Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer talks with Rachel Maddow about ideas for rebalancing the judiciary after Mitch McConnell spent Donald Trump's time in office packing courts with conservative ideologues, including possibly expanding some courts. Aired on 01/26/2021.
» Subscribe to MSNBC:
About The Rachel Maddow Show: Through her unique approach to storytelling, Rachel Maddow provides in-depth reporting to illuminate the current state of political affairs and reveals the importance of transparency and accountability from our leaders. Maddow seeks to explain our complex world and deliver news in a way that's illuminating and dynamic, connecting the dots to make sense of complex issues. Maddow also conducts interviews with individuals at the center of current news stories to provide important perspective.
MSNBC delivers breaking news, in-depth analysis of politics headlines, as well as commentary and informed perspectives. Find video clips and segments from The Rachel Maddow Show, Morning Joe, Meet the Press Daily, The Beat with Ari Melber, Deadline: White House with Nicolle Wallace, Hardball, All In, Last Word, 11th Hour, and more.
Connect with MSNBC Online
Visit msnbc.com:
Subscribe to MSNBC Newsletter:
Find MSNBC on Facebook:
Follow MSNBC on Twitter:
Follow MSNBC on Instagram:
#Schumer #McConnell #MSNBC
Schumer Considering Expanding Judiciary To Balance Courts Packed By McConnell | Rachel Maddow
Went straight to the comment section and I am not disappointed 😂
@Christine T Is that book about your years of slavery?
@Christine T Since someone in my family was in WW1 go read a book about WW1 and give me some money!!
@Joe Dementia Fingers Hey “Joseph”… go read the research. Then you’ll know what type of person you are. Have a wonderful afternoon. 😉
Christine T 👍
I’m here for it, look at that ratio 😂 That’s all the power they have now.
TERM LIMITS ‼️
for EVERYONE
@Michael Johnson oh please, yes Republicans wanted term limits but it was never talked about seriously until the Dem lost their power. Why wasn’t it taken seriously before then? We all know why. It’s because you need the MSM media, big tech and establishment politician support to get anything done. And they don’t care if the Republicans are out of power, they love that. But as soon as the Dems lose a little bit power they will use the full force of their machine to change the rules. It’s disgusting
Term limits are undemocratic and a bad idea.
Including Justices .
@Eric Lee it’s also a fantasy in your own paranoid head.
@Michael Johnson how is it a fantasy? Where was this pressure from the establishment before the Dems lost power? You watch too much CNN and Vox. Completely brainwashed
WE DO NOT NEED DEMOCRATIC OR REPUBLICAN JUDGES, WHAT WE NEED IS JUDGES THAT ARE INDEPENDENT, THAT WILL FOLLOW THE LAW.
@Gabe Spence same conservative rhetoric to justify preventing minorites from voting. One drop box in an entire county and making people wait 3 hours to vote doesn’t justify anything your saying . And u wanna say that’s not conservative value yet you had a president trying to overturn votes only in high minority areas . Like seriously this is not even debatable Republicans have been using voter suppression tactics since the beginning of time . You do realize all these tactics there’s pulling out are some of the same tactics they used back when black people were first given the right to vote in the 1960s a lot of white southerners use these same tactics in mainly black areas to prevent african american turnout. Republicans know they can’t appeal to minority voters so the only way they can win is suppressing their vote Period they’ve been doing it and will continue to do it whether you want to accept it or not that’s how conservatives operate. You either don’t see it or don’t wanna see it. But that’s your party.
Exactly. Judges should be nonpartisan, unbiased, and interpret the law without personal objectives or party alliance.
Agreed!!!!
WE NEED TO HIT THE CAPS-LOCK one more time.
So young in thought… so naive.
“Legal scholars almost universally agree that Congress has the constitutional authority to enact legislation
changing the size of the Supreme Court for practical reasons, such as managing caseload. However, some contend that expanding the Court with the intent to shape the Court’s composition and obtain more favorable case outcomes may raise
constitutional questions.”
@NeoMcCarthyist the democratic controlled senate…now drop it
@toolman thetim Correct. Now they can nominate people to the supreme court, should a spot arise, and there should be no trouble confirming.
@Asazian on Absurdity please. He’ll bend like he bent over when ads ran against him on the stimulus checks. A compete 180 the second he realized he was in danger.
@eric Rotermund he’s dumb
@Jimmy Mays yup
Like we didn’t see this happening!
Idc what side your on the Supreme court Should be balance Period . The u.s is Not a all conservative Country and Im not Religious Im atheist and Im a American I Don’t want a Supreme Court Who makes laws that will affect me to be leaning all conservative WTH . If your religious or whatever thats your right but you can’t bring that into a national court that represents the entire Country a full Right Wing Supreme Court in the United States . Next thing you know they will make a Law that all Citizens has to go to church every Sunday and start to have Bibles in Every School TF.
@J gibson that’s just it, the court does make LAW. It forms a legal opinion. Only the legislator can make LAW
@J gibson yes. Keep the church out of law making and respect the rights of others. Not everyone is a Christian.
@K S Exactly . This is the United States of America Not the United States of Christ.
@The One And Only!!! You are not even making any sense. It figures.
Mitch raping his life alert button: “Help, I’ve fallen and I can’t obstruct” 🤣😝🤣😝🤣😝🤣
@Anthony Martino this could have been avoided but your daddy was so stupid he tried using a plastic hanger instead of a wire one.
@Punch Top that is ok punk your low life prez is a loser in Florida! Congratulations loser!
@Anthony Martino a good proctologist can pull your head out of your @$s…maybe you can use your minimum wage job to save up to get it done.
@Punch Top HAHAHAHAH HARDLY MINIMUM WAGE LOSER!
@Anthony Martino yeah right a guy who makes 100k writes in all caps…🖕
Think of how many more cases there are now than ever before in history. 13 justices is good.
This is just fishing for a way to justify the action when the real motive is simply to win back the Court.
It seemed like the man wearing black was just telling the man in gray what to say. How is that reporting?
Loving how the magas keep whining about mainstream news, but they never miss a clip from MSNBC. 😂😂
Keep up the views, reviews, and comments guys. You help keep the ad money rolling in. 🤣
Ad money??? Those talking heads make MILLIONS of dollars a year too feed the public BS!! TV is where the money is but they are getting their a$$es kicked by social media. They only clog the social media space to hid the truth. How come you are still hating Trump since you won?? on that’s right, cultural marxist group think needs a fake oppressor to continuously hate, you haven’t’ gotten your marching orders yet on the new “enemy”.
@theoptimist75 oh u poor fool u just proved his point
This is exactly why they wouldn’t answer any of these questions until now
@Teddy Willard There’s also a 0% chance that they will appoint “unqualified” persons to the bench, as the former administration was glad to do.
@Tuna June. The fact that you think they were unqualified, just shows you don’t even know what that word means.
@rathofturkey I don’t think you know what “unqualified” means. Because they were judges doesn’t mean they were good ones.
@rathofturkey It’s not me doing the thinking. The American Bar Association rated them “unqualified.” I would trust the ABA over an anonymous you-tuber.
Yep . when republicans stacked the courts with 6 judges all of the criminal republicans were saying “congress is well within their legal Rights to add more Justices” Well guess what the same Standing goes for this congress there’s nothing in the constitution that says its illegal to add Justices Nothing.
Remember, we didnt deserve to know if theyd pack the courts
Aka, yes we will pack the courts
Tfis that
https://youtu.be/aFBzqhLk7TI
oh good
@Joe Bloe get a grip bro. The court is unbalanced and doesn’t reflect the citizens it’s represents. We have 6 conservative judges and 3 progressive judges, it’s quite obvious from the election that 2/3 of this nation are not conservative 😂. In fact there are by far more registered Dems than republicans and a majority of independents are center left. That means a supreme court that reflects the actual citizens of this country would be 4 conservatives to 5 progressives and that’s being generous it should really be more like 3 conservative to 6 progressive.
@Matt O Oh okay. So you’re saying minorites shouldn’t really have a voice, am I right?
@Matt O so change the game because you lost…see why you elected a senile candidate…you’re all morons
Actually, the GOP/GreedyOldPricks have ALREADY packed the courts.
Packing Supreme Court, sounds familiar where did we hear that before!
@Michael Mullins It is very clearly not a false equivalency. The senate has the power to approve judges, but not an obligation to do it within any specific timeframe. The Democratic majority decided not to hold hearings or vote on a number of Bush’s appellate nominees and the Republican majority did the same with Garland. It was not some egregious and unprecedented violation of good faith norms. At best, it was a pragmatic move. At worst, it was just another shot in a war that has been going on for decades.
Garland was far from the first affront. Democrats have been pulling this stuff for decades. Clinton’s nominees were confirmed by an overwhelming majority, even though their philosophies were at odds with conservative ideals. But Clarence Thomas was given the same sort of treatment as Kavanaugh over lesser allegations in ’91. And the treatment of Bork in ’87 made his name a household term, whatever you might think of him as a judge. I’m personally not a huge fan of Kavanaugh or Bork, but that’s beside the point.
The article that you shared is nothing more than vitriolic venting from a spiteful Democratic zealot on the extreme fringe of the party. The point of the article is that Republicans are evil and need to be stopped at any cost. That reckless and defamatory rhetoric is why we have this cold civil war between the parties. And the author idolizes one of the biggest nutjobs in the Senate. Whitehouse is a fruitcake and a conspiracy theorist. If this is the sort of trash writing that is informing your viewpoint, then you need to go back to the drawing board.
@Matt W I’ll stick with the drawing board I have, thanks all the same. It’s unclear what if, if anything, you are advocating.
@Matt W Never mind. I just looked at your profile, specifically at your playlists. Let me echo your words back to you: “If this is the sort of trash viewing that is informing your viewpoint…”
@Michael Mullins Weak. My point is that the outrage from people like Maddow and Schumer is contrived and dishonest. They’re complicit in getting us to this point and I blame people like them for making Trump possible.
@Upper 90 The president can’t appoint a Supreme Court justice unless Congress is in recess.
Which it literally never is because of the complete nonsense of the “pro forma session”.
People do not realise hiw important it is. I hope he does it
He should expand to even the injustice
“Are you gonna pack the courts”
“He won’t answer”
The court is already “packed”.
@The One And Only!!! You mean like getting Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court?. Stupid comment.
@America FUCKYEAH!!! McConnell blocked Obama from appointing Judges. And they were unqualified and all Right- Wing.
@karmakazi219 it’s stacked, not packed. The right chose people then confirmed them, what Schumer is suggesting is creating new spots to “balance” the court, but we all know it’s going to skew left, and even if it doesn’t this has been historically a no go, because both sides realized in the past that the other side will do it too, making the Supreme Court political. It’s supposed to hold only to the rule of law, IE the constitution.
@Trevor Reid i agree 💯 with you…..but what i was saying is that guy was crazy if he thinks the democrats won’t try some shady crap like packing the courts
NICK CAGE: You don’t say!!!!!!!!
Schumer looks almost like a different man now that he is Majority Leader
YES, do it. Re-Balance the Courts to better reflect the citizenship. This is not McConnell’s country.
Just remove those who perjured themselves at their confirmation hearings.
When ever i hear Schumer speak the way he speaks is so sassy and notice how he licks his lips its a schumer thing very intresting to see him speak