10-13-2020, 11:45 PM
(10-13-2020, 08:47 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Didn't you state just two posts previously that packing the courts involved changing the rules? Changing the rules would involve enacting legislation, right? Enacting legislation is the legislative branch's job. Obstruction isn't. If they would just fill the positions as they become available instead of obstructing or changing the rules we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Sure. Changing the rules could involve only allowing white men to vote, only allowing people over 35 to vote, only allowing red states to have on Senator each, etc. All of these are rule changes that could be kick started by legislation (yes, I realize many would require an amendment). None of them are desirable.
(10-13-2020, 09:55 PM)hollodero Wrote: I think there's a difference between being the better person and being a punchingbag. Just taking the hit and letting it go for fear of escalation might not be a wise approach. Usually, one ends up getting hit again.
Also, Dems would not need to create an inbalance. They could correct an existing inbalance, that was not created fair and square.
Under the rules nothing was done wrong. I'd stress that's by the letter of the rule, not the spirit and yes I thought it was shady. However, any change to the number of SCOTUS justices would be a far cry beyond that.
