Joe Biden decides this is the right time to float the idea of Supreme Court “Reform”?
As recently as last year, he opposed trying to reform the court, including by expanding the court’s membership.
Now, he’s contemplating establishing term limits, an enforceable ethics code, plus some other changes, most of which would require approval by congress. Now, as he is in a major political sandstorm?
Notably, he sent up this trial balloon in a Saturday Zoom meeting with the Congressional Progressive Caucus, the segment of the Democratic Party that has given him the most support during the “dump Biden” movement that followed his disastrous debate with Donald J. Trump. “I need your help,” he told the Caucus. “We’re in this together.”
It’s not hard to see what is happening here.
Biden is taking another step to the Left.
Bidenomics didn’t work, he can’t convince the electorate that the economy is strong (it is, but the price of necessities remains high), while illegal activity at the border has dropped, it came far too late, his “threat to democracy” attack line isn’t working outside blue precincts, so the Dems major issue is abortion, now joined by Supreme Court “reform,” which is as nakedly political as his tuition forgiveness plan which, amazingly, did not result in strong support among the young.
To me, the “reform” is a Hail Mary pass deep in the fourth quarter.
Yes, some reform might be needed.
But from a potential lame duck? Now?
This idea is intended to energize the Democratic base that does not like a conservative-majority Supreme Court, after 70 years of a liberal-majority Supreme Court. But how will it play with independents?
Biden is rolling the dice that moving left will be a winning strategy.
I didn’t think it would work for Bernie Sanders, and I don’t think it will work for Joe Biden, who won last time by running as a moderate. The hard Left candidates, like Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Beto O’Rourke, went down to defeat.
The U.S. is mostly centrist, sometimes moving Left or Right, but rarely chooses an extremist. (I understand some of you believe Trump is an extremist.)
But the center is where victory is found, and Biden must feel like he’s losing to justify taking this Supreme gamble.
Agreed, particularly given that the president has no role in the amendment process that would be necessary to have term limits for judges (which I think isca good idea). Clearly the man is desperate.
Regarding the Supremes, Joe, you can’t hurry reform. It don’t come easy; it’s a game of give and take.
Jim – that was pretty punny! Really! And don’t forget our second refrain: “Just can’t no – satisfaction. Cause I try and I try and I try and I try, I just can’t no….”
Stu, I wish there was a way to get Joe to read your blog. More critical is for someone to appear who can convince Joe to step down. Perhaps the argument needs to be that we can’t let history be that tRump beat Biden.
Better to take the higher road and promote someone else to run who can take it to tRump, call him on his lies, and save Democracy. Joe would get credit for stepping aside and if that person doesn’t win, the loss will be on them and not Joe.
Well, you can forward my column to him. His address is [email protected]
Let me know if you hear back. 😉
🤣
So, Stu, you are in favor of reform, but simply do not like the timing of the call for reform? The core of this issue has zero to do with Democrat vs Republican. It has to do with PURE ETHICS. If a liberal justice did the things Thomas supposedly did, we should all be screaming for reform just the same. And I personally would be. How can his actions, and those of Alito and his wife, not cast a cloud of doubt and suspicion on the High Court? How can a justice who’s wife openly supported the Big Lie and approved the fake electors scheme NOT recuse himself from court cases on that very subject? Timing schmimeing. I get that argument. But court reform is needed now, time-frame be damned.
The timing is very much pertinent, ESPECIALLY since he opposed “reform” as recently as last year.
So I can say yes to reform, but no to Biden, now. It is blatant politics, and, as mentioned, foolish. It gives Trump another weapon.
Actually, given the Dobbs decision, I think the more Trump talks about the Supreme Court, the better for democrats (looking more and more like Biden will not be the nominee). I think it would be great for the dems if Trump runs around saying how great the Court is. The Court is very unpopular right now, and I don’t see how Trump making himself a big defender of how great it is, helps him.
👍
A vote against Biden and the democrats will be a stab in the heart to the progressive movement. The far left has taken over the Democratic Party there are know center left democrats that I know of. And if there is who are they? Vote Trump.
Why? The Far Rightwingnuts have taken over the once-great Republican party. Where are the moderates?
You complain about progressives; ok. But groups bigoted groups like the Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, The John Birch Society (yes, it’s still around, recently at C-PAC) support Trump. So do various white Christian nationalist groups, and various anti-Semites like Nick Fuentes, for ex. And you never, ever hear Trump denounce any of “these fine people”.
Stu, you don’t believe Trump is a bigot; I do, however and he has a long track record.
But, I agree, Joe must go for the good of the nation. Don’t be like Trump. Put America first over your ego and drop out.
I personally agree on both counts. The Supreme Court does need reform, including a limitation on lifetime appointments and enforcement of ethics. But now is not the time. This is purely a naked political gambit at this point to court the extreme left. Shame he doesn’t realize the center that propelled him to victory in 2020 is abandoning him due to his stubborn view that he can govern for another four years. I loved his decades of service and agreed with him more times than not. Now it’s simply time to step aside. No amount of political maneuvers or proposals will help him win this election. As it stands now, short of a Trump major screw up (of which he’s capable), Trump will be our 47th President. Thanks Joe.
And, if elected, he also may very well get to put another judge (Aileen Cannon, anyone) or two on SCOTUS.
The Supreme Court does need reform, but it won’t happen because Biden will lose. Even if he won, it would requiring amending the Constitution and that needs Congress. He is desperate to pull this out of his hat — too bad not desperate to admit that he is impaired and needs to step down.
Biden’s actions is so indicative of the Left: if some unit of the government is not under the thumb of the Progressives (read: Marxists), then that unit has to be modified so as to be controlled. Even the old socialist, FDR, tried it when he wanted to pack the SCOTUS with fellow travelers. As popular as FDR was, he was denied.
That should read “Bidens actions are…”
Joe Biden… When the Supreme Court doesn’t go your way you want to change the court. You are probably on your way out. Bucks County voters registration went from democrat to republican today. Just the beginning of the end.
Hmmm. Supreme Court disapproval is close to an all time high, at 55.8%. Sounds more like “mainstream” or “majority” than “progressive.” If you look at Biden’s career, he has always been smack dab in the middle of the Democratic party. That’s why he was against busing when Kamela was a little girl, voted for the Hyde Amendment (no federal funds for abortion), said Viet Nam campus protesters were “assholes” and famously or (infamously) got along and worked with the Dixiecrats.
On election day in 2020, the court’s approval rating was over10 points better. Some wanted reform back then and Biden did what pols always do when they have a segment of the party that wants something that isn’t all that popular–he formed a commission to study the issue.
With this perspective, one can see that Biden’s new border moves were not a lurch to the right, and his Supreme Court reform policies are not a lurch to the left. It seems to me he, as he always has, is moving in conjunction with the center of the Democratic party. (Compare, Obama “evolving” on gay marriage, Vance going from calling Trump a maybe Hitler to kissing his, er, ring–not to mention all the other GOP’rs with similar stories. It’s always been this way, for example, H.W. Bush VP’ing for Reagan, when he’d called Reagan’s policies “voodoo economics”).
Public officials and presidents are supposed to respond to public opinion, except (one hopes) when it is a stupid or evil policy. Certainly one would prefer having a politician who is a little (but not too much!) ahead of the curve. Biden’s problem is that he tends to be late to the party. This is Stu’s central critique, as opposed to the old axiom of “better late than never” which I would subscribe to. I mean “c’mon man”, would you really prefer the opposite–a guy who sticks to his guns even after his own voters have changed their minds and/or something is clearly not working? As the techies say, it’s not a glitch, it’s a feature.
Smartest thing I’ve read all day👍
On the “70 years” of a “liberal” court, I have to quibble.
First “In every term since 1970, the Court majority (consisting of at least 5 of the justices) has been appointed by Republican presidents. Every chief justice since 1953 has also been appointed by Republican presidents.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_leanings_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_justices
You can’t be thinking of all the controversial “liberal” victories like Bush v. Gore (2000), Citizens United v. FEC (2009), District of Columbia v Heller (2008), McDonald v. City of Chicago (2011) or Shelby County v. Holder (2013)?
Doubtless what you are referring to are the GOP-appointed justices who did not turn out to be as conservative as hoped, and tended to vote “liberal” (Harry Blackmun, John Paul Stevens and David Souter ) or “swing” justices like Kennedy and O’Connor.
Instead, I’d say, until the current 6-3 we’ve had a moderate Supreme Court, sometimes upholding “conservative” and sometimes upholding “liberal” causes. Personally, that’s the way I like it, even when things don’t go the way I want. (For one thing, foregone conclusions are no fun.) A moderate “swing” justice or justices is absolutely what one would want. If you think the country should be governed by the rule of law, you don’t want predictable partisans on the Court (okay, maybe 3 of each to keep things interesting), you want moderate (center-right or center-left) types to take a fair view of each question presented.
The last truly “liberal court” was the pre-Nixon, Warren Court (I don’t know about you, but I remember seeing “Impeach Earl Warren” bumper-stickers back then).
True, the Burger Court didn’t undo that work, and even followed Warren precedents, but it did have a very much less generous view of the Fourth and Fifth Amendment–more pro-cop and anti-criminal in simplest terms. It also decided Milliken v. Bradley (1974), holding that desegregation mandates only applied to single school districts, making “white flight” to the suburbs an effective means of avoiding integrated schools. Plus, Bakke (1978), which outlawed straight up racial quotas as affirmative action (but okaying other preferential mechanisms). There was also Bowers v. Hardwick (1986) which upheld the constitutionality of laws against homosexuality. (Overturned by Lawrence v. Texas, 2003)
Ok, you say, but what about Roe v. Wade? Well, in Burger’s concurring opinion he wrote: “the Court does not today hold that the Constitution compels abortion on demand. It does not today pronounce that a pregnant woman has an absolute right to abortion.” (Rehnquist, still an associate justice then, along with White, dissented).
So, not a “conservative” court but not a liberal dream court either. Historians rate the Burger court as “transitional” to the more conservative Rehnquist court.
I certainly remember the Rehnquist court as being criticized as too conservative. You might remember Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), which upheld Roe v. Wade–but watered it down considerably, changing the standard of review from “strict scrutiny” to “undue burden” allowing increased restrictions on abortion (that kept filling court dockets until Dobbs threw Roe out). There was also United States v. Lopez (1995), which held Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 unconstitutional, along with United States v. Morrison (2000) which found parts of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 unconstitutional. Bush v Gore, which I already mentioned, plus Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002) allowing the use of state tuition vouchers to give money to parochial schools. More generally, once Thomas was confirmed in 1991 Rehnquist had the five usually conservative votes–reduced Habeas Corpus rights, narrowed Americans with Disabilities Act protections, big on State’s rights vs the feds, against court supervision of desegregation and prison conditions.
True, there were occasional defections from Kennedy and O’Connor (like Planned Parenthood and prayer in the schools), but overall, the court has historically been considered conservative, albeit with some exceptions, which generally meant chipping away at Warren court precedent, instead of throwing it out in toto, which didn’t really happen until the current Roberts court.
So, if you want to say, “most of the liberal Warren Court’s precedent has been around for 70 years” that would be correct. (We still have “Miranda Warnings” (1966) interracial marriage is still legal (Loving v. Virginia, 1967), contraceptives are still legal (Griswold v Connecticut, 1965), although conservative jurists have criticized such decisions (Rehnquist wanted Miranda gone, and Clarence Thomas–and other conservatives, have long criticized Griswold, not to mention Brown v. Board of Education(as partially wrong)
But to say the Supreme Court has been “liberal” for 70 years is, respectfully, highly inaccurate. As they say on the internet “citation needed.”
Republican picks who were thought to be conservative, often turned out to be liberal, starting with Earl Warren.
Sorry Stu, but “Bidenomics” IS working. And inflation, according to the Fed is coming down. By what economic metrics do you say Bidenomics isn’t working? We have the world’s best economy. Jobs are still being created. Unemployment is still low. Our economy drives the world. China’s economy is weakening. We’re #1 !
Bidenomics is not working as a talking point, which is why he no longer says it. Clear?
👍