The Twelfth Rule of Court Packing Is "No"

Press: "Do you support term limits for the Supreme Court?" Biden: "No"

On Friday, a reporter asked President Biden "Do you support term limits for the Supreme Court?" President Biden replied with one word answer. "No." (The video starts around 0:16).

The President rejected the only consensus position reached by his own commission, before the report was even finalized. And he did so a few hours after the draft materials were released! Law professors know all too well how it feels when a law review rejects your article a few moments after it is submitted. Biden just dinged his commission.

For those with a sense of nostalgia, you can see my prior Court-Packing posts here: Rules # 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11.

Comments

[grb]

Whatya say we start a pool : How long until Blackman hits the Hundredth Rule of Court Packing?

[Commenter_XY]

Well, rule #1 was 9/20. In 13 months, we have rule #11. Let's do some math.

13 months/11 rules = 1.182 months/rule
1.182 mons/rule * 100 rules = 118.2 months
118.2 months ~ 3550 days
10/18/2021 + 3550 days ~ July 8, 2031

So to answer this...Independence Day 2031. I'm gonna go with increased efficiency over time.

[santamonica811]

heh

[Armchair Lawyer]

Until he reaches Somin levels (on foot voting for Somin), Blackman gets a pass...

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

"How long until Blackman hits the Hundredth Rule of Court Packing?"

Anything more than three rules -- even or especially in a crisis situation -- probably doesn't deserve much respect.

(that's Danny DeVito on lead guitar and a tune that resembles much of the debate at this blog)

[dwb68]

Well, we are assuming the cognitive capacity for Biden to understand the question. I have no doubt his handlers will walk it back and tell him what the correct answer was.

[Bob from Ohio]

He could have heard "Do you want a pickle?" for all we know.

[ReaderY]

Facts don’t matter to those who want to believe, do they?

[grb]

dwb68 : "Well, we are assuming the cognitive capacity for Biden... (etc)"

Remarks like these remind me of the hullaballoo before the presidential debates. Right-types (including many of the usual suspects commenting here) insisted Biden would be humiliated, exposed & incoherent if forced to go live on camera for ninety minutes. Hell, they said, Joe wouldn't even dare show up.

Some people (myself included) pointed to Biden's two-hour debate with Sanders a few months earlier, in which he did just fine. But argument that was a bit too factually-based to appeal to your average trumpster. Right up to the the event itself, they insisted a Biden catastrophe was certain.

Of course the result was a Trump catastrophe, as DJT blew whatever slim chance he had of reelection. Right-types sulked a couple of weeks while the sting of reality abated, and then were right back claiming Biden would immediately turn over the presidency to Harris if he won.

(One hopes they have good weather on the planet where they reside)

[Bob from Ohio]

Just because some people exaggerated his decline or were premature on its effects back then does not mean he was not in decline then or that it has not accelerated now.

[dwb68]

Trump bad does not make Biden or socialism good. That's the basic problem with the TDS crowd. But at this point if the choice was the epic disaster that is Biden or mean tweets we would all go back to mean tweets.

[santamonica811]

Well, YOU would go back to the shitstorm of Trump. Not me. I am much more confident about America's future under Biden than under Trump. You obviously disagree.

[Chest Rockwell]

Tell me you're an idiot without telling me you're an idiot.

[David Nieporent]

I like how sociopathy, criminality, and utter incompetence is reduced in Trumpkins' "minds" to "mean tweets."

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, it was certainly exaggerated back then. Clearly he was at least in good enough shape back then that if you shifted his sleep schedule so his peak acuity was timed right, he could handle a debate. Not that he was in perfect shape even then; I think he was the first Presidential candidate to ever call daily "caps" to get his nap in.

But the Presidency is famously aging, and he didn't have a lot of aging left in him.

[santamonica811]

Brett,
My recollection was that Reagan famously napped a lot. And that was even before the Alzheimer's ravaged his brain. Yeah, when Republicans and Democrats elect really old people; I guess we/they should not be surprised at (1) some cognitive decline, and (2) diminishing health and stamina. That's just a natural part of aging.

[Sarcastr0]

It's not been that long since 'then.'

This is a narrative that appeals to you, so you believe it. Simple as that.

Some above don't even seem to believe it, but want to own the libs so they act like they do.

[Chest Rockwell]

Sure it has kiddo. Almost a year. Don't gaslight again it is silly.

[ReaderY]

I agree term limits would require a constitutional amendment.

And if we are going to amend the constitution, I would recommend we clarify both the Bill of Rights and the limits of federal power and set boundaries more appropriate for today. If, as claimed, certain things are now universally supported, an amendment should be possible. If not, perhaps the claim isn’t so.

An amendment or string of them would take things out of the court’s hands and bind the court, reducing both its perceived oracular status and disappointment when it doesn’t live up to it.

At this point, there are issues where an amendment impementing the opposite of what I think is best policy would bring clarity and stability to the country that would be worth conceding on the issues.

[Martinned]

I agree term limits would require a constitutional amendment.

The audio on that clip isn't very clear, but I assume that's not what the President was asked. My normal rule of thumb would be that, if you ask a member of the elected branches whether they support X, the caveat "as a policy matter" is implied. The fact that politicians often duck the issue by saying X is unconstitutional doesn't change that.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I agree term limits would require a constitutional amendment.

With whom are you agreeing? Biden did not say anything about term limits requiring an amendment, nor is that what he was asked.

[DonP]

Based on Joe's performance, if the video was more than 15 minutes ago, Joe might have already changed his mind and has always supported SCOTUS term limits, court packing and banning Girl Scout Thin MInt Cookie sales. "C'mon Man".

[Jason Cavanaugh]

It's adorable how you idiots jump on the perceived inadequacies of Biden, and yet stuck your heads up your asses with extreme vigor for the previous 4 years to ignore Trump's actual personality disorders and sociopathic behaviors.

[santamonica811]

Jason,
Welcome to today's Republican party. Maybe not all the rank-and-file. But 95% of the Republican national political figures? Yeah. Pretty far up Trump's ass, I must admit.

[Chest Rockwell]

TDS. Trump is no longer your president

[santamonica811]

Your TDS (that's happens to be pro-Trump) is far more disturbing. Why do you think it matters that Trump is no longer a current president, and that he's "merely" a former-president-who-will-almost-certainly-be-the-next-Republican-nominee in 2024? You think such a person is not worthy of critical analysis? That's seems odd to me.

[Gaear Grimsrud]

Hmm. Joe Biden. Isn't he that guy that said he'd never support vaccine mandates?

[Eric VonSalzen]

Leaving aside the Constitutionality issue, just as a policy issue, President Trump/DeSantis/Abbott/Noem/Cruz/Paul/Haley/Doe, might want to support term limits for Supreme Court Justices under a system in which a Justice beyond a certain age (or number of years of service) becomes "senior" and is no longer automatically a member of the 9-justice panels that hears cases; but a senior justice could be chosen by the Chief Justice to replace a Justice who is unable to serve on a particular case.
Of course, this system would not apply to any Justice already sitting, who would be entitled to sit on all cases until he/she died or retired, in accordance with the terms of her/his appointment (unless the Justice voluntarily elected to take senior status).
Old Joe, in opposing term limits, may be smarter than you think.

[Chest Rockwell]

I'm all for packing the court. We can add 2 democrats and 2 Republicans, right liberals? I know you wouldn't whine and thrash and act like this isn't partisan if you only wanted to add people from your side. Right?

[santamonica811]

I've been hunting for your comments decrying Senate Leader Mitch, when he was whoring his integrity to block a Dem nominee, and then jamming through a Rep nominee 4 years later. I'm having trouble locating those comment. But I am sure they exist, based on your post. I know you wouldn't whine and thrash if you were are, in fact, not a pathetic hypocrite. Can you provide a link for all of us? Thanks in advance.