Biden's court 'punt' gets lukewarm response
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Biden's court 'punt' gets lukewarm response
Joe Biden's plan to study changes to the judiciary might get him through the debate or the election, but just about no one seems thrilled with it
The former vice president's proposal to create a 180-day commission falls far short of the left's dreams of adding seats to the Supreme Court. And Republicans continued alleging that Biden will pack the court and is just being disingenuous about his real intentions.
Brian Fallon, a former Senate Democratic leadership aide who now runs the progressive group Demand Justice, called it a "punt" and concluded that it "runs the risk of stalling momentum for serious reform."
Progressive senators were less harsh — but they weren't overly enthusiastic, with many Senate Democrats saying they weren't entirely consulted about Biden's plan and that they needed to win the election first.
"I'm supportive of the point that the court's been deeply damaged, and … we have to all wrestle with how to fix it," said Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), who spoke for more than 15 hours on the floor against Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch. "I'm not endorsing any specific proposal or idea."
"I'm glad the vice president has decided to have a commission to discuss it. I've been clear about my position," said Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), who supports adding seats to the high court.
Biden has faced criticism for declining to offer a clear response to progressives' calls for action after Senate Republicans blocked President Barack Obama's Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland in 2016 and now are moving swiftly to confirm Amy Coney Barrett barely a week before the 2020 election.
Biden is almost certain to be asked about his stance at his final debate with President Donald Trump on Thursday, and now he can offer his idea for the bipartisan commission.
But Senate Democratic leaders were no warmer to Biden's plan than the rank-and-file. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer repeated his vague threat that "everything is on the table if we get the majority."
"First job: get the majority," he told reporters with a fist pump.
Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said Thursday morning that he didn't know "anything about it." Informed of the parameters, he said "there's no reason to oppose it."
"I'm sure that there are those that say, 'we don't need a commission, we know what to do.' He's a thoughtful person, he's served as the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee," Durbin said of Biden. "He's trying to find a reasonable way to get people to talk to [one] another."
But bipartisan participation seems unlikely, at least when it comes to the Republicans that actually will vote on Biden's judicial nominees if he becomes president. Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) said that the commission can only be bipartisan if it has "reasonable Republicans, but I haven't been able to find too many of those."
Moreover, Republicans said Biden's proposal is just a delay tactic to get him through Nov. 3 unscathed. Senate Judiciary Chair Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) called it "gibberish."
"I don't know why he wouldn't just have the guts to say he wants to pack the court, because I think his base clearly wants to pack the court," said Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.). "It's totally disingenuous."
Biden's statement to "60 Minutes" about a bipartisan commission came after he'd boxed himself into taking a position at a town hall last week; he had previously declined to detail his plans, as Republicans hammered Democrats for being evasive on court-packing. Democrats say the GOP outrage is insincere given that they are in the process of jamming through a Supreme Court nominee days before the election.
But at least one Democrat said that Republicans don't have much to worry about.
Sure, Biden might push ethics reforms on the courts or entertain other ideas like term limits or cycling out judges into different courts, but Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) said Biden's commission is essentially an admission that he won't just bluntly add additional seats to the high court.
"I don't take that as any intention of changing the nine members," Manchin said. "Joe Biden has said it's going to be a tit for tat … he doesn't agree to that, at least from what I've seen."
And Biden won't exactly have the last word, either. Democrats in Congress are almost certain to have their own ideas.
"Any change to the federal court system will have to begin in Congress. So the commission can't hurt, it could surface some good ideas," said Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.). "It's certainly possible you'd have a process playing out in the administration and playing out in Congress."
While Fallon of Demand Justice warned that a six-month study would severely hamper Democrats' ability to act quickly on big reforms, most Democrats were more restrained, simply because Election Day is so close. In prime position to take back the Senate and White House and hold the House, the party sees infighting on the courts as totally unproductive at the moment.
"It's a reasonable approach. [Democrats] want to see reform," said Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.). "It's not just about the number of justices, we have to have ethics reform … and we need to look at all the ways that Mitch McConnell has subverted justice."
Marianne LeVine and Caitlin Oprysko contributed to this report.
Continue ReadingShow full articles without "Continue Reading" button for {0} hours.
Why is Biden punting on this?
Doesn't he yet realize he must bow to the extreme left within his party?
He's trying to appear to tack back towards the center while hoping the radicals will be placated by his answer to send it to a committee, hopefully packed with representatives more appealing to them. Non answer.
i just don't think Biden has the guts to stand up to the lunatic fringe of his party.
And he doesn't seem to be able to tell them no.
No, that would probably be the end for the "old white guy". Don't you think?
It must be Kamala's turn.
LOL!
Nope
We'll see. I would be surprised if obfuscating or waffling didn't cost him some votes at this stage.
Possible, but so many have already voted, not sure it will cost much at all.
A calculated risk.
He's a seasoned politician?
The question is, do they not realize he will never bow to any extreme position in either party?
A punt by a seasoned politician is still a punt.
No, that is YOUR question. Mine was different.
Seems perfectly balanced to satisfy or disappoint both parties equally.
whether or not you call it a punt or call him names is immaterial to me.
Agreed, but my question was objective and yours was biased.
That certainly sounds like a very dumb strategy to me.
I called him Biden. WTF should I call him?
Opinion only.
“WTF should I call him?“
The big guy?
He probably has internal polling that shows moderate democrats and independents hate the idea of packing the court.
Punt away Biden, there is only 1 min on the clock, you are up by 10... fucking punt.
How is forming a commission punting Tex? Please be specific.
I suppose if he was a Republican he'd just lie his ass off and tell the voters on the fence what they want to hear, that no, he'd never pack the court and you should "hold the tape" on him saying it. Then next year when he is President and Democrats control the Senate along with the house he can just say "Well, I know what I said, but I don't really give a fuck about being a hypocrite, I'm gonna do what I want to do because I have to power to do it, political norms and promises be damned". That's the Republican way apparently.
You can suppose whatever you want.
You'd be wrong, but, hey, whatever gets you through!
So Republicans didn't lie out their asses and then immediately reverse course when it was convenient?
Nope.
And who exactly do you contend is undecided at this late date?
Unbelievable!
If there are no undecided voters, then the seed is moot.
Reminds of me of a president saying using chemical weapons was a red line for him and then ignoring it when it happened.
If the damb gop was not rushing through the ACB nomination then this would not even be an issue...
Mmmm....the Garland butthurt runs deep, it does.
They will never get over that!
SCOTUS had an opening, Trump nominated someone qualified, the Senate held hearings, and will next vote to confirm her.
Whining about it won't change the facts.
No it won't. Hopefully she will just do her job and surprise us like Gorsuch and Roberts have.
And the three trump appointees who were among the 12
in the 12 to 3 vote for allowing North Carolina mail in ballot extension to 11/12/20.
Perhaps your low expectations because they are conservative and appointed by Republicans led you to believe that they somehow couldn't do their jobs properly.
Glad to see you come around on it!
Every 5-4 decision along conservative vs non conservative ideologies confirms it.
I believe the running tally this year is 80 5-4 votes with Roberts voting with the Conservatives as expected.
What it confirms is that liberals, never break across ideological lines. They vote as one (except when their vote doesn't matter to the outcome). Anyone of them could be replaced by any member of the DNC and the results wouldn't change. They are just generic Democratic ideology votes, one through four for the last decade.
It's up to the actual independent justices on the Court to "switch" sides, which they've all done on occasion, to give the liberal hive mind victories.
I have no earthly idea where you pulled those numbers from, but what I found is a whole lot different.
Maybe Ballotpedia is off by DOZENS??
It says that there were 13 5-4 opinions, about 21% of total cases.
It also says that there were 19 cases decided unanimously (2 of the 19 were 8-0)
Please list your source, I would love to see it.
I saw it on tv the other night with the mindless droning about ABC who I happen to like despite her religious obsessions.
Nfl time.
You guys have fun.
Got it, from one hive to another. lol
Philly or the Giants tonight?
I believe you GREATLY inflated that number, but to what purpose I am not sure.
63 is the number of cases heard.
Where did you pull 80 5-4 cases from?
You should probably fact check whatever channel you watch then, do a little personal research into it.
Philly.
Check your own link, wasn't it you a few weeks ago saying you did not believe I fully read the link I provided?
Were you guilty of the same thing you accused me of?
That's 225 5-4 decisions since Roberts has been on the SCOTUS
On the other hand it's only 21% of the time.
79% of the time the decisions are very lopsided as the justice agree
more than they disagree.
Great link.
Lousy football game, lol,
later.
Half time is over.
Check for WHAT????
I STATED:
Maybe Ballotpedia is off by DOZENS??
It says that there were 13 5-4 opinions, about 21% of total cases.
It also says that there were 19 cases decided unanimously (2 of the 19 were 8-0)
Seems as though you keep making my case for me, thanks!
And BTW, here is YOUR post:
I believe the running tally this year is 80 5-4 votes with Roberts voting with the Conservatives as expected.
THIS YEAR. Don't try to change it NOW that you were talking about Robert's whole tenure. You clearly meant this year, as THAT is what you typed.
As I stated, I believed I heard something about 80 of the 5-4 decisions involving Roberts on channel 4 Fox news.
And yes I clarified it by using your own link to verify your 2019 info was correct
and to highlight that there were many more 5-4 decisions since Roberts joined the SCOTUS.
and that 79% of their decisions are very consistent, far from borderline and that ACB should fit right in.
Grow the fuck up. I will acknowledge it and change it whenever the fuck I feel like it. Got it?
This is an adult social media site, not your personal piss on everybody site.
Your arguments for arguments sake and insistence on being literal and having the last word is tiresome.
Of course you know that,
so please have the last word, again.
I only went by what you wrote, sir.
Sorry to ruffle your feathers
You mean if Republicans just laid down and decided to let Democrats pick the new justice? You really think there is a universe where either party would do that?
Not now, but I remember times when Presidents picked Nominees to maintain the balance and get bipartisan support for them.
Those are the days I miss,
Not the Amish "truck farmers" who came hawking their Lancaster farm goods in horse draw wagons
which we had to clean up after, lol.
Much better when they switched to gas engine trucks.
Oh the good old days of the 50's & 60's.
Biden is as ball-less as he is stupid.
ball-less-He won’t come out and say if he would pack the court. He won’t even say who he would nominate to replace ginsburg.
Stupid-He did come out and say the people don’t deserve to know if he would pack the court.
So is insulting national politicians ( public figures ) apparently for the fuck of it from behind a monitor.
Thanks for an unwanted opinion directed at no one.
You call it what you want, i call it a harsh critique. What is untrue? Hiding your position on a matter of importance, like packing the sc right before an election, is extremely gutless.
Stating right before an election that the people, you, i, every nt’er, everybody in general, do not DESERVE to know if he’ll pack the sc is absolutely stupid.
it is embarrassing that some would be ok with either one, let alone both.
I hope our NT friends on the left side of the aisle read those words ...............but I won't hold my breath. Seems that is a regular exercise here.........as long as its not THEIR national politicians
OH, FFS.
You are smarter than that and know it is both sides, daily, including you,
but you don't hold a candle to the top 2 liberal seeders or the top 3 conservative members.
That's better...
You mean like a devout Christian repeatedly calling Kamala Harris (as the most recent example) a whore? That kind of venomous, mysoginistic, uber-partisan crap?
Yes. Exactly like that. How about a certain President of the US boinks his daughter. Or how about being obsessed with Trump's penis. Or how about every black conservative being an Uncle Tom? We could do this all day.
Show me. I must have been sleeping when posting. Thanks.
Partisan bullshit is counterproductive, right? So why do people engage in it? Why do people feel compelled to exaggerate and invent instead of trying hard to deliver objective facts and reasoned debate?
Who knows? Maybe being emotional is easier than actually thinking? Maybe people use social media to exorcise their demons.
I find it juvenile and emotional and instead of convincing people it turns them away.
Jim,
I think you are missing the point that Tig is saying. First of all, indies tend not to engage in name-calling and if you looked at either of our histories here, we have never engaged in name-calling. In fact, I stop reading when I see it.
Second, we want to read substance and I rarely read that. More often what I get from my comments, are people trying to play gotchya with my words. That is beyond frustrating.
I know exactly what TiG is saying. And it's your site. You want to read substance, get rid of the riff raff and/or let them "resign" their membership at will.
And I wouldn't expect you nor TiG to engage in name calling as the pillars of the site. Indie or no Indie status.
Jim,
The rules of the site were decided on by the group, not me. And the riff-raff runs the political spectrum and one person's riff raff, is another person's good guy. The only thing I am responsible for is enforcement and being a good role model.
This initiative to expand the court signals that partisan politics continue to worsen. There is no functional need to increase the size of the court. Working around political misfortune is not a good reason.
Should he win (very likely at this point), Biden will struggle between competing forces in the D party for his entire presidency. Looks like he may employ delay tactics to deal with the myriad impasses he must deal with.
I am looking forward to 2024. Admittedly this is wishful thinking.
On this we agree. It would have been a disaster if Trump had added justices to achieve some political ends.
The ACA cases will almost assuredly have six votes, at least, to uphold it. Once that decision comes down, I doubt they can scare enough voters even to sustain the idea's already low level of popularity.
Curiously I had a dependent who fell on very hard times, she did not qualify for the ACA
but after expending north of 80K on her medical and living expenses, I did.
It held me over for 9 months until I could get Medicare, and I paid the mandate tax and the under reporting income tax and
came away relatively unscathed with a living healthy daughter. The cost became irrelevant.
The ACA isn't a panacea or cure for all that ills all people
but it is a step in the right direction for a nation that values life.
The ACA can be and should be tweaked until every citizen can benefit and every politician can stop arguing it's worth.
Indeed, hopefully by then the Democratic and Republican nominees will know what middle class actually is./s
It already has.
You are right and wrong about that.
This is not political misfortune, this is political bullshit. This is a hijacking of the system. The GOP Senate said in 2016 that they just couldn't vote on a SCOTUS position during an election year (Garland waited for 10 months). Now 6 weeks before a presidential election it is totally cool to force through a SCOTUS nomination? Fuck that. The Democrats were cheated out of at least one vacancy and I say they take it back and then some. The SCOTUS has needed some serious reworking for a long time, it is about fucking time IMO.
There is a major difference between partisan maneuvers (e.g. denying Garland) and making fundamental changes to the system. Anything that goes through Congress is inherently partisan nowadays so it does not surprise me a bit that they play politics with SCotUS nominations. It is wrong, but there is no stopping this behavior because we have career politicians instead of statespersons.
Increasing the size of the SCotUS for partisan reasons now takes this bullshit partisan power game up to the next level. I am against partisanship with nominations/confirmations but I am adamantly against changing our system merely for partisan advantage. A nine person SCotUS works fine; there is no functional nor constitutional reason to increase its size. I can see our irresponsible parties open this door and down the road we will find a SCotUS in the 20s.
IMO, the way nominations should work is that the sitting PotUS nominates (or not). The PotUS has every right to do so (or not for a short period of time). If a nomination is made, the Senate conducts confirmations. No delays, no games. But that kind of a dynamic is now well foreign to the bozos in Congress.
At this point Joe, punt away. Normally in these situations I say be aggressive, go for the jugular and end this shit. BUT, when you are under 2 mins, up by 10 and on 4th at the 50 yard line.... punt. Pin them on the one and make them fight like hell with no time to advance. Trust your D, which in this case is their offense.