As President Joe Biden continues to navigate the complex terrain of his new administration, critics say he has begun to cater to far-left dark money groups with a Supreme Court ‘gimmick.’ This article will delve into this critique aimed at President Biden, exploring the constituents he is allegedly catering to and the Supreme Court ‘gimmick’ that is causing controversy.
Dark money groups refer to politically active nonprofit organizations, often funded by corporations, unions, individuals, or other groups who are not legally required to disclose their donors. These entities function primarily to influence political processes, and critics assert that Biden is making strategic moves to appeal to these powerful forces on the far-left spectrum. These activist-led groups have a primary agenda to tilt the Supreme Court towards a more liberal bend, an objective that critics say Biden is helping to further through his actions.
In April 2021, Biden commissioned a bipartisan panel to look into the reform of the Supreme Court. The panel, known as the Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States, is composed of a group of experts tasked with studying various proposals for Court reform, including the controversial idea of “court packing.” This concept originally emerged during the New Deal era, calling for the increase in the number of justices on the court to shift the balance of power, a move generally deemed unorthodox and against the traditional norms of judicial independence.
Critics argue that Biden’s commission is nothing more than political theatrics. They point out that the very initiative of studying court reform, especially court packing, largely appeals to far-left dark money groups rather than impartial justice considerations. They argue that these groups have a vested interest in pushing for a more liberal Supreme Court rather than preserving its intended political neutrality.
Critics are also concerned about the anonymous financing behind such groups, often classified as the ‘dark money,’ that fuels their political agendas. They fear that these unseen forces may unduly influence key democratic processes and that Biden is pandering to these groups in setting up the Supreme Court commission. In essence, they argue, the move is less about improving the operations of the Supreme Court and more about appeasing his ultra-liberal constituents.
Moreover, critics assert that this entanglement with far-left dark money groups through the creation of the Supreme Court commission undermines the non-partisan nature of the judiciary. They argue that using the Supreme Court as a tool to further political agendas undermines the sanctity of the institution and erodes the fundamental principle of separation of powers intrinsic to the US Constitution.
A growing fear is that the biased skew will harm the Court’s image, credibility, and authority if it is seen as an institution that can be manipulated for partisan gains. Therefore, they strongly condemn Biden’s alleged catering to specific interest groups through the creation of the Commission, viewing this as jeopardizing the integrity of the Supreme Court.
In summary, critics argue that Biden is catering to far-left dark money groups with his Supreme Court ‘gimmick.’ They suggest that Biden is using the commission as a tool to pave the way for controversial judicial reforms, specifically court packing – a move they believe to be more about yielding to the desires of the far-left groups than addressing the operational efficiency of the court. However, proponents of the Biden administration argue that studying different perspectives through a bipartisan panel does no harm but helps in paving the way for a more inclusive and dynamic justice system.
