10-13-2020, 06:19 PM
(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.
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.
