Hasn't Biden already promised he won't pack the Supreme Court?

[Stargleamer]

This guy seems to think so: https://www.bloombergquint.com/gadfly/republicans-would-regret-replacing-ginsburg-before-election . my guess is at the first debate Biden will reiterate that he does not plan to pack the Supreme Court, which, alas, would be a blow to ACA, Roe v. Wade, etc.

[lark]

1. Things have changed and hopefully he's evolved with this situations as well.

It would be suicide not to do this.

[awesomerwb1]

2. Cool story bro

[Drunken Irishman]

4. So did Bernie. Things change.

[Loki Liesmith]

5. That's your guess huh?

[stillcool]

6. necessity is the mother of invention..

[budkin]

7. No

He’s not ruled it out.

[Mister Ed]

8. I'm old enough to remember when Republicans said they wouldn't vote on a nominee in an election year

Which is to say, I'm more than four years old.

[qazplm135]

9. promised? No

He's come out against it, but in no way did he "promise"

[Thekaspervote]

13. When asked just today, he refused to answer. Which not a no! He's doing the smart thing.

Now is not the time!

[Rice4VP]

10. Pelosi hasn't stated that she's open to this so

why should he commit either way?

[Thekaspervote]

11. Why would he not? The pukes will run to the courts with every law we pass to undo it

We can’t live or function under an oppressive 6-3 SC

[roamer65]

12. It's up to Congress.

They have to author the legislation to do it.

[greenjar_01]

14. Pay attention: Nothing you say or promise matters anymore

There is no such thing as hypocrisy or fli-flopping, or any of that. You say one thing one day, the opposite the next. It doesn't matter.

Lindsey Graham is literally on record saying "Hold these words against me," and now he can say, welll, conditions changed, they were mean, it wasn't a principle, etc. IT DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER. Do what you should, period.

[dixiechiken1]

15. IMO, there is zero need for Biden to tip his hand before Inauguration...

Every answer he gives regarding packing the court(s), statehood for DC and/or PR, eliminating the filibuster, etc., etc., etc., should be intentionally vague. Follow McTurtle's advice: Keep your powder dry.

[delisen]

16. I think the term is enlarge the SC. It may need more justices to keep up with workload.

[SharonClark]

19. Agree. "Enlarge the court" is the more accurate

terminology.

[world wide wally]

17. And Republicans all said they would not replace a SC Justice in an election year.

Just win, baby!

[customerserviceguy]

18. The problem

with changing his position on that is that he looks more like a flip-flopper (look what that did for Mittens) and it makes it easier for the GOP to say, "Want four more nightmare Kavanaugh confirmation hearings in 2021? Just as bad as the one we're going through right now with Judge (fill in the blank)?"

The mushy middle doesn't like messy hearings interrupting their train of thought, or their fake judge shows during the afternoon.