(10-13-2020, 03:39 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: I answered your question. I understand you don’t like the answer. Your little game won’t work here. It is what it is. McConnell is the one that made the rule to allow senators who represent a minority of the population to confirm a SCOTUS nominee. Minority rule power grab.

(10-13-2020, 03:59 PM)PhilHos Wrote: This is just false. The term "court packing" comes from the 1937 legislation FDR tried to enact that would increase the number of justices on the Supreme Court from 9 to 15. 

This is what court packing has always meant until just recently.

(10-13-2020, 04:26 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote:  The intent is to change the political ideology of the court to favor your own political party.  That's is exactly what the Republicans have done under McConnell since the Obama administration.

(10-13-2020, 04:51 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Yes, and Democrats did that too when there were vacancies when they were in charge.

That's still different than changing the number of justices on the Supreme Court.

(10-13-2020, 04:56 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: But ultimately, it's just a shame that interpreting the law as written has become so partisan.

(10-13-2020, 04:51 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Yes, and Democrats did that too when there were vacancies when they were in charge.

That's still different than changing the number of justices on the Supreme Court.

(10-13-2020, 03:39 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Didn't you also argue earlier that precedent doesn't matter?  So which is it? Precedent matters? Or precedent doesn't matter?

Quote:Court packing involves changing the constitution of the courts to be more conservative or liberal to effect a political shift in favor of one's political party. It doesn't just apply to expanding the number Supreme Court justices. This is strictly a right wing talking point to defend Mitch McConnell's and the Republican' actions since the Obama administration by obstructing Obama from filing naturally occurring court vacancies so Mitch could pack them with an inordinate amount of conservative judges under Trump even if those judges were deemed unqualified by the American Bar Association. I find the partisan obstruction of filling court vacancies to be rather ominous. Much more so than using a single, narrow definition of a phrase in a transparent attempt to defend McConnell's and the Republican's actions.

(10-13-2020, 05:31 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It depends on the context.  In this instance I believe you're referring to my position that if you opposed not holding hearings and voting on Garland but demand them now then your position is hypocritical.  Of course, the inverse is true as well. There is not doubt that McConnell is a hypocrite in this regard.  We're not talking about legal precedent here either, which is intended to be binding and be the bedrock for future decisions.



I think you're vastly oversimplifying this and it appears for the exact same reason you decry from others.  Filling a vacant position, regardless of how or why it is vacant, is not packing.  They didn't have to change any rule to accomplish this.  It is not changing the structure of the Federal Courts. If the GOP added twenty seats to the 9th circuit court then that would absolutely be packing.  That is not what happened.  You can view it as underhanded and a manipulation of the system, and I'd largely agree with you, but it is absolutely not packing.

I reiterate and completely stand by the assertion that the term is only being used now as a left wing talking point to lesson the impact of the term if they choose the exercise that option in the SCOTUS (which was Ginsberg vehemently opposed to btw).  I'm quite serious when I say god help us all if they have the means and choose to do so.

(10-13-2020, 06:19 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: That's not the case and I'd say you're splitting hairs in an attempt to make one different than the other. Whether a political party institutes a favorable ideological shift in the court via obstruction or rule change the end result is the same.  Or there is more than one way to skin a cat, but at the end of the day it's still a skinned cat no matter how you skinned it. 

(10-13-2020, 07:33 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I don't think it's hair splitting at all.  There is an enormous difference between filling vacancies that already exist and creating vacancies that you then get to fill.  Especially when we're talking about the SCOTUS with only nine seats to be had.  In fact, the idea of packing the SCOTUS was so toxic that it caused virtually everyone to turn on FDR when he proposed it.  

A person who was killed in self defense and a murder victim are both dead, but there's an enormous, and important, difference in how they got that way.

(10-13-2020, 08:00 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: The better analogy would be two murder victims, one by stabbing and one by GSW.  Because they are both murdered.

The legislative branch's job is to enact laws, not obstruct the laws they enact so that they can't perform the job they're supposed to do. Enacting legislation to counter obstruction would actually be in their wheelhouse.  I don't view that as inherently more "wrong" than obstruction.

(10-13-2020, 04:08 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course you ignored the precedent he cited in making his "precedent".

I still say a Supreme Court Justice is a federal Judge. Do you?

So we have the Dems with precedent on denying a candidate based on political gain instead of merit and we have them sitting precedent on appointing Federal Judges by simple majority. But Liberal logic says "GOP's FAULT!!

(10-13-2020, 08:30 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Eh, I just don't care at this point. Honestly, I feel like I should just start rooting for the demise of our current system so we can get on with a restart. Worse before it gets better and all that.

(10-13-2020, 08:30 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Eh, I just don't care at this point. Honestly, I feel like I should just start rooting for the demise of our current system so we can get on with a restart. Worse before it gets better and all that.

(10-13-2020, 08:30 PM)GMDino Wrote: You can say a SCJ is whatever you want but McConnell had to change the rules for them despite what Reid did.

"Precedent" or not McConnell changed a different rule.

But "liberal logic", eh?

(10-13-2020, 08:33 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I get the point, but I don't think what would happen in between would be pretty.  At all.

(10-13-2020, 08:14 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Exactly how does this pertain to packing the SCOTUS?

(10-13-2020, 08:39 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Yeah "Liberal Logic". Reid made the bed; he was even warned about doing it. Anyone willing to look at it rationally can see that.

So yeah Liberal Logic

(10-13-2020, 08:30 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Eh, I just don't care at this point. Honestly, I feel like I should just start rooting for the demise of our current system so we can get on with a restart. Worse before it gets better and all that.