After President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump, the presumptive Democratic and Republican presidential nominees, participated in the first general election debate of the 2024 cycle on June 27, some pundits raised concerns about Biden’s performance, but the candidate appeared undeterred at a rally in North Carolina the following day.
In Washington the same week, the Supreme Court issued several major decisions, including one on the prosecution of rioters who attacked the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.
Biden, allies respond to debate performance
The debate included topics like abortion, immigration, foreign policy, but also became very personal between the two rivals, who did not shake hands at the onset. But much of the discussion centered around Biden’s performance.
Biden spoke with a very faint voice, and his team later said he had a cold. Pundits and analysts on multiple news networks openly questioned whether Biden should step aside and allow Democrats to nominate an alternative candidate at their upcoming convention.
Biden allies, including former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., acknowledged that “from a performance standpoint, it wasn’t great.” But in comments to The New York Times, she added, “from a values standpoint, it far outshone the other guy.”
In a contentious interview with CNN’s Anderson Cooper, Vice President Kamala Harris argued, “Yes, there was a slow start, but it was a strong finish.”
Harris argued that a difference between Trump and Biden, is that she, the current president’s vice president, is standing by him, while Trump’s ex-running mate, former Vice President Mike Pence, has declined to endorse him.
Former President Barack Obama wrote on X, formerly known as Twitter, “Bad debate nights happen. Trust me, I know. But this election is still a choice between someone who has fought for ordinary folks his entire life and someone who only cares about himself. Between someone who tells the truth; who knows right from wrong and will give it to the American people straight – and someone who lies through his teeth for his own benefit. Last night didn’t change that, and it’s why so much is at stake in November.”
But in remarks at a rally in North Carolina, Biden appeared determined to go on.
“I know I’m not a young man, to state the obvious,” Biden quipped.
“Folks, I don’t walk as easily as I used to,” he added. “I don’t speak as smoothly as I used to. I don’t debate as well as I used to. But I know what I do know: I know how to tell the truth. I know right from wrong. And I know how to do this job, I know how to get things done. And I know like millions of Americans know, when you get knocked down, you get back up.”
Robert Schmuhl, professor emeritus of American studies at the University of Notre Dame in South Bend, Indiana, who critically observes the modern American presidency, told OSV News, “President Biden had one objective: To show the American people that at the age of 81 he was fit enough to serve another four-year term. He failed miserably to do that, and as a result Donald Trump came across as more vigorous and in command during the debate. He told falsehood after falsehood and repeatedly dodged questions, but he prevailed in terms of performance.”
Asked if Biden can recover, Schmuhl said, “He undoubtedly will try, but it’s difficult to see how that might happen.”
Responding to the same question, John White, a professor of politics at The Catholic University of America in Washington, told OSV News that Biden could recover, but “it’s going to take a lot of effort and hard work.”
“There’s a lot of time still between now and November,” White said. “Fortunately, for Biden, this debate did not occur in October.”
White suggested Biden could draw from the late President Ronald Reagan’s 1984 debate against Walter Mondale.
“Reagan, like Biden, lost his train of thought, was overprepared, and turned in a dismal performance,” White said. “It raised the age issue with him as it’s done for Biden. During the second debate, Reagan came prepared to deal with the age issue and put the matter to rest. We’ll see if that happens.”
Supreme Court issues major rulings
The Supreme Court on June 28 issued a ruling that limited the scope of a federal obstruction statute prosecutors used to charge more than 300 defendants in association with the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol. The ruling could potentially also impact Trump, who has been charged in connection to that day’s events and his efforts to overturn the 2020 election.
The law in question concerns obstructing an official proceeding, but the court found that the statute, read in context, would mean that the law could be used against rioters who intended to destroy documents, which could force the government to re-open some cases.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the 6-3 majority opinion that the court would not transition “this evidence-focused statute into a one-size-fits-all solution to obstruction of justice.”
The ruling was notable in part because Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown Jackson voted with the opposite side of the court’s perceived ideological spectrum.
In a dissenting opinion, Barrett wrote that the law was “a very broad provision, and admittedly, events like January 6th were not its target. (Who could blame Congress for that failure of imagination?)”
“But statutes often go further than the problem that inspired them, and under the rules of statutory interpretation, we stick to the text anyway. The Court, abandoning that approach, does textual backflips to find some way – any way – to narrow the reach of (the law). I respectfully dissent.”
The Supreme Court also on June 28 overturned a legal doctrine known as Chevron deference, reducing the regulatory power of federal agencies – some of which have been criticized for issuing rules that created religious freedom challenges for Catholic entities. They also rejected a constitutional challenge to an ordinance adopted by Grants Pass, Oregon, prohibiting public camping within city limits that critics said unfairly punished people who are experiencing homelessness.
Earlier the same week, the high court dismissed a case concerning abortions for medical emergencies in Idaho, sending the case back to a lower court without resolving the central question of whether a conflict exists between Idaho’s abortion restrictions and federal law governing emergency health care.
It also ruled in favor of the Biden administration in a dispute with Republican-led states over the government’s effort to restrict misinformation on social media on topics including COVID-19.
The court also blocked the Environmental Protection Agency’s “good neighbor” rule limiting air pollution in about a dozen states while separate legal challenges to that rule in those states proceed.
