After President Donald Trump nominated his third Supreme Court Justice, stacking a 6-3 conservative majority, Democratic Presidential nominee Joe Biden has repeatedly danced around the massive question surrounding his prospective administration, whether or not he intends to pack the Supreme Court. And during press conference in Las Vegas, Nevada, a KTNV reporter once again probed Biden’s position on packing the Supreme Court, asking if voters deserve to know his intentions.
Biden then snapped, “no they don’t (deserve to know)…. I’m not gonna play his game, he’d love me to talk about, and I’ve already said something on court packing, he’d love that to be the discussion instead of what he’s doing now,” likely referring to President Trump.
“You’ll know my position on court-packing the day after the election.”
Though Biden opposed packing the court during the primaries, both his and his Vice President nominee Kamala Harris’s refusal to take a stance should spark blaring alarms in the minds of voters. In simplest terms, packing the Supreme Court would mean increasing the number of Justices in the Supreme Court to force a left majority, all of which would be, of course, nominated by potential President Joe Biden and therefore radically progressive.
Initially, the dangerous practice originated from President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s unsuccessful attempt to ram through pieces of the New Deal in 1937, deemed unconstitutional by high courts. But facing a 6-3 conservative majority, following the inevitable nomination of Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Democrats’ desperation began to bubble over and
Obviously, this is terrifying for a republic reliant on objectivity within our courts. The Framers designed the Supreme Court to be insulated from the political whims of the people, granting life terms and nominated by the other two other branches of government. The role of the Supreme Court is a simple one- interpret the law as purely and non politically as possible to determine if the other branches act within the Constitution. Since quite a vague set of principles, the Constitution demanded a branch to set precedents on legal disputes, not political. The Supreme Court does not have the power to make laws nor enforce them, merely cement the gray area with clear, practical distinctions.
But the progressive revision reimagines the highest court as an institution of power, merely another avenue to cram down their agenda when the Senate, House, or Presidency can’t give them what they want. Instead of a tool of interpretation to prevent the two other branches from overextending their power, the Supreme Court balloons, able to double team whichever branch Democrats don’t hold. Progressivism melds each of the branches into a political tool, reducing them from their intended and explicit roles. Though the Supreme Court exists solely in the legal, progressivism still infuses politics into it, justifying packing the court since they can get what they want out of it.
Such a massive overhaul of the system of checks and balances and the absolute restructuring of the Supreme Court deserves confirmation. Leaving voters in the dark about the progressive breakdown of the most essential legal institution America suggests the very worst, a potential collapse of the critical deliberation within the Constitution to shove a political agenda at the expense of the people and the foundation.