Anyone else concerned about this answer in the debate? He won't tell the public what he plans to do. Is this okay for a presiden

Yes, I was concerned about that. If he weren't planning on it he would just say no. It's not the president's place to completely control the supreme court. His job is to appoint people, not to expand it's powers and own it.
No-one should be packing the supreme court. FDR was wrong to try and do it then and Biden is wrong to want to do it now.

I agree

Uh do you know who also 'packed' the supreme court? He skin is orange and has the brain of a monkey turd. This from the senate after refusing to consider Obama's pick. Them is some dirty playing, so if they choose to play dirty they have nothing to complain about.

But, he didn't. Are you referring to Kamala's comment that he was packing it with white people? He was not increasing the number of people in the supreme court. She used packing the court in a different meaning to decieve people. Because with the democrats, everything is about race.

Maybe you missed the news that agent orange selected three SC judges? The last one a week before the election? No not at all. This after refusing to confirm Obama's pick 9 months before the election because the election was too close. As a solution/revenge, when the dems control all levels of government they can update the law and change the SC from 9 to 18 members... in theory. Simple solution.

So basically, "As revenge for Trump doing his duty as president and appointing Judges, Biden will pack the court" wow

Pretty much just one example of payback. Why wow?

So, you are saying Biden should pack the court because he doesn't like the current people? Isn't it there to keep the president and congress in check?

Republicans play dirty, it's time for Democrats to do likewise. By all measures the worst president in history has chosen 3 sc judges because the Senate was complicit.

How has he been the one playing dirty. The democrats were the ones that wasted the last 4 years refusing to work with him and even impeached him without real evidence

There were actually two issues here in this segment: Packing the Supreme Court and ending the Senate filibuster. Both are plays that the Democrats may have available to them depending on how people vote.

The Senate filibuster has made it darn near impossible to get any significant legislation through in our hyperpartisan age. Key issues go unaddressed as a result. For the sake of the country, I do think it’s time to end it. The filibuster was not written in stone but is a tradition more suitable to a more amiable time when both parties actually reached across the aisle.

The threat of packing the Supreme Court goes back to the time of FDR when SCOTUS was blocking his New Deal programs. FDR never did it, but the threat was credible enough that SCOTUS backed down and approved the New Deal, making packing unnecessary.

So, will packing the court be necessary or even politically possible? It depends on future events. But it’s one option. So, I approve Biden’s dodge.

Conservatives’ favorite argument these days with respect to judicial maneuvers is that there’s “nothing in the constitution” preventing it. Well, there’s nothing in the Constitution mandating SCOTUS have 9 justices. We have had different numbers at various points in our history.

Tl;dr — We live in a democracy, and SCOTUS cannot get too out of step with public opinion, or it will undermine its own authority and open itself up to being checked-and-balanced by the other two branches of government. Our Founders would have wanted no less.

But shouldn't we be able to know what he does if he is elected? If he won't say something he is going to do because it will cost him votes, then the people should consider what would happen if he does go through with it. We should always know what someone plans to do before voting them in as POTUS

Indeed

Just curious, are you a republican supporter? Because I don't see them laying out any plan whatsoever. Not to mention the constant barrage of lies and misdirection FOR THE LAST FOUR YEArS.

Trump will continue his plan from 2016 that has been drastically slowed down by the democrats in the house. We know what his plan is.

What is this 'plan' you speak of? Catch phrases and twitter do not count.

https://youtu.be/ac_5W9NCsoI

You can also learn what his agenda is by going to whitehouse.gov

That's disgusting. How can you approve of dodging the question? If he weren't planning on it he would just say no. It's not the president's place to completely control the supreme court. His job is to appoint people, not to expand it's powers and own it.
No-one should be packing the supreme court. FDR was wrong to try and do it then and Biden is wrong to want to do it now.

What are your thoughts on the mad president having not one but three SC picks, the last one literally a week before the election? Please elucidate with your thoughts....

He did his duty as president. Simple

Using that logic he should have done his duty and resigned when all his misdeeds came to light, you know like Nixon did

Those accusations were fake.plain and simple

Who are you referring to?

Pardon?

And in the interests of fairness & balance.

The most troubling thing said by either candidate on the stage with respect to democracy was Trump’s overall failure to commit to a peaceful and timely transfer of power if he were to lose the election. Biden readily agreed he would concede if he lost. Trump kicked up dust about mail-in ballots and shouted out a far-right vigilante group. No Presidential candidate has ever been this skeptical about the democratic process in our history.

Peaceful transfer of power is the rock-bottom test for whether we still live in a country.

I hope the margin of victory in Biden’s favor is large enough that Trump’s all-but-certain plans to contest the election will be utterly ridiculous and ineffective.

But if the contest is close, and it could be, things could get ugly.

Oh please. Your side still won't accept the results of the 2016 election as proven by Hillary Clinton's and by extension the Democrat Party's conspiracy theories that Russia hijacked the election in favor of Trump because Hillary was a sore loser. Or the bogus impeachment over a phone call that Trump was perfectly within his right to do when Joe Biden actually did the thing you all were accusing Trump of doing. Not to mention all the Antifa/BLM riots that have occurred since Trump won because they are authoritarians trying to seize power. Or the rollout of a completely rushed voting system that will weaken election integrity when we're apparently being hacked by Russia, which isn't even necessary because Dr. Fauci said we can vote safely in person. Any argument you may have about Trump not accepting the results of the election is invalid because your side pulled the exact same thing in 2016 when Trump said he may not accept the results and then proceeded to throw a major hissy fit for 4 years when Trump actually won.

I am aware that Trump remains continually aggrieved and conservatives are still – and I won't use the word “butthurt,” because political discussions in The_Think_Tank aim to be above such commentary, so I'll just say "upset" -- over the fact that the Trump campaign's correspondence with Russians was tracked (“spied on!”) by the FBI, investigated ("Russiagate hoax!"), and ultimately exposed ("no personal involvement!").

However, what conservatives and even many liberals fail to understand is that Mueller's investigation was tasked with the job of investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election *generally*. The Trump campaign's relation to that was just a side-issue. A real thing, and of obvious and overwhelming political importance to the country, but not actually the main focus. Mueller was primarily tasked with uncovering Russian nefariousness and protecting the integrity of the election, full stop.

And when it comes to that nefarious Russian activity, DJT Jr. must not have “loved it!” ironically -- because it turns out there was no Russian dirt on HRC after all. However, when there is suspicious potentially fraudulent election-related activity, it warrants an investigation. It's what the FBI does.

“Play stupid games, win stupid prizes,” as a wise man once said.

But no: none of this amounted to a denial of the 2016 election results, or even an attempt to “overturn” the 2016 election. Recall Trump was never impeached over Russiagate: because again, "no personal involvement!" (Although plenty of Trump's close associates were bagged for various crimes, not to mention the indictments of Russians).

Trump could have even crawled away from this Russiagate scandal mostly undamaged and even bolstered, had he not gone and stuck his nose in Ukraine in an effort to manufacture dirt on the Bidens the literal day after Mueller's congressional testimony. Can't make this stuff up. That time, there was smoking-gun evidence of Trump's personal involvement [see transcript of call], and so impeachment resulted.

A "boogaloo" of Russiagate? In a way yes, in a way no. And if it was a boogaloo, it's because of Trump and his advisors' meddling, not because of the FBI's investigation ("spying!"), the whistleblower reports ("disloyalty!"), or the Democrats' justified attempts to follow up on all these revelations by insisting upon accountability/making Trump pay a political price for all of this ("IMPEACHMENT HOAX!!!").

Play more stupid games, win more stupid prizes.

There was no collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians. That's a boldfaced lie. All the Trump campaign officials I've read about were indicted on perjury charges, not colluding with Russia. Everybody knows you don't talk to the FBI if you don't have to and they learned that the hard way. Congratulations, apparently police are okay as long as they're going after your political enemies.

Did you even read the transcript you posted? Joe Biden threatened to have Ukraine's aid pulled unless they fired the prosecutor looking into Burisma, the company Hunter Biden worked for. Ukraine fired and replaced the prosecutor and the new prosecutor cleared Hunter Biden of all charges. Yeah, that's a quid pro quo. And Joe Biden was even bragging about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCSF3reVr10 Should Trump have made that call? Maybe, maybe not, do we have the full context? But impeachment was clearly a partisan attack. Thankfully Tulsi had principle and didn't go along with it. But then again, according to Hillary Clinton, apparently Tulsi Gabbard is a Russian asset. What a joke.

And yeah, riots are still occurring and Democrats continue to push for a weaker voting system despite the alleged threat of Russian interference or Dr. Fauci saying we can vote safely in person.

"Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump"

That's not a description from the Democrats, that's not a description from the fake news media

This is a statement from Rob Goldstone, a.... well, tl;dr, one of the bozos who was part of the Trump universe circa Summer 2016.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rob_Goldstone

This iPhone indeed does speak many languages

Re: "no collusion!", see these emails.

The best you can claim is that Donald Trump himself had no personal involvement, and that no alleged Russian dirt on HRC was actually supplied.

But was Trump's campaign interested? Did they "love" the idea of it?

You bet

lovely misdirection, I haven't heard that one in a while!