10-13-2020, 03:39 PM
(10-13-2020, 11:51 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: There's also the little detail as to the precedent set by Reid that McConnel was following. That's the thing about being a partisan, you set yourself up for contradiction and hypocrisy.
Didn't you also argue earlier that precedent doesn't matter? So which is it? Precedent matters? Or precedent doesn't matter?
Quote:As an aside, I'm pleased to see that no rational people are in favor of stacking the court. Although I do find the Dems using the term "packing" to describe filling actual vacancies to be troubling. It's a transparent attempt to lessen the impact of the word in case they choose to exercise that option. It's a rather ominous development.
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.
