in it.

    1. We know what is in it: Progressive Democrats who want to flex their totalitarian muscles.

      1. As proudly and clearly stated in their party platform.
        Why are there so many questions about what the socialists may or may not do? They wrote it down and signed it.

  12. Yawn. Only Mitch McConnell And Republicans can, for political purposes, decide how many sit on the Supreme Court? He loved 8 when it suited him. Now he loves 9. I’m sure he could love 10 or 11, as long as he was putting them on there. And have we had more than 9 in the past? Yep. Does the Constitution set the number at 9? Nope. Do Republicans always tell you what they will or won’t do?

    Wait…they often do! Lindsay Graham. He assured the American people he wouldn’t confirm a justice to SC in Trump’s last year. Of course he simply lied. It’s what Republicans do! So there’s that precedent for Biden and Harris to consider about the SC.

    Cue all the phony libertarians who are strict constitutionalists!

    1. Hey, jackass! Still waiting for your magic on climate change and making those nasty wildfires disappear!
      Do you have to repeat the incantation a certain number of times? Is it some secret among lefty shits?

  13. If I refused to deny that I’d do something over and over again at some point, each new refusal would start to become like a promise to do it.

    “I will not promise not to eat the cake while you’re gone”, means something the first time you say it.

    I will not promise not to eat the cake while you’re gone.
    I will not promise not to eat the cake while you’re gone.
    I will not promise not to eat the cake while you’re gone.
    I will not promise not to eat the cake while you’re gone.
    I will not promise not to eat the cake while you’re gone.
    I will not promise not to eat the cake while you’re gone.

    After the sixth time I say it, aren’t I basically telling you that I will eat the cake while you’re gone?

    How many times has the Biden/Harris ticket refused to deny that they will pack the Supreme Court now?

    1. That argument would make sense if there it weren’t the case that either answer she gives will lose her votes.

      1. That’s an absurd objection. The point is that they’re willing to pack the court–because they won’t deny it. And this information is useful to voters who don’t want the Supreme Court packed.

        President Trump will not pack the Supreme Court.

        Make your choice accordingly.

        That’s the point.

  14. “Americans still do not know whether the people on the Democratic ticket plan to pack or expand the Court,”

    Yes we do.

  15. Let’s be honest. When Shackleford states that, “Americans still do not know whether the people on the Democratic ticket plan to pack or expand the Court”, there are three possibilities.

    One: Shackleford is the most naive son of a bitch at Unreason.
    Two: Shackleford is the second stupidest journo-list at Unreason.*
    Three: Shackleford is a lying son of a bitch.

    So Scott….which is it? Are you naive, stupid, or just a damned liar?

    *ENB takes the cake for latent stupidity.

    1. I am not sure if the answer is all of the above or two and three. Shackford is hands down the dumbest reason writer and is as big of a lying son of a bitch as any of them. The only issue is how naïve is he.

      1. Have to call bullshit on that post, John. “Shrieking Harpy” Shikha is by far the dumbest “writer” here, followed (closely) by Billy “Dumbshit” Binion.

        As for Shakford being the biggest liar, again, may I present you Mx. Shikha? Walking hand-in-hand with the purple-haired master of selective reporting, Mx. ENB?

        Anyway, the fact that we’re having this discussion speaks volumes about “Reason”‘s current ability to live up to its appellation.

  16. The fact that they refuse to answer the question is an answer. Yes, they will attempt to pack the court if they are able. That alone is reason enough to vote for Trump.

  17. Google is now paying $19000 to $24000 per month for working online from home. I have joined this job 4 months ago and i have earned $20544 in my first month from this job.I can say my life is changed-completely for the better! Check it out whaat i do…….. CLICK FOR FULL DETAIL

  18. Their lack of answering the question implies that they do intend to pack the court.

  19. Biden as the democrat candidate if elected is first a servant of the people and secondly a servant of the democrat party members. Biden as president to get the nomination had to move left to get the nomination. As such he has made a commitment to the democrats that he would support the platform. If the majority of the democrats and progressives that will be the voters that will put him in office if he wins will also be the same voters that will put him back out of office if he does not fulfill his commitment and follow through with the Democrat Party Platform which includes no fracking, no longer any support for production of petroleum, Support for the NEW GREEN DEAL which was written by AOC and Bernie Sanders. It also includes expanding the supreme court to 15 or more members and to do away with the filibuster which would allow judges to be approved with a 51 votes in the senate. It also includes statehood for DC and Puerto Rico. With those two as states it would almost guarantee the democrats control of congress.

  20. We got the answer, but she still has plausible deniability.

  21. Funny how the dems refusing to answer a direct question about packing the court is just fine, nothing to see here; and Trump refusing to say an exact phrase dictated by his opposition about the transfer of power is clear evidence he is planning a military coup.
    My favorite thought is that the socialists refuse to even allow for the possibility that the transfer of power will not be necessary if the polls are as accurate as in 2016.
    1. The democrats will expand the Supreme Court as soon as they can.
    2. The democrats will no more peacefully accept a Trump victory in 2020 than they did in 2016.

    Welcome to the revolution.

  22. Every month start earning more cash from $20,000 to $24,000 by working very simple j0b 0nline from home. I have earned last month $23159 from this by just doing this 0nline w0rk for maximum 3 to 4 hrs a day using my laptop. This home j0b is just awesome and regular earning from this are much times better than other regular 9 to 5 desk j0b. Now every person on this earth can get this j0b and start making dollars 0nline just by follow instructions on the given web page……Check my site.

Please to post comments