Name: Childish debate fights aren't so bad compared to the disaster court-packing would be
Brand: washingtonexaminer.com
SKU: washingtonexaminer-com-855
Availability: OnlineOnly

critic

Childish debate fights aren't so bad compared to the disaster court-packing would be

preview

Tuesday night’s presidential debate was a hot mess.President Trump and Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden bickered, fought, and insulted each other — highlights included, “Would you shut up, man?” and “There’s nothing smart about you.” But don’t let the shambolic conduct of both candidates and messy nature of the debate distract you from an important development: Joe Biden was given chance after chance to disavow dangerous left-wing proposals to pack the Supreme Court, and he refused to do so.Debate moderator Chris Wallace specifically asked Biden if he would support packing the Supreme Court. Wallace was referring to the authoritarian tactic of expanding the number of justices on the high court so a leader can fill the seats and skew the court in his or her ideological favor, turning the court into a rubber stamp.This question is highly important because top Democrats such as Rep. Jerry Nadler and Sen. Ed Markey have openly demanded that Democrats embrace the authoritarian tactic. Yet Biden, who once said he opposed court-packing, demurred this time and .“Are you willing to tell the American people tonight … whether you will support packing the court?” Wallace asked.“Any position I take on that, that’ll become the issue,” Biden said. “The issue is the American people should speak. You should go out and vote.”“Are you going to pack the court?” Trump interjected.“I’m not going to answer the question,” Biden replied.“Why won’t you answer that question?” Trump reiterated.“Will you shut up, man?” Biden replied over Trump’s cross-talk.Biden’s ridiculous nonanswer comes after Democratic vice presidential nominee Kamala Harris has similarly refused to distance their campaign from court-packing.This is not a difficult question but Biden/Harris will not answer it — Will Chamberlain (@willchamberlain)This is deeply disturbing.Court-packing is a tactic employed by dictators, not elected officials in first-world democracies. It is a direct attack by the executive and legislative branch on the checks and balances posed by an independent judiciary, explicitly done to sway the court’s balance and turn them into rubber stamps on presidential power.It’s no excuse to say you don’t want to change the headlines or distract from the current Supreme Court nomination process. Denouncing authoritarianism should be easy and is morally demanded of leaders, even if they’d prefer to discuss something else.For context, the Supreme Court has been set at nine justices since 1869. Changing this would technically be constitutional if legislation changing the number was passed through Congress and signed by the president. But it would still be an assault on judicial independence nonetheless.That’s exactly what it was in 1937, when President Franklin Roosevelt attempted to pack the court because he was dissatisfied with its holdings that his New Deal programs violated the Constitution. Instead of adjusting his legislation so it complied with the Constitution, Roosevelt tried to pack the court.Roosevelt’s efforts stalled — but the Supreme Court was so intimidated by the threat to its independence that it quickly changed its tune and upheld his left-wing social programs despite their constitutional infringements.Biden won’t disavow this kind of dictatorial behavior. He won’t promise that his presidency wouldn’t similarly assault the independence of the Supreme Court. This is disgraceful. Court-packing would start a destructive spiral that would lead the nation into a constitutional crisis.Democrats would add two justices with an eye on the short term. Then, Republicans would pack it more next time they get unified power, and then Democrats would again, and so on. Before you know, the Supreme Court would have hundreds of justices, perhaps constantly overturning precedents set less than a decade ago. It would lose any shred of legitimacy. The nation would lose a crucial check on presidential power, and the rule of law would erode without a legitimate high court to maintain it.So, yes, the childish presidential debate was painful to watch. But this country can withstand buffoon-like behavior from politicians. But court-packing, an open assault on the independence and legitimacy of the Supreme Court that Biden keeps refusing to condemn, threatens the long-term stability of our nation.Brad Polumbo () is a Washington Examiner contributor and host of the .

Tuesday night’s presidential debate was a hot mess.President Trump and Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden bickered, fought, and insulted each other — highlights included, “Would you shut up, man?” and “There’s nothing smart about you.” But don’t let the shambolic conduct of both candidates and messy nature of the debate distract you from an important development: Joe Biden was given chance after chance to disavow dangerous left-wing proposals to pack the Supreme Court, and he refused to do so.Debate moderator Chris Wallace specifically asked Biden if he would support packing the...

public

Brad Polumbo (@Brad_Polumbo) is a libertarian-conservative journalist and the Eugene S. Thorpe Writing Fellow at the Foundation for Economic Education. He was previously a Media and Journalism Fellow at the Washington Examiner and an editor at the libertarian media nonprofit Young Voices. His work has appeared in outlets such as USA Today, National Review, the Daily Beast, and the Boston Globe, and he has also appeared on Fox News and Fox Business.

Brad Polumbo

The Washington Examiner is an American conservative news website and weekly magazine based in Washington, D.C. It is owned by MediaDC, a subsidiary of Clarity Media Group, which is owned by Philip Anschutz. From 2005 to mid-2013, the Examiner published a daily tabloid-sized newspaper, distributed throughout the Washington, D.C., metro area. The newspaper focused on local news and political commentary. The local newspaper ceased publication on June 14, 2013, whereupon its content began to focus almost exclusively on national politics, switching its print edition from a daily newspaper to a weekly magazine format.

Childish debate fights aren't so bad compared to the disaster court-packing would be

No article scores yet.

CRITIC REVIEWS

PUBLIC REVIEWS