One way to go about the SCOTUS questions: "We have no plans to pack a future Court until

[Atticus]

we see if we can 'unpack' the current one."

Let them chew on that.

[temporary311]

1. Another way is to not call it "packing,"

you're using Repubican talking points and are putting yourself at a disadvantage right out of the gate. Rebalancing the courts sounds better.

[Amishman]

2. But do we want balance at all?

I doubt many pushing to add seats would want to fill it with moderates and centerists, or leave it with anything but a large progressive majority.

[Grasswire2]

3. THIS

Restoring the balance of power is better than PACKING.

America is in the grip of a minority view.

[Skraxx]

7. Modernizing

[AlexSFCA]

4. it's not up to Biden or Kamala - senate would have to pass the nee law

to increase number of justices. It wish Kamala answered the question among those lines - “it’s entirely up to congress” since it’s not in the constitution. Biden answered in a better way appealing to voters “let us know with your vote”.

[liberalla]

5. "It's PREMATURE to discuss at this point. We don't know what's going to happen."

"We'll cross that bridge when we get to it."

"We're not going to speculate on what may or may not happen."

These are examples of how I would answer the question. We don't have to commit to any specific course of action at this point.

[Skraxx]

6. Not Packing, It's the Judiciary Modernization Act

[SheltieLover]

8. Exceptional!!!

[brush]

9. That's good. Add that since they already packed the court with a trump nominee...

which belonged to Pres. Obama we'll monitor the situation.

[maxsolomon]

10. IT WAS NOT A DEBATE QUESTION

Pence accused her of it, and demanded an answer. Which she didn't give.

I wish she'd turned it back to Merrick Garland's nomination when responding.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

11. Wrong. They'll seize on it as "hidden agenda". Don't give them this opening & diversion. No. . nt