The Pack the Court Question

Politics & Elections
1

Does anyone besides me think that rather than the Biden campaign avoiding any “Pack the Court” question, they should delay the discussion by saying:

“We will decide how to address the Supreme Court once we see if the Republicans go through with these hypocritical and immoral threats that by-the-way contradicts the will of the American people.”

As the election gets closer, even if as expected the Senate marches to their orders, the campaign can say we are monitoring the situation and evaluating options. Sure it is equivocating, but small issue compared to all the shit Trump pulls. A ‘we are working on this issue’ is better than a ‘that is a hypothetical’ which is still better than embarrassed silence.

2

In light of last night’s VP debate I thought I would bump this.
Why not avoid the question a little less obviously while pointing out the hypocrisy and determination to contradict the will of the people by the opposition every time the topic comes up?

3

This would definitely be a more artful way of saying things. The real issue, of course, is what will actually be done once Biden is POTUS, assuming he wins. I think the fairest thing would be to pass a law setting the number of SCOTUS seats at 11 and appointing 2 liberal justices. If he did that, we would basically be in the same situation that we were in prior to the death of Scalia.

Of course this risks the Republicans doing the same should they ever control the House, Senate, and presidency, but at this time I think it’s a risk we should all be willing to take. 11 would be a very small increase and would easily be justified as bringing balance back to the court rather than trying to tip it to the liberal side. This would basically mean that Roberts, rather than Gorsuch, would once again be the swing justice, so it wouldn’t be wild swing. IMHO most moderates would see this as fair, a legitimate attempt to undo the meddling of McConnell. Conservatives would hate it, but there is no chance they could be won over anyway. Go higher than 11 and I think Biden and the Democrats would start to lose moderates.

4

Biden has no interest in using all his political capital on a bloody SCOTUS fight. Court packing is popular on Twitter and with the activist left, but Biden has learned not to pay attention to all their noise

5

The problem with this line of thinking is that it would mean the only times liberal leaning justices or federal judges would be appointed is during times when the Democrats control the presidency and the Senate. That will probably be less than 25% of the time for the foreseeable future.

6

I agree that what the OP suggests is far preferable to the way candidates so often simply avoid answering questions. Another example from last night was the question about having discussed succession w/ their elderly running mates. Kamala kinda responded by saying they viewed issues similarly. But why couldn’t she had said, “Joe’s in great shape, and we have every expectation he will complete two terms. Of course, the unexpected could occur to any president. In the event that happened, it is fortunate that Joe and I are so on the same page, and that he intends to involve me as an active partner, so that any provisions - which are dictated by law - will be seamless.”

These are smart and intelligent speakers. There must be some theory they are following to explain why they pass on the opportunities to give such plausible “non-answers,” and instead, simply ignore the questions.I’d suspect that “didn’t answer the question” ranks mighty low on viewers’ takeaways.

7

Okay, I accept this. But why not point out how out of step with public opinion and how hypocritical McConnell is being?

Just say: We are considering options, we still have hope the Senate will do the decent and honorable thing rather than this blatant last minute power grab. If Trump wins the election, they should continue the process with ACB – if not I will make a nomination in January.

At this point the election will be over before an answer will be required.

8

That gives me an idea. When SNL does a parody, they should call it “What I Should Have Said Theater”. The funny would be in the fact that the actors playing the politicians would be smarter and have better policy than the actual candidates. You should write some of the script.

Hopefully, in the next few days Ms. Harris will sort of correct her responses by saying what I was actually trying to convey was _______, I should have phrased it this way.

9

I respect what you suggest, but I simply don’t think such intelligent and nuanced communication has much of any payoff in these trainwrecks we call elections.

Heck, even when you look at their position papers, they are largely doublespeak, and bear no relation to what the president will actually be able to accomplish if elected.

I forget what it was, but last night Harris said something about “Joe” overturning some piece of legislation on day 1 of his presidency. Uh - that’s not how it works.

10

I noticed that too. His first act as President will be to overthrow the legislative branch and declare law by what? Administrative edict?!

I guess it is all a circus after all, why not just have a carny barker with short slogans?

11

This is basically what they’re doing. Whenever you ask Biden about court packing, he says “I’m not going to answer that because it distracts from the current power-grab.”

As for why they don’t say things like “we’re weighing our options” my only guess is that they think that if they answer the question it will generate more headlines and/or that there’s no way to phrase the response without making it sound like you’re favoring one side.

I agree that they need a talking point to put this to bed. Maybe something like: “A lot of people are asking about this. We understand that doing things like packing the court would undermine public confidence in the justice system and that’s something we take very seriously. We would never be the ones to breach the public’s trust. Clearly the Republicans do not take that as seriously as we do.”

I also think that trying to criticize the hypocrisy more strongly won’t necessarily work, because when a lot of voters who don’t take politics seriously hear about hypocrisy, it just sounds like a “who started it” argument and it’s hard to figure out who is actually being a hypocrite - it looks like everyone is. Biden has a lot of better opportunities to skewer Trump in this election so I don’t think focusing more in this is necessary.

The reality is that they might not win the senate at all, and even if they do and there’s a 2-3 vote majority they probably won’t be able to pack the courts in the first place. My suspicion is that Biden wouldn’t want to pack the court regardless of what happens, unless they could get the GOP to agree to a Buttigieg-like proposal under the threat of packing (which is also unlikely).

Also as a random aside, if Trump won the presidency and the Dems won the senate, they should not confirm ACB, and shouldn’t make that commitment in the first place. In addition to the precedent already being set that an opposition senate can refuse to confirm a SC justice, allowing ACB in particular to get on the court would amount to selling out every progressive voter down the river.

12

I’m happy with them continuing to not respond. It leaves all options open without giving the Republicans an easy counter. No matter what they say, it will be spun against them. So don’t play that particular game.

13

Packing the court is in itself useless unless Biden and the Dems are willing to go all the way and ensure that, in addition to adding justices, they also ensure that republicans never hold any significant power ever again. Otherwise the repubs will just re-pack the court when they get back into power, and they absolutely will not hesitate to make certain Dems never hold power again (they’ve been trying to do that for years).

Assuming Biden wins the Presidency and the Dems hold the house and win the senate (looking good but i’m not celebrating until after the election), they must:

  1. Pack the court. Go whole-hog to 13 justices.

  2. Admit DC and Puerto Rico as states to help ensure a Democratic Senate Majority going forward.

  3. Pass voter enfranchisement and protection laws with teeth.

  4. It’s a census year. RUTHLESSLY redistrict to ensure Democratic representation in the house. Hey, the repubs did it back in 2010. Elections have consequences.

  5. Lobby state governments for the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. Just a handful more.

I am very concerned that, after winning the battle for the Presidency, Biden and the Dems won’t have the stomach to complete the war. The republican party needs to be completely, utterly, destroyed.

14

Republicans are good at creating terms like “Death tax” that are meant to move public opinion in their direction on an issue. I wish Democrats would be as savvy.

Proponents should stop referring to it as “court packing” and change the term to something like “court balancing.”

15

A “pack the court” type option doesn’t necessarily have to involve the Supreme Court. The Federal Appellate circuits were last adjusted in 1982, and several of them are fairly overburdened by caseloads these days.

One option for a Biden administration would be to expand the number of regional circuits from 12 to, say, 15, thereby giving Biden the opportunity to appoint something like 20 - 30 appeals court judges, as well as a number of new district judges.

All in the name of relieving caseloads in the current setup.

16

I think DC + PR statehood would be a great move. I don’t necessarily think that if even you admit them as states, reenfranchise voters and maybe plan for getting an interstate voting compact 10 years down the road that it’s a guarantee you will never see the GOP take power again.

And if they ever take power again, court-packing loses what it accomplished. I’m all for playing hardball, but it seems like court-packing is mostly a act of performative resistance based on what we can reasonably expect in the future.

If I were president and the Dems got a majority in both houses and had to deal with both Gorsuch and ACB being confirmed, my response would be to work as hard as possible on 2-5 and not worry about 1.

17

Biden not answering that question really gets under Trump’s skin.

So yeah, keep doing that.

18

The problem is, lets say that by the time that the Biden-Harris administration is done, SCOTUS is at 6-3 leaning liberal.

The Republicans manage to sweep, and get presidency and both houses.

Do you really think that the Republicans will not pack the court?

Worried about what the Republicans may do in response, when you know very well that they will do it anyway, doesn’t seem overly productive.

Personally, I think that they should resist packing the court. But, if SCOTUS is overturning Roe v Wade, SSM, as well as the legislation that the democrats are doing, then I don’t really see how the Democrats can have a claim to governership if they do not.

If SCOTUS plays nice, and does not put a partisan thumb on the scales, then sure, they don’t need to.

But seriously, if Biden is in office, with both houses under Democrat control, and SCOTUS becomes the not only the obstruction to progress, but also starts pulling the progress of the last generation, do you really think that the Democrats should sit on their thumbs and let them?

In any case, it’s not really up to Biden. It would be up to the legislature. Biden can’t pack the courts, it would be the branch that is explicitly authorized by the constitution to determine the makeup of the court that would do so. Sure, Biden would have to sign it, but it’s not like he would be just doing it through executive order or something.

19

As I said, if they’re going to pack the court, they can’t stop there. They have to also ensure that the repubs will never have power again.

If the Dem’s aren’t willing to go whole hog, they shouldn’t pack the court.

20

I’m not sure how that works.

How long is never?

If you say, long enough that the Republicans purge their ranks of the reactionaries and bigots, and don’t come to power again until they represent a responsible party again, then sure.

But short of some rather anti-democratic things that I hold against the Republicans for doing, I don’t think that they can get a forever shutout.

What the Democrats should do is to govern, and govern well. They will be rewarded for that. Most people don’t care about the partisan bickering, they only care about the results.

If they put through a health care plan that people actually like, fix the economy, kick the ass of the next potential pandemic before it gets out of control, then the people will look to the Democrats to govern, and the Republicans will have to start actually governing, rather than playing partisan tricks, in order to get in power again.

That party, I’m not all that worried about.