10-14-2020, 11:38 AM
(10-14-2020, 11:10 AM)hollodero Wrote: The "nuclear option" was a rule change though. It's somewhat a given that you can stick to the rules if one of those rules is that you can change the rules... maybe I'm seeing that wrong though.
Yes, but it was really just finishing what Harry Reid started.
Quote:I don't see it that way, but that's a matter of opinion. I'd call it a far cry if this was done to create an inbalanced court. In this case, it would create a more balanced court. That still would tilt republican 6-5, actually.
If I were a Dem strategist, I'd not be fine with the alternative of doing nothing. The Democratic party appears weak to many, just letting this go would imho somehwat underline that perception. At some point fighting back seems appropriate to me. Admittedly, I do not think it's a big deal to have 11 judges instead of 9, both are arbitrary numbers.
I don't think you are grasping how controversial this move would be. What's to stop the GOP from doing the exact same thing the next time they're in power? What McConnel did was underhanded, but packing the SCOTUS is a naked power grab. I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that doing so could be the impetus for a second civil war.
