Biden’s evasiveness on the court isn’t very presidential

A lot of political rules have vanished the past few years, but I cling to the notion that candidates should let voters know where they stand on important issues.

I’m even idealistic enough to believe if candidates refuse to take such stands, the media should hound them until they do.

Which brings us to Joe Biden and whether he’d pack the Supreme Court.

We all know why he won’t answer. If he said no, the Democratic Party would have a conniption.

But Biden’s also selling himself as the Return-to-Normalcy candidate, and packing the Supreme Court doesn’t poll well. That means saying “yes” would help Donald Trump, which means it’s time to for me to change the subject and write about real issues, like whether Orange Man has denounced white supremacy in the past 15 minutes.

I’d like to move on, but something about this particular issue nags at me.

Maybe it’s this whole checks-and-balances thing between the judicial and legislative branches of government that’s served the nation pretty well for a couple of centuries. Maybe it’s what people said about Franklin Roosevelt’s attempt to add justices to the court.

“It was a bonehead idea. It was a terrible, terrible mistake to make. And it put in question, if for an entire decade, the independence of the most-significant body … in this country, the Supreme Court of the United States of America.”

That was Biden during a Judiciary Committee hearing in 1983. He’d only been a senator for what seemed like 30 years then, so I thought perhaps his views had evolved.

But darn it, just last year Biden said if any president packed the Supreme Court “we’ll live to rue that day.”

Don’t tell that to Kamala Harris and a bunch of Democratic senators who’ve indicated they’d celebrate the day. It would require getting rid of another pesky check on power, the Senate filibuster.

Then they’ll turn Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia into states and make a run at abolishing the Electoral College. That’d be some return to normalcy.

I’ll admit, I’m not in favor of court packing. I’d say that if George Washington were president.

If you’re gung-ho for any president to add three or six or a dozen new justices, that’s fine. Deciding these things is what elections are for. But if I were you, I’d want more assurance out of Biden.

He’s flipped on Social Security reform, the border wall, the Iraq War, the Defense of Marriage Act, criminal justice reform, “all women should be believed,” the Hyde Amendment and other consequential issues over the past 40 years.

I’d sure want more than the song-anddance we’ve been getting. It was almost comical when, in a rare unscripted moment, Biden told a Las Vegas TV station that voters don’t deserve to know his position on the Supreme Court.

Some poor media-relations schmuck undoubtedly got demoted to Kamala duty for not “calling a lid” on interviews before 9 a.m. that day.

Since then, Biden has said he’s “not a fan” of court-packing. Hey, I’m not a fan of my wife’s squash casserole, but I eat it to help keep family peace.

In Thursday night’s ABC town hall, Biden said he might take a position by Halloween. It all depends on how the Senate debates the Amy Coney Barrett nomination.

Biden’s strategy is clear. Run out the clock, call a lot of early-morning lids, count on Twitter and Facebook to censor all references to his ex-son Hunter and say the whole court-packing question is a Trump contrivance.

“He wants us to take the eye off the ball,” Biden said.

Eye off the ball?

Ending the Senate filibuster and packing the Supreme Court is the ball.

Millions of people have already voted. Many more will do it before Election Day.

Don’t they have right to know whether a presidential candidate would fundamentally alter how the country is governed?

Call me old-fashioned, but I think the answer is bone-headedly obvious. Even if it helps Donald Trump.