Are you in favor of stacking the Supreme Court?

[Belsnickel]

(10-27-2020, 04:49 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I never claimed it was outside the framework of the law for it to be changed, but that's never been my point to begin with.  My point is that one is a dramatic, if not drastic, rule change and the other is operating within the framework of the existing rules.  I cannot countenance changing the rules to only benefit you, whomever is doing it.  

Umm...

(10-27-2020, 04:15 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Contrast that with the proposed court packing.  Packing the court will require a complete change in legislation.  It is changing the rules because they didn't work in your favor and changing them in a way that only benefits you (because no way do they expand the SCOTUS if the GOP keeps hold of the Senate).  This is the very essence of tyranny, imposing your will on others outside the framework of the rules.  Not that it matters because I'm only one person, but if the Dems pack the court then I will never, ever, in my life ever vote for another Democrat and quite honestly would hope that the end up on the ash heap of history with the Whigs.  I'd add that I've never voted GOP in my life.

I do want to say, though, that there has been a continual changing of the rules going on for decades to benefit each party. Whether it be the "nuclear options," or the idea that deficits and executive overreach are only a thing when the other team has control. Those are rule changes to benefit themselves that happens all the time. Are they as big as expanding the court? No. But they are rule changes none-the-less. In fact, the Senate Judiciary Committee had to temporarily change (or just ignore enforcement of) their own rule to get the ACB nomination out of their committee to the Senate floor.

What you're disgusted with is politics, to be frank. I get that, I do. I think I have an easier time with it than most because of my experiences and studies.