# Why won't Biden do his duty (as perceived by the OP)? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [November 15, 2024, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-biden-do-his-duty-as-perceived-by-the-op/1010297 "2024-11-15T19:14:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Sherrerd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sherrerd/32/8_2.png) [@Sherrerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sherrerd)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2024, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-biden-do-his-duty-as-perceived-by-the-op/1010297/21 "2024-11-15T22:13:00Z")
> [@mbh](#): > > Why would the number of justices need to match the number of appeals courts? Justices have not had to [ride the circuits](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circuit_riding) since 1911. The whole purpose of the appeals courts was to eliminate circuit riding Traveling isn’t an issue. The case load is the issue. The Court hears only a fraction of those cases seriously placed before it. ---
**Author:** ![Sherrerd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sherrerd/32/8_2.png) [@Sherrerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sherrerd)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2024, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-biden-do-his-duty-as-perceived-by-the-op/1010297/22 "2024-11-15T22:14:13Z")
> [@Lance\_Turbo](#): > > … end result being worse than things right now … We differ on the topic of whether this is possible. ---
**Author:** ![mbh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a6a055/32.png) [@mbh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mbh)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2024, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-biden-do-his-duty-as-perceived-by-the-op/1010297/23 "2024-11-15T22:16:54Z")
> [@Sherrerd](#): > > The case load is the issue. The Court hears only a fraction of those cases seriously placed before it. In my opinion, that is an argument for more layers of appeals courts, not for more justices at the top layer. ---
**Author:** ![Sherrerd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sherrerd/32/8_2.png) [@Sherrerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sherrerd)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2024, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-biden-do-his-duty-as-perceived-by-the-op/1010297/24 "2024-11-15T22:25:02Z")
> [@mbh](#): > > that is an argument for more layers of appeals courts, not for more justices at the top layer. So you’d prevent appeals from going up to the SCOTUS? Because that’s what it sounds like. (If there are more appeals courts then presumably there’d be more appeals—and a still undersized Supreme Court that wouldn’t have the capacity to hear them.) ---
**Author:** ![Lance\_Turbo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lance_turbo/32/6156_2.png) [@Lance\_Turbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lance_Turbo)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2024, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-biden-do-his-duty-as-perceived-by-the-op/1010297/25 "2024-11-15T22:33:24Z")
> [@Sherrerd](#): > > We differ on the topic of whether this is possible. If you think things can’t get worse, the issue is your lack of imagination. ---
**Author:** ![Kent\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kent_clark/32/105_2.png) [@Kent\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kent_Clark)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2024, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-biden-do-his-duty-as-perceived-by-the-op/1010297/26 "2024-11-15T22:47:16Z")
> [@Sherrerd](#): > > Article II, Section 2, Clause 2, U.S. Constitution: > > > [@](#): > > > > He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, **Judges of the supreme Court** … > > “He” being the President, of course. What do you think Advice and Consent of the Senate means? > [@Sherrerd](#): > > > [@Marvin\_the\_Martian](#): > > > > “Over the years Congress has passed various acts to change this number” > > There you go. Congress sets the number of Supreme Court justices, which you seem willing to acknowledge. ---
**Author:** ![nelliebly](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nelliebly/32/5422_2.png) [@nelliebly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nelliebly)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2024, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-biden-do-his-duty-as-perceived-by-the-op/1010297/27 "2024-11-15T22:53:54Z")
> [@Sherrerd](#): > > What do you think he’s doing with his time? (Not being snarky–I’m not seeing hard news on this and wondered if you had.) Then [you should look harder](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/what-the-biden-administration-plans-to-accomplish-before-trump-takes-over-the-white-house). > WASHINGTON (AP) — Biden administration officials are working against the clock doling out billions in grants and taking other steps to try to preserve at least some of the outgoing president’s legacy before President-elect Donald Trump takes office in January. > > “Let’s make every day count,” President Joe Biden said [in an address to the nation last week](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-live-biden-addresses-trump-victory-transfer-of-power-in-white-house-remarks) after Vice President Kamala Harris conceded defeat to Trump in the presidential race. > > Trump has pledged to rescind unspent funds in Biden’s landmark climate and health care law and stop clean-energy development projects. > > “There’s only one administration at a time,” Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg told reporters at a news conference Thursday. “That’s true now, and it will also be true after January 20th. Our responsibility is to make good use of the funds that Congress has authorized for us and that we’re responsible for assigning and disbursing throughout the last three years.” It’s like there’s a hurricane coming, and you’re complaining because Biden is battening the hatches instead of making quixotic recommendations that can’t possibly yield results. It’s not that he avoids making waves; it’s that he’s busy trying to protect what he can against the coming storm. ---
**Author:** ![flurb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/51bf81/32.png) [@flurb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/flurb)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2024, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-biden-do-his-duty-as-perceived-by-the-op/1010297/28 "2024-11-15T23:43:29Z")
> [@Sherrerd](#): > > We differ on the topic of whether this is possible. Why would Mike Johnson, who decides what will come to the floor of the House during the lame duck session, fast-track legislation to let Biden appoint four more justices? And @Lance_Turbo is absolutely right. Republicans would point to this as proof of a bipartisan recognition of the need to expand the court – which they will take up when they gain full control of government in eight weeks and Trump can appoint all the new justices. This thread is bizarre. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2024, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-biden-do-his-duty-as-perceived-by-the-op/1010297/29 "2024-11-16T00:25:38Z")
> [@Sherrerd](#): > > Trump would have no such justification. Ha ha ha, 🤪 😆 Does trump even need any sort of sane, logical justification? And did you note that several of us pointed out that the GOP currently controls the House? So it can’t happen. > [@We\_re\_wolves\_not\_werewolves](#): > > Only he doesn’t have the power to do it…so now what? Right. > [@Sherrerd](#): > > Yes, but my thesis here is that **it’s Biden’s duty to TRY.** No, since that will allow trump to do it. > [@Marvin\_the\_Martian](#): > > He shouldn’t waste the little time he has tilting at windmills. Yep. > [@Lance\_Turbo](#): > > There is no conceivable future where Biden does this and the other side doesn’t respond with the end result being worse than things right now. Biden does not have a duty to set that process in motion. In fact, his duty is to not set a process motion that makes a bad situation worse. > > Even trying and failing would make things worse. If Biden spends the next couple of months trying to convince the nation that there should be 13 Justices but he doesn’t seal the deal, it gives the other side permission to pick up that ball and run with it. Exactly. ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2024, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-biden-do-his-duty-as-perceived-by-the-op/1010297/30 "2024-11-16T02:38:09Z")
If it requires an act of Congress, how did FDR threaten to pack the Supreme Court to further the New Deal? ---
**Author:** ![flurb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/51bf81/32.png) [@flurb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/flurb)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2024, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-biden-do-his-duty-as-perceived-by-the-op/1010297/31 "2024-11-16T03:00:33Z")
He attempted to do it through legislation. It failed to pass Congress which is why his plan was unsuccessful. ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2024, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-biden-do-his-duty-as-perceived-by-the-op/1010297/32 "2024-11-16T03:05:12Z")
No, the threat caused Congress to let the New Deal go through. ---
**Author:** ![flurb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/51bf81/32.png) [@flurb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/flurb)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2024, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-biden-do-his-duty-as-perceived-by-the-op/1010297/33 "2024-11-16T03:36:09Z")
You’ve got your history all wrong. The Democratic majorities in Congress passed most of his New Deal legislation, some of which was blocked by the Supreme Court. In response, his allies in Congress introduced the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937 to allow the President to appoint an additional justice for every member of the court over the age of 70 years. The bill had some supporters – notably the Senate Majority Leader, who died while the bill was still being debated. ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Feldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lord_feldon/32/341_2.png) [@Lord\_Feldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Feldon)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2024, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-biden-do-his-duty-as-perceived-by-the-op/1010297/34 "2024-11-16T03:40:00Z")
> [@Sherrerd](#): > > And what law? The number of Justices is NOT fixed, either in the Constitution or by law. > **[28 U.S. Code § 1 - Number of justices; quorum](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1)** > The Supreme Court of the United States shall consist of a Chief Justice of the United States and eight associate justices, any six of whom shall constitute a quorum. ---
**Author:** ![Kent\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kent_clark/32/105_2.png) [@Kent\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kent_Clark)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2024, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-biden-do-his-duty-as-perceived-by-the-op/1010297/35 "2024-11-16T03:41:29Z")
Totally inaccurate. Congress had already passed most of the New Deal, only to have the Supreme Court strike it down. However, for whatever reason, [Justice Owen Roberts, who had voted with the conservative majority, switched sides. Chief Justice Hughes also voted with Roberts on several key cases.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owen_Roberts#%22Switch_in_Time_that_Saved_Nine%22) In fact, FDR’s plan hurt him with Congress. ---
**Author:** ![Sherrerd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sherrerd/32/8_2.png) [@Sherrerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sherrerd)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2024, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-biden-do-his-duty-as-perceived-by-the-op/1010297/36 "2024-11-16T20:22:36Z")
> [@Lord\_Feldon](#): > > The Supreme Court of the United States shall consist of a Chief Justice of the United States and eight associate justices, any six of whom shall constitute a quorum. You misunderstand what you’re looking at. You are not looking at the Constitution—a document which **establishes** our laws. You are, instead, looking at the US Code, which _describes our **current** laws_. The piece of the Code you provide describes the current state of affairs of our Supreme Court. It does NOT establish a law governing the way the Supreme Court will be constituted for all time (as the Constitution does, unless it is Amended). Several in the thread are making this same mistake. Several are demonstrating variants of the false belief that ‘ **the number of Justices is under the purview of Congress, and the President may respond to Congress’s decisions on this matter. Otherwise, this is no business of the President.**.’ This is completely mistaken and wrong. Several posts here display this mistaken belief; a thread in Politics & Elections is a useful counter to misreading of the Constitution such as: > [@a poster in this thread](#): > > Congress sets the number of Supreme Court justices Congress does pass laws reflecting the current choice as to the number of Justices, but Congress is NOT given the Constitutional power to “set” the number. The number changes over time and Congress passes Judiciary Acts to update that number. > [@Lance\_Turbo](#): > > > [@Sherrerd](#): > > > > We differ on the topic of whether this is possible. > > If you think things can’t get worse, the issue is your lack of imagination. This is a bizarre argument. You said (and I quoted) “… end result being worse than things right now …”–implying that our situation now should be preserved, and if Biden calls for reconciliation of the numbers of Justices and Circuit Courts, it won’t be preserved. I disagree. I don’t go for your claim that we’re okay now, and should leave well enough alone, as you essentially argue in post 25. Instead, I believe that we are NOT in a good situation now. You believe that “trying and failing would make things worse”—and I don’t. That’s nothing to do with lack of imagination. That’s a difference of opinion on the state of things now. > [@DrDeth](#): > > Does trump even need any sort of sane, logical justification? Of course he does not. How many times over past years have we seen people on the left warning ‘we mustn’t do X because that will enable Trump to do [whatever horrible thing]!!!1!!!’ Saying Biden shouldn’t raise the reasonable question of reconciling the number of Justices with the number of Circuit Courts, because that would lead Trump to do ‘something,’ falls well within this tired category of useless pearl-clutching. As for Biden and his team trying to get previously-allocated funds actually distributed to their intended recipients, @nelliebly —that’s great. I’m glad it’s happening. Thank you for the information. I’m not clear on why you think ‘_charging his team to get funds distributed_’ preludes Biden from calling for reconciliation of the numbers of Justices with Courts, though. Why do you think the one makes the other impossible, or even hard to do? If the grants already exist, what, exactly, would be taking up Biden’s time? ---
**Author:** ![StrongStyle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/34f0e0/32.png) [@StrongStyle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/StrongStyle)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2024, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-biden-do-his-duty-as-perceived-by-the-op/1010297/37 "2024-11-16T20:52:13Z")
> [@Sherrerd](#): > > You misunderstand what you’re looking at. You are not looking at the Constitution—a document which **establishes** our laws. You are, instead, looking at the US Code, which _describes our **current** laws_. Which - and hear me out - would need to be changed by Congress, because the President does not have the power to change, repeal, or ignore laws. (The last statement is a bit glib, but choosing not to enforce a criminal law is procedurally quite different than ignoring this law would be.) ---
**Author:** ![StrongStyle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/34f0e0/32.png) [@StrongStyle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/StrongStyle)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2024, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-biden-do-his-duty-as-perceived-by-the-op/1010297/38 "2024-11-16T20:53:54Z")
> [@Sherrerd](#): > > Congress does pass laws reflecting the current choice as to the number of Justices, but Congress is NOT given the Constitutional power to “set” the number. The number changes over time and Congress passes Judiciary Acts to update that number. _blink_ Is it your mental model that the court is recomposed before Congress passes a law resizing it, to “recognize” the new appointments? Can you provide any evidence that this is how the process worked in the past? ---
**Author:** ![Lance\_Turbo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lance_turbo/32/6156_2.png) [@Lance\_Turbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lance_Turbo)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2024, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-biden-do-his-duty-as-perceived-by-the-op/1010297/39 "2024-11-16T21:16:05Z")
> [@Sherrerd](#): > > I don’t go for your claim that we’re okay now, and should leave well enough alone, as you essentially argue in post 25. Instead, I believe that we are NOT in a good situation now. I also believe that we are not in a good situation now. I also believe that making things worse is bad. President Biden should use the time he has left to try to improve things rather than doing things that would definitely make things worse (like your plan). You directly quoted, “… end result being worse than things right now …,” from my post. Those ellipses are yours. That’s the complete quote. You responded, “We differ on the topic of whether this is possible.” It sure does seem that you are saying that it’s not possible for things to be worse than right now. It’s definitely possible. It’s a certainty. ---
**Author:** ![Sherrerd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sherrerd/32/8_2.png) [@Sherrerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sherrerd)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2024, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-biden-do-his-duty-as-perceived-by-the-op/1010297/40 "2024-11-16T21:22:34Z")
> [@StrongStyle](#): > > Which - and hear me out - would need to be changed by Congress, because the President does not have the power to change, repeal, or ignore laws. Yes; as I posted: > [@Sherrerd](#): > > Congress does pass laws reflecting the current choice as to the number of Justices, The idea that has set in that the number of Justices is no business of Biden’s (or of any President) and that this is entirely up to Congress, is what is wrong and mistaken. Procedurally, yes, Congress has passed various Judiciary Acts over the years that showed the change in the number of Justices. That is not the same thing as the (false) notion that Congress “sets” the number. They have to agree to what the President decides and if they disagree, they don’t pass a new Judiciary Act. > [@StrongStyle](#): > > Is it your mental model that the court is recomposed before Congress passes a law resizing it, to “recognize” the new appointments? No. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-biden-do-his-duty-as-perceived-by-the-op/1010297.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-biden-do-his-duty-as-perceived-by-the-op/1010297.md?page=3)