Joe Biden stumbled into saying he opposed Court-packing but then he got up and bumbled back into obscurity.

Sorry to take so long getting from post #1 to post #2. I'm not doing these posts in the order of importance, and I'd originally intended to put up a quick series of posts using the transcripts from last night's town halls. Please don't infer anything from the fact that the first post — on Trump's evasiveness about his covid tests — remained isolated at the top of the blog for so long. And thanks for all the comments! 

Now, let me move on to the second thing, from the transcript for Joe Biden's town hall. I'm going to focus on what he's said about Court-packing. This is a topic I've been meaning to blog about for a few days — as I've discussed in at least a couple podcasts — but I hadn't seen the right text to get me started. It's generally hard to write about evasiveness, but a transcript like this really helps, and I do think I know what he's been up to. 

That is, as I've said in the podcast, I think Biden is focused on getting elected and only wants to say what will be useful to that end, and he doesn't want to lose either the Court-packing fans or the opponents of Court-packing, so he's just — rather lamely — going with refusing to talk about it. There's an effort to create pressure on the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett, and Court-packing has some effect as a threat, but I think, because the votes are there to confirm, that the pressure is all about the election.

So... to look at the transcript. A questioner, a Democrat named Nathan Osburn, brought up the "polariz[ation]" on the Supreme Court and asked: "So what do you think about ideas from people like Pete Buttigieg and others to put in place safeguards that will help ensure more long-term balance and stability?" I don't know what these "safeguards" are — or even who "people like Pete Buttigieg" are — or who's like Pete Buttigieg. I mean, I'm just being jocose, I know he means Pete Buttigieg, but I haven't been following Pete Buttigieg's plan for the Supreme Court. I could look it up, but let's see if Biden explains the question he's tasked to answer so the home viewers can follow along:

Joe Biden: (44:13) Well, let me start at the last point and work my way back.

Ah, yes, there was a tag on question that I had ellided — what can be said to LGBTQ Americans and others who worry about the "erosion" of rights and of democracy. Biden says "there’s great reason to be concerned." He then opines on the Barrett hearings, though without naming Barrett. He refers to her only as "the judge" and "she": she didn't lay out "much of a judicial philosophy in terms of the basis upon which she thinks [inaudible] in the Constitution." He fretted about losing Obamacare. Then he meandered about the Senate confirmation process: the "way the people have a right to determine who’s going to be on the court is how they vote for their Senators and their President." George Stephanopoulus broke in to remind him that the President was elected for 4 years, and Biden corrected course and argued that "once an election begins, by implication, it is inconsistent with the constitutional principles" to go ahead with a Senate confirmation. 

Now, I wish Stephanoulous would break in and demand that Biden take a position on the safeguards proposed by Pete Buttigieg. Does he know what they are? I took a break to look up what they are and found this nightmare from June 2019:

Under the plan, most justices would continue serving life terms. Five would be affiliated with the Republican Party and five with the Democratic Party. Those 10 would then join together to choose five additional justices from U.S. appeals courts, or possibly the district-level trial courts. They’d have to settle on the nonpolitical justices unanimously — or at least with a “strong supermajority.” They final five [sic] would serve one-year, nonrenewable terms. They’d be chosen two years in advance, to prevent nominations based on anticipated court cases, and if the 10 partisan justices couldn’t agree on the final five, the Supreme Court would be deemed to lack a quorum and couldn’t hear cases that term.

Holy lord! Did I write about that at the time? It's such a horror show! And look at the unexamined premise that there are 2 political parties and only 2 political parties. Maybe Buttigieg has been saying more sensible things lately. 

But, anyway, Stephanopoulus breaks in just to ask about the well-known Supreme Court proposal: 

But how about that question of expanding the court? Here’s what you said exactly one year ago tonight at a Democratic debate. You said, “I would not get into court packing. I would not pack the court.” That’s not what you’re saying now. Is the nomination of Judge Barrett reason enough to rethink your position?

That's a good, focused question: 

Joe Biden: (46:36) What I wanted to do, George, you know if I had answered the question directly then all the focus would be on, what’s Biden going to do if he wins instead of on is it appropriate what is going on now? And it should stay. This is the thing that the President loves to do, always take our eye off the ball what’s at stake.

Biden is evasively introducing the subject of how evasive Trump is! 

One of the things Pete has suggested is...

Ah! He remembers!

... and there’s a number of constitutional scholars have suggested as well, that there are at least four or five options that are available to determine whether or not you can change the way in which the court lifetime appointment takes place consistent arguably with the Constitution. I have not been a fan of court packing because then it just generates what will happen. Whoever wins, it just keeps moving in a way that is inconsistent with what is going to be manageable.

What??!!! Okay. I know what he meant by that last sentence, which initially just looked wacky to me. He means if the Democrats get elected and add seats to the Court so they can put some of their people in, then when Republicans win, they'll add seats for themselves to fill, and the Court will get bigger and bigger and it will ruin the Court. 

Aptly, Stephanopoulus sums it up and tries to pin him down: "So you’re still not a fan?:

Joe Biden: (47:26) Well, I’m not a fan. It depends on how this turns out.

He's pinned down, and then he escapes! It depends.... 

Not how he wins, but how it’s handled, how it’s handled.

I think he means how the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett is handled. 

But there’s a number of things that are going to be coming up and there’s going to be a lot of discussion about other alternative [sic] as well.

Whatever that means. He seems to be trying to scramble back to not giving an opinion on Court-packing after he pretty much gave the opinion he's against it. I'm guessing he knows he's against it but can't just stick to his own opinion and has to give other Democrats something of what they want, which is weaponry to oppose Barrett.

Stephanopoulus is confused enough to say "What does that mean, how it’s handled? How will that determine [crosstalk]."

Joe Biden: (47:43) For example, there’s actually real live debate on the floor, if people are really going to be able to have a time to go through this. I don’t know anybody who’s gone on the floor that’s been a controversial justice in terms of making fundamentally or altering the makeup of the court has gone through in a day kind of thing. I mean, it depends on how much they rushed this. And you think about it, George, here you got a lot of people not to be able to pay their mortgage, not being able to put food on the table, not being able to keep their business open, not being able to do anything to deal with what’s going on in terms of the economy as a consequence of COVID and they have no time to deal with that, but they have time to rush this through.

That's close to a word salad, but I can see what he means. He's just retreating into bellyaching about the speed of the Barrett confirmation process. It's about what the Senate is doing right now. He's not talking about the Court-packing that might go on after he's elected. Stephanopoulos returns to the effort to clarify what Biden meant by "how it's handled" and asks whether, if the Senate votes on Barrett "before the election, you are open to expanding the court?" 

Biden gives a completely evasive answer: "I’m open to considering what happens from that point on." Stephanopoulos begins to chide him, reminding him that he's said "it’s important to level with" people, and Biden says:

It is. Good choice. No matter what answer I gave you, if I say it, that’s the headline tomorrow. It won’t be about what’s going on now, the improper way they’re proceeding.

I guess somebody advised him not to make news or perhaps even to pay attention to what Democrats want to do. Keep it all about how bad the GOP is. Stephanopoulos pleads: "But don’t voters have a right to know where you stand?" 

Biden says, yeah, but not yet: "They do have a right to know what I stand and they’ll have a right to know where I stand before they vote." Oh, really? I thought a large chunk of Americans are already voting. 

George Stephanopoulos: (48:57) So you’ll come out with a clear position before election day?  

Joe Biden: (48:59) Yes. Depending on how they handle this.

You mean if "they handle" it wrong, you won't tell us what you think about Court-packing? Who knows? He proceeds to implore us to vote... 

But look, what you should do is you got to make sure you vote and vote for a senator who in fact reflects your general view on constitutional interpretation, and vote for a president who thinks is more in line with you. And if you oppose the position that I would not have appointed her, but if you oppose my position, vote for Trump, vote for Republican who shares that view, but that’s your opportunity to get involved in lifetime appointments that have presidents come and go, justices stay and stay and stay.

Those damned Justices with their lifetime appointments and their tendency to stay and stay and stay. That's a bit amusing coming from such an old man who's been staying and staying and staying and wants the biggest grab onto power as he approaches 80. He doesn't want to be tied to any particular opinion about the Court, just to remind everybody that there are "general view[s] on constitutional interpretation" — you know, the views, the rights, the law, the stuff — and you can go vote — vote for the views you want on the Court.

And isn't that exactly what Amy Coney Barrett has been saying all week is not what judges are for? She has no views — no views that affect her judicial work.