10-14-2020, 12:05 PM
(10-14-2020, 11:49 AM)hollodero Wrote: Maybe so. Still a rule change.
As bfine correctly pointed out a SCOTUS justice is a federal judge, so it was a fine distinction to begin with. But yes.
Quote:What is stopping them now?
I have a feeling the next time they're in power, they would do something like that no matter what if they feel the necessity. If any, they might hesitate if they know there'd be payback. If they learn there will not be any payback, yeah well, that's rather an incentive to just do it again really.
What's stopping them now, or in 2016 rather, is that it's a huge move to make. As I said the idea of it is wildly unpopular unless you are a far left type. Ginsberg herself stated it was an absolutely horrible idea and would irreversibly destroy the SCOTUS as an institution
Quote:I don't think it's a power grab when the resulting SC would stil be 6-5 republican.
And I also don't believe this would lead to a civil war. Not if Trump losing didn't already lead to one, which honestly I think is a more likely reason for certain citizens to grab their guns and be all civilwary.
With respect, you're not American nor do you reside in the US, so I think you're grossly underestimating the likely impact of this. This is a huge deal. Look at the poll results here, only one person (the last time I checked) actually voted in favor of this and their posts don't inspire confidence in their being a rational non-partisan actor. The no votes cross a wide political spectrum. The perception of this move would be a borderline coup. Coupled with a potential close loss for Trump, which would be necessary for this to even occur, and I don't see the union surviving this move in its current form.
