This week, President Joe Biden finally offered a quid pro quo: As panicked Democrats moved to remove him as a candidate before the party convention, Biden proposed limiting the power of the Supreme Court, a move the far left has long sought.
It was another defining moment for Biden, and it certainly wasn’t meant as a compliment.
Winston Churchill once reportedly asked a British socialite at a dinner party whether her beliefs would stop her from sleeping with him for £5 million.
The socialite admitted it would be difficult to turn down such a large sum, so Churchill offered £5. When her astonished partner asked, “What type of woman do you think I am?” Churchill replied, “I know that already. We’re negotiating the price now.”
This week, Biden finally stopped negotiating and set a price.
According to the Washington Post, the president held a Zoom call with the Left Progressive Caucus, chaired by Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and co-chaired by Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.).
He pleased them by agreeing to “announce a major initiative on limiting the size of the courts,” adding that he was asking for their support because he “needs help.”
Even The New York Times noted that the timing marked a shift in Trump’s position and an appeal to the far left of his party.
This was another example of the president changing course for political expediency, similar to his policy changes on the filibuster rule and abortion a few years ago.
In the 2020 election, many of us strongly criticized Biden for refusing to clarify his position on expanding the Supreme Court and other so-called reforms. This was one of the main issues in the election, but Biden refused to reveal his position to voters in order to avoid alienating both moderates and the far-left.
Liberal professors, commentators and politicians, including Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), continued to call for the Supreme Court to be immediately fitted with a liberal majority.
During his administration, Biden tried to appease his base by establishing a commission to consider absurd and radical proposals for reforming the Supreme Court. As many expected, Biden waited years before later admitting that he had no intention of adding to the court’s staff.
He then decided to run for reelection and faced a rebellion within his party, including hysteria over his dismal approval ratings.
If those numbers had been 10 points higher, the Supreme Court might have been safe for the next decade. But that is now just the price of power.
In his decades of public life, Mr. Biden has shown great moral and political flexibility, changing course on nearly every major issue as his previous positions became unpopular in polls or he sought to appeal to a broader Democratic base.
From abortion to gun rights to criminal justice, Biden doesn’t let principles get in the way of politics, but politics today couldn’t be more dire.
What’s most striking about the term limits proposal is how completely out of touch it is with the essence of the left’s grievances. Ironically, while many believe President Biden is too infirm to serve, no one has credibly made that claim about elderly judges.
Oral arguments have shown that members such as Justice Clarence Thomas can be assertive and impressive in questioning the lawyers during oral argument. While some may disagree with Justice Thomas’ jurisprudential views, there is no basis to doubt his intellectual acuity.
The irony is that Biden is facing calls to step down due to his own cognitive decline, and is seeking reelection while pushing aside justices who are clearly better mentally suited to his position.
Term limits would hit the conservatives on the court harder than the liberals. They are a direct result of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s patently pointless The 1937 Effort If a judge reaches the age of 70 and refuses to resign, a new judge will be appointed.
That same age rule nullified the Four Horsemen of Elders who had blocked New Deal legislation, allowing the Supreme Court to be instantly filled with six new members selected by the Democrats.
When the courts suddenly began approving the so-called “time-switched” plan that saved nine people, Democrats abandoned the plan.
Biden appears to be seeking to limit the Supreme Court’s power through legislation rather than a constitutional amendment, knowing that a constitutional amendment would never be passed with three-quarters of the votes of Congress or state legislatures.
It’s unclear whether this new system is constitutional. Ultimately, as you might expect, it will have to be reviewed by the Supreme Court.
Biden’s bill probably wouldn’t have as significant an impact as the Supreme Court mandate, but it would be a cathartic moment for the far-left and raise the possibility of other reforms, such as adding seats to the courts, if Democrats can secure control of both houses of Congress.
These calls will only grow louder as advocates call for Supreme Court reform “by any means necessary,” and we’ve already seen protesters harass justices in their homes and law professors urging mobs to “be more aggressive” in attacking individual justices.
The saddest thing about this announcement is not what it says about the Supreme Court, which was designed by the Framers of the Constitution to withstand attacks like this. It was designed for this very moment.
The saddest part is that it speaks of a president who is tired of negotiating. With rebellion brewing within his party, Biden is suggesting that he must dispose of the whole thing in a political Black Friday sorting out.
The Supreme Court is just the latest political commodity, but Biden can’t help but wonder whether it’s a worthy prize, even if he can make it through the Democratic National Convention.
Tell me, Mr. President, when the negotiations are over, what will be your legacy other than the final asking price?
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of “Essential Rights: Free Speech in an Age of Rage” (Simon & Schuster, June 18, 2024).
