Democratic Apoplexy Over ACB Could Lead To Changes They Don’t Want To Talk About

If you’re a politician and you do not want to discuss your plans openly because your opponent might take advantage of it, it might not be a good thing you’re planning to do, right? The NY Times doesn’t seem all that interested in what the agenda, is, just that something is there and Republicans might pounce and ZOMG ACB!

Democrats’ Anger Over Barrett Could Have Big Consequences in the Senate

Judge Amy Coney Barrett is on a glide path to the Supreme Court, but she will leave behind a Senate badly torn by its third confirmation blowup in four years, with the potential for severe repercussions should Democrats take control next year.

The decision by Sen. Mitch McConnell and Republicans to push through Barrett’s nomination to the high court on the eve of the election, after blocking President Barack Obama’s pick under similar circumstances in 2016, enraged many Democrats, who saw it as a violation of Senate norms and customs. With some already contemplating consequential changes, they were coming under increased pressure from progressive activists demanding payback in the form of an end to the legislative filibuster and an expansion in the size of federal courts should Joe Biden triumph in the presidential race and Democrats take the Senate.

In the aftermath of the confirmation hearing, Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, the minority leader, said it would be premature to discuss what Democrats might do if they won the Senate majority. But he did not dismiss the idea that changes could be in store should the party prevail, only to hit roadblocks erected by a Republican minority in 2021.

Man, if only there was a huge news outlet which could badger Schumer to tell us, doing the job of a reporter, as protected by the 1st Amendment

Democrats have been hesitant to discuss their plans should they gain power, not wanting to provide Republicans — who are playing defense around the country — with an issue that could alienate voters. Biden has pointedly declined to give his opinion on adding seats to the courts, but during a Thursday night town-hall-style interview on NBC, he said he was “open” to the idea depending on how Republicans handled Barrett’s nomination.

Think about that: if those changes were good, they would have zero problem saying what they are, instead of worrying that they will alienate voters. That tells you all you need to know about their agenda, just like Handsy Joe refusing to really say whether he would be in favor of packing the courts.

Whether Democrats would move to gut the filibuster, expand the court or institute other changes would depend on multiple factors even should they win. Biden, a former longtime member of the Senate, would be cautious about upending an institution he reveres. In addition, how the Republicans respond to a Democratic takeover would be a major consideration. Plus, the margin of victory and the size of the party divide in the Senate would also factor into the debate.

Joe is in La La Land, and will do whatever Harris and the hardcores in his Party tell him to do.