Two biggest questions I'd ask Joe Biden:

[Goodheart]

1- You say you want to improve Obamacare rather than starting from scratch. What exactly does "improve Obamacare" mean and cost?

2- Are you willing to nominate Supreme Court justices even without vacancies, in order to increase the number on the bench and eliminate the imbalance the right wing created by cheating?

[TwilightZone]

1. He can't unilaterally add justices to the SC.

Congress would have to pass an act.

[Goodheart]

2. He certainly can nominate them.

And given a Senate majority for Democrats we certainly can change the number of justices.

[TwilightZone]

4. Nomination would be pointless if there are no open seats.

The president shouldn't announce a replacement for a justice who may not retire for 10-30 years. What would be the point?

[Goodheart]

6. Pointless, my butt.

It's a very simple process, actually, if Congress approves more seats.

Here's how it would work:

Joe Biden says "I want three more Supreme Court justices... Merrick Garland, _________, and _________. Congress, let's get it done."

Voila.

[TwilightZone]

8. You keep moving the goalposts.

First, you said nominations with no vacancies. Now, you're saying "if Congress approves more seats".

Make up your mind.

[Goodheart]

11. It's one in the same.

"I nominate Merrick Garland, _________, and ________ to the Supreme Court. Congress, get it done."

VOILA

Where in your Constitution or book of laws does it say that nominations require vacancies?

[bucolic_frolic]

5. Nominate with no vacancies????

That's beyond crazy. He'd be laughed out of office in 2 days, his sanity would be questioned, and the GOP would float impeachment articles. So yeah, go ahead. Just invent it as you go along.

[Demsrule86]

13. It is not clear that we can change the number of justices...Roosevelt tried and failed...anyway who

cares...no way to know for sure what will happen...we simply have to seize our opportunities where we find them.

[uponit7771]

3. PO would be an improvement, 2 is a good question and should include more women

[PatSeg]

12. Yes a public option

would be the first major step to improving the ACA. Then get a bill passed allowing the government to negotiate drug prices. There was so much more they would have done initially, if they had had the votes. Thanks to Max Baucus and Blanche Lincoln, who opposed the public option. Cost Lincoln her seat. They could have helped make history, but chose to side with their donors.

[emmaverybo]

7. Spelled out in detail--public option, lowering premiums, etc. etc. Several parts. Starts with

restoring, but a key is to make more affordable. And expand healthcare for poor.

https://joebiden.com/healthcare/

[AGeddy]

9. He answered #1 already

1. Add a public option. This would allow people to move over into a low-cost, high-efficiency health insurance option that would continue to grow and crowd out the private insurance industry. It would eventually reach critical mass and become the "m4a" everyone wants.

2. Wouldn't fly. Even when FDR tried it back when he had supermajorities in both houses, it didn't happen. It certainly wouldn't happen in a congress that is more evenly divided.

[Sloumeau]

10. Regarding your questions:

The answer to question number one may be best answered here:

[link:https://joebiden.com/healthcare/|]

The answer to question number 2 may be a bit more complicated. I believe that the last time the idea of adding justices to the Supreme Court was seriously considered was when it was considered by Franklin Delano Roosevelt in the 1930s. You can read about FDR's attempt to "pack" the Supreme Court here:

[link:https://www.history.com/news/franklin-roosevelt-tried-packing-supreme-court|]

The main reason that Roosevelt wanted to strike down the Supreme Court was that the Court was invalidating a whole bunch of the legislation that was getting passed. The court stopped nuking everything FDR passed, so he let the attempt to enlarge the court drop.
The key thing to remember is, it all depends upon whether or not we get the Senate. If we don't get the Senate, then enlarging the court would actually be counterproductive. If we do get the court, then we can appoint fair judges instead of the slanted ones the GOP loves.