Biden says it would be a 'mistake' to try to expand the Supreme Court

[Polybius]

WASHINGTON — President Joe Biden continued criticism of the Supreme Court's decision to strike down colleges' affirmative action programs in an interview on MSNBC’s “Deadline: White House” but said trying to expand the court would be a "mistake."

Asked by host Nicolle Wallace about expanding the court, Biden said that if it were expanded, it would become too politicized.

"I think if we start the process of trying to expand the court, we're going to politicize it maybe forever in a way that is not healthy," Biden said.

Wallace also asked Biden about his answer to a reporter's question earlier Thursday about whether this Supreme Court is a "rogue court." Biden replied to the reporter: "This is not a normal court."

Read more...

Personally, I think if a bill went to his desk expanding the SC he'd sign it.

[Elessar Zappa]

1. I bet if it were to get through

Congress, that he’d sign it.

[miss-nasty]

5. Me too...

[brush]

40. Is a Constitutional convention required to expand.

[Marius25]

48. No. Congress controls the size of the Supreme Court

and the make up of all other Federal courts (including the power to abolish all lower courts).

The Supreme Court hasn't always been 9 justices.

[DURHAM D]

2. He is right.

If you are angry find another way to take action. Expansion will never happen.

[regnaD kciN]

26. And what, pray tell, would that be...?

Endure several more decades of this, and hope that, when those justices die off, we hold the White House and Senate? Because that’s the only alternative.

[Zeitghost]

43. That is precisely what the Republicans did

And it worked. Politics in general and the judiciary in-particular is a long game, the Republicans understand this. Anyone looking for a quick fix will always be disappointed.

[Mr.Bill]

3. If we don't expand it,

the republicans will, the first chance they get.

[DURHAM D]

4. How ??? nat

[Mr.Bill]

10. The same way it's been done in the past.

Congress has the power to do it. Obviously, we are not in control of both houses of congress, so that would have to happen first.

[Shrek]

45. They already had their first chance and didn't do it

They could have done it in 2017 or 2018.

[Polybius]

46. And in the 2000's under Bush

I too doubt they'll do it, unless we do first.

[Mr.Bill]

51. They changed the vote threshold

for the Senate approving a Supreme Court Justice.

[Polybius]

52. Yep

After we changed the threshold for the Senate approval regular federal judges.

[W_HAMILTON]

6. Biden isn't going to commit to something he knows can't be done right now.

But Biden has also shown that he is more than willing to go where the party goes. He evolves on issues such as these.

Get him back in the White House in 2024 and give him strong Democratic majorities in the Senate and the House and let's revisit this then when we actually have the capability of doing it. I would bet good money that Biden won't be the one holding us back -- it will be those that didn't vote for good Democrats in 2016 doing the same in 2024 and letting too many Republicans capture office that prevent us from doing this, NOT Biden.

[miss-nasty]

8. Well said...

[budkin]

7. He needs to make this a pillar of his reelection campaign

Enough is enough.

[DURHAM D]

9. Good grief. No No No

Unless of course you don't want him to be reelected.

[Mr.Bill]

13. Do you think Democratic voters

are happy with how the court is now?

[DURHAM D]

14. As of this week the Supreme Court has gone

a long way towards getting Biden re-elected.

[Mr.Bill]

16. I agree,

but saying he will expand the court would do the same, and it would probably help flip some congressional seats also.

[DURHAM D]

18. No. Totally totally disagree.

[brooklynite]

25. The structure of the SC is something the average voter thinks nothing about...

...and if you think the activist base isn't already revved up to vote we're in real trouble.

[In It to Win It]

30. I agree. I think the average doesn't give a fuck about the structure of the Court.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

39. Oh hell,

most here on DU think that Pres. Biden can unilaterally issue an EO and nominate more SCJ's to the SC to expand it, which just isn't true.

[In It to Win It]

29. I think many voters don't connect the Supreme Court to the impact of its decision

Anecdotally, I've met many people that couldn't connect legally recognized same-sex marriage with the Supreme Court's Obergefell decision.

Many people can connect the Supreme Court to abortion. On the other side, many can't. Many people that care about abortion can't link the Supreme Court decision to an abortion ban in their state.

I'm in Florida. We have our own state-level Roe. Florida Supreme Court precedent protects abortion in the same way Roe did at the federal level, pursuant to our state constitution's express right to privacy. Yet, we have an 15-week abortion ban in effect that many people can't link to the Florida Supreme Court. Five justices on the Florida Supreme Court (out of seven justices) were facing elections in 2022. Four of the justices facing elections in 2022 voted to let that the 15-week ban remain in effect. They all received a higher margin of victory than Ron DeSantis.

It's way that we (the general "we" ) talk about the Court. Supreme Courts, both state and federal, have been these mysterious institutions where the many people they govern can't name a single justice. They can't name a decision that the court(s) has made and therefore cannot link the impact of those decisions to the Supreme Court(s).

That's starting to change, but not fast enough IMO. In the same way that the press gives intimate details about Senators and House Reps, I want the Supreme Court covered in the same way. Cover the justices like the politicians that they are. Don't just wait for opinion day. When they do cover their decision, cover them in ways regular people can understand. Cover them in a "kitchen table issues" kind of way, rather than just regurgitating what's in the opinion as they usually do.

[Mr.Bill]

32. There's no doubt ignorance on the part of potential voters

is one of the biggest things we are up against. It's what drives that one third of eligible voters who don't vote.

[In It to Win It]

36. Personally, I don't think the ignorance is their fault (entirely)

I don't expect regular people to know how to interpret Supreme Court decisions. They have to rely on people (the media really) to break it down into digestible bits for them.

Speaking for myself, I have trouble breaking down a SCOTUS opinion without kinda getting into the boring weeds of it.

The media has to be better about how they cover courts. The covered the Roe reversal relentlessly. That's just about the only decision that they covered relentlessly day after day. No other decisions have gotten that kind of attention, and that's a problem. They write one article about the decision, and they don't really say how it impacts people on the ground. They just recap the opinion and some of the facts.

The rejection of the ISL theory was huge, and impactful for people's votes. Yet, people have no idea about it how state legislatures tried to usurp the power of voters. The decision in the Alabama redistricting case was monumental. However, my black American parents here in Florida cannot connect that decision to how that impacts black voters like them here in Florida where Ron DeSantis gerrymandered away 2 majority black districts.

To get regular people to care, there has to be an ecosystem where this legal mumbo-jumbo stuff is translated into regular people problems.

[Mr.Bill]

37. Absolutely one of the best things the news media

can do is educate people. They don't always do a good job of it, though. And most people don't have ten hours a day to watch news and discuss politics like I do.

[budkin]

42. Just the opposite

What are you thinking?

[Fiendish Thingy]

11. Well, then, we will wait until 2029

President Whitmer won’t have any hesitations about doing the right thing, as she has shown in the past six months.

Biden doesn’t seem to realize the toothpaste is already out of the tube- SCOTUS has been politicized since at least Bush v Gore, if not longer.

The right thing to do is mitigate the damage already done.

[Mr.Bill]

15. President Newsom (or Harris) would do the same.

[Fiendish Thingy]

31. I haven't heard Harris' position on court expansion.

I agree that Newsom probably would support court expansion, as would a President Inslee, Pritziker, or Evers.

IIRC, except for Warren and Sanders, Most of the other 2020 Dem presidential candidates either hedged on or opposed court expansion.

I mentioned Whitmer because she is governing fearlessly, using her brand new legislative majorities to ram through one progressive law after another. She doesn’t have the luxury of a Dem supermajority in the legislature like Newsom does, so she doesn’t tolerate any pragmatic incrementalism, it’s full speed ahead.

[Mr.Bill]

33. You won't hear Harris go against what Biden says.

It's just my opinion that she would support it.

[Polybius]

17. Hard to forecast a political Party winning three elections in a row

Hasn't happened since 1988 (or 2000, unofficially).

[Fiendish Thingy]

28. True, although we've never had a party single handedly destroyed by one man either.

If Roe isn’t codified by the end of Biden’s second term, then I think Dems have a good shot at winning the trifecta in 2028.

[Zeitghost]

44. Destroyed?

Damaged? Sure. But they just beat us by a few million votes in the mid terms, after Trump and after killing Roe.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

12. lol jesus

"I think if we start the process of trying to expand the court, we're going to politicize it maybe forever in a way that is not healthy," Biden said.

It's politicized in an unhealthy way NOW.

[Jrose]

19. Also a possible solution to the maga-heavy court:

Term limits and more ethics evaluations

[standingtall]

34. term limits on Supreme Court Justices have no constitutional standing

So that's an absolute impossibility without a constitutional amendment. So the only possible remedy under the constitution is expanding the court.

[TreasonousBastard]

20. Biden is well aware that there is n chance that the court will...

be expanded until and unless he gets a "win" in Congress. If it does somehow get expanded, it will be political, and we won't like it.

[Thrill]

21. Jeesh Democratic Party and messaging

They just won’t learn how to use issues that will help them win Congress. Meanwhile the Repubs are running on getting rid of the IRS. Which we know they won’t do. But it’s what voters want to hear.

Running on expanding the Supreme Court would help you win Congress. But whatever……..

[brooklynite]

27. HOW will running on expanding the Supreme Court help win in Congress...

...the seats we need to win aren't safe blue seat where the Democratic base is. We're talking about suburban districts where you have to appeal to moderate Independents and Republicans.

[standingtall]

35. How will not running on it help?

The message is going to be we don't like what the Supreme Court has been doing in taking rights away, but if you elect us we promise to not do anything meaningful about it. Sure that will go over well. Or maybe we can just lie and convince voters we can usurp any horrible decision by the Supreme Court makes without without making any reforms to the court.

[brooklynite]

38. How about: we promise to focus on the issues voters CARE about?

crime, the economy, jobs, health care.....

[Takket]

22. I agree with your final comment

It’s easy for Biden to say that when he knows there is no way to get expansion through Congress.

[Lettuce Be]

23. Timing is everything

I think just prior to a reelection campaign, it might be best to lay low on this. Afterwards, let's get a trifecta majority then see how he feels. Right now this court is completely illegitimate.

[Hortensis]

24. Biden's evaluation reflects the consensus of top constitutional experts.

Almost every day I'm grateful that we have leaders on the Democratic side who are far, far more principled, knowledgeable, competent and capable of handling power responsibly than...let's say way too many for our own good.

We couldn't survive if that wasn't the case.

EVERYONE here has seen what the Republicans do with a hole they can smash through to break democracy. They'd have no qualms about topping our additions to the high court with a number of dirty agents whose service recommended them for bigger roles, like Kavanaugh, and never a shortage to enact whatever nightmare ideology was planned.

[brush]

41. Would it take 60 Senate votes or could the Parliamentarian rule that...

50 and the Veep's vote, or 51 Senate votes could do it?

[Polybius]

47. First it has to pass the House by a simple majority

In theory it then takes 50 plus the VP's vote (or 51), but any Senator can filibuster, and they will. So after that, 60 votes.

[brush]

49. My question was of course assuming the bill getting thru the House...

but not knowing if the filibuster would come into play in the Senat.

No way it's a budgetary bill so the Parliamentarian can't rule ot allow a 50+the VP vote, or 51 votes. Too bad. That filibuster rule need to go. It's not even in the Constitution, just Senate custom/rule schemed up by racist, southern minority Senators in past who used it to exercise control over the majority...totally non-democratic.

[madville]

50. Smart

He’s correct. It’s not even worth debating anyway since it wouldn’t pass the House or the Senate right now.

Many suggest adding 4 justices to make it a 7-6 liberal majority. Then when Republicans regain power they add 4 seats in retaliation to make it a 10-7, and so on, and so on.