Why Biden needs to answer the court-packing question
Voters deserve to know his plans for the Supreme Court
Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden's position on court packing is now absolutely clear: He does not want you to know his position.
"You'll know my position on court packing the day after the election," the former vice president told reporters on Thursday. His comments came a day after his running mate, Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), avoided the question at the vice presidential debate.
Biden's stance is fundamentally undemocratic. No, it isn't as big a sin against American democracy as President Trump's accumulated offenses, but it is a problem. Biden is openly and intentionally depriving voters of critical information about an important issue — which means they are left to guess his intentions, and perhaps get a big surprise on November 4. That's not how the process should work.
Subscribe to The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.
Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
But it is easier to try and win an election if you don't tell voters something they might not want to hear. And no matter what position Biden eventually takes on adding new justices to the Supreme Court — an action that would presumably give liberals a sudden advantage on the increasingly conservative court — he will alienate some of his prospective supporters. Court packing is popular with Democrats, but it isn't popular with voters more generally.
A new Washington Examiner/YouGov poll indicates that just 34 percent of independent voters — and 32 percent of independents — are in favor of adding justices to the court. That number zooms up to 60 percent for Democrats, however. That is no surprise. And presidential nominees often are challenged to find a balance between pleasing their party's voters while appealing to swing voters who might decide an election. The trick is not to make either side so unhappy that they decide not to cast a ballot.
Biden faces an additional challenge in 2020. He can't just win the election — he has to win big. If he wins the popular vote by a narrow margin, prognosticators believe Trump will win the Electoral College. A close election might also give Trump a chance to muddy the waters and claim victory for himself, no matter the actual vote tally. So Biden must build a coalition of voters so large that, if he wins, the repudiation of the current president is unmistakable both to Trump and his supporters.
So it is understandable that Biden doesn't want to reveal his plans for the court. That doesn't make it right.
Biden on Thursday said the media should focus instead on Trump's plans for the Supreme Court — and the GOP plan to get Amy Coney Barrett confirmed to replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg either before Election Day, or at least by a potential Joe Biden inauguration in January. The court-packing question, he suggested, is a distraction.
"The moment I answer that question, the headline in every one of your papers will be about that rather than focusing on what's happening now," he said.
Barrett's nomination is a big, important issue. And the media isn't always great at walking and chewing gum at the same time. The problem, though, is that Biden's own plans for the court are inextricable from the current confirmation process. The "merits of court packing literally depend on what happens on election day and whether the Republicans rush to confirm Barrett despite Trump losing," Lawfare's Susan Hennessey tweeted.
Biden is skeptical of court-packing, the thinking goes, so if Barrett's nomination fails and he gets to name Ginsburg's replacement, he might be able to resist Democratic pressure on the issue. But if Barrett is confirmed and Democrats win the presidency and the Senate, the left will campaign to "rebalance" the court so that conservative justices can't emasculate and derail progressive priorities that would otherwise come out of a Biden administration.
In other words, Biden's real position on court-packing is probably: "It depends." Why not say so? The question isn't going away, after all.
Democracy works best when voters know who and what they're voting for, and when elected officials can be accountable both for their promises and acts. American democracy, you may have noticed, has been a bit fragile of late. Ducking the issues that voters care about — and the court's composition is not a minor matter to be fudged — doesn't help. Rehabilitating our institutions almost certainly requires rebuilding the faith of a disillusioned citizenry. Biden can help that effort by being forthcoming about his plans for the Supreme Court.
Want more essential commentary and analysis like this delivered straight to your inbox? Sign up for The Week's "Today's best articles" newsletter here.
Create an account with the same email registered to your subscription to unlock access.
Sign up for Today's Best Articles in your inbox
A free daily email with the biggest news stories of the day – and the best features from TheWeek.com
Joel Mathis is a freelance writer who has spent nine years as a syndicated columnist, co-writing the RedBlueAmerica column as the liberal half of a point-counterpoint duo. His work also regularly appears in National Geographic, The Kansas City Star and Heatmap News. His awards include best online commentary at the Online News Association and (twice) at the City and Regional Magazine Association.
-
Today's political cartoons - April 27, 2024
Cartoons Saturday's cartoons - natural gas, fundraising with Ted Cruz, and more
By The Week US Published
-
Aid to Ukraine: too little, too late?
Talking Point House of Representatives finally 'met the moment' but some say it came too late
By The Week UK Published
-
5 generously funny cartoons on the $60 billion foreign aid package
Cartoons Artists take on Republican opposition, aid to Ukraine, and more
By The Week US Published
-
Arizona court reinstates 1864 abortion ban
Speed Read The law makes all abortions illegal in the state except to save the mother's life
By Rafi Schwartz, The Week US Published
-
Trump, billions richer, is selling Bibles
Speed Read The former president is hawking a $60 "God Bless the USA Bible"
By Peter Weber, The Week US Published
-
The debate about Biden's age and mental fitness
In Depth Some critics argue Biden is too old to run again. Does the argument have merit?
By Grayson Quay Published
-
How would a second Trump presidency affect Britain?
Today's Big Question Re-election of Republican frontrunner could threaten UK security, warns former head of secret service
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published
-
'Rwanda plan is less a deterrent and more a bluff'
Instant Opinion Opinion, comment and editorials of the day
By The Week UK Published
-
Henry Kissinger dies aged 100: a complicated legacy?
Talking Point Top US diplomat and Nobel Peace Prize winner remembered as both foreign policy genius and war criminal
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Last updated
-
Trump’s rhetoric: a shift to 'straight-up Nazi talk'
Why everyone's talking about Would-be president's sinister language is backed by an incendiary policy agenda, say commentators
By The Week UK Published
-
More covfefe: is the world ready for a second Donald Trump presidency?
Today's Big Question Republican's re-election would be a 'nightmare' scenario for Europe, Ukraine and the West
By Sorcha Bradley, The Week UK Published