Joe, the Dems and their media enablers play dumb about the meaning and significance ‘packing the court’ — so let’s have Joe explain it his own words
Back in 1987, before Reagan finished his second term, just before Joe’s first Presidential run, and well before the fall of the Berlin Wall, Joe Biden understood why it would be a VERY bad thing to pack the court.
Back then he also understood that it did NOT mean (as he cynically pretends to say it now) that packing the court was the same thing as filling existing vacancies according to the Constitutional provisions of who fills them and how.
His denunciation of court-packing was made in terms so clear even the willfully blind media couldn’t possibly misunderstand them. (Getting them either to care or to be honest about them is another matter.)
Biden in 1987 approvingly quoting Senate’s 1937 condemnation of FDR's court packing scheme: “It's a measure which should be so emphatically rejected that its parallel will never again be presented to the free representatives of the free people of America.”pic.twitter.com/nmy1IHvDOx
— Jerry Dunleavy 🇺🇸 (@JerryDunleavy) October 12, 2020
…but in May 1937, the outcome of the Senate was anything but certain. The judiciary committee was controlled by Democrats — all loyal New Dealers. Although they supported Roosevelt’s political ends, they refused to allow him to pursue them through judicial means. In their minds, the integrity of the court meant more than the agenda of the President. And on June 14th, they issued a report condemning the court packing plan. The President’s legislation, they concluded, demonstrated quote ‘the futility and absurdity of the devious’. It was an effort to punish the justice for their opinions, quote ‘that was an invasion of judicial powers such as has never been attempted before in this country’. But the committee report went further still, ‘the executive attempts to dominate the judiciary led to an autocratic dominance,’ they said. The very thing against which the colonies revolted and to prevent what the Constitution was in its very particulars framed. The report concluded with a final thundering sentence that before the day was out would be heard around the world, quote, ‘it is a measure which should so emphatically be rejected that its parallel will never again be presented to a free representative of a free people in America. My case today about the role of the court is rooted in the history, precedent, and I would argue common sense. I have argued that the framers have entrusted the Senate with a responsibility of advise and consent to protect the independence of the judiciary…”
In case that instance in 1987 wasn’t clear enough… here he is again back in 1983 making a similiar case.
https://twitter.com/papasfritasUSA/status/1315689021306273793
In his own words, the fact that Joe Biden is even flirting with the idea of adding extra judges so that they can ‘recapture’ the SCOTUS is summed up by the following…
-a boneheaded idea
-a terrible terrible mistake to make
-something that put the independence of the judiciary in question for an entire decade
-an act done by those corrupted by power (in HIS view)
-futile
-absurd
-devious
-the very thing against which the colonies revolted
-an invasion of judicial powers never before attempted
-leading to autocratic dominance
-a measure that should be emphatically rejected
-an idea that should never again be presented to a free representative of a free people
-contrary to history, precedent and common sense
-a failure to protect the independence of the judiciary
The true insights Joe once had about the need for an independent judiciary have been replaced by a different agenda.
Whether this reversal is the result of the enfeebling of his judgment or the corruption of his political ideals remains an open question.
Let’s hear someone ask the question that’s harder for him to dodge:
Does he still affirm the importance of a 9-member Supreme Court, the way he once did, or is he too afraid of splitting his party by giving an answer that will alienate either the far left or the moderates to stand on principle and affirm (or reject!) such a long-standing precedent?
