Joe Biden’s Mangling of the Constitution [OPINION]
The Biden for President campaign, fresh out of ideas for preventing the confirmation of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the U.S. Supreme Court, is attempting a new tact: bald-faced lies. Oh, wait, that's not really a new approach, is it?
Democrat presidential nominee Joe Biden claimed while campaigning on Saturday that filling the Supreme Court seat made vacant by the death of Supreme Court Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg last month is "not constitutional." The statement is absurdly false on its face. Just consult Article II of the U.S. Constitution.
What is equally absurd is that Biden's campaign people would not only repeat but attempt to defend his version of constitutional reality. The Hill reported Biden's deputy campaign manager Kate Bedingfield tried to get away with that while appearing with Jake Tapper on Biden-friendly CNN over the weekend but Tapper didn't let her.
The Hill reported Bedingfield told Tapper that the attempt to seat Coney Barrett so close to an election violates “the constitutional process of advice and consent.” But Tapper wasn't biting, “Constitutional doesn’t mean I like it or I don’t like it,” he responded. “It means it’s according to the U.S. Constitution. There’s nothing unconstitutional about what the U.S. Senate is doing.”
Biden also repeated a claim by Senator Chris Coons (D-Deleware) that confirming Coney Barrett before the election is "packing the court." More absurdity since filling an empty seat is required by law and does not add to the court's make-up.
By the way, it is Biden who refuses to comment on whether he'd support packing the court until after the election. Although Fox News unearthed 1983 committee testimony from Biden saying packing the court is a "bonehead idea."
Hey Joe, for once we agree.
Barry Richard is the host of The Barry Richard Show on 1420 WBSM New Bedford. He can be heard weekdays from noon to 3 p.m. Contact him at email@example.com and follow him on Twitter @BarryJRichard58. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author.