What language.
I think it could mean either. There is no need to worry about this. Biden was being cagey at the debate. He's not in favor of packing the court. It would be lunacy to do that. I'm guessing he refused to answer it at the debate as a way of intimidating Republicans for their wanting to pack the court now while Trump is still President.
Biden gave his reasons last year for not adding more justices, and I can't see why he'd change his mind. There are radical Democrats who might like the idea, but I can't see Biden agreeing to it.
If Republicans Confirm New Justice, Scholars Say Democratic Court Packing Is Possible
Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden hasn't commented publicly on expanding the court since Ginsburg's death. But he previously dismissed the idea, warning of reprisal if and when Republicans regain control.
"I'm not prepared to go on and try to pack the court, because we'll live to rue that day," he told Iowa Starting Line early in the primary race last year. A few months later, during a Democratic primary debate, Biden once again rejected the idea. "I would not get into court packing," Biden said. "We add three justices. Next time around, we lose control, they add three justices. We begin to lose any credibility the court has at all."
In remarks Sunday on the future of the Supreme Court, Biden did not discuss court packing. And on Sunday morning, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi demurred when asked whether a Democratic majority would consider expanding the court as reprisal for a late-term Trump appointment.
"Let's just win the election," Pelosi told ABC's George Stephanopoulos. "Let's hope that the president will see the light."
But other Democrats have been less reticent. "Mitch McConnell set the precedent. No Supreme Court vacancies filled in an election year," Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts wrote Friday. "If he violates it, when Democrats control the Senate in the next Congress, we must abolish the filibuster and expand the Supreme Court."
Even before Ginsburg's death, several Democratic presidential hopefuls had said they were open to the idea, including Sens. Cory Booker of New Jersey, Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Kamala Harris of California, now the vice presidential nominee.
Roosevelt didn't like the Supreme Court he inherited, and he wanted to increase the number of justices. The Democrats in the Senate said no. Why would Democrats in Congress resist it when a Democratic President wanted to rig the court? They didn't think any President should have that much power. People are overreacting to this anyway. It won't be the end of the world if Trump appoints another justice to the Supreme Court. Okay, maybe the Democrats don't like it, but it's nothing to get that upset about and it's not that important that we need to change the Constitution.
You say you want an amendment? It sounds as if you don't like the current American constitution which gives Congress the right to determine how many justices there are in the Supreme Court. Biden also would be nuts to say he wanted to pack the Supreme Court -- the Democrats don't control the Senate and may not after the election -- it looks like it's going to be 50-50 to me. Why create unnecessary problems then by inflaming them?
And what are you afraid of anyway? Are you afraid the Republicans will lose control of the Senate, that Democrats will control the House and Senate along with the White House? You want to change the rules because they might win? Hmmm.
Term limits? First of all, with a lot of turnover, you have a constant bunch of inexperienced newbies. It also increases the clout of lobbyists and big money campaign fundraisers. There are already enough people in Congress who are there so they can get high-paying jobs in lobbying firms after serving a few years in Congress -- term limits would make that worse.
Lastly, why do you want to restrict who people are allowed to vote for? If they want to vote someone back into office, why shouldn't they be allowed to? It is a democracy, isn't it? Or do you mistrust the American voters? I wouldn't mind if Mitch McConnell lost his seat -- he's been there for 36 years -- but that's not my business. If the people of Kentucky want to re-elect him, I think they should be allowed to, even if I don't like him.
Biden aims to reduce the current animosity between the two parties, so I can't see him inflaming the Republicans by trying to rig the Supreme Court. What many people today don't realize is that Biden tries to get along with Republicans in a bipartisan way. I remember how he and Senator Specter conducted themselves in the heated confirmation hearing of Clarence Thomas. I thought they both were trying to keep things as calm as possible. If anything, I'd criticize Biden for being too "bipartisan" in that hearing. He agreed not to get the testimony about what movies Thomas had checked out to view. I thought the American people deserved to know what kind of movies Thomas watched.
One of my biggest problem with Biden is how he seems to want to get along with everyone. I think maybe that's why his son Hunter turned out to be someone who embarrassed his father. He can be tough, yes; but that's only after he's tried to get along with someone and the other person shows no signs of wanting to cooperate.