gillibrand and elizabeth warren who believe because republicans blocked president obama's nominee merrick garland that neil gorsuch chosen a legitimate seat. >> first the steel supreme court seat then turn around and change the rules on filibuster on supreme court seat. when it swings back around to us, what are we going to do? >> suggestions include term limits instead of life terms for federal judges, rotating justices from lower appellate courts and expanding the supreme court to 15 justices which would set up a capitol hill battle. it is congress, not the constitution that decides the number of justices. for america's first century the court went from 6 justices to 7 to 8 to 10, back to 8 before settling on nine for the past 150 years, though president roosevelt, frustrated by his reforms being shut down also want to the court to be 15 but the idea was abandoned. some democrats are also skeptical. senator klobuchar it is better to win elections and stop bad judges.

still bitter about republicans blocking president obama's supreme court nominee merrick garland, 2020 democrats backing a once fringe idea packing the court, new justices added to the supreme court. >> first the steel a supreme court seat, then change the rules on filibuster on a supreme court seat and when it swings around to us what are we going to do? shannon: is it a good idea? stick around as we continue the countdown to 2020. donald trump floats the idea of an investigation into saturday night live? our legal expert breaks down the possibilities later on in the show. .. you. all of you. how you live, what you love. that's what inspired us to create america's most advanced internet. internet that puts you in charge. that protects what's important. it handles everything, and reaches everywhere. this is beyond wifi, this is xfi. simple. easy. awesome. xfinity, the future of awesome. number of 2020 >> growing number of 2020 democrat contenders backing the idea of historic supreme court packing scheme expanding the number of justices serving in a court for the first time in 150 years

there is no historical precedent to what happened -- for what happened to merrick garland. what happened there was unconscionable and unprecedented. people are frustrated. discusseding to be during the course of the democratic primary. the voters are going to make a judgment based on what candidates say on whether they think it is a good idea or a bad idea. when you have what happened initiated by mitch mcconnell, -- and ie feeling like understand this feeling -- that seat was stolen. chair of the democratic party, my job is to make sure that ideas have an opportunity to flow throughout this debate. i believe that health care is a right for all and not a privilege for a few. i don't think it is my place to say how do we get from 90% coverage to 100% coverage. every democrat running for president understands that is what we need to do, unlike the republicans. i don't think it is my place to say we should either do a single-payer system or a let's move medicare eligibility 255. i think i will before the voters to decide which candidate reflects what their views are. >> the pr

there is no historical precedent for what happened to merrick garland, that i am aware of. what happened there was unconscionable and unprecedented so people are frustrated. reid: the proper response is to add more justices? tom: that will be discussed in the democratic primary and voters will make a judgment based on what candidates say about whether they think that is a good idea or a bad idea, but when you have what happened initiated by mitch mcconnell, people are feeling like -- i understand this feeling because i share it, that seat was stolen. as the chair of the democratic party, my role is to make sure ideas have an opportunity to flow through the debate. i believe health care is a right for all and not a privilege for a few. my place as the dnc chair to say how do we get from 90% coverage to 100% coverage? every democrat running for president understands that is what we need to do. it is not my place to say we should either do single-payer or let's move medicare eligibility to 55, that will be for the voters to decide which candidate reflects their views. elana: a

this retaliatory for merrick garland? >> katie: speaking of merrick garland of the bite and rule, joe biden reportedly telling supporters that he is indeed planning a 2020 bid but he needr help. he might not match his current contenders paid whether uncle joe was ready to go all in. plus, term calling for investigations of social media giants over alleged bias. his big tech really rigging the game against conservatives? we will debate. ♪ okay, i picked out my dream car. now's the really fun part: choosing the color, the wheels, the interior. everything exactly how i want it. here's the thing, just because i configured this car online doesn't mean it really exists at a dealership. but with truecar, i get real pricing on actual cars in my area, i see what others paid for them and they show me the ones that match the car i want, so i know i can go to a truecar certified dealer and it'll be right there waiting for me... today, right now. this is truecar. ♪ the house, kids, they're living the dream ♪ ♪ and here comes the wacky

i think from the democrats standpoint, the merrick garland nomination changed things.hey believe that was unfair, and they believe republicans abused the process and stole a seat. part of what is motivating this is the notion that republicans have not been playing fair with supreme court nominations. we need to take what tools are at our disposal. that is obviously debatable. host: was it unfair? guest: there is no precedent for it. mitch mcconnell says there is a tradition. there has never been a situation like this where he had a vacant seat that arose during an election year in february. host: because of death. guest: because of death. there was not a tradition going either way. it was certainly surprising when most of us heard mitch mcconnell said he was going to do that. host: he did. host:part of the argument you are hearing from democrats is they did not even hold a hearing for him. why not conduct a hearing to give him the benefit to testify before congress? accounts, merrick garland is a well-respected judge and would have likely acquitted himself very well. i

it spent $7 million on campaigns to block merrick garland from getting a hearing on his nomination to the supreme court, and it spent $10 million to support the nomination, the blockade enabled of neil gorsuch. and $7 million and $10 million, and it received one anonymous donation of $17.9 million. one donor gave $17.9 million to this operation to influence our judiciary. i will say we need to know who that donor was. because we're in the minority, we're going to be spurned and rejected if we try to get that information on the house side where they have the superpower of subpoena, we need to pursue that. it ought to be public information when one donor can spend nearly $18 million to influence the selection of a united states supreme court justice. the judicial crisis network then got $23 million from something called the well spring committee. you will have to forgive some of this because it's very obscure. these are peculiar groups that aren't involved in any ordinary business or regular activity. the well spring -- wellspring committee is a rirnlg-based entity with ties to -- you g

and the decision not to hold hearings on merrick garland.ama told us in the 2016 campaign when they go low, we go high, may be going high isn't working anymore. >> you look at all of these things, abolishing the electoral college, adding more supreme court justices, you look at reducing the voting age to 16. they all fit a beneficial to democrats in voting overall. >> the democratic argument isn't with any single one of these things, it's not only with the electoral college, is not only with the 26th amendment, is not only with the supreme court, it's not only with equal representation of small states in the united states sentiment, the democratic argument is with the constitution of the united states of america. the argument is because the left cannot win, in order to win, they need to change the structure. you heard him say the structural change necessary. they are changing the constitution of the united states whose structure is there to preserve individual liberty. barack obama said he was audacious, this is audacity. >> bret: elizabeth

guest: you are not going to hear me say anything negative about merrick garland.is not true that the senate judiciary has always taken up nominees from presidents. when george h.w. bush was president going into a reelection year, joe biden said to the president if there is a vacancy on the sprinkler, turned out there was not, -- supreme court, turned out there was not, don't send a nominee. the nine people sitting on those benches matter. this was justice scalia who died. it was a very important position. republicans felt correctly as if the supreme court was on the ballot. they took a real chance by saying we will leave this up to the american people. at the time, everybody expected that hillary clinton was going to be the president. had she been, odds are she would have appointed somebody much younger and more ideological than merrick garland. guest: baloney. they kept that seat open for one reason, even knowing how was,fied merrick garland they kept the seat open hoping a republican would be elected to president. that is exactly what happened. i am saying never

the bigger problem here is republicans broke the rules in terms of denying merrick garland a supreme court seat a year into a properly elected, twice elected president, barack obama. they said we're not going to let you. >> jesse: you know what i would do instead, i would try adding seats in the senate instead of adding seats to the supreme court. >> dana: the guy on my show today wanted to abolish the senate too. >> jesse: conservatives in the exit polls, they said the most important issue with in 2016 was the supreme court. if democrats are going to run on messing around with the supreme court, going to activate conservatives so much in 2020. >> juan: i think chief justice roberts, who is a republican, concerned about the credibility of the court. seen simply as a rubber-stamp for whoever has the political majority. >> jesse: if it is so much of a rubber-stamp, why do you want to water it down? if you take the senate and you take the white house, that means there's going to be a watered-down supreme court it's basically going to rubber-stamp socialism. >> juan: restore the credibil

the merrick garland not being voted on up or down was a trafest and he should be addressed through congressbut i think that look, i'm not for packing or changing the foundation of the court. we have to work to make sure the court is politicized and that the confirmation hearings are about the credentials and less about the personality. it is not an election for supreme court, picking people to serve for a lifetime and above politics. >> dana: give alex a quick last word. go ahead. >> we looked at this issue when fdr was president, considered one of the only stains on his presidency. it was a bad idea then. it is a bad idea now. congress has authority to do so, you don't need to amend the constitution. it doesn't say how big the supreme court has to be, it is a horrible idea for folks to propose altering democratic institution because of current political dynamic. >> dana: you guys, chris, you got my heart rate up. thank you. >> my job. >> thank you. >> dana: fox on the front line is here, benjamin hall come necessary contact with isis fighters and he will join us next. every baby can have t

you're saying what seems like the argument is, well, the other side has been breaking norms with merrick garlandhave a committee vote on that. let's now do something -- do you see that point that mary katharine has, jen? >> yes. there's a very short-term view here. there are consequences of elections, however they are won. one of them is a supreme court. this is, no doubt, going to be an issue on the 2020 race and primary. remember, it's not about -- it's about the breakdown of the people on the court. it's not even about the numbers. if you have 15 members and nine of them were appointed by republicans, you have the same problem. you have to be very careful what you're wishing and hoping for because power switches sides in washington. that's where we are with the nuclear option. and, you know, we're seeing the consequences of that. >> getting rid of the filibuster? >> exactly. >> jamal? >> something happening here is bigger. so many people in america feel left out of the decision making, feel left out of what's happening in washington and new york. elizabeth warren talked about this in the spee

here's one reason -- judge merrick garland was nominated by president obama in 2016 but never received a hearing or a vote in the united states senate. then one president trump won the election, neil gorsuch was nominated, confirmed, and sits on the supreme court. so there is some clear frustration. but an expert warns that adjusting the high court would be controversial. >> where does it end customer gift, say, president kamala harris adds two justices, the next republican president for eight years after that adds two more paid than you've a constant cycle until we end up with 135 people on the supreme court. >> the term limits idea may be connecting with democrats frustrated that president trump's supreme court justices are likely to be on the high court for decades. harris? >> harris: mike emanuel, thank you very much for setting us up. some of of this 2020 democratic candidates also say they are open to abolishing the electoral college. especially after hillary clinton lost the 2016 election despite winning the popular vote. efforts are already underway in several democratic states

judicial level over what they see as senator mitch mcconnell's blocking president obama's nominee, merrick garlandome in the final year of his term. democrats say they are opening to shape the supreme court. watch it. >> i think we need to fix the supreme court. i think they stole a seat. i think i would like to start exploring a lot of options and we should have national conversations, term limits might be one thing. >> what idea i think is interesting is you have 15 members but only ten of them are appointed in the public affection. five of them can only be seated an agreement of the upper ten. >> what if there were five justices selected by democrats, five selected by republicans, and those ten -- independent of those that chose the first time. i think it's an idea we should explore end. >> harris: that's beto o'rourke another 2020 democrats considering supreme court reforms, including senators kirsten gillibrand, kamala harris, and elizabeth warren. ian prior, do need term limits for supreme court justices? >> ian: no, i think this is so ironic. for years we have heard that trump is a danger t

jedediah: a lot of this is spitefulness over merrick garland not getting his hearing. >> i believe judged judge bourque was treated unfairly and judge kavanaugh was treated unfair little. these things happen. they are not a basis for attacks the integrity of the institution u. brian: in the past year the president's first term, if there is a second term, this is his first term can you imagine if an opening comes up on the supreme court? >> wow. brian: last year of presidency? >> then we will see if the biden rule applies which is no nominations during the last -- during a presidential election year. steve: 45 minutes ago when he said packing the court was a bone head idea. judge: i hope he still feels that way. brian: they could do it know in the senate. judge: good point. the number 9 is not in the constitution. simple majority and presidential signature regrettably could do that. brian: if the republicans lose the senate? steve: we will be watching you on fox nation. jedediah: a middle school students made this soldiers. he didn't get an a. he got a suspension. that by and his attorney

. >> what do you do or functionally what do you do with those folks who argued when merrick garland was nominated, oh, we don't really need nine, we can go with eight for a while? i just want to add that. dr. huebner: right. ok, so the only way that the size of the court can change is by federal statute. so it's up to congress. so there's nothing in the u.s. constitution that says what the size of the supreme court is. in fact, article three is very brief. it says there shall be one supreme court and such inferior courts as congress shall from time to time establish. so it's up to congress to set up the whole structure of the federal court system. and this is what they did in 1789. so they set up all the circuits. and then they said there will be six justices of the supreme court. so george washington nominates the first six justices. and then, as i said, the court expands to seven. i think in 1807. and then to nine in 1837. and then the story that i've just told. so there's nothing fixed about the size of the court, but it takes an act of congress to change it. and as i said, i think t

the man that president obama wanted to put in that position, merrick garland, from the d.c. circuit court, was widely respected by democrats and republicans alike, but his qualifications meant nothing to senator mcconnell. the end game in his mind was the chance that a republican president might be elected and fill that vacancy with a republican nominee. well, senator mcconnell's dream came true when donald trump was elected president, and he turned around and nominated justice gorsuch who now serves on the supreme court to fill the scalia vacancy. that was the most extreme example that we have in the history of the united states senate of the defiance of tradition and precedent. a defiance by senator mcconnell with one goal in mind -- to make sure that the judicial branch of our government became a political branch of our government, to make sure that as many republican conservatives, some of the most extreme views, were appointed to the bench. that has been his goal, and he pursues that goal to this day. there are three nominations before us which amply demonstrate his eff

you go back to fbi, didn't work out for him he legendary figure in politics about it nerz over merrick garlandh, there was question whether it worked for suburban white welcome but in general a point of grievance term of conservative politics to this moment. >> medium call me how great is beto when i ask her she won't be able to tell me the "vanity fair" cover, let me show that -- >> he looking handsome picture incredible i wish would take a picture of me it is a marketing campaign. >> is it really superficial marketing a candidate the candidate wants to about in tradition of ronald reagan also barack obama john kennedy hope and optimism when country is polarized he says i will bigger than positions i am about bringing country together i want to about a pragmatist young handsome --. >> if we put cover up again drop lower third drop banner you will see his dog his dog is in that photograph with him, again, there you go. what makes somebody more likable than anything being a dog lover. maria: i agree i agree. >> run for president -- inside did that hurt him. >>. >> gets into. >> what hurts in pi

judge merrick garland was nominated to the high court in 2016 but never received a hearing or a vote when president trump won the election, neil gorsuch was nominated and now serves on the supreme court. so there is some clear frustration. >> first, they steal a supreme court seat, and they turn around and change the rules on filibuster for supreme court seats so it swings back around to us, what are we going to do? my answer on that is all the options are on the table. >> senator warren is not alone. one likely candidate floated this idea on fox news sunday. >> one idea that i think is interesting, 15 members but only ten of them are appointed in the political fashion, five of them can only be seated by unanimous agreement of the other ten. to the bottom line is, we got to make some kind of structural form to depoliticize the supreme court. >> one aspect that makes it so huge is the fact it is a lifetime appointment. new jersey senator cory booker talked about changing that too. >> i think i would like to explore options and have a national conversation, term limits might be one thi