The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
President Biden: Supreme Court Is Not "Normal," But Should Not Be Expanded
The President strongly criticized the Supreme Court's recent decisions, but refuses to endorse radical reform.
In prepared remarks yesterday, President Biden condemned the Supreme Court's decision to dramatically restrict the use of race in college admissions in SFFA v. Harvard. He said he strongly disagreed with the decision. The Court "once again walked away from decades of precedent" and "effectively ended affirmative action in college admissions." When asked by a reporter whether the Supreme Court is "a rogue court," the President responded: "this is not a normal court."
Speaking later to MSNBC, however, the President rejected proposals to increase the size of the Court as a way to shift its ideological balance. Reuters reports:
President Joe Biden said it would be a mistake to expand the membership of the U.S. Supreme Court after it struck down race-conscious admission considerations on Thursday but thinks the institution is out of touch with basic American values. . . .
Biden told MSNBC in New York that the court "may do too much harm but I think if we start the process of trying to expand the court, we are going to politicize it maybe forever, in a way that is not healthy."
Biden also said the court's value system is different and it's not as embracing. . . .
Liberal Democratic lawmakers have proposed expanding the number of Supreme Court justices, possibly ending its conservative majority, but the plan has not been embraced by the White House and other Democrats.
UPDATE: The full MSNBC interview is available here.
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. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Why would he endorse Court packing when he knows he doesn't have the votes? It's not one of those things you go into an election promising to do, it's the sort of thing you spring on people once it's too late.
Why would you acknowledge he doesn't want to pack the court when you can make unfalsifiable claims that he has a secret plan to do it in the future?
He's taking a page from the RINO playbook -- promising things he knows he could never deliver, but could turn around and blame his supporters for not working hard enough to accomplish.
How the GOP sabotaged the TEA Party is a classic example of this.
He can never deliver on not expanding the court?
He was out there yesterday urging universities to ignore the AA strike down.
Today he announced he is going to insurrect against SCOTUS and has criminally come up with an illegal legal theory to essentially overturn the 2023 SCOTUS ruling and give away billions anyway in an executive branch coup over our Democracy.
So, basically, what's the point in packing a Court you plan to defy anyway?
Nothing that coherent. If you never so much as catch your breath because you’re terrified that if you stop even for a moment, you might stop believing what you’re saying, you can’t afford the luxury of formulating anything coherent. That takes time. And leisure. And self-confidence. All in short supply.
You do know we're talking about Biden, right?
KNEEL BEFORE DARK BRANDON!! You must go on a date with a trans woman or you will be imprisoned!!
You sound like those CCP dipshits on reddit and twitter the other day when Wagner and retreated back into Russia proclaiming Biden was the greatest military president in all of human history.
That got memory-holed pretty quick by the middle of the following day.
My guess is, this will too and then you’ll genuinely never even remember posting this Dark Brandon State Department Ultra MAGA nonsense.
Dark Brandon is pecker slapping them upside their heads…I’m lovin’ it!!
Biden's not normal.
Let's see how long he stays with his conviction that to 'politicize it maybe forever, in a way that is not healthy'. Time will tell.
Just how many times do you intend to cry wolf on this?
The walls are closing in. Lol.
XY despises politicians who say one thing and then do something else. Well, some of them, anyway.
Biden "thinks the [Court] is out of touch with basic American values." Except that the vast majority of Americans oppose affirmative action in college admissions and have for some time. It's only popular with small parts of society that hold positions of disproportional influence, such as college professors and the news and entertainment media. It's like school busing. Literally no one wanted that except (dare I say it) elites. Black parents especially hated it because it was a huge burden on their families.
In any event, discriminating against Asians is a weird thing to label "American values." I'd really like to see him justify that stance on the campaign trail. Too bad dipshit Trump is who the GOP is going to waste its good opportunity on.
Biden will schlong Trump again and everyone knows it.
On an unrelated note, the fact that the SCOTUS traditionally holds off on it's biggest decisions of the session until June really should be more derided. They're cowards, the whole lot of 'em.
Perhaps so, but is this practice attributable to any particular ideological faction?
Which commenters seem to be disappointed about this is telling.
If only we all were as compassionate as you and didn't care about the law or the Constitution and placed people above the Rule of Law like you, we'd be as perfect as you are Sarcastr0! Well, as perfect as you, President Biden, and Jesus.
I wouldn't even give them this much. The critics of SFFA v. Harvard want to place some people above the rule of law. They don't seem to have much "compassion" for the thousands of discriminated Asian students. Their talk about "compassion" and their supposed concern for "people" is just a cynical sanctimonious pose.
[deleted]
I have no idea what he meant by "embracing."
More importantly, he is confused about the judicial role. This is not a legislative body or an executive official. It's a court. The only "value" a judge (or a court) should have is fidelity to the law. It isn't about what I think is best; it's about what the law dictates.