Posted on 10/14/2020 9:53:51 AM PDT by Kaslin
Judging from their grandstanding during Amy Coney Barrett's confirmation hearing, Democrats think the composition of the Supreme Court is a big issue in next month's presidential election. Yet, evidently, it is not big enough for their candidate to tell voters whether he favors expanding the Court to accommodate his policy preferences.
"You'll know my opinion of court packing when the election is over," Joe Biden told reporters last week. His unwillingness to discuss the issue should alarm anyone who values judicial independence as a bulwark against the abuse of power, regardless of which party happens to be wielding it.
Biden himself explained the threat posed by court packing as a senator in 1983. "It was a bonehead idea," he said, referring to Franklin D. Roosevelt's 1937 plan to make the Supreme Court more receptive to his New Deal agenda through legislation that would have authorized him to appoint up to six additional justices.
That plan "violated no law," Biden noted. Still, "it was a terrible, terrible mistake to make, and it put in question for an entire decade the independence of...the Supreme Court."
Last year, Biden was still opposed to FDR-style bullying. "I'm not prepared to go on and try to pack the Court, because we'll live to rue the day," he told Iowa Starting Line in July 2019.
Biden was equally firm during a Democratic presidential debate three months later. "I would not get into court packing," he said. "We begin to lose any credibility the Court has at all." As recently as January, Biden told The New York Times he had no judicial reform plans.
But as court packing gained favor among Democrats outraged by Senate Republicans' decision to keep Antonin Scalia's seat open for Neil Gorsuch and their swift action to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Biden was suddenly silent. He conspicuously refused to rule out court packing during his debate with President Donald Trump last month, and so did his running mate, Kamala Harris, during her debate with Vice President Mike Pence last week.
It's not as if Democratic anger at Republicans' hardball tactics makes the lessons of FDR's failed bid to expand the Court less salient. Roosevelt's plan was never popular with voters, and it provoked intense opposition from Democrats, who controlled the House and Senate, as well as Republicans.
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Hatton Sumners refused to back the president's bill. Roosevelt's own vice president, John Nance Garner, was against it.
The Senate Judiciary Committee issued an adverse report on FDR's plan that said it "does not accomplish any one of the objectives for which it was originally offered" and "violates all precedents in the history of our government." The committee called the bill "a dangerous precedent" that "would undermine the independence of the courts," violate "the spirit of the American Constitution," subvert "the rights of individuals," and weaken "the protection our constitutional system gives to minorities."
FDR eventually reshaped the Supreme Court in the usual way, filling eight vacant seats. But he paid a huge political cost by trying to jump the gun.
"When the dust settled, FDR had suffered a humiliating political defeat," notes historian Michael Parrish. "The protracted legislative battle over the Court-packing bill blunted the momentum for additional reforms, divided the New Deal coalition, squandered the political advantage Roosevelt had gained in the 1936 elections, and gave fresh ammunition to those who accused him of dictatorship, tyranny, and fascism."
Biden is candid about the reason for his reticence about emulating FDR. "It's a great question," he conceded last week, "and I don't blame you for asking it. But you know, the moment I answer that question, the headline in every one of your papers will be about that (instead of) focusing on what's happening now."
What's happening now, of course, is a decision about whether to replace Trump with Biden. Voters deserve to know whether Biden now thinks FDR's "bonehead idea" was pretty smart after all.
Not rocket science. He has a choice of alienating either the Left or the scared-kitten component of independents that he needs to win the election. What this tells me, though, is that he’s not completely confident that the fraud that they have in place will be sufficient.
What the Dims aren't thinking through, is if they pack the Court, why couldn't the Republicans repack it the next time they have the White House and Senate?
What most people seem to forget is that even though FDR was unable to pack the court, his idea had the desire effect. From that moment on, the Court passed as Constitutional every idiotic, socialistic law that passed the Congress.
This is why Biden is taking the day off from his busy campaigning schedule to hunker down with the best legal minds at his disposal in the Command Center in his wife’s basement. The resulting actions will be nothing short of breathless! :/
Not to Biden. He doesn't remember it either way.
Trump says it at every rally.
Joe is not in control of ANYTHING anymore. Least of all his own mind.
He is a puppet under total control of his handlers, who are all Left-Wing Radicals.
“The switch in time that saved nine.”
It would be Kamala’s decision. Joe is mostly brain-dead and won’t last six months.
Polls.
I question whether Biden would oppose packing but it is probably irrelevant anyway. If Biden wins he will not be the President. Harris will be.
What most people seem to forget is that even though FDR was unable to pack the court, his idea had the desire effect. From that moment on, the Court passed as Constitutional every idiotic, socialistic law that passed the Congress.
Sent twice by mistake. Please disregard this one.
That is the logical answer as to why they shouldn't pack the court beyond 9 members. Next time the parties in control flip, there will be more packing. And again. And again repeatedly. Soon there will be 199 members of the Supreme Court and nothing will get decided.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.