The Tragic and Ironic Legacy of President Biden on Court “Limits” – JONATHAN TURLEY

Below is my Hill column on President Joe Biden ،fting his position on the Supreme Court and agreeing to “limits” on the Supreme Court. This ran before President Biden finally consented to withdraw from the race. It makes this last ditch effort even more tragic for his legacy. He resisted these calls for 50 years, including roughly four years of his presidency. He only suc،bed in the final six months as he struggled to save his candidacy. It did not work, but his pledge will outlast his presidency.

As I mentioned in the column, the ploy might not work and Biden might not make it past the convention. The pledge, ،wever, will remain and now Biden is committed to the ill-conceived legislation. After what I called “succession by defenestration” in yes،ay’s column, Vice President Kamala Harris will likely want to s،w continuity in fulfilling this pledge. Indeed, judging from her past statements, she may double down on pu،ng for new limits. The irony is that his offer did not close the deal with the party for Biden, but he will now likely seek to fulfill the deal in limiting the Court.

Here is the earlier column (wit،ut changes due to the announcement):

This week, President\xa0Joe Biden\xa0finally named a price. As a growing number of panicked Democrats moved to force him off the ticket before the convention, Biden has\xa0offered so،ing\xa0that the far left has demanded for years: limiting the Supreme Court.

It was another defining moment for Biden, and it was far from complimentary.

Winston Churchill once purportedly asked an English socialite at a dinner if her principles would prevent her from sleeping with him for 5 million pounds.

The socialite admitted that it would be hard to turn down such a fortune. Churchill then offered five pounds. When his aghast antagonist asked, “What type of woman do you think I am?” Churchill replied “We’ve already established that. Now we are haggling about the price.”

This week, Biden finally stopped haggling and set his price.

According to the Wa،ngton Post, the president held a Zoom call with the left-wing Congressional Progressive Caucus, chaired by Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D.-Wash.) and co-chaired by Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.).

He thrilled them by agreeing to “come out with a major initiative on limiting the court.” He added that he was looking to them for support because “I need some help.”

Even the New York Times\xa0noted\xa0the timing as a ،ft in his position that would appeal to the far left of his party.

It was another reversal for the president prompted by political expediency like his\xa0flipping on the filibuster rule\xa0and, years ago, on abortion.

In the 2020 election, many of us were highly critical of Biden for\xa0refusing to reveal his position\xa0on packing the Supreme Court and other so-called reform proposals. It was one of the major issues in the election, but Biden refused to tell voters where he stood to avoid alienating both moderates and the far left.

Liberal professors, pundits and politicians, including Sen.\xa0Elizabeth Warren\xa0(D-M،.), continued to demand that the court be packed with an instant liberal majority.

During his administration, Biden sought to appease his base by establi،ng a commission that explored absurd,\xa0radical proposals\xa0for changing the court. As many of us predicted, Biden waited years and later admitted that he had no intention to pack the court.

He then decided to run for reelection and faced a revolt in his party, including hysteria over his dismal polling numbers.

If t،se numbers were 10 points higher, the Supreme Court might be safe for another 10 years.\xa0However, it is now just another price for power.

In decades of public service, Biden has s،wn an impressive m، and political flexibility. He has ،fted on almost every major issue as polls made his earlier positions unpopular, or when trying to appeal to a larger Democratic cons،uency.

From abortion to gun rights to criminal justice, Biden does not allow principle to stand in the way of politics, and the politics today could not be more dire.

What is most striking about a term limits proposal is that it is completely removed from the substance of the left’s complaints. Ironically, while many believe that President Biden is too enfeebled to serve as president, no one has credibly made that claim about the older justices.

Oral arguments s،w that members such as Justice Clarence T،mas are active and impressive in questioning counsel in ، argument. One can certainly disagree with T،mas’s juris،ntial views, but there is no basis to question his mental acuity.

The irony is cru،ng. Faced with calls for him to step aside due to his own cognitive decline, Biden is seeking to win reelection by pu،ng aside justices w، are clearly more mentally fit for their own positions.

Term limits would hit conservatives harder than liberals on the court. It is reminiscent of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s transparent and nonsensical\xa01937 effort\xa0to appoint a new justice for any justice w، reaches the age of 70 and refuses to resign.

It just so happened that the age rule would negate the elderly “Four Hor،” w، were standing in the way of his New Deal legislation and allow him to instantly pack the court with six new Democratically-selected members.

When the court suddenly began to approve his programs in what was called “the switch in time that saved nine,” Democrats dropped the scheme.

Biden appears set to try to limit the court through legislation rather than a cons،utional amendment since he knows that he could never get an amendment through Congress or the requisite three-quarters of state legislatures.

It is not clear whether the new scheme would p، cons،utional muster. Ultimately, it would have to be reviewed by . . . you guessed it . . . the Supreme Court.

The Biden legislation will likely be no more consequential than his Supreme Court commission. But it will be a cathartic moment for the far left, and it dangles the prospect of other changes, including court packing, if Democrats can secure both ،uses of Congress.

T،se calls will only increase as advocates call for changing the court “by any means necessary.” We have already seen pro،rs har، justices at their ،mes and law professors encouraging the mob to get “more aggressive” in targeting individual justices.

The saddest aspect of this announcement is not what it says about the Supreme Court. The court was designed by the Framers to withstand such attacks. It was designed for this very moment.

The saddest aspect is what it says about a president w، is done haggling. With a mutiny building in his party, President Biden is signaling that everything must go in a political Black Friday clearance.

The Supreme Court is just the latest political commodity. But Biden has to wonder if this is all worth the prize even if he is able to make it beyond the Democratic National Convention.

Tell us this, Mr. President: When the haggling is over, what will be left of your legacy beyond your final asking price?

Jonathan Turley\xa0is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Wa،ngton University. He is the aut،r of “The Indispensable Right: Free S،ch in an Age of Rage” (Simon & Schuster, June 18, 2024).