Election 2020

Joe Biden Would Create a Bipartisan Commission To Figure Out Whether He Should Pack the Supreme Court

In a preview of an interview that will air Sunday, Biden says he'd pick "Democrats, Republicans, liberals, conservatives" to serve on the body, which would make broad recommendations for reforming federal courts.

|

After weeks of failing to offer a straight answer to the question of whether he'd support adding additional justices to the U.S. Supreme Court, Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden is testing out a new answer in advance of Thursday's debate.

In a preview of an interview that will air Sunday on 60 Minutes, Biden outlines a plan for what he calls a "bipartisan commission" to examine potential reforms to the federal courts. In the clip, posted to the show's Twitter feed on Thursday morning, Biden says he would fill the commission with constitutional scholars from across the ideological spectrum and that he would give the body 180 days to review not only court-packing but "a number of other things," though he does not elaborate.

Here's the clip:

As dodgy political answers go, this one is actually pretty brilliant. Biden is giving the appearance of fleshing out a substantial plan to answer his critics, throwing a bone to liberal activists who favor increasing the number of justices on the Supreme Court, and still allowing himself plenty of ways to avoid actually doing that once he's elected. It's a Rorschach test of an answer, one that probably sounds good to most voters—who generally oppose court-packing but like the sound of bipartisanship—without committing a future President Biden to any particular course of action.

Recall that Biden has a long track record of opposing court-packing. In 1983, he referred to President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's 1937 attempt to add justices to the Supreme Court as a "bone head idea" that "put in question for an entire decade the independence of…the Supreme Court." He was still opposed as recently as last year's presidential primary debates, saying in October 2019 that he "would not get into court-packing" due to fears that it would delegitimize the Supreme Court.

That's the sort of decadeslong, consistent record that most politicians would be proud to highlight on the campaign trail. But Biden has gone soft on the question in recent months as some Democrats have suggested adding seats to the court to counter the expected confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Biden has tried, sometimes awkwardly, to find a middle ground between his longstanding opposition to court-packing and his party's fear of a 6-3 majority conservative Supreme Court.

In that context, this new promise to create a "national commission" seems mostly like a way to make the question go away. It's a tried and true political strategy: punt a controversial issue to a panel of supposed experts to make it look like you're doing something. As a longtime creature of the U.S. Senate—which isn't called the "world's most deliberative body" for nothing—Biden understands the value of doing nothing while looking like you might do something someday.

Still, there are two things we can definitively say about Biden's newest take on court-packing. He has objectively backed away from his former position of opposing the idea, even if he's opening the door only a crack. And he's committed to waiting at least six months into his potential first term before doing it—in other words, it's not important enough to rise to the very top of a Biden administration's agenda. That's good.

One more thing: You can almost certainly expect Biden to roll out this answer at tonight's debate if the issue of court-packing comes up.

Indeed, this new approach to the question is a campaign strategy too: The image of a bipartisan commission mulling over high-minded constitutional questions about the right way for the country's government to operate draws a pretty stark comparison with how the executive branch is currently running.

NEXT: San Francisco Voters Will Have a Chance To Undo Regulations Strangling Small Businesses

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Bipartisan

    So both the Harris faction and the Sanders faction will be represented.

    1. Maybe ben sasse

      1. McCain – I’d put bets on McCain the very RINO that killed the repeal of the ACA.

        1. Dead mccain?

          1. Earning more dollars from home easily just by working 0nline j0b from home. Makes every month extra $20k or more from this easy h0me j0b. Last month i have made $22759 from this just in my spare time.CMs Every person can now get this and start earning 0nline from the instructions given to this web page..HERE……… Home Profit System

          2. Oh, wow yea; I hadn’t realized he had died.

            1. It’s OK.
              He can still vote for Democrats.

              1. I should have scrolled down a bit before making the same joke, lol

            2. I am now making extra $19k or more every month from home by doing very simple and easy job online from home. I have received exactly $20845 last month from this home job. ACV Join now this job and start making extra cash online by follow instruction on the given website…….. Visit Here

            3. Google pays for every Person every hour online working from home job. I have received $23K in this month easily and I earns every weeks $5K to 8$K on the internet. Anc Every Person join this working easily by just just open this web site and follow instructions………….. Visit Here Many Dollars

          3. Now that he’s dead, he votes Democrat, right?

    2. That he wants to consider it is enough reason to not vote for him. It would be a fiasco of multiple new appointments every time there is a change of power.

    3. I get paid more than $120 to $130 per hour for working online. I heard about this job 3 months ago and after joining this i have earned easily $15k from this without having online working skills. This is what I do….Visit Here

    1. The glaring difference in the decisions of the media regarding Kavanaugh vs. Biden, Trump vs. Biden, are ridiculous, where every innuendo and accusation needs rigorous investigation as long as it’s not a democrat.

      The media have destroyed their credibility even more, and largely unnecessarily. If political outcomes are illegitimate given any influence of biased propaganda as an alternative to real news, then the media as a whole sucks balls, and they shouldn’t be surprised when they’re ignored.

    2. I don’t see any way around that being a content-based restriction on speech. If they didn’t cover the story and didn’t say why, they’d be in the clear. But they outright say that this is a new story that we have decided you don’t need to hear about and we think it’s garbage.

      I don’t know if they fall under the government or remain private but with public money.

  2. Bipartisan commission? What’s wrong with 200 years of history? 9 members works fine. Just fill vacancies as they come up.

    1. Actually, more like 150 years, but it is certainly tradition by now. ACB only wants to actually review things in light of the Constitution, not rewrite the damn thing. Why work through Congress passing laws, or God forbid, go through the whole Amendments thingy, when you can just have the Court waive their hands?

    2. What’s wrong with 200 years of history?

      The last thirty years, in which arbitrary rules have been invented and discarded in the service of partisanship.

      A constitutional amendment that better regulates how and when new justices are added can be done in a bipartisan way that will hopefully deter future fights over it.

      1. The last thirty years, in which arbitrary rules have been invented and discarded in the service of partisanship.

        Like when the Democratic majority in the senate removed the procedural rule previously invented by the senate, but never required or even mentioned in the constitution, allowing court nominees to be filibustered by the minority party? Because that is quite literally the only rule change that has taken place in the last 30 years. Congrats on your power move with Harry Reid. Worked out great for you. LMFAO.

      2. We do need a constitutional amendment. At a minimum, such an amendment should set the number of justices at 9. The fact that the constitution says nothing about the number of justices is just a bug, or oversight, that needs correcting. There are court packing issues in the lower courts as well that probably need fixing too.

      3. We already have a clear process. Why exactly to do you find contentious?

  3. As dodgy political answers go, this one is actually pretty brilliant.

    WTHF? If by ‘brilliant’ you mean the transparent bog-standard political lie that doesn’t even fool the slovenly, rednecked constituents he believes his opponent’s supporters to be, sure. It is as brilliant as Hillary’s immigration and gay marriage dodgy political answers.

    1. Boehm’s articles aren’t intended for people who are knowledgeable, capable of critical thinking, and find facts and logic persuasive. They’re intended for people who respect his authority because he publishes articles.

      P.S. Joe Biden is a crook.

      1. Career politician a crook? No way.

        1. And even if your mistaken beliefs about Biden were true, if Biden had taken money from a corporation for a political favor that example would still pale in comparison to Trump and standard Republican practices. The corporations own Republicans and Republicans have given govt over to corporate control. Trump has taken to whole new level. You mfers are just so fucking lost it’s just amazing. You see a cheap imitation of yourselves and you recoil. It’s so fucked up.

          1. Not a single fact, other than Biden taking money in return for a political favor, in that entire comment.

          2. Yes, the what-about-ster, we’ve missed you and your brilliant observations.

          3. If corporations own Republicans, is it fair to say that unions own Democrats? A quick look at the OpenSecrets database shows unions dumping millions into Democrat campaigns, with AFSCME and SEUI spending literally hundreds of millions.

            Does Michael Bloomberg’s $100M “investment” into anti-gun candidates mean he “owns” them, too? Or Tom Steyer’s $100M dumped into climate-change candidates? Ironically, a recent OpenSecrets article excludes the spending of these two men, because it distorts the spending picture so much. “Even when removing unprecedented presidential campaign spending by the presidential campaigns of billionaires Bloomberg and Tom Steyer, Democrats account for 54 percent of total spending to Republicans’ 39 percent. ” Tom Steyer has spent almost $300M on campaigns.

            Biden is way ahead of Trump in campaign spending right now, by reports, who owns him?

            Who is spending $10s of millions on out-of-state races and where is the money coming from?

            OpenSecrets says “Democrats are also getting more support from outside spending groups such as super PACs that may raise unlimited sums from wealthy donors.”

            Large individual donations account for about 40% of campaign spending (again, excluding Bloomberg and Steyer).

            Meanwhile, “The Trump campaign has raked in $252 million from small donors [$200 or less], the most of any presidential candidate in history.”

            In 2016, Sec. Clinton outspent Trump by about 4-1. If she’d won, who would have owned her?

      2. Joe Biden says he’s a public servant, not a crook. He’s been serving the public for nearly half a century and given it so much. So much, the public can no longer sit down.

    2. […] that doesn’t even fool the slovenly, rednecked constituents he believes his opponent’s supporters to be […]

      ?

      Even if you assume he’s trying to “fool” anybody, why would you think that’s who he’s trying to fool? If he’s trying to fool anybody, it’s moderate Democrats and independents who are, unlike you, much more likely to give him the benefit of the doubt.

      1. So you are telling me moderate Democrats are gullible morons who will believe anything he tells them. Yeah that sounds about right

        1. Excuse me. Can you explain this term “moderate democrat”?

          1. The moderates are the ones who are ready to repeal the First Amendment because it’s racist and the Second Amendment because it’s anti-government–but aren’t ready to march us libertarians up against the wall quite yet.

            P.S. Joe Biden is a crook.

          2. One who isn’t going to throw a Molotov through your window, but doesn’t really care much if it happens because you were an evil gun-owning racist anyway.

          3. A moderate Democrat believes we should pursue far left goals incrementally to they can lie to the public about their intentions. In their view this decreases opposition enough that it’s actually faster than the “race to the finish” strategy advocated by Sanders, AOC, et. al.

            1. I think that there is no question that this is basically correct. It can be quite disheartening sometimes.

        2. Yes, Escher is admitting that he and his ilk are far dumber than “the slovenly, rednecked constituents he believes his opponent’s supporters” are.
          Hey, leftists admitting they have a problem is the first step though.

      2. The believers are already fooled. The independents who can’t see through the “Mmm… maybe I’ll pack the supreme court, but only if my specially-appointed panel tells me to.” veil are dumber than the rednecks who can.

        1. I find it difficult to believe that “independents” of such a variety exist.

          1. Even if the independents and the rednecks are completely fictional, the rednecks are empirically by the presented evidence more intelligent.

            It’s like pretending Sauron’s orcs are more enlightened than the elves for believing Sauron might not appoint more candidates to the Nazgul, based on the commission’s recommendations.

            1. more enlightened than the elves

              Or humans or hobbits or dwarves… whichever fictional race you think most closely emulates fictional backwards rednecks.

  4. The answer to the question of whether Joe Biden will promise not to pack the Supreme Court is “no”.

    The answer to the question of whether Joe Biden will pack the Supreme Court is a bunch of handpicked experts say he should is “yes”.

    Thanks, Joe. That’s more than I needed to know.

    P.S. Joe Biden is a crook.

  5. “As dodgy political answers go, this one is actually pretty brilliant. Biden is giving the appearance of fleshing out a substantial plan to answer his critics, throwing a bone to liberal activists who favor increasing the number of justices on the Supreme Court, and still allowing himself plenty of ways to avoid actually doing that once he’s elected.”

    This is not a brilliant response. “My position is that I have no position” is just about the worst response a candidate for any office can give.

    1. When you refuse to say whether you’ll do something once, it just means what it means.

      No, I won’t promise not to punch you in the nose.
      No, I won’t promise not to punch you in the nose.
      No, I won’t promise not to punch you in the nose.
      No, I won’t promise not to punch you in the nose.
      No, I won’t promise not to punch you in the nose.
      No, I won’t promise not to punch you in the nose.
      No, I won’t promise not to punch you in the nose.
      No, I won’t promise not to punch you in the nose.
      No, I won’t promise not to punch you in the nose.
      No, I won’t promise not to punch you in the nose.
      . . . .

      Honest people can disagree about where it happens, but somewhere in there–after the second time he says it and before the tenth–Joe Biden refusing to promise not to punch you in the nose becomes a promise to punch you in the nose.

      Yeah, he’s saying he won’t promise not to punch us in the nose, but after saying it for the tenth time, at most, it becomes like a promise to punch us in the nose, doesn’t it?

      P.S. Joe Biden is a crook.

      1. Agreed.

        It is also a particularly bad response for a candidate under the gun as being someone without any genuine beliefs of his own that will do and say whatever it is that his handlers deem is appropriate for him to do and say.

        “I’ll do whatever this commission says” is absolutely the worst response by a candidate running on the promise that he is not merely a puppet for others.

        Slice it however you want, but this was the worst response Biden could have given.

        1. You can say that again. Joe Biden has to give a “I don’t know what I’ll do” sort of answer because he seriously doesn’t know, he’s incapable of thinking for himself. It’s like I keep saying with regards to the plagiarism scandals that keep dogging him – it’s not just that he stole somebody else’s ideas, it’s that he had to steal somebody else’s ideas because he’s never had an original thought in his life. Joe Biden is just as empty-headed as a scarecrow. He’s a puppet.

          1. it’s that he had to steal somebody else’s ideas because he’s never had an original thought in his life. Joe Biden is just as empty-headed as a scarecrow

            His explanation of how he shook down Ukraine/Burisma seemed pretty original and well thought out.

          2. The answer to what Joe Biden is going to do: break a hip shortly after his inauguration. And then we’ll be asking the question we should be asking now: what would Kamala Harris do? The answer doesn’t involve a bipartisan blue ribbon commission.

      2. So you understand why some people were very concerned when Barrett repeatedly refused to say she considered Griswold or Lawrence settled law, yes?

        1. Try making a legal argument, and I will consider it.

          That is as good as answer as anyone can give when you ask a judge and/or a lawyer a hypothetical question.

          1. It’s an attempt at a gotcha question. Later if the specifics of a case require a vote in the other direction the senator that will say you lied during the hearing. No judge in their right mind would answer the question.

            1. Very true.

              It is also question that nobody with even an inkling of an understanding of how our legal system functions would ever ask.

              “Settled law” makes about as much sense a “settled science.”

              1. Yep

              2. Griswold and Lawrence are indeed settled law. Judge Barrett´s dodging and weaving evince that she is potentially willing to unsettle those decisions.

                1. Okay, we all understand that SCOTUS doesn’t just issue decisions on their own, right? Two things:

                  1. It would, in fact, be inappropriate to comment on anything that might come before you on the Court. Her refusal to answer in either direction doesn’t mean she secretly wants to strike down the law.

                  2. The Case or Controversy issue: how likely is it that someone will bring a lawsuit challenging the availability of birth control? And if they do, how likely are they going to be to win in the district court? Or the appellate court? How do we know SCOTUS would grant cert? And even if SCOTUS did grant cert, how do you know how the justices will rule? We have no idea what the actual question before Court would even be. So there isn’t any need to be afraid of her. She is highly unlikely to hear a case about sodomy between consenting adults or the right to get birth control pills.

                  The cases are binding precedent, but they are not settled law. There’s no such thing as settled law. The law changes constantly.

            2. So Roberts, Kavanaugh and Gorsuch are judges not in their “right mind” then? None of them equivocated about Griswold like she did.

              1. Gorsuch and Kavanaugh both gave nuanced answers.

          2. That is as good as answer as anyone can give when you ask a judge and/or a lawyer a hypothetical question.

            It’s not the same question/answer on the precepts:

            “Do you think it’s within your power to (un)make this decision?” vs. “If you are given this power will you make this decision?”

            “I don’t know if it’s within my power.” vs. “I’ll flip a coin of my own choosing to decide if I will/won’t.”

            One lack of answer implies ignorance/impotence, the other implies/assumes power authority not yet in evidence.

        2. “Will you rule ahead of time the way I want you to based on political outcomes rather than the facts of a case or any legal reasoning presented during arguments?”

          1. I mean, Republicans have been pretty open, for a long time, that a desire to overturn Roe v. Wade is a litmus test for them, so I’m not sure why you’re pretending that’s weird.

        3. Well, of course they are settled law. They are precedent of the Court and therefore are settled issues. That doesn’t mean that cannot be reexamined and/or overturned if reviewed again.

          As far as “understanding” someone’s “concern” about this, no not at all.

    2. This is not a brilliant response. “My position is that I have no position” is just about the worst response a candidate for any office can give.

      Press corp: Mr. President when are you going to condemn white supremacist violence?
      President: I condemn white supremacy and racial violence totally. I always have. It’s despicable and what happened at Charlottesville was terrible thanks to bad actors on both sides.
      Press corp: Trump refuses to condemn white supremacy!

      Press corp: Senator, when is your campaign going to condemn court packing?
      Senator: I’m going to form a special committee after I’m elected to look into whether I should do it or not.
      Press corp: Brilliant!

  6. There hasn’t been a bipartisan federal government since Clinton and Gingrich reduced spending. The next four years won’t be either, regardless of who wins.

    1. You know that was forced on Clinton by way of a government shutdown, right? Are you being ironic?

      Pardon me for asking, but the idea that Bill Clinton shut the government down because New Gingrich refused to reduce spending is the most successful political myth in American history.

      1. P.S. Joe Biden is a crook.

      2. He didn’t say they sat down for tea and biscuits and sung kumbaya together, Ken. At the end of the day whether by choice or force they worked together to reach a bipartisan agreement.

        P.S. All politicians are crooks.

        1. There wasn’t anything bipartisan about it except for Bill Clinton’s capitulation. The media and Clinton successfully blamed Gingrich for the shutdown, Gingrich’s popularity was sagging because the government was shut down and the media was accusing him of letting widows and orphans starve to death, and Bill Clinton capitulated to Gingrich’s demands (adding a piddly $150 million or so from memory) and called it a victory for the Democrats in cutting spending.

          The argument that Clinton cut the budget in ’95 – ’96 is a horseshit narrative with no basis in reality.

          P.S. Joe Biden is a crook.

          1. But I got check, maybe two, from Bush jr because Bush thought the surplus belonged to the people.

            P.S. All politicians are crooks.

      3. It took two to shut down the government, and it took two to cut spending. That’s as close as politics ever gets to bipartisan.

    2. The Simpson/Bowles to the Super Committee/sequester was bi-partisan.

      But I do agree no bi-partisanship will be found probably until an outside threat emerges that brings mot Americans together in demonize the threat (deservedly or not).

      1. mot = most

        My god its 2020, how do we not have an edit button!!

        1. We clearly should set up a planning group to determine an exploration committee to decide if it is worthwhile to consider the possibility of adding a new feature to the comments, possibly called an edit button.

          1. I’ll only support that if it is bi-partisan. And it can’t have any of those crazy right wing Republicans on it; can we dig up John McCain and re-animate his corpse*?

            *Note to self, perfect Halloween costume to scary the kids and steal their candy. Zombie McCain gives me shivers just thinking about it.

            1. John McLame has been replaced with Mittens Romney.

      2. If you’d said that last year, I’d have agreed.

        Then we ran into a global pandemic, and what should have been a bi-partisan response that brought Americans together became a wedge issue as hundreds of thousands of Americans died.

        So, uh, no. I don’t agree anymore. Watchmen had it wrong, external threats are not sufficient to bring people together.

        1. Watchmen had it wrong, external threats are not sufficient to bring people together.

          This explains a lot about your understanding of socio-politics.

        2. “Then we ran into a global pandemic, and what should have been a bi-partisan response that brought Americans together became a wedge issue as hundreds of thousands of Americans died.”

          Those Americans would have died whether it was a wedge issue or not. We never needed a bi-partisan response. What we needed was “you’re a fucking adult, measure your own risks, and make your own choices” response. The message we needed magnified was individual liberty, not surrender to arbitrary authoritarian measures that cannot be proven to have saved any lives at all.

        3. I should have said a real threat. Not imagined ones like Russian collusion or the sniffles or 12 years from global warming doom or a VP’s idiot son, or the Squad. I’m thinking China censorship will do it, just need someone like Oprah* to get tossed in a Chinese prison for comparing their emperor to Pooh.

          *like Oprah from say 10 years ago, not the one today scolding white women that they are secret racists after supporting and enriching her over the years. I don’t know who that is right now.

        4. external threats are not sufficient to bring people together.

          We knew that after 9-11.

          1. You mean the global pandemic that should’ve brought a bipartisan response that brought Americans together but instead became a wedge issue as millions of Americans were forced out of work?

  7. “As dodgy political answers go, this one is actually pretty brilliant.”

    It’s also a bald faced lie. IF IF he’s not put out to pasture to sniff and grope little girls, he do as he’s told. And that is, sure as shit, pack the court

    1. Can the president change the court size or does that require congress?

      1. It is by statue, so Congress.

        1. statUTE.

          1. That is until Antifa rips them down as well.

          2. did you say ute?

      2. If Biden wins the presidency, the same voter fraud that put him over the top in the handful of states successfully handed to the Democrats by the Supreme Court allowing week old mail in ballots with no post marks or signatures to be counted will also put in a Democratic majority in the senate.

  8. >>As dodgy political answers go, this one is actually pretty brilliant.

    the point where, if previously one took Boehm seriously, one can stop.

  9. This is yet another reason to vote for Biden. He’s obviously going to add at least 2, and possibly 4 justices. And we’ll need those libertarian-friendly, RBG-style voices to push back against Drumpf’s nominees, who are literally turning this country into The Handmaid’s Tale.

    #LibertariansForExpandingTheSupremeCourt
    #(AsLongAsADemocratDoesIt)

  10. For a long time now, we’ve been saying that social justice warriors and cancel culture Twitter mobs are a lot like the student movements in China during the Cultural Revolution. We need to update our references. What the social justice warriors and cancel culture people are doing online in the U.S. today is a lot like what the online lynch mobs are doing in China–today–and for more or less the same reasons, too.

    “Angry mobs online have swarmed any criticism of China’s leaders or a perceived lack of loyalty to the country. Targets are being harassed and silenced. Some have lost their jobs.

    Among those who have been attacked this year are public figures who have raised questions about officials’ early handling of the coronavirus. They include a writer from Wuhan named Fang Fang, who wrote online about the struggles of local residents and accused government officials of being slow to respond to the outbreak.

    Thousands of Chinese internet users called her a traitor. An anonymously written poster hung at a Wuhan bus station told her to “shave your head or kill yourself to atone for your sins for the people”—and a photo of it spread widely online. A famous tai chi master called on allies to assault her, using their “clenched fists of justice.”

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/in-xi-jinpings-china-nationalism-takes-a-dark-turn-11603382993?

    “The medium is the message”

    —-Marshall McLuhan

    Social media doesn’t just lend itself to cancel culture and SJW type campaigns. It insists on it.

    The specifics and context of whatever situation in China compared to ours doesn’t matter anywhere near as much as the medium itself. Our only hope for deliverance may be if the medium itself falls apart, like Top 40 stations an AM radio. By the mid-80s and 90s, nothing was lamer than Top 40 AM radio. It became about as hip as Leisure Suit Larry.

    1. P.S. Joe Biden is a crook.

      1. I don’t think so. The long march through the institutions was long, and homogenizing viewpoints and enforcing orthodoxy predates social media. What social media gave the woke left was a tool of exceptional effectiveness to amplify what they had already been doing.

        1. Struggle sessions, forced confessions, pushing people out of their jobs, etc.

          We’re doing the same thing online at Twitter.

          1. P.S. Joe Biden is a crook.

    2. I think your first comparison is more apt as we know the student revolutionaries were real.

      The Chinese internet is renowned for having fake trending of topics at the hands of paid ‘water armies’. That the government is weaponizing something previously used mostly by PR firms does not surprise me.

  11. I’ll pick a commission to advise me to do exactly what I wanted to do.

    1. Yo Ra’s, a while back you linked to an article listing (conservative?) people in media who receive money from the Chinese state which included a couple people from Reason, could you link that again if you still have it ?

  12. Trump is a unique and existential threat to Democracy.

    1. Not just Democracy, all of classical liberalism dead to the roots. He’s simultaneously too stupid to know where or what the Magna Carta is but is an unstoppable force in rending it asunder. He’ll tear apart the Western Civilization that they themselves want torn apart, but he’s bad because he won’t tear do it right.

    2. Not just Democracy, all of classical liberalism dead to the roots. He’s simultaneously too stupid to know where or what the Magna Carta is but is an unstoppable force in rending it asunder. He’ll tear apart the Western Civilization that they themselves want torn apart, but he’s bad because he won’t do it right.

      1. Oh crap.

    3. Not only is a unique and existential threat to Democracy, what’s worse, he also writes mean tweets and obnoxiously talks over Biden during debates–and what could be worse than that?

      P.S. Joe Biden is a crook.

    4. That’s why some think he’s one of the best presidents in the last 100-years. The USA isn’t a mob-rule democracy and 99% of our bipartisan warship environment h*llhole today is because of that very faulty but well ingrained belief. (Thinking it must-of come from commie(public)-education.)

      One would see the exact same at a football game with 2-sides making their own game-plans with NO REGARD to the very rules of the game.

  13. He can call on George Bush to come out of retirement to head up such a commission……

  14. Proposing an extra constitutional committee to advise him on whether to pack the court is a slightly less contemptuous way to avoid answering the question than saying the voters do not deserve to know, but it is still the same answer. It is not brilliant, just more oily.

    1. I don’t think he’s avoiding answering the question.

      I think this is like the prosecutor calling a grand jury in the Breonna Taylor case. He didn’t want the blame for choosing not to indict the cops–since his job as DA largely depends on their support in the future. So he called a grand jury, basically fixed it by not offering to charge the cops with anything, and then announced that the grand jury had spoken–my hand are tied!

      There is no principled argument on Biden’s part here. He’s telling us how he plans to evade responsibility for packing the court–and that’s it.

      P.S. Joe Biden is a crook.

  15. It’s really not that brilliant an answer at all. It’s just a slightly more complicated way of dodging the question.

    1. I don’t think he is dodging the question.

      When he picks the members of his committee, do you think he’ll pick them based on what they’re likely to say?

      And what legitimate conservative is likely to be willing to serve on such a committee? They’ll be traitors for helping the Democrats stack the court. They’ll be making John Bolton look like the most loyal guy in the world by comparison.

      He’s telling us he will pack the Supreme Court if given the chance.

      1. P.S. Joe Biden is a crook

        1. I think you’ve made your point rather well.

      2. Maybe think of it this way: Can you imagine Joe Biden picking a commission full of liberals that will come back and tell him not to pack the Supreme Court–and then saying to the radical wing of his party, “Well, I was planning to pack the Supreme Court, but then the experts came back and told me it was a bad idea!” Nobody’s buying that.

        Here’s the other thing to consider.

        On Biden’s campaign website, he’s promising both to launch a war on guns like we’ve never seen before and to inflict the Green New Deal, both of which will have regulations that make the individual mandate look like a walk in the part from a constitutional perspective.

        Do you think it’s easier or harder for Biden to get those things past the Supreme Court if he packs it first?

        Not only should Biden pack the Supreme Court during his first 100 days in office, it’ll be the first big thing he does in his first 100 days in office. Why would you pass the Green New Deal before you pack the Supreme Court when you can do it after you pack the Court with justices who will interpret the issues the way you want?

        P.S. Carthago delenda est. [Joe Biden is a crook].

        1. Make 6,000 dollar to 8,000 dollar A Month Online With No Prior Experience Or Skills Required. Be Your Own Boss AndChoose Your Own Work Hours.Thanks A lot Here>>>Click For Full Detail.

          1. Is this an advertisement asking people to run for office?

            1. Easy and easy job on-line from home. begin obtaining paid weekly quite $4k by simply doing this simple home job. I actually have created $4823 last week from this simple job. Its a simple and easy job to try to to and its earnings ar far better than regular workplace job. everyone will currently get additional greenbacks on-line by simply open this link and follow directions to urge started.…Click here.

            2. Could be; have you seen the bots that actually comment on the articles? They’re better than Tony. But then just about anything is.

        2. “Well, I was planning to pack the Supreme Court, but then the experts came back and told me it was a bad idea!”

          I wanted to pack the Supreme Court, but then I got high
          I wanted to pack the Supreme Court, but then I got high
          I didn’t get those extra justices, and I know why
          Because I got high, because I got high, because I got high

          …sorry, that’s Hunter, not Joe.

  16. You actually think ‘My position is that I have no position’ is a brilliant response ? After nearly 4 years of reporting on every manufactured Trump ‘bombshell’, this is your Biden article ?

    High-level corruption from a former VP / presidential candidate is being exposed with sources and receipts and the media-at-large (including Reason) is clearly running interference and trying their best to bury the story. I’ve never used the term ‘bombshell’ in a serious context before, but imma go ahead and call this one a bombshell.

    1. “You actually think ‘My position is that I have no position’ is a brilliant response ?”

      I don’t believe Boehm takes himself that seriously. You’re living in a strange world of facts and logic. He’s telling you how to feel about this. Why won’t you listen? It’s probably because you’re from an older generation and mean.

      P.S. Joe Biden is a crook.

      1. I love this comment.

  17. I made 10k dollar a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless. Here’s what I’ve been doing Please visit this site…Click here.

  18. I have started the business of thousands dollars …..Visit here to earn thousands of dollars

  19. So Joe cannot promise that he won’t destroy the courts and the Constitution and the Republican with them but he will promise to appoint a commission to look into doing that.

    Yeah that is very reassuring.

    1. In addition to failing to promise not to pack the Court, to the best of my knowledge, Biden has also failed to deny that he and his son are crooks–as Hunter Biden’s emails say.

      P.S. Joe Biden is a crook.

  20. So either
    1. Basement Bunker Biden is lying
    or
    2. Basement Bunker Biden cannot make a decision on his own.

    1. It could be a both/and situation!

      P.S. Joe Biden is a crook.

      1. Make 6,000 dollar to 8,000 dollar A Month Online With No Prior Experience Or Skills Required. Be Your Own Boss AndChoose Your Own Work Hours.Thanks A lot Here>>>Click For Full Detail.

  21. It is brilliant, particularly because Joe Biden not only didn’t take the bait to give an simple answer, but he took the time to give a good reasonable answer. It is easy for politicians to get pushed into making answers they end up backtracking. In Trump’s case the staff the usually gets the backtracking job.
    I have seen a number of articles in Reason about reforms in the court. Conservatives could just sit out the commission or they could challenge the commission to put forth reforms they feel are important. What’s more I would ask John Roberts to lead the commission. Seem like a good choice as he is irritating everyone right now.

    1. the only reason anyone wants to even talk about it is because the current court is likely to protect rights democrats want to take away and be less respectful to rights that democrats like. there is no reform motive…… the motive is 100% to create a court that will rubber stamp liberal objectives while striking down conservative ones. no matter how hard anyone tries to justify it or pretend it is anything else, that is what this is about and everybody knows it. even talking about it is missing the point of the last 4 years and instead intentionally stoking the flames of partisanship. biden has more tact than trump, but this is going to end up causing as much unrest as any of Trump’s tweets.

      1. I made 10k dollar a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless. Here’s what I’ve been doing Please visit this site…Click here.

      2. No, the reason to talk is because people are increasely going to the courts because our legislative bodies at state and Federal levels are not addressing problems. You talk about taking away rights, those include women’s rights to control their bodies, the right of people to form marital unions with the person of their choosing, and the right of all citizens to vote for their representatives. Legislating from the bench is not good when either side of an issues does it.

        1. first of all, you are wrong and trying to stoke fear….. the right to abortion and gay marriage are established law. while the current court would have been unlikely to legislate from the bench the way you want (because….. both of those things were “legislating from the bench” to begin with.) if those cases were before them today… it is completely irrelevant, because it is all but guaranteed they will never overturn them. it is exceedingly rare that the court will even consider the same question again and unheard of for them to do so this long after the initial decision.

          second…. you are really demonstrating my point. you list a couple rights you think the current court would not respect, and completely ignore the 1st, 2nd, 4th amendment rights they would disrespect if the court was instead stacked with liberals. you did not list a single need for reform, you described a desired change in potential future outcomes based on your desires and not any legal basis. you want the court stacked so you can get your way.

          what you are doing is going to stoke partisanship and resentment and will give us four more years just like the last four with a different party in control. if you want history to blame trump for the way things are right now, stop this direction right now….. do not do things designed to give blatant partisan advantage in a way that is so obvious the partisans on the other “side” will replace the trump “resistance” that has been screaming with their heads on fire for the last four years.

    2. Let me guess; you want a well regulated and orderly society where most everyone does as they are told, right? That is surely the only way we will get to a Star Trek existence.

    3. he took the time to give a good reasonable answer.

      “I’m not going to pack the court” is a good reasonable answer. It’s revealing when people pretend otherwise because their self-appointed role is protecting Team Blue. To further highlight the stupidity of this position why would Joe have to backtrack from this answer?

      The fact that Joe can’t give the reasonable answer is good evidence his position is not reasonable.

    4. “What’s more I would ask John Roberts to lead the commission.”

      Well, you would, wouldn’t you?

  22. it isn’t all that brilliant, everyone can see it for what it is. he wants to do it, but he wants political cover by being able to point to a group of hand picked people to justify it for him. he wants to do it because of his supporters who will stay home in 2/4yrs if he doesn’t do it. (THAT is the reason it is not an immediate priority… so it will be fresher in people’s minds.) he wants the cover because it will make most of Americans mad, and it will de legitimize the court as this dog and pony show will happen every 4-8yrs once the precedent is set. if he makes any serious move on this, expect to see what we have for the last 4 years, with partisanship and hate being amplified.

  23. Biden if elected won’t serve a full term, he’ll resign or be removed by his sociopath of a VP, so he doesn’t have to make promises to keep.

    1. This dog won’t hunt, you need to try a new line.

  24. Fantastic work-from-home opportunity for everyone… Work for three to eight hours a day and start getting paid in the range of 7,000-14,000 dollars a month…
    Weekly payments…Click For Full Detail.

  25. “[Biden] referred to President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s 1937 attempt to add justices to the Supreme Court as a “bone head idea” that “put in question for an entire decade the independence of…the Supreme Court.”

    Yeah but just look at what they got done! The Federal government expanded ten fold and got into everyone’s life and hasn’t slowed down since.

  26. I couldn’t believe my friend when he say he make many thousand dollar working for few hour per month form Home but then I see the check! Much moneys, little works, easy, easy, easy! Let me show you how he do it just to be click on the link!

    1. Hahahahahaha! I suspected that this would be hilarious, but was slightly afraid that the boys had managed a really good fake username.

  27. Biden is giving the appearance of fleshing out a substantial plan to answer his critics, throwing a bone to liberal activists who favor increasing the number of justices on the Supreme Court, and still allowing himself plenty of ways to avoid actually doing that once he’s elected.

    It’s revealing Boehm unequivocally concludes – without evidence – what Biden is going to do. It’s just as likely this is a plan to allow for court packing without having to admit it to the public.

    Amazingly if you simply assume the Dem will do what you want and the Rep will not the conclusion Dems are reasonable just seems to follow.

    Obama didn’t run on weaponizing Title IX into the sex police, but that’s still what we got.

  28. Maybe split the 9th before considering any other federal court reforms.

  29. Increasing the number of justices is an appropriate response to Mitch McConnell´s playing Calvinball with the respective Scalia and Ginsburg vacancies. FDR didn´t have that kind of history when he proposed packing the Court.

  30. Bipartisan, 30 Democrats and one Republican?

    1. Well we all know darn well when he says ‘bipartisan’ he doesn’t mean Rand Paul or Ted Cruz. lol.. 🙂 So we can safely assure the one won’t be either one of those.

  31. Everyone believes that a truly impartial panel will agree with them.

  32. Bipartisan panel…let’s see, everyone from AOC on the left to Mitt Romney on the right…in between, moderates like Chuck Schumer. With so many diverse viewpoints represented, we’re bound to get bipartisanship!

  33. Brillant? Everyone can see its a joke..what is wrong with the federal courts? I mean if we want to open the “box”..why is the senate not elected by state legislators anymore (yes I know) but maybe time to revisit that and taxation and the Fed and well you know where I”m going..hell the idiotic idea of judicial review should be revisited…mabye the bill of rights? Declaration of Independence? This author thinks this answer is brilliant? JC..what is wrong with Reason writers these days….they just can’t put down the marxist water can they?

  34. When faced with opponents who will run out the clock for 11 months on one SCOTUS nominee and then push another through in less than 1 month, anything and everything not specifically prohibited by law is fine with me.

    1. Wow – that’s all it took? Some hypocrisy over judicial confirmation hearings is enough for you to be good with the government taking an “anything goes” approach, blowing up society but not technically violating the law?

      1. I made 10k dollar a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless. Here’s what I’ve been doing Please visit this site…READ MORE.

    2. doing things just to stick a finger in the other “side’s” eye is why this should not be done. isn’t doing things just to make the other side mad why the last 4 years have been hell? do you not want to be able to blame it all on trump when this is over? do you really want 4 more years of hyper-partisanship and vitriol just so you can flip the middle finger at the other side?

  35. What alarms me most about Biden’s statement doesn’t appear in the article. He will appoint this commission because our entire judicial system is “out of whack.” It’s an expansion on packing the court.

    I shudder to think what they will do to get it back in whack.

  36. Make 6,000 dollar to 8,000 dollar A Month Online With No Prior Experience Or Skills Required. Be Your Own Boss AndChoose Your Own Work Hours.Thanks A lot Here>>>Click For Full Detail.

  37. I am creating an honest wage from home 3000 Dollars/week , that is wonderful, below a year agone i used to be unemployed during a atrocious economy. I convey God on a daily basis i used to be endowed these directions and currently it’s my duty to pay it forward and share it with everybod……. Read More  

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.