>> WELCOME BACK HOUSE SPEAKER,
NANCY PELOSI FIELDED QUESTIONS
ABOUT THE DEMOCRATS BILL TO
EXPAND THE SUPREME COURT FROM
NINE TO 13 SHE SAID RIGHT NOW
SHE WOULD NOT BRING IT TO THE
FLOOR.
WATCH.
>> NO.
AND THE HISTORY OF OUR COUNTRY A
LONG TILE AGO, AND THE GROWTH OF
OUR COUNTRY THE SIZE OF OUR
COUNTRY, GROWTH OF OUR
CHALLENGES AND TERMS OF THE
ECONOMY, ET CETERA, MIGHT
NECESSITATE SUCH A THING.
BUT THAT YOUR QUESTION I HAVE NO
PLANS TO BRING IT TO THE FLOOR,
NO.
MARIA: INTERESTING RESPONSE
THERE DAGEN McDOWELL TOIPGHT
GET YOUR TAKE ON THIS SHE SAID
SHE HAS NO PLAN TO BRING IT TO
THE FLOOR.
AT THE SAME TIME OF HER SAYING
EVERYTHING CHANGED KRNGHTS HAS
GROWN CHALLENGES HAVE GROWN,
SUGGESTING THAT MAYBE SHE’LL
CHANGE HER MIND.
WHAT DID YOU MAKE OF THAT
ANSWER?
>> SHE’S SERVING UP A NONSENSE
CASSEROLE RIGHT THERE THIS IS
SAME WOMAN THAT SAID THAT BORDER
IS ON A GOOD PATH.
BUT SHE IS RIGHT --
THE HOUSE ISN’T GOING TO TAKE UP
THIS LEGISLATION RIGHT NOW.
AND I SAID THIS ON THE 5
YESTERDAY, THE POINT OF THIS
LEGISLATION FROM THESE LEFT WING
DEMOCRATS IS TO INTIMIDATE THE
SUPREME COURT AND THE JUSTICES.
MITCH McCONNELL HAS SAID THAT.
SENATOR TOM COTTON HAS SAID THAT
AMONG MANY.
WHAT I MEAN IS THIS REALLY
STARTED AND BY THE WAY, THIS
PARTISAN COMMISSION TO STUDY
COURT PACKING AND CHANGES TO THE
COURT FROM THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH
AIM IT IS TO DO THE SAME THING.
SO YOU INTIMIDATE JUSTICES AND
THREATEN THEM IN A WAY TO MAKE
SURE ON RULINGS THAT THEY MIGHT
HEAD DOWN ON CASES THAT THEY
TAKE UP, ON THE JUDICIAL REVIEW
OF THE LEFT WING POLICIES SO
YOU’RE ESSENTIALLY TRYING TO
INTIMIDATE AND THREATEN THEM TO
DO THE LEFT BIDDING ON THE HIGH
COURT.
THIS ALL STARTED, THIS HAS
NOTHING TO DO WITH AMY CONEY
BARRETT AND HER CONFIRMATION
LAST YEAR.
THIS STARTED AND "THE WALL
STREET JOURNAL" EDITORIAL PAGE
COVERED THIS EXTENSIVELY.
WHEN SHELDON WHITEHOUSE DICK
DURBAN MACEY AND DICK BLOOMING
THAT WILL SENT A BRIEF TO THE
COURT THREATENING THE JUSTICES
WITH, QUOTE, RESTRUCTURING WHICH
IS COURT PACKING, IF THEY TOOK
UP A NEW YORK GUN RIGHTS CASE.
WELL GUESS WHAT, THE CHIEF
JUSTICE SIDED WITH THAT
DECISION.
THEY DID NOT TAKE UP THAT CASE.
AND SO THERE’S THREAT
ESSENTIALLY WORKED SO WHEN YOU
GIVE INTO THE FAR LEFT, WHAT ARE
THEY GOING TO DO?
THEY’RE GOING PUSH IT AND PUSH
IT THE SAME THING IS GOING ON
RIGHT NOW.
MARIA: WOW.
YEAH THAT’S GREAT ANALYSIS JAMES
WHAT DO YOU THINK?
>> YEAH.
THANKS DAGEN AND I THINK YOU
LOOK AT THE DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY
CAMPAIGN WHEN IT WAS HAPPENING
ROUGHLY A YEAR AGO, AS DAGEN
MENTIONED LONG BEFORE THE AMY
CONEY BARRETT NOMINATION, THIS
WAS A HOT TOPIC AND A LOT OF THE
PROGRESSIVE SO-CALLED
PROGRESSIVES ELIZABETH WARREN
PETE BUTTIGIEG TALKING ABOUT
TWIG RESTRUCTURE THE COURT
JUSTICE RUTH BADER GINSBURG
WARNING AGAINST IT BEFORE HER
PASS AND APPOINTEE STEPHEN
BREYER WARNING AGAINST IT
BECAUSE THEY UNDERSTAND THIS IS
ALL COMING FROM A POLITICAL
AGENDA.
NANCY PELOSI THERE MAKING A
REFERENCE TO OUR COUNTRY HAS
GROWN, BUT THIS IS NOT COMING
FROM SOME ARGUMENT THAT THIS
WOULD LEAD TO A MORE EFFICIENT
ADMINISTRATIVE --
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE OR
THERE WAS SOL SORT OF TECHNICAL
REASON WHY YOU NEEDED AN
EXPANDED COURT.
IT IS, OBVIOUSLY, BECAUSE THEY
WANT MORE VOTES TO ENFORCE THEIR
AGENDA.
I GUESS IT IS GOOD NANCY PELOSI
DIDN’T ENDORSE IT.
BUT SHE KIND OF LEFT THE DOOR
OPEN.
WE REMEMBER SHE WAS ORIGINALLY
NOT DISPOSED TO IMPEACHMENT AND
CAME AROUND ON THAT.
SO WE WOULD HAVE --
PREFERRED A MORE DEFINITIVE NO
FROM HER.
>> THE MESSAGE IS OKAY, IF YOU
DO OUR BIDDING ON THE HIGH
COURT, YOU KNOW, MAYBE WE WON’T
COME AFTER YOU.
MAYBE WE WON’T RESTRUCTURE YOU.
IF YOU, YOU KNOW, DON’T PUSH A
CONSERVATIVE AGENDA.
I JUST WANT TO NOTE IN THE
JOWRNLG WROTE AN EDITORIAL ABOUT
THIS LAST NOVEMBER, THAT JUSTICE
SAMUEL ALITO IT WAS SO OFFENSIVE
WHAT SHELDON WHITEHOUSE AND HIS
CLONENIES DID IN THREATENING THE
COURT THAT SAMUEL ALITO CAME OUT
SPOKE ABOUT IT DIRECTLY AND HE
SAID THIS, THESE THREATS FROM
THESE FIVE DEMOCRATIC SENATORS.
QUOTE, IT WAS AN AFFRONT TO THE
CONSTITUTION AND RULE OF LAW,
THE SUPREME COURT WAS CREATED BY
THE CONSTITUTION NOT BY
CONGRESS.
UNDER THE CONSTITUTION WE
EXERCISED THE JUDICIAL POWER OF
THE UNITED STATES.
CONGRESS HAS NO RIGHT TO
INTERFERE WITH THAT WORK ANYMORE
THAN WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO
LEGISLATE.
THEY OUGHT TO REMEMBER THAT.
ALL OF THOSE DEMOCRATS BECAUSE
THIS IS GONG TO BITE THEM IN THE
YOU KNOW WHAT IN THE MIDTERMS.