Vice President Kamala Harris gave her first interview with the press in a pre-recorded sit-down with CNN’s Dana Bash last night. She was joined by her running mate, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, and, predictably, opinions range on how they did. The general consensus, however, is that the interview went reasonably well.

Harris mostly addressed the economy and energy plans, including several questions about her current and past stances on fracking, such as the border and Israel. She was asked on multiple occasions why her views on those subjects have changed from when she ran for president in the 2020 election. Her responses usually circled back to the notion that “my values have not changed” before going on to state that any alteration in the application of those values is due to either shifting circumstances or a new perspective. For his part, Walz spent much of his time addressing accusations of stolen valor and other controversial statements about his past.

Neither Harris nor Walz said much that had not been stated before, but Bash pressed them on some uncomfortable issues, and they responded better than many expected. Yet, as important as the economy, energy, the border, and Israel are to discerning what a Harris presidency might look like, an equally crucial topic continues to remain in the background despite serving as a focal point of the Democratic agenda less than a month ago.

Overhauling the Supreme Court
As The Dispatch profiled earlier this week, on the last day of the Democratic National Convention, a group of “powerful congressional Democrats” spoke at a panel discussion off center stage to outline their party’s plans if they are able to win the Presidency and both houses of Congress. And toward the top of their list are drastic reforms for the Supreme Court.

As Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse described, they intend to get around the 60-vote threshold and pass an omnibus bill to legalize abortion nationwide, grant additional voting rights, and enact sweeping changes to the nation’s highest court. Whitehouse believes such a bill would “have spectacular tailwinds behind it” and would not face sufficient opposition to derail it.

Among the changes to the Court would be 18-year term limits, a new justice selected every two years, and stricter rules for ethics and recusal standards.

These suggested changes are not new, as President Biden and Harris outlined similar proposals just last month. What is fairly new, though, is that the Harris team seems disinterested in discussing them.

Maryland Rep. Jamie Raskin, for example, submitted a five thousand-word speech on the subject for the DNC but was told he needed to cut it down to five hundred. That approach stands in stark contrast to the President’s op-ed in The Washington Post or the Vice President’s tweet outlining many of the same views.

Back then, they cited a lack of public confidence in the court’s decisions and the potential for corruption due to conflicts of interest with the justices as the reasons why change was needed. Those factors have, presumably, not changed. So why downgrade an issue that was at the forefront of the Democratic conversation so recently?

“Court-Packing By Another Name”
The first possibility is that a growing number of representatives on both sides of the aisle recognize that making such changes by a simple vote of Congress is likely unconstitutional. For example, Adam White—a legal scholar at the American Enterprise Institute whom President Biden appointed to the Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court—notes that such measures would lack the legal backing to pass and amount to “court-packing by another name.”

And even if Democrats can convince enough of their fellow congressmen that such changes are within their power to grant, any legislation they pass would undoubtedly be challenged. Those challenges could eventually rise to the Supreme Court, meaning that the most likely outcome in such a circumstance is that the court would have to approve the measures intended to impose limits on themselves.

As such, the legislation seems unlikely to bear much fruit in its current form.

A second explanation, however, is that Harris’s team has concluded that the American consensus on such changes is not nearly as widespread as they imagined. As such, it is more likely to motivate Republicans to vote against them than it is for Democrats to vote for them. That’s not good math when trying to win an election, so they have adjusted their rhetoric accordingly.

And therein lies the point that each of us needs to remember as November’s election draws closer.

“A Spirit Not of Fear But of Power”
You don’t have to listen to many political speeches or watch many ads attacking candidates on every side of this election to discern that those behind such efforts understand how powerful fear can be as a motivator. After all, it’s difficult for a candidate of any party to make a serious bid for office without every last skeleton in their closet being put on full display for the world to see. In such an environment, it can be easier to convince the public that one’s opponent is evil than it is to convince them that you are good.

As Christians, though, the Lord calls us to a higher standard.

As Paul told Timothy, “God gave us a spirit not of fear but of power and love and self-control (2 Timothy 1:7). As such, anytime we allow fear to be our primary motivator, we can be fairly certain that our decisions are not coming from a place that honors Christ. That doesn’t necessarily make the decisions wrong, but it does mean that the process we took to get there is fundamentally flawed. And our heavenly Father cares just as much about the path as the destination.

So the next time you hear or read someone lamenting the election’s potential outcomes in a way that breeds despair, remember that such thoughts do not come from God. That doesn’t mean he wants us to be naïve to the consequences of events, but when we allow those consequences to feed our fears, we have necessarily stepped outside of his will for our lives.

What is motivating your thoughts today?

Source