 I don't necessarily think that Democrats are going to pursue court packing, I hope that they prove me wrong, but this is the right course of action. And just the fact that this is something that even the pundit class is contemplating, it does have Republicans scared, and rightfully so. They should be afraid, because they should expect Democrats, if they are going to be a competent opposition party, to retaliate because what Republicans are doing is tantamount to court packing. If you hold open a Supreme Court seat for nearly a year and don't even allow a single hearing, if you rush through a nominee and try to confirm that individual before an election, after saying we don't confirm Supreme Court nominees during an election year, I mean that's court packing. I don't know what else to call it, it's court packing. It's not court packing in the sense that we expand the number of justices on the Supreme Court, but it still is court packing. You're making sure that the ideological tilt goes into your party's favor. So the Republican Party, they know that there is at least going to be a push from the left in the Democratic Party for court packing, and they're afraid. So they're preparing. They're trying to make it so that way they can pack the court, and then they stop Democrats from packing the court. So as Sung Min Kim of The Washington Post explains, ahead of Judge Amy Coney Barrett's expected confirmation to the Supreme Court in the coming days, a coalition of Senate Republicans is offering proposals intended to prevent Democrats from so-called court packing. The symbolic measures are intended for Republicans to go on the offensive against Democrats as the issue of whether to expand the number of seats on the nine-member Supreme Court remains a delicate one in the final days of the presidential and Senate campaigns. A half-dozen senators led by Senator Ted Cruz will unveil the proposals later Monday. The first is a constitutional amendment which would require support of two-thirds of Congress and then ratification by three-fourths of individual states, barring the contraction or expansion of the number of seats on the Supreme Court. The second would bar any proposals to change the size of the Supreme Court from even being considered in the Senate unless two-thirds of its members agree. Make no mistake, if Democrats win the election, they will end the filibuster and pack the Supreme Court, expanding the number of justices to advance their radical political agenda, entrenching their power for generations, and destroying the foundations of our democratic system, Ted Cruz said in a statement describing his proposals. He added, we must take action before election day to safeguard the Supreme Court and the constitutional liberties that hang in the balance. Endorsing the measures are three Senate Republicans in competitive contests in November. Senators Tom Tillis, Martha McSally, and Kelly Loeffler, who have warned of court packing should Democrats win the White House and retake the Senate majority in November. So this was expected, but it's funny because they know that what they're doing warrants retaliation. They know that they're in the wrong. They know that what they're doing is going to lead to at least some members of the Democratic Party calling for court packing. The fact that Republicans are even pursuing a constitutional amendment now shows you that they know what they're doing is completely cynical, completely cynical. Because if this were a legitimate confirmation process, then there would be no discussions about court packing, but they know that they're packing the court. This is basically court packing light, right? And it's just, it's hilarious. So here's what I would say. My thinking is, all right, you don't want Democrats to pack the Supreme Court. If I'm Democrats, I'm playing hardball. I'll say, look, we will vow to not expand the number of justices on the Supreme Court. Granted, you have Donald Trump withdraw his nomination of Amy Coney Barrett. You do that. We don't pack the Supreme Court. Then we call it even. Hopefully AOC expressed the same sentiment as I just did, because she tweeted out in response to this plan, is the plan to withdraw Barrett's nomination. Because if not, I've got the world's tiniest violin at the ready. And that's exactly what I want to hear. That's some wholesome trolling that we need to see. Because what they're trying to do is they're trying to frame talks surrounding court packing as, you know, them playing defense and Democrats going on the offensive. And, you know, they're saying, we're going to retaliate, but understand it's Democrats who should pack the Supreme Court as a means of retaliating because that's what you're doing. So what they're trying to do is they want to pack the Supreme Court and then impose a constitutional amendment to stop Democrats from further expanding the court, except that's not going to pass. And what I propose is Democrats go tit for tat. Because even if you go tit for tat, you add two justices to, you know, make up for the two that Republicans stole, we'll let them add two more. We go back and forth. Because here's the way I see it. If Democrats do not pack the Supreme Court, that is 20 to 30 years of nonstop conservative rulings if Amy Coney Barrett is in fact confirmed. So even if Democrats choose to add five, six justices to the Supreme Court, Republicans then retaliate. That's still better than what we know will for sure be the case where we have nonstop conservative rulings. If both parties go tit for tat and, you know, keep expanding the number of justices on the Supreme Court, at least there's going to be some periods of time where there will be a liberal majority on the Supreme Court. But if we don't expand the Supreme Court, then that means nonstop conservative rulings. Not acceptable. That means that Roe v. Wade is on the chopping block, Obergefell v. Hodges is on the chopping block. The Citizens United and McCutcheon will be expanded with even more cases. I mean, there's so much at stake and we can't afford to be rehashing all of these old battles. So you've got to go tit for tat. But I don't argue that, you know, let them go tit for tat, that's fine, without making my own case to block Republicans from packing the court as well. Because as I've stated on this show before, Democrats shouldn't just expand the Supreme Court and then wait for Republicans to retaliate when Democrats are the ones who retaliated. What they should do is expand the Supreme Court and then stop Republicans from doing that. How do you do that? Well, you don't do that by, you know, trying to promote some constitutional amendment. That's not going to pass. You're not going to get that ratified. But what you need to do is you stop Republicans from packing the Supreme Court by expanding democracy. Because when we expand democracy in America, the Republican Party is a minority party that makes it more difficult for them to win. So if they're going to win, they have to appeal to more people if we further enhance our democracy. So what do I mean by that? Well, first of all, we add more states to the Union. We make DC a state. We make Puerto Rico a state. And when I say we make Puerto Rico a state, we allow them to determine whether or not they want to join the United States. We try to entice them perhaps, but we let them ultimately have their say. And if both of those states are added to the Union, we have 52 states, but guess what? That's four more senators for Democrats. Now Republicans could get dirty. They could try to add more states to the Union themselves. They can try to carve up Texas into multiple states. That's fine. We'll just carve up California into multiple states. They want to make it so that way Democrats can't win after they've expanded the size of the Senate and they do more voter suppression. That's fine. What Democrats do is opt for compulsory voting. So people are now required to vote because we all know when turnout is higher, Democrats win and Republicans lose because again, this is a minority party. So our argument is from a place of democracy. We're trying to, yes, technically block Republicans from expanding the Supreme Court and retaliating, but we're not doing it by putting up these barriers, you know, by imposing a constitutional amendment after we get the ideological tilt on the court that we want. No, we just expand democracy. We consolidate our democracy and franchise more people, make it so that way more voices are heard, more people have representation. And if you can't win under those circumstances, under a more democratic country, then that's on you. It's on Republicans to win over people in D.C. and people in Puerto Rico or the different states of California that could emerge hypothetically or, you know, to this new block of voters that emerge if we make voting compulsory. So what I say is, of course, you expand the Supreme Court because we don't have a choice. And if it comes down to it, if both parties go tit for tat, that's fine because that's better than the alternative of 20 to 30 years of nonstop conservative role. And I know I sound like a broken record, but it cannot be overstated how horrible it would be for another Lochner era, but except this would be, you know, the Lochner era on steroids were issues that we thought were already solved. We're having to rehash everything again, all these same fights, you know, the decades it took for LGBTQ people to get rights. We can't just let that be overturned by a rogue Supreme Court who is, in fact, ideological. So you know, it's funny that Republicans now are trying to come up with some plan, but their plan is not going to work. A constitutional amendment is not going to pass. You're not going to get three fourths of states to ratify it. You're not going to make this happen. But our plan actually is more feasible. The plan to expand the union add two more states, that's something that's easier. So if really they want to go tit for tat, I mean, if Democrats really played their cards right with, which I'm assuming they won't. But if they did, Democrats would have the upper hand here. They could expand the number of justices and then they could block Republicans just by making our country more democratic. So Ted Cruz here after his party has packed the Supreme Court wants to play victim and make it seem as if, oh, we have to protect the Constitution and defend ourselves. Save it. You are the ones who brought this on yourselves. You're the ones who stole a Supreme Court seat from Obama. You're the ones rushing through a confirmation process right before an election after you said we don't do that. So you're the ones who made your bed. Lie in it and cope.