Ruth Bader Ginsburg is dead

[Hindsight was 2020]

OSR must be very happy that he found the reason he’s been looking for to vote for Trump

You're rendering him a great disservice. I don't think it's hypocritical for someone to dislike Trump, and yet to disapprove of court-packing schemes, or anything akin to it. And aside from that, Old School Republican isn't someone who likes to pick fights for their own sake. While I don't agree with much of what he says, and his arguments could certainly use further elaboration, he's far from the worst person here.

It is manifestly hypocritical for anyone to not consider the Republican Senate unprecedentedly freezing or immensely slow tracking Obama's judicial nominees for years, and then immediately railroading Trump's nominees through like an assembly line, plus the even more a historical bait and switch between refusing to give Merrick Garland a hearing, and now trying to cramp through Trump's nominee six weeks before an election, is anything short of "court packing".

Taken in those entirely reasonable definitions, the proposal to expand the Supreme Court to 11 seats is play arguably nothing more than UNDOING court packing. AT WORSE, it is nothing worse than Tit for Tat at best. Unless these Republicans at any point voiced disapproval over such tactics --and osr has made it as clear as any other Republican on this forum that his penultimate goal in the judiciary's to see it stacked with "strict constructionalists" (I.e. reliable votes for a 5-4 hard right majority)-- that even relatively principled conservatives like osr can be rightly accused of being willing to use the excuse of Democrat countermeasures being "Court-packing" as an excuse for their side to win. Which is exactly the opposite of what filling judicial vacancies should be about.

As I've said before, I didn't condone what was done to Garland, and I still don't believe that Kavanaugh should have been confirmed-another, equally qualified conservative nominee should have been put forth by Republicans in his place. But matching wrong with wrong isn't the correct course of action, and establishes a terrible precedent that will be utilized in the future. Nor do I think Supreme Court Justices, whether they are strict constructionists or adherents to the "living Constitution", ought to be cast from the bench for adhering to such judicial philosophies.

There are basic principles under which our country operates, but to say that one cannot apply different approaches for interpreting this principles is wrong, and it's equally wrong to say that one approach is completely correct, to the exclusion of all others. Kelo vs. New London is an example of how liberal philosophies towards constitutional protection can be wrought with flaws that undermine the integrity of our system.

2016 was an invented precedent. We either follow those rules, or other president doesn't matter when we're talking about the structure of the court for the next 30 to 40 years.

My friend, while I know it's tempting to both sides issues, the fact is that Mitch McConnell and the Republican Party have killed President, buried it, and salted the Earth over its grave site. Expanding the court by two members does nothing more than undo the thrashing of President, not re-establish terrible precedent.

And again, let's never forget for a second that if McConnell and Trump were to tomorrow say that they would adhere to what happened in 2016 and wait until after the election results to decide who nominates the next Justice, this discussion of expanding the court would disappear overnight. Precedent is being destroyed before our eyes, so we can't rely on other previously established precedent to realistically deal with the new situation handed to us by the horses destroying it.

I'm not trying to rely upon "both sidesism" to argue that Democratic anger at McConnell's actions is completely unjustified. What I'm trying to highlight is that there is an alarming lack of foresight by many posters on here, and their confidence that Democrats will be able, or willing, to take all of the steps which have been proposed. It's been emphasized numerous times that Republicans aren't going to take a Democratic court-packing scheme lying down and that they will retaliate when the opportunity arises.

What about your lack of foresight of the long term consequences of if the Dems do nothing and a pick gets rammed through before the election resulting in a court making partisan rulings on ACA and Roe that only came about due to two stolen seats?

[Calthrina950]

OSR must be very happy that he found the reason he’s been looking for to vote for Trump

You're rendering him a great disservice. I don't think it's hypocritical for someone to dislike Trump, and yet to disapprove of court-packing schemes, or anything akin to it. And aside from that, Old School Republican isn't someone who likes to pick fights for their own sake. While I don't agree with much of what he says, and his arguments could certainly use further elaboration, he's far from the worst person here.

It is manifestly hypocritical for anyone to not consider the Republican Senate unprecedentedly freezing or immensely slow tracking Obama's judicial nominees for years, and then immediately railroading Trump's nominees through like an assembly line, plus the even more a historical bait and switch between refusing to give Merrick Garland a hearing, and now trying to cramp through Trump's nominee six weeks before an election, is anything short of "court packing".

Taken in those entirely reasonable definitions, the proposal to expand the Supreme Court to 11 seats is play arguably nothing more than UNDOING court packing. AT WORSE, it is nothing worse than Tit for Tat at best. Unless these Republicans at any point voiced disapproval over such tactics --and osr has made it as clear as any other Republican on this forum that his penultimate goal in the judiciary's to see it stacked with "strict constructionalists" (I.e. reliable votes for a 5-4 hard right majority)-- that even relatively principled conservatives like osr can be rightly accused of being willing to use the excuse of Democrat countermeasures being "Court-packing" as an excuse for their side to win. Which is exactly the opposite of what filling judicial vacancies should be about.

As I've said before, I didn't condone what was done to Garland, and I still don't believe that Kavanaugh should have been confirmed-another, equally qualified conservative nominee should have been put forth by Republicans in his place. But matching wrong with wrong isn't the correct course of action, and establishes a terrible precedent that will be utilized in the future. Nor do I think Supreme Court Justices, whether they are strict constructionists or adherents to the "living Constitution", ought to be cast from the bench for adhering to such judicial philosophies.

There are basic principles under which our country operates, but to say that one cannot apply different approaches for interpreting this principles is wrong, and it's equally wrong to say that one approach is completely correct, to the exclusion of all others. Kelo vs. New London is an example of how liberal philosophies towards constitutional protection can be wrought with flaws that undermine the integrity of our system.

2016 was an invented precedent. We either follow those rules, or other president doesn't matter when we're talking about the structure of the court for the next 30 to 40 years.

My friend, while I know it's tempting to both sides issues, the fact is that Mitch McConnell and the Republican Party have killed President, buried it, and salted the Earth over its grave site. Expanding the court by two members does nothing more than undo the thrashing of President, not re-establish terrible precedent.

And again, let's never forget for a second that if McConnell and Trump were to tomorrow say that they would adhere to what happened in 2016 and wait until after the election results to decide who nominates the next Justice, this discussion of expanding the court would disappear overnight. Precedent is being destroyed before our eyes, so we can't rely on other previously established precedent to realistically deal with the new situation handed to us by the horses destroying it.

I'm not trying to rely upon "both sidesism" to argue that Democratic anger at McConnell's actions is completely unjustified. What I'm trying to highlight is that there is an alarming lack of foresight by many posters on here, and their confidence that Democrats will be able, or willing, to take all of the steps which have been proposed. It's been emphasized numerous times that Republicans aren't going to take a Democratic court-packing scheme lying down and that they will retaliate when the opportunity arises.

What about your lack of foresight of the long term consequences of if the Dems do nothing and a pick gets rammed through before the election resulting in a court making partisan rulings on ACA and Roe that only came about due to two stolen seats?

I don't like this outcome either, and I've said elsewhere that I would prefer they (Republicans) not move forward before the election. This is a situation where there aren't any winners, and losers abound on all sides. And once again, I'll say that the Ginsburg seat is not a "stolen" seat; Gorsuch's seat is not a "stolen" seat. Garland was treated in a wrongful manner, and should have been given a hearing, but there still remains the distinction between what is morally or practically just, and what the legal standard is. Under our Constitution, Scalia's former seat lawfully belongs to Neil Gorsuch, who has been confirmed and appointed, and Ginsburg's former seat will lawfully belong to her confirmed and appointed successor, whoever that may be.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

Republicans won the Senate in 2014, so they had the right to reject his nominee.

Except they didn't "reject" Garland, they refused to hold a hearing. Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham made that decision because they knew that Garland was qualified and if they put it up to a vote, they couldn't keep their fellow Republicans from voting to approve, because Garland was qualified and it was still an appropriate time within Obama's term to have a hearing.

Would your position be any different if they had performed the useless formality of rejecting him in a floor vote?

Yes. Then GOP senators up for re-election would’ve had to make up BS reasons to vote down an eminently qualified jurist, and the voters could’ve judged them accordingly. Maybe MConnell would’ve had the votes to defeat him, maybe not. If Garland was defeated, then Obama would’ve been entitled to nominate another eminently qualified jurist for the GOP to smear on live tv and so on and so forth. Voting on things is good for democracy and allows the voters to hold their elected officials accountable.

I don't see why any of you feels the need to pretend that Supreme Court nominations are about qualifications instead of values.

Well that's where the Supreme Court derives it's legitimacy from. They are supposed to be impartial arbiters of the law, not channels for political values. We have the legislature for the latter. Justice that is not blind is not justice.

Yes, I loathe the Warren Court's decision to impose liberal values on the country by force instead of allowing them to happen through the legislative process.

I'm no fan of the Warren Court (he was a Republican by the way), but the past shouldn't be undone. What we should do is make sure there are no Warren courts in the future, which is what a Republican judicial activist majority would be.

No, no, fair is fair. As conservatives suffered under Warren, so shall liberals suffer under Kavanaugh.

First change your avatar and second do you know how dog whistling it sounds to complain about how the court responsible for civil rights forced “liberal values” on the country?

The Warren court interfered in state legislative redistricting, state public schools, state laws against obscenity, state laws around contraception, and the legitimate military discipline process, in every case to impose unpopular liberal values in clear violation of the Constitution.

You're not a real reactionary and I refuse to recognize these weaksauce excuses for dog whistles.

Oh no, not the dreaded dog whistle.

[Hindsight was 2020]

OSR must be very happy that he found the reason he’s been looking for to vote for Trump

You're rendering him a great disservice. I don't think it's hypocritical for someone to dislike Trump, and yet to disapprove of court-packing schemes, or anything akin to it. And aside from that, Old School Republican isn't someone who likes to pick fights for their own sake. While I don't agree with much of what he says, and his arguments could certainly use further elaboration, he's far from the worst person here.

It is manifestly hypocritical for anyone to not consider the Republican Senate unprecedentedly freezing or immensely slow tracking Obama's judicial nominees for years, and then immediately railroading Trump's nominees through like an assembly line, plus the even more a historical bait and switch between refusing to give Merrick Garland a hearing, and now trying to cramp through Trump's nominee six weeks before an election, is anything short of "court packing".

Taken in those entirely reasonable definitions, the proposal to expand the Supreme Court to 11 seats is play arguably nothing more than UNDOING court packing. AT WORSE, it is nothing worse than Tit for Tat at best. Unless these Republicans at any point voiced disapproval over such tactics --and osr has made it as clear as any other Republican on this forum that his penultimate goal in the judiciary's to see it stacked with "strict constructionalists" (I.e. reliable votes for a 5-4 hard right majority)-- that even relatively principled conservatives like osr can be rightly accused of being willing to use the excuse of Democrat countermeasures being "Court-packing" as an excuse for their side to win. Which is exactly the opposite of what filling judicial vacancies should be about.

As I've said before, I didn't condone what was done to Garland, and I still don't believe that Kavanaugh should have been confirmed-another, equally qualified conservative nominee should have been put forth by Republicans in his place. But matching wrong with wrong isn't the correct course of action, and establishes a terrible precedent that will be utilized in the future. Nor do I think Supreme Court Justices, whether they are strict constructionists or adherents to the "living Constitution", ought to be cast from the bench for adhering to such judicial philosophies.

There are basic principles under which our country operates, but to say that one cannot apply different approaches for interpreting this principles is wrong, and it's equally wrong to say that one approach is completely correct, to the exclusion of all others. Kelo vs. New London is an example of how liberal philosophies towards constitutional protection can be wrought with flaws that undermine the integrity of our system.

2016 was an invented precedent. We either follow those rules, or other president doesn't matter when we're talking about the structure of the court for the next 30 to 40 years.

My friend, while I know it's tempting to both sides issues, the fact is that Mitch McConnell and the Republican Party have killed President, buried it, and salted the Earth over its grave site. Expanding the court by two members does nothing more than undo the thrashing of President, not re-establish terrible precedent.

And again, let's never forget for a second that if McConnell and Trump were to tomorrow say that they would adhere to what happened in 2016 and wait until after the election results to decide who nominates the next Justice, this discussion of expanding the court would disappear overnight. Precedent is being destroyed before our eyes, so we can't rely on other previously established precedent to realistically deal with the new situation handed to us by the horses destroying it.

I'm not trying to rely upon "both sidesism" to argue that Democratic anger at McConnell's actions is completely unjustified. What I'm trying to highlight is that there is an alarming lack of foresight by many posters on here, and their confidence that Democrats will be able, or willing, to take all of the steps which have been proposed. It's been emphasized numerous times that Republicans aren't going to take a Democratic court-packing scheme lying down and that they will retaliate when the opportunity arises.

What about your lack of foresight of the long term consequences of if the Dems do nothing and a pick gets rammed through before the election resulting in a court making partisan rulings on ACA and Roe that only came about due to two stolen seats?

I don't like this outcome either, and I've said elsewhere that I would prefer they (Republicans) not move forward before the election. This is a situation where there aren't any winners, and losers abound on all sides. And once again, I'll say that the Ginsburg seat is not a "stolen" seat; Gorsuch's seat is not a "stolen" seat. Garland was treated in a wrongful manner, and should have been given a hearing, but there still remains the distinction between what is morally or practically just, and what the legal standard is. Under our Constitution, Scalia's former seat lawfully belongs to Neil Gorsuch, who has been confirmed and appointed, and Ginsburg's former seat will lawfully belong to her confirmed and appointed successor, whoever that may be.

But this is the whole problem right here you’re giving Mitch a borderline pass with a “I don’t like it but it’s legal” argument while saving your righteous indignation for the dems hypothetical threat of expanding the Supreme Court even though like Mitch did with Garland and her that isn’t illegal. So why  are you treating one as “I don’t like it but I’ll allow it” and the other is the opening of the seventh seal?

[7,052,770]

Republicans aren't going to "retaliate" on Democratic court packing. They're already packing it by trying to replace both Scalia and Ginsburg in the same presidential term.

The argument that Democrats will force Republicans to pack back just doesn't work if/when Republicans have already packed.

[Calthrina950]

OSR must be very happy that he found the reason he’s been looking for to vote for Trump

You're rendering him a great disservice. I don't think it's hypocritical for someone to dislike Trump, and yet to disapprove of court-packing schemes, or anything akin to it. And aside from that, Old School Republican isn't someone who likes to pick fights for their own sake. While I don't agree with much of what he says, and his arguments could certainly use further elaboration, he's far from the worst person here.

It is manifestly hypocritical for anyone to not consider the Republican Senate unprecedentedly freezing or immensely slow tracking Obama's judicial nominees for years, and then immediately railroading Trump's nominees through like an assembly line, plus the even more a historical bait and switch between refusing to give Merrick Garland a hearing, and now trying to cramp through Trump's nominee six weeks before an election, is anything short of "court packing".

Taken in those entirely reasonable definitions, the proposal to expand the Supreme Court to 11 seats is play arguably nothing more than UNDOING court packing. AT WORSE, it is nothing worse than Tit for Tat at best. Unless these Republicans at any point voiced disapproval over such tactics --and osr has made it as clear as any other Republican on this forum that his penultimate goal in the judiciary's to see it stacked with "strict constructionalists" (I.e. reliable votes for a 5-4 hard right majority)-- that even relatively principled conservatives like osr can be rightly accused of being willing to use the excuse of Democrat countermeasures being "Court-packing" as an excuse for their side to win. Which is exactly the opposite of what filling judicial vacancies should be about.

As I've said before, I didn't condone what was done to Garland, and I still don't believe that Kavanaugh should have been confirmed-another, equally qualified conservative nominee should have been put forth by Republicans in his place. But matching wrong with wrong isn't the correct course of action, and establishes a terrible precedent that will be utilized in the future. Nor do I think Supreme Court Justices, whether they are strict constructionists or adherents to the "living Constitution", ought to be cast from the bench for adhering to such judicial philosophies.

There are basic principles under which our country operates, but to say that one cannot apply different approaches for interpreting this principles is wrong, and it's equally wrong to say that one approach is completely correct, to the exclusion of all others. Kelo vs. New London is an example of how liberal philosophies towards constitutional protection can be wrought with flaws that undermine the integrity of our system.

2016 was an invented precedent. We either follow those rules, or other president doesn't matter when we're talking about the structure of the court for the next 30 to 40 years.

My friend, while I know it's tempting to both sides issues, the fact is that Mitch McConnell and the Republican Party have killed President, buried it, and salted the Earth over its grave site. Expanding the court by two members does nothing more than undo the thrashing of President, not re-establish terrible precedent.

And again, let's never forget for a second that if McConnell and Trump were to tomorrow say that they would adhere to what happened in 2016 and wait until after the election results to decide who nominates the next Justice, this discussion of expanding the court would disappear overnight. Precedent is being destroyed before our eyes, so we can't rely on other previously established precedent to realistically deal with the new situation handed to us by the horses destroying it.

I'm not trying to rely upon "both sidesism" to argue that Democratic anger at McConnell's actions is completely unjustified. What I'm trying to highlight is that there is an alarming lack of foresight by many posters on here, and their confidence that Democrats will be able, or willing, to take all of the steps which have been proposed. It's been emphasized numerous times that Republicans aren't going to take a Democratic court-packing scheme lying down and that they will retaliate when the opportunity arises.

What about your lack of foresight of the long term consequences of if the Dems do nothing and a pick gets rammed through before the election resulting in a court making partisan rulings on ACA and Roe that only came about due to two stolen seats?

I don't like this outcome either, and I've said elsewhere that I would prefer they (Republicans) not move forward before the election. This is a situation where there aren't any winners, and losers abound on all sides. And once again, I'll say that the Ginsburg seat is not a "stolen" seat; Gorsuch's seat is not a "stolen" seat. Garland was treated in a wrongful manner, and should have been given a hearing, but there still remains the distinction between what is morally or practically just, and what the legal standard is. Under our Constitution, Scalia's former seat lawfully belongs to Neil Gorsuch, who has been confirmed and appointed, and Ginsburg's former seat will lawfully belong to her confirmed and appointed successor, whoever that may be.

But this is the whole problem right here you’re giving Mitch a borderline pass with a “I don’t like it but it’s legal” argument while saving your righteous indignation for the dems hypothetical threat of expanding the Supreme Court even though like Mitch did with Garland and her that isn’t illegal. So why  are you treating one as “I don’t like it but I’ll allow it” and the other is the opening of the seventh seal?

It's interesting that insinuations are being made about my character merely because I'm expressing my opposition to court-packing, while having made clear, numerous times, that I don't condone what was done to Merrick Garland, and don't appreciate or support what Republicans are doing now. It is not "righteous" indignation. My stance on this is guided by a recognition of the consequences which such schemes would have for the independence and stability of the federal judiciary-concerns widely shared by the Justices themselves, and by many others within the legal sphere.

But at this point, I'm talking to a brick wall. Posters on here are deeply partisan, convinced that this is a war to save democracy, and that anyone who isn't on their side of the war ought not to be considered. Ultimately, I doubt that this whole battle will have a more substantive impact on the direction of the election then the ongoing pandemic, along with its associated civil and economic troubles, has had, to say nothing of voters' deeply ingrained opinions about Trump, his Administration, and his scandals.

[7,052,770]

You just can't have more objection to Biden adding 2 seats than you do to Trump and McConnell filling 2 seats from 2016 and 2020. They're the same thing, legal but norm violations, allowing their party to gain +2 on the margin of the Court.

The only difference is the timing, that Biden is just counter packing to restore the previous balance and cancel out McConnell's pack.

[ProudModerate2]

OSR must be very happy that he found the reason he’s been looking for to vote for Trump

You're rendering him a great disservice. I don't think it's hypocritical for someone to dislike Trump, and yet to disapprove of court-packing schemes, or anything akin to it. And aside from that, Old School Republican isn't someone who likes to pick fights for their own sake. While I don't agree with much of what he says, and his arguments could certainly use further elaboration, he's far from the worst person here.

It is manifestly hypocritical for anyone to not consider the Republican Senate unprecedentedly freezing or immensely slow tracking Obama's judicial nominees for years, and then immediately railroading Trump's nominees through like an assembly line, plus the even more a historical bait and switch between refusing to give Merrick Garland a hearing, and now trying to cramp through Trump's nominee six weeks before an election, is anything short of "court packing".

Taken in those entirely reasonable definitions, the proposal to expand the Supreme Court to 11 seats is play arguably nothing more than UNDOING court packing. AT WORSE, it is nothing worse than Tit for Tat at best. Unless these Republicans at any point voiced disapproval over such tactics --and osr has made it as clear as any other Republican on this forum that his penultimate goal in the judiciary's to see it stacked with "strict constructionalists" (I.e. reliable votes for a 5-4 hard right majority)-- that even relatively principled conservatives like osr can be rightly accused of being willing to use the excuse of Democrat countermeasures being "Court-packing" as an excuse for their side to win. Which is exactly the opposite of what filling judicial vacancies should be about.

As I've said before, I didn't condone what was done to Garland, and I still don't believe that Kavanaugh should have been confirmed-another, equally qualified conservative nominee should have been put forth by Republicans in his place. But matching wrong with wrong isn't the correct course of action, and establishes a terrible precedent that will be utilized in the future. Nor do I think Supreme Court Justices, whether they are strict constructionists or adherents to the "living Constitution", ought to be cast from the bench for adhering to such judicial philosophies.

There are basic principles under which our country operates, but to say that one cannot apply different approaches for interpreting this principles is wrong, and it's equally wrong to say that one approach is completely correct, to the exclusion of all others. Kelo vs. New London is an example of how liberal philosophies towards constitutional protection can be wrought with flaws that undermine the integrity of our system.

2016 was an invented precedent. We either follow those rules, or other president doesn't matter when we're talking about the structure of the court for the next 30 to 40 years.

My friend, while I know it's tempting to both sides issues, the fact is that Mitch McConnell and the Republican Party have killed President, buried it, and salted the Earth over its grave site. Expanding the court by two members does nothing more than undo the thrashing of President, not re-establish terrible precedent.

And again, let's never forget for a second that if McConnell and Trump were to tomorrow say that they would adhere to what happened in 2016 and wait until after the election results to decide who nominates the next Justice, this discussion of expanding the court would disappear overnight. Precedent is being destroyed before our eyes, so we can't rely on other previously established precedent to realistically deal with the new situation handed to us by the horses destroying it.

I'm not trying to rely upon "both sidesism" to argue that Democratic anger at McConnell's actions is completely unjustified. What I'm trying to highlight is that there is an alarming lack of foresight by many posters on here, and their confidence that Democrats will be able, or willing, to take all of the steps which have been proposed. It's been emphasized numerous times that Republicans aren't going to take a Democratic court-packing scheme lying down and that they will retaliate when the opportunity arises.

What about your lack of foresight of the long term consequences of if the Dems do nothing and a pick gets rammed through before the election resulting in a court making partisan rulings on ACA and Roe that only came about due to two stolen seats?

I don't like this outcome either, and I've said elsewhere that I would prefer they (Republicans) not move forward before the election. This is a situation where there aren't any winners, and losers abound on all sides. And once again, I'll say that the Ginsburg seat is not a "stolen" seat; Gorsuch's seat is not a "stolen" seat. Garland was treated in a wrongful manner, and should have been given a hearing, but there still remains the distinction between what is morally or practically just, and what the legal standard is. Under our Constitution, Scalia's former seat lawfully belongs to Neil Gorsuch, who has been confirmed and appointed, and Ginsburg's former seat will lawfully belong to her confirmed and appointed successor, whoever that may be.

But this is the whole problem right here you’re giving Mitch a borderline pass with a “I don’t like it but it’s legal” argument while saving your righteous indignation for the dems hypothetical threat of expanding the Supreme Court even though like Mitch did with Garland and her that isn’t illegal. So why  are you treating one as “I don’t like it but I’ll allow it” and the other is the opening of the seventh seal?

It's interesting that insinuations are being made about my character merely because I'm expressing my opposition to court-packing, while having made clear, numerous times, that I don't condone what was done to Merrick Garland, and don't appreciate or support what Republicans are doing now. It is not "righteous" indignation. My stance on this is guided by a recognition of the consequences which such schemes would have for the independence and stability of the federal judiciary-concerns widely shared by the Justices themselves, and by many others within the legal sphere.

But at this point, I'm talking to a brick wall. Posters on here are deeply partisan, convinced that this is a war to save democracy, and that anyone who isn't on their side of the war ought not to be considered. Ultimately, I doubt that this whole battle will have a more substantive impact on the direction of the election then the ongoing pandemic, along with its associated civil and economic troubles, has had, to say nothing of voters' deeply ingrained opinions about Trump, his Administration, and his scandals.

But your decision to "express your opposition to court-packing" is based on what?
Keep in mind that you said above that there should be a "distinction between what is morally or practically just, and what the legal standard is." And then you also say the words "under our Constitution."
If Dems move forward with court-packing, is it not "legal" and allowed "under our Constitution"?

[Badger]

OSR must be very happy that he found the reason he’s been looking for to vote for Trump

You're rendering him a great disservice. I don't think it's hypocritical for someone to dislike Trump, and yet to disapprove of court-packing schemes, or anything akin to it. And aside from that, Old School Republican isn't someone who likes to pick fights for their own sake. While I don't agree with much of what he says, and his arguments could certainly use further elaboration, he's far from the worst person here.

It is manifestly hypocritical for anyone to not consider the Republican Senate unprecedentedly freezing or immensely slow tracking Obama's judicial nominees for years, and then immediately railroading Trump's nominees through like an assembly line, plus the even more a historical bait and switch between refusing to give Merrick Garland a hearing, and now trying to cramp through Trump's nominee six weeks before an election, is anything short of "court packing".

Taken in those entirely reasonable definitions, the proposal to expand the Supreme Court to 11 seats is play arguably nothing more than UNDOING court packing. AT WORSE, it is nothing worse than Tit for Tat at best. Unless these Republicans at any point voiced disapproval over such tactics --and osr has made it as clear as any other Republican on this forum that his penultimate goal in the judiciary's to see it stacked with "strict constructionalists" (I.e. reliable votes for a 5-4 hard right majority)-- that even relatively principled conservatives like osr can be rightly accused of being willing to use the excuse of Democrat countermeasures being "Court-packing" as an excuse for their side to win. Which is exactly the opposite of what filling judicial vacancies should be about.

As I've said before, I didn't condone what was done to Garland, and I still don't believe that Kavanaugh should have been confirmed-another, equally qualified conservative nominee should have been put forth by Republicans in his place. But matching wrong with wrong isn't the correct course of action, and establishes a terrible precedent that will be utilized in the future. Nor do I think Supreme Court Justices, whether they are strict constructionists or adherents to the "living Constitution", ought to be cast from the bench for adhering to such judicial philosophies.

There are basic principles under which our country operates, but to say that one cannot apply different approaches for interpreting this principles is wrong, and it's equally wrong to say that one approach is completely correct, to the exclusion of all others. Kelo vs. New London is an example of how liberal philosophies towards constitutional protection can be wrought with flaws that undermine the integrity of our system.

2016 was an invented precedent. We either follow those rules, or other president doesn't matter when we're talking about the structure of the court for the next 30 to 40 years.

My friend, while I know it's tempting to both sides issues, the fact is that Mitch McConnell and the Republican Party have killed President, buried it, and salted the Earth over its grave site. Expanding the court by two members does nothing more than undo the thrashing of President, not re-establish terrible precedent.

And again, let's never forget for a second that if McConnell and Trump were to tomorrow say that they would adhere to what happened in 2016 and wait until after the election results to decide who nominates the next Justice, this discussion of expanding the court would disappear overnight. Precedent is being destroyed before our eyes, so we can't rely on other previously established precedent to realistically deal with the new situation handed to us by the horses destroying it.

I'm not trying to rely upon "both sidesism" to argue that Democratic anger at McConnell's actions is completely unjustified. What I'm trying to highlight is that there is an alarming lack of foresight by many posters on here, and their confidence that Democrats will be able, or willing, to take all of the steps which have been proposed. It's been emphasized numerous times that Republicans aren't going to take a Democratic court-packing scheme lying down and that they will retaliate when the opportunity arises.

What about your lack of foresight of the long term consequences of if the Dems do nothing and a pick gets rammed through before the election resulting in a court making partisan rulings on ACA and Roe that only came about due to two stolen seats?

I don't like this outcome either, and I've said elsewhere that I would prefer they (Republicans) not move forward before the election.

But. That. Will. Not. Happen. I want that just as much as you. As does every single poster, and indeed every single voter, proposing countering the Republicans hypocritical power grab by expanding the court by two seats once this. But we can wish it all we want the same way we can wish cure for cancer, and then to world hunger, in free chocolate sprinkles on every ice cream cone. But. It. Is. Not. Going. To. Happen.

The Republicans are going to steal this seat oh, just like they did scalia's seat, only worse. Now all men of good conscience need to except that horrendous the unpleasant fact and respond accordingly.

[Calthrina950]

OSR must be very happy that he found the reason he’s been looking for to vote for Trump

You're rendering him a great disservice. I don't think it's hypocritical for someone to dislike Trump, and yet to disapprove of court-packing schemes, or anything akin to it. And aside from that, Old School Republican isn't someone who likes to pick fights for their own sake. While I don't agree with much of what he says, and his arguments could certainly use further elaboration, he's far from the worst person here.

It is manifestly hypocritical for anyone to not consider the Republican Senate unprecedentedly freezing or immensely slow tracking Obama's judicial nominees for years, and then immediately railroading Trump's nominees through like an assembly line, plus the even more a historical bait and switch between refusing to give Merrick Garland a hearing, and now trying to cramp through Trump's nominee six weeks before an election, is anything short of "court packing".

Taken in those entirely reasonable definitions, the proposal to expand the Supreme Court to 11 seats is play arguably nothing more than UNDOING court packing. AT WORSE, it is nothing worse than Tit for Tat at best. Unless these Republicans at any point voiced disapproval over such tactics --and osr has made it as clear as any other Republican on this forum that his penultimate goal in the judiciary's to see it stacked with "strict constructionalists" (I.e. reliable votes for a 5-4 hard right majority)-- that even relatively principled conservatives like osr can be rightly accused of being willing to use the excuse of Democrat countermeasures being "Court-packing" as an excuse for their side to win. Which is exactly the opposite of what filling judicial vacancies should be about.

As I've said before, I didn't condone what was done to Garland, and I still don't believe that Kavanaugh should have been confirmed-another, equally qualified conservative nominee should have been put forth by Republicans in his place. But matching wrong with wrong isn't the correct course of action, and establishes a terrible precedent that will be utilized in the future. Nor do I think Supreme Court Justices, whether they are strict constructionists or adherents to the "living Constitution", ought to be cast from the bench for adhering to such judicial philosophies.

There are basic principles under which our country operates, but to say that one cannot apply different approaches for interpreting this principles is wrong, and it's equally wrong to say that one approach is completely correct, to the exclusion of all others. Kelo vs. New London is an example of how liberal philosophies towards constitutional protection can be wrought with flaws that undermine the integrity of our system.

2016 was an invented precedent. We either follow those rules, or other president doesn't matter when we're talking about the structure of the court for the next 30 to 40 years.

My friend, while I know it's tempting to both sides issues, the fact is that Mitch McConnell and the Republican Party have killed President, buried it, and salted the Earth over its grave site. Expanding the court by two members does nothing more than undo the thrashing of President, not re-establish terrible precedent.

And again, let's never forget for a second that if McConnell and Trump were to tomorrow say that they would adhere to what happened in 2016 and wait until after the election results to decide who nominates the next Justice, this discussion of expanding the court would disappear overnight. Precedent is being destroyed before our eyes, so we can't rely on other previously established precedent to realistically deal with the new situation handed to us by the horses destroying it.

I'm not trying to rely upon "both sidesism" to argue that Democratic anger at McConnell's actions is completely unjustified. What I'm trying to highlight is that there is an alarming lack of foresight by many posters on here, and their confidence that Democrats will be able, or willing, to take all of the steps which have been proposed. It's been emphasized numerous times that Republicans aren't going to take a Democratic court-packing scheme lying down and that they will retaliate when the opportunity arises.

What about your lack of foresight of the long term consequences of if the Dems do nothing and a pick gets rammed through before the election resulting in a court making partisan rulings on ACA and Roe that only came about due to two stolen seats?

I don't like this outcome either, and I've said elsewhere that I would prefer they (Republicans) not move forward before the election. This is a situation where there aren't any winners, and losers abound on all sides. And once again, I'll say that the Ginsburg seat is not a "stolen" seat; Gorsuch's seat is not a "stolen" seat. Garland was treated in a wrongful manner, and should have been given a hearing, but there still remains the distinction between what is morally or practically just, and what the legal standard is. Under our Constitution, Scalia's former seat lawfully belongs to Neil Gorsuch, who has been confirmed and appointed, and Ginsburg's former seat will lawfully belong to her confirmed and appointed successor, whoever that may be.

But this is the whole problem right here you’re giving Mitch a borderline pass with a “I don’t like it but it’s legal” argument while saving your righteous indignation for the dems hypothetical threat of expanding the Supreme Court even though like Mitch did with Garland and her that isn’t illegal. So why  are you treating one as “I don’t like it but I’ll allow it” and the other is the opening of the seventh seal?

It's interesting that insinuations are being made about my character merely because I'm expressing my opposition to court-packing, while having made clear, numerous times, that I don't condone what was done to Merrick Garland, and don't appreciate or support what Republicans are doing now. It is not "righteous" indignation. My stance on this is guided by a recognition of the consequences which such schemes would have for the independence and stability of the federal judiciary-concerns widely shared by the Justices themselves, and by many others within the legal sphere.

But at this point, I'm talking to a brick wall. Posters on here are deeply partisan, convinced that this is a war to save democracy, and that anyone who isn't on their side of the war ought not to be considered. Ultimately, I doubt that this whole battle will have a more substantive impact on the direction of the election then the ongoing pandemic, along with its associated civil and economic troubles, has had, to say nothing of voters' deeply ingrained opinions about Trump, his Administration, and his scandals.

But your decision to "express your opposition to court-packing" is based on what?
Keep in mind that you said above that there should be a "distinction between what is morally or practically just, and what the legal standard is." And then you also say the words "under our Constitution."
If Dems move forward with court-packing, is it not "legal" and allowed "under our Constitution"?

If you are saying that court-packing is legal, then you are correct. That does create a contradiction, if you can call it as such, in my argument. So one could say that Democrats can move forward with court-packing, if the Republicans decide to fill this seat-and both actions would be constitutionally permissible. But in the long run, they could also be constitutionally detrimental-in the sense that the judiciary, now deprived of any remaining semblance of impartiality or independence, will become merely a tool of the political branches, subordinate to them and dependent upon their favor. That by itself would be a danger to the stability of our government. This article, https://reason.com/2019/03/20/dangers-of-growing-support-for-court-pac/, published last year, provides a better summarization of the points that I'm trying to make. Scholars both liberal and conservative have expressed their concerns over the dangers of court-packing.

[7,052,770]

Ultimately, there are two choices:

• Republicans pack the court and Democrats just let it happen
• Republicans pack the court and Democrats counter-pack just to get back to the R+1 margin

Anyone can feel free to prefer #1, but you're not really against packing if you do.

[Calthrina950]

Ultimately, there are two choices:

• Republicans pack the court and Democrats just let it happen
• Republicans pack the court and Democrats counter-pack just to get back to the R+1 margin

Anyone can feel free to prefer #1, but you're not really against packing if you do.

Putting aside the circumstances of what happened to Merrick Garland, how does a President nominating, and the Senate confirming, a nominee at this juncture constitute "packing" the Court. If Garland had been given a hearing and rejected on the flimsiest of grounds, would this argument still be made? Ginsburg's seat, however much one would argue, isn't a seat that belongs to the Democrats; Scalia's seat didn't belong to the Republicans.

[Badger]

Ultimately, there are two choices:

• Republicans pack the court and Democrats just let it happen
• Republicans pack the court and Democrats counter-pack just to get back to the R+1 margin

Anyone can feel free to prefer #1, but you're not really against packing if you do.

Putting aside the circumstances of what happened to Merrick Garland, how does a President nominating, and the Senate confirming, a nominee at this juncture constitute "packing" the Court. If Garland had been given a hearing and rejected on the flimsiest of grounds, would this argument still be made? Ginsburg's seat, however much one would argue, isn't a seat that belongs to the Democrats; Scalia's seat didn't belong to the Republicans.

The system and procedure for picking a justice has been totally thrown out the window. By the Republican party. To them, because they had power, 200 + years of senatorial tradition be damned, that seat now belongs to them, Justice Ginsburg seat belongs to them as well.

Again expanding the court buy two seats isn't Court packing. It's a remedy to court packing

[Sbane]

OSR must be very happy that he found the reason he’s been looking for to vote for Trump

You're rendering him a great disservice. I don't think it's hypocritical for someone to dislike Trump, and yet to disapprove of court-packing schemes, or anything akin to it. And aside from that, Old School Republican isn't someone who likes to pick fights for their own sake. While I don't agree with much of what he says, and his arguments could certainly use further elaboration, he's far from the worst person here.

It is manifestly hypocritical for anyone to not consider the Republican Senate unprecedentedly freezing or immensely slow tracking Obama's judicial nominees for years, and then immediately railroading Trump's nominees through like an assembly line, plus the even more a historical bait and switch between refusing to give Merrick Garland a hearing, and now trying to cramp through Trump's nominee six weeks before an election, is anything short of "court packing".

Taken in those entirely reasonable definitions, the proposal to expand the Supreme Court to 11 seats is play arguably nothing more than UNDOING court packing. AT WORSE, it is nothing worse than Tit for Tat at best. Unless these Republicans at any point voiced disapproval over such tactics --and osr has made it as clear as any other Republican on this forum that his penultimate goal in the judiciary's to see it stacked with "strict constructionalists" (I.e. reliable votes for a 5-4 hard right majority)-- that even relatively principled conservatives like osr can be rightly accused of being willing to use the excuse of Democrat countermeasures being "Court-packing" as an excuse for their side to win. Which is exactly the opposite of what filling judicial vacancies should be about.

As I've said before, I didn't condone what was done to Garland, and I still don't believe that Kavanaugh should have been confirmed-another, equally qualified conservative nominee should have been put forth by Republicans in his place. But matching wrong with wrong isn't the correct course of action, and establishes a terrible precedent that will be utilized in the future. Nor do I think Supreme Court Justices, whether they are strict constructionists or adherents to the "living Constitution", ought to be cast from the bench for adhering to such judicial philosophies.

There are basic principles under which our country operates, but to say that one cannot apply different approaches for interpreting this principles is wrong, and it's equally wrong to say that one approach is completely correct, to the exclusion of all others. Kelo vs. New London is an example of how liberal philosophies towards constitutional protection can be wrought with flaws that undermine the integrity of our system.

2016 was an invented precedent. We either follow those rules, or other president doesn't matter when we're talking about the structure of the court for the next 30 to 40 years.

My friend, while I know it's tempting to both sides issues, the fact is that Mitch McConnell and the Republican Party have killed President, buried it, and salted the Earth over its grave site. Expanding the court by two members does nothing more than undo the thrashing of President, not re-establish terrible precedent.

And again, let's never forget for a second that if McConnell and Trump were to tomorrow say that they would adhere to what happened in 2016 and wait until after the election results to decide who nominates the next Justice, this discussion of expanding the court would disappear overnight. Precedent is being destroyed before our eyes, so we can't rely on other previously established precedent to realistically deal with the new situation handed to us by the horses destroying it.

I'm not trying to rely upon "both sidesism" to argue that Democratic anger at McConnell's actions is completely unjustified. What I'm trying to highlight is that there is an alarming lack of foresight by many posters on here, and their confidence that Democrats will be able, or willing, to take all of the steps which have been proposed. It's been emphasized numerous times that Republicans aren't going to take a Democratic court-packing scheme lying down and that they will retaliate when the opportunity arises.

What about your lack of foresight of the long term consequences of if the Dems do nothing and a pick gets rammed through before the election resulting in a court making partisan rulings on ACA and Roe that only came about due to two stolen seats?

I don't like this outcome either, and I've said elsewhere that I would prefer they (Republicans) not move forward before the election. This is a situation where there aren't any winners, and losers abound on all sides. And once again, I'll say that the Ginsburg seat is not a "stolen" seat; Gorsuch's seat is not a "stolen" seat. Garland was treated in a wrongful manner, and should have been given a hearing, but there still remains the distinction between what is morally or practically just, and what the legal standard is. Under our Constitution, Scalia's former seat lawfully belongs to Neil Gorsuch, who has been confirmed and appointed, and Ginsburg's former seat will lawfully belong to her confirmed and appointed successor, whoever that may be.

But this is the whole problem right here you’re giving Mitch a borderline pass with a “I don’t like it but it’s legal” argument while saving your righteous indignation for the dems hypothetical threat of expanding the Supreme Court even though like Mitch did with Garland and her that isn’t illegal. So why  are you treating one as “I don’t like it but I’ll allow it” and the other is the opening of the seventh seal?

It's interesting that insinuations are being made about my character merely because I'm expressing my opposition to court-packing, while having made clear, numerous times, that I don't condone what was done to Merrick Garland, and don't appreciate or support what Republicans are doing now. It is not "righteous" indignation. My stance on this is guided by a recognition of the consequences which such schemes would have for the independence and stability of the federal judiciary-concerns widely shared by the Justices themselves, and by many others within the legal sphere.

But at this point, I'm talking to a brick wall. Posters on here are deeply partisan, convinced that this is a war to save democracy, and that anyone who isn't on their side of the war ought not to be considered. Ultimately, I doubt that this whole battle will have a more substantive impact on the direction of the election then the ongoing pandemic, along with its associated civil and economic troubles, has had, to say nothing of voters' deeply ingrained opinions about Trump, his Administration, and his scandals.

But your decision to "express your opposition to court-packing" is based on what?
Keep in mind that you said above that there should be a "distinction between what is morally or practically just, and what the legal standard is." And then you also say the words "under our Constitution."
If Dems move forward with court-packing, is it not "legal" and allowed "under our Constitution"?

If you are saying that court-packing is legal, then you are correct. That does create a contradiction, if you can call it as such, in my argument. So one could say that Democrats can move forward with court-packing, if the Republicans decide to fill this seat-and both actions would be constitutionally permissible. But in the long run, they could also be constitutionally detrimental-in the sense that the judiciary, now deprived of any remaining semblance of impartiality or independence, will become merely a tool of the political branches, subordinate to them and dependent upon their favor. That by itself would be a danger to the stability of our government. This article, https://reason.com/2019/03/20/dangers-of-growing-support-for-court-pac/, published last year, provides a better summarization of the points that I'm trying to make. Scholars both liberal and conservative have expressed their concerns over the dangers of court-packing.

This is why what the Republicans are doing here is crossing a very dangerous line. The Republicans are about to pack the court if they confirm a Justice before the next term. That might be perfectly legal, but it is also perfectly legal for the Democrats to expand the court. Some might say a country as big as ours needs more Supreme Court Justices.

[Calthrina950]

OSR must be very happy that he found the reason he’s been looking for to vote for Trump

You're rendering him a great disservice. I don't think it's hypocritical for someone to dislike Trump, and yet to disapprove of court-packing schemes, or anything akin to it. And aside from that, Old School Republican isn't someone who likes to pick fights for their own sake. While I don't agree with much of what he says, and his arguments could certainly use further elaboration, he's far from the worst person here.

It is manifestly hypocritical for anyone to not consider the Republican Senate unprecedentedly freezing or immensely slow tracking Obama's judicial nominees for years, and then immediately railroading Trump's nominees through like an assembly line, plus the even more a historical bait and switch between refusing to give Merrick Garland a hearing, and now trying to cramp through Trump's nominee six weeks before an election, is anything short of "court packing".

Taken in those entirely reasonable definitions, the proposal to expand the Supreme Court to 11 seats is play arguably nothing more than UNDOING court packing. AT WORSE, it is nothing worse than Tit for Tat at best. Unless these Republicans at any point voiced disapproval over such tactics --and osr has made it as clear as any other Republican on this forum that his penultimate goal in the judiciary's to see it stacked with "strict constructionalists" (I.e. reliable votes for a 5-4 hard right majority)-- that even relatively principled conservatives like osr can be rightly accused of being willing to use the excuse of Democrat countermeasures being "Court-packing" as an excuse for their side to win. Which is exactly the opposite of what filling judicial vacancies should be about.

As I've said before, I didn't condone what was done to Garland, and I still don't believe that Kavanaugh should have been confirmed-another, equally qualified conservative nominee should have been put forth by Republicans in his place. But matching wrong with wrong isn't the correct course of action, and establishes a terrible precedent that will be utilized in the future. Nor do I think Supreme Court Justices, whether they are strict constructionists or adherents to the "living Constitution", ought to be cast from the bench for adhering to such judicial philosophies.

There are basic principles under which our country operates, but to say that one cannot apply different approaches for interpreting this principles is wrong, and it's equally wrong to say that one approach is completely correct, to the exclusion of all others. Kelo vs. New London is an example of how liberal philosophies towards constitutional protection can be wrought with flaws that undermine the integrity of our system.

2016 was an invented precedent. We either follow those rules, or other president doesn't matter when we're talking about the structure of the court for the next 30 to 40 years.

My friend, while I know it's tempting to both sides issues, the fact is that Mitch McConnell and the Republican Party have killed President, buried it, and salted the Earth over its grave site. Expanding the court by two members does nothing more than undo the thrashing of President, not re-establish terrible precedent.

And again, let's never forget for a second that if McConnell and Trump were to tomorrow say that they would adhere to what happened in 2016 and wait until after the election results to decide who nominates the next Justice, this discussion of expanding the court would disappear overnight. Precedent is being destroyed before our eyes, so we can't rely on other previously established precedent to realistically deal with the new situation handed to us by the horses destroying it.

I'm not trying to rely upon "both sidesism" to argue that Democratic anger at McConnell's actions is completely unjustified. What I'm trying to highlight is that there is an alarming lack of foresight by many posters on here, and their confidence that Democrats will be able, or willing, to take all of the steps which have been proposed. It's been emphasized numerous times that Republicans aren't going to take a Democratic court-packing scheme lying down and that they will retaliate when the opportunity arises.

What about your lack of foresight of the long term consequences of if the Dems do nothing and a pick gets rammed through before the election resulting in a court making partisan rulings on ACA and Roe that only came about due to two stolen seats?

I don't like this outcome either, and I've said elsewhere that I would prefer they (Republicans) not move forward before the election. This is a situation where there aren't any winners, and losers abound on all sides. And once again, I'll say that the Ginsburg seat is not a "stolen" seat; Gorsuch's seat is not a "stolen" seat. Garland was treated in a wrongful manner, and should have been given a hearing, but there still remains the distinction between what is morally or practically just, and what the legal standard is. Under our Constitution, Scalia's former seat lawfully belongs to Neil Gorsuch, who has been confirmed and appointed, and Ginsburg's former seat will lawfully belong to her confirmed and appointed successor, whoever that may be.

But this is the whole problem right here you’re giving Mitch a borderline pass with a “I don’t like it but it’s legal” argument while saving your righteous indignation for the dems hypothetical threat of expanding the Supreme Court even though like Mitch did with Garland and her that isn’t illegal. So why  are you treating one as “I don’t like it but I’ll allow it” and the other is the opening of the seventh seal?

It's interesting that insinuations are being made about my character merely because I'm expressing my opposition to court-packing, while having made clear, numerous times, that I don't condone what was done to Merrick Garland, and don't appreciate or support what Republicans are doing now. It is not "righteous" indignation. My stance on this is guided by a recognition of the consequences which such schemes would have for the independence and stability of the federal judiciary-concerns widely shared by the Justices themselves, and by many others within the legal sphere.

But at this point, I'm talking to a brick wall. Posters on here are deeply partisan, convinced that this is a war to save democracy, and that anyone who isn't on their side of the war ought not to be considered. Ultimately, I doubt that this whole battle will have a more substantive impact on the direction of the election then the ongoing pandemic, along with its associated civil and economic troubles, has had, to say nothing of voters' deeply ingrained opinions about Trump, his Administration, and his scandals.

But your decision to "express your opposition to court-packing" is based on what?
Keep in mind that you said above that there should be a "distinction between what is morally or practically just, and what the legal standard is." And then you also say the words "under our Constitution."
If Dems move forward with court-packing, is it not "legal" and allowed "under our Constitution"?

If you are saying that court-packing is legal, then you are correct. That does create a contradiction, if you can call it as such, in my argument. So one could say that Democrats can move forward with court-packing, if the Republicans decide to fill this seat-and both actions would be constitutionally permissible. But in the long run, they could also be constitutionally detrimental-in the sense that the judiciary, now deprived of any remaining semblance of impartiality or independence, will become merely a tool of the political branches, subordinate to them and dependent upon their favor. That by itself would be a danger to the stability of our government. This article, https://reason.com/2019/03/20/dangers-of-growing-support-for-court-pac/, published last year, provides a better summarization of the points that I'm trying to make. Scholars both liberal and conservative have expressed their concerns over the dangers of court-packing.

This is why what the Republicans are doing here is crossing a very dangerous line. The Republicans are about to pack the court if they confirm a Justice before the next term. That might be perfectly legal, but it is also perfectly legal for the Democrats to expand the court. Some might say a country as big as ours needs more Supreme Court Justices.

This is what Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution says, in part:

.....and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law....

The President nominating, and the Senate confirming, a Supreme Court Justice does not constitute "packing" the Court, not as the Democrats would propose. And while as I've said, court packing is legal, it isn't a practical or moral tactic, and it's one that will backfire on Democrats in the future, and ultimately pose a greater threat to the independence of the judiciary then just one Supreme Court seat being duly filled in accordance with constitutional procedure.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

OSR must be very happy that he found the reason he’s been looking for to vote for Trump

You're rendering him a great disservice. I don't think it's hypocritical for someone to dislike Trump, and yet to disapprove of court-packing schemes, or anything akin to it. And aside from that, Old School Republican isn't someone who likes to pick fights for their own sake. While I don't agree with much of what he says, and his arguments could certainly use further elaboration, he's far from the worst person here.

It is manifestly hypocritical for anyone to not consider the Republican Senate unprecedentedly freezing or immensely slow tracking Obama's judicial nominees for years, and then immediately railroading Trump's nominees through like an assembly line, plus the even more a historical bait and switch between refusing to give Merrick Garland a hearing, and now trying to cramp through Trump's nominee six weeks before an election, is anything short of "court packing".

Taken in those entirely reasonable definitions, the proposal to expand the Supreme Court to 11 seats is play arguably nothing more than UNDOING court packing. AT WORSE, it is nothing worse than Tit for Tat at best. Unless these Republicans at any point voiced disapproval over such tactics --and osr has made it as clear as any other Republican on this forum that his penultimate goal in the judiciary's to see it stacked with "strict constructionalists" (I.e. reliable votes for a 5-4 hard right majority)-- that even relatively principled conservatives like osr can be rightly accused of being willing to use the excuse of Democrat countermeasures being "Court-packing" as an excuse for their side to win. Which is exactly the opposite of what filling judicial vacancies should be about.

As I've said before, I didn't condone what was done to Garland, and I still don't believe that Kavanaugh should have been confirmed-another, equally qualified conservative nominee should have been put forth by Republicans in his place. But matching wrong with wrong isn't the correct course of action, and establishes a terrible precedent that will be utilized in the future. Nor do I think Supreme Court Justices, whether they are strict constructionists or adherents to the "living Constitution", ought to be cast from the bench for adhering to such judicial philosophies.

There are basic principles under which our country operates, but to say that one cannot apply different approaches for interpreting this principles is wrong, and it's equally wrong to say that one approach is completely correct, to the exclusion of all others. Kelo vs. New London is an example of how liberal philosophies towards constitutional protection can be wrought with flaws that undermine the integrity of our system.

2016 was an invented precedent. We either follow those rules, or other president doesn't matter when we're talking about the structure of the court for the next 30 to 40 years.

My friend, while I know it's tempting to both sides issues, the fact is that Mitch McConnell and the Republican Party have killed President, buried it, and salted the Earth over its grave site. Expanding the court by two members does nothing more than undo the thrashing of President, not re-establish terrible precedent.

And again, let's never forget for a second that if McConnell and Trump were to tomorrow say that they would adhere to what happened in 2016 and wait until after the election results to decide who nominates the next Justice, this discussion of expanding the court would disappear overnight. Precedent is being destroyed before our eyes, so we can't rely on other previously established precedent to realistically deal with the new situation handed to us by the horses destroying it.

I'm not trying to rely upon "both sidesism" to argue that Democratic anger at McConnell's actions is completely unjustified. What I'm trying to highlight is that there is an alarming lack of foresight by many posters on here, and their confidence that Democrats will be able, or willing, to take all of the steps which have been proposed. It's been emphasized numerous times that Republicans aren't going to take a Democratic court-packing scheme lying down and that they will retaliate when the opportunity arises.

What about your lack of foresight of the long term consequences of if the Dems do nothing and a pick gets rammed through before the election resulting in a court making partisan rulings on ACA and Roe that only came about due to two stolen seats?

I don't like this outcome either, and I've said elsewhere that I would prefer they (Republicans) not move forward before the election. This is a situation where there aren't any winners, and losers abound on all sides. And once again, I'll say that the Ginsburg seat is not a "stolen" seat; Gorsuch's seat is not a "stolen" seat. Garland was treated in a wrongful manner, and should have been given a hearing, but there still remains the distinction between what is morally or practically just, and what the legal standard is. Under our Constitution, Scalia's former seat lawfully belongs to Neil Gorsuch, who has been confirmed and appointed, and Ginsburg's former seat will lawfully belong to her confirmed and appointed successor, whoever that may be.

But this is the whole problem right here you’re giving Mitch a borderline pass with a “I don’t like it but it’s legal” argument while saving your righteous indignation for the dems hypothetical threat of expanding the Supreme Court even though like Mitch did with Garland and her that isn’t illegal. So why  are you treating one as “I don’t like it but I’ll allow it” and the other is the opening of the seventh seal?

It's interesting that insinuations are being made about my character merely because I'm expressing my opposition to court-packing, while having made clear, numerous times, that I don't condone what was done to Merrick Garland, and don't appreciate or support what Republicans are doing now. It is not "righteous" indignation. My stance on this is guided by a recognition of the consequences which such schemes would have for the independence and stability of the federal judiciary-concerns widely shared by the Justices themselves, and by many others within the legal sphere.

But at this point, I'm talking to a brick wall. Posters on here are deeply partisan, convinced that this is a war to save democracy, and that anyone who isn't on their side of the war ought not to be considered. Ultimately, I doubt that this whole battle will have a more substantive impact on the direction of the election then the ongoing pandemic, along with its associated civil and economic troubles, has had, to say nothing of voters' deeply ingrained opinions about Trump, his Administration, and his scandals.

But your decision to "express your opposition to court-packing" is based on what?
Keep in mind that you said above that there should be a "distinction between what is morally or practically just, and what the legal standard is." And then you also say the words "under our Constitution."
If Dems move forward with court-packing, is it not "legal" and allowed "under our Constitution"?

If you are saying that court-packing is legal, then you are correct. That does create a contradiction, if you can call it as such, in my argument. So one could say that Democrats can move forward with court-packing, if the Republicans decide to fill this seat-and both actions would be constitutionally permissible. But in the long run, they could also be constitutionally detrimental-in the sense that the judiciary, now deprived of any remaining semblance of impartiality or independence, will become merely a tool of the political branches, subordinate to them and dependent upon their favor. That by itself would be a danger to the stability of our government. This article, https://reason.com/2019/03/20/dangers-of-growing-support-for-court-pac/, published last year, provides a better summarization of the points that I'm trying to make. Scholars both liberal and conservative have expressed their concerns over the dangers of court-packing.

This is why what the Republicans are doing here is crossing a very dangerous line. The Republicans are about to pack the court if they confirm a Justice before the next term. That might be perfectly legal, but it is also perfectly legal for the Democrats to expand the court. Some might say a country as big as ours needs more Supreme Court Justices.

This is what Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution says, in part:

.....and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law....

The President nominating, and the Senate confirming, a Supreme Court Justice does not constitute "packing" the Court, not as the Democrats would propose. And while as I've said, court packing is legal, it isn't a practical or moral tactic, and it's one that will backfire on Democrats in the future, and ultimately pose a greater threat to the independence of the judiciary then just one Supreme Court seat being duly filled in accordance with constitutional procedure.

Did it backfire on Grant?

[Calthrina950]

OSR must be very happy that he found the reason he’s been looking for to vote for Trump

You're rendering him a great disservice. I don't think it's hypocritical for someone to dislike Trump, and yet to disapprove of court-packing schemes, or anything akin to it. And aside from that, Old School Republican isn't someone who likes to pick fights for their own sake. While I don't agree with much of what he says, and his arguments could certainly use further elaboration, he's far from the worst person here.

It is manifestly hypocritical for anyone to not consider the Republican Senate unprecedentedly freezing or immensely slow tracking Obama's judicial nominees for years, and then immediately railroading Trump's nominees through like an assembly line, plus the even more a historical bait and switch between refusing to give Merrick Garland a hearing, and now trying to cramp through Trump's nominee six weeks before an election, is anything short of "court packing".

Taken in those entirely reasonable definitions, the proposal to expand the Supreme Court to 11 seats is play arguably nothing more than UNDOING court packing. AT WORSE, it is nothing worse than Tit for Tat at best. Unless these Republicans at any point voiced disapproval over such tactics --and osr has made it as clear as any other Republican on this forum that his penultimate goal in the judiciary's to see it stacked with "strict constructionalists" (I.e. reliable votes for a 5-4 hard right majority)-- that even relatively principled conservatives like osr can be rightly accused of being willing to use the excuse of Democrat countermeasures being "Court-packing" as an excuse for their side to win. Which is exactly the opposite of what filling judicial vacancies should be about.

As I've said before, I didn't condone what was done to Garland, and I still don't believe that Kavanaugh should have been confirmed-another, equally qualified conservative nominee should have been put forth by Republicans in his place. But matching wrong with wrong isn't the correct course of action, and establishes a terrible precedent that will be utilized in the future. Nor do I think Supreme Court Justices, whether they are strict constructionists or adherents to the "living Constitution", ought to be cast from the bench for adhering to such judicial philosophies.

There are basic principles under which our country operates, but to say that one cannot apply different approaches for interpreting this principles is wrong, and it's equally wrong to say that one approach is completely correct, to the exclusion of all others. Kelo vs. New London is an example of how liberal philosophies towards constitutional protection can be wrought with flaws that undermine the integrity of our system.

2016 was an invented precedent. We either follow those rules, or other president doesn't matter when we're talking about the structure of the court for the next 30 to 40 years.

My friend, while I know it's tempting to both sides issues, the fact is that Mitch McConnell and the Republican Party have killed President, buried it, and salted the Earth over its grave site. Expanding the court by two members does nothing more than undo the thrashing of President, not re-establish terrible precedent.

And again, let's never forget for a second that if McConnell and Trump were to tomorrow say that they would adhere to what happened in 2016 and wait until after the election results to decide who nominates the next Justice, this discussion of expanding the court would disappear overnight. Precedent is being destroyed before our eyes, so we can't rely on other previously established precedent to realistically deal with the new situation handed to us by the horses destroying it.

I'm not trying to rely upon "both sidesism" to argue that Democratic anger at McConnell's actions is completely unjustified. What I'm trying to highlight is that there is an alarming lack of foresight by many posters on here, and their confidence that Democrats will be able, or willing, to take all of the steps which have been proposed. It's been emphasized numerous times that Republicans aren't going to take a Democratic court-packing scheme lying down and that they will retaliate when the opportunity arises.

What about your lack of foresight of the long term consequences of if the Dems do nothing and a pick gets rammed through before the election resulting in a court making partisan rulings on ACA and Roe that only came about due to two stolen seats?

I don't like this outcome either, and I've said elsewhere that I would prefer they (Republicans) not move forward before the election. This is a situation where there aren't any winners, and losers abound on all sides. And once again, I'll say that the Ginsburg seat is not a "stolen" seat; Gorsuch's seat is not a "stolen" seat. Garland was treated in a wrongful manner, and should have been given a hearing, but there still remains the distinction between what is morally or practically just, and what the legal standard is. Under our Constitution, Scalia's former seat lawfully belongs to Neil Gorsuch, who has been confirmed and appointed, and Ginsburg's former seat will lawfully belong to her confirmed and appointed successor, whoever that may be.

But this is the whole problem right here you’re giving Mitch a borderline pass with a “I don’t like it but it’s legal” argument while saving your righteous indignation for the dems hypothetical threat of expanding the Supreme Court even though like Mitch did with Garland and her that isn’t illegal. So why  are you treating one as “I don’t like it but I’ll allow it” and the other is the opening of the seventh seal?

It's interesting that insinuations are being made about my character merely because I'm expressing my opposition to court-packing, while having made clear, numerous times, that I don't condone what was done to Merrick Garland, and don't appreciate or support what Republicans are doing now. It is not "righteous" indignation. My stance on this is guided by a recognition of the consequences which such schemes would have for the independence and stability of the federal judiciary-concerns widely shared by the Justices themselves, and by many others within the legal sphere.

But at this point, I'm talking to a brick wall. Posters on here are deeply partisan, convinced that this is a war to save democracy, and that anyone who isn't on their side of the war ought not to be considered. Ultimately, I doubt that this whole battle will have a more substantive impact on the direction of the election then the ongoing pandemic, along with its associated civil and economic troubles, has had, to say nothing of voters' deeply ingrained opinions about Trump, his Administration, and his scandals.

But your decision to "express your opposition to court-packing" is based on what?
Keep in mind that you said above that there should be a "distinction between what is morally or practically just, and what the legal standard is." And then you also say the words "under our Constitution."
If Dems move forward with court-packing, is it not "legal" and allowed "under our Constitution"?

If you are saying that court-packing is legal, then you are correct. That does create a contradiction, if you can call it as such, in my argument. So one could say that Democrats can move forward with court-packing, if the Republicans decide to fill this seat-and both actions would be constitutionally permissible. But in the long run, they could also be constitutionally detrimental-in the sense that the judiciary, now deprived of any remaining semblance of impartiality or independence, will become merely a tool of the political branches, subordinate to them and dependent upon their favor. That by itself would be a danger to the stability of our government. This article, https://reason.com/2019/03/20/dangers-of-growing-support-for-court-pac/, published last year, provides a better summarization of the points that I'm trying to make. Scholars both liberal and conservative have expressed their concerns over the dangers of court-packing.

This is why what the Republicans are doing here is crossing a very dangerous line. The Republicans are about to pack the court if they confirm a Justice before the next term. That might be perfectly legal, but it is also perfectly legal for the Democrats to expand the court. Some might say a country as big as ours needs more Supreme Court Justices.

This is what Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution says, in part:

.....and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law....

The President nominating, and the Senate confirming, a Supreme Court Justice does not constitute "packing" the Court, not as the Democrats would propose. And while as I've said, court packing is legal, it isn't a practical or moral tactic, and it's one that will backfire on Democrats in the future, and ultimately pose a greater threat to the independence of the judiciary then just one Supreme Court seat being duly filled in accordance with constitutional procedure.

Did it backfire on Grant?

Are you referring to the Judiciary Act of 1869? That's the most recent legislation altering the size of the Supreme Court, and it was implemented 150 years ago. The Court's size fluctuated during the 1860s, in part due to Congress' efforts to limit the authority of President Andrew Johnson-efforts that ultimately culminated in his impeachment and contributed to partisan rancor. The Judiciary Act put an end to that period and stabilized the federal court system, and given the duration of time that has passed since its implementation, it would be unwise to tamper with the Court's structure now, for reasons that are apart from legitimate constitutional principle.

[Sbane]

OSR must be very happy that he found the reason he’s been looking for to vote for Trump

You're rendering him a great disservice. I don't think it's hypocritical for someone to dislike Trump, and yet to disapprove of court-packing schemes, or anything akin to it. And aside from that, Old School Republican isn't someone who likes to pick fights for their own sake. While I don't agree with much of what he says, and his arguments could certainly use further elaboration, he's far from the worst person here.

It is manifestly hypocritical for anyone to not consider the Republican Senate unprecedentedly freezing or immensely slow tracking Obama's judicial nominees for years, and then immediately railroading Trump's nominees through like an assembly line, plus the even more a historical bait and switch between refusing to give Merrick Garland a hearing, and now trying to cramp through Trump's nominee six weeks before an election, is anything short of "court packing".

Taken in those entirely reasonable definitions, the proposal to expand the Supreme Court to 11 seats is play arguably nothing more than UNDOING court packing. AT WORSE, it is nothing worse than Tit for Tat at best. Unless these Republicans at any point voiced disapproval over such tactics --and osr has made it as clear as any other Republican on this forum that his penultimate goal in the judiciary's to see it stacked with "strict constructionalists" (I.e. reliable votes for a 5-4 hard right majority)-- that even relatively principled conservatives like osr can be rightly accused of being willing to use the excuse of Democrat countermeasures being "Court-packing" as an excuse for their side to win. Which is exactly the opposite of what filling judicial vacancies should be about.

As I've said before, I didn't condone what was done to Garland, and I still don't believe that Kavanaugh should have been confirmed-another, equally qualified conservative nominee should have been put forth by Republicans in his place. But matching wrong with wrong isn't the correct course of action, and establishes a terrible precedent that will be utilized in the future. Nor do I think Supreme Court Justices, whether they are strict constructionists or adherents to the "living Constitution", ought to be cast from the bench for adhering to such judicial philosophies.

There are basic principles under which our country operates, but to say that one cannot apply different approaches for interpreting this principles is wrong, and it's equally wrong to say that one approach is completely correct, to the exclusion of all others. Kelo vs. New London is an example of how liberal philosophies towards constitutional protection can be wrought with flaws that undermine the integrity of our system.

2016 was an invented precedent. We either follow those rules, or other president doesn't matter when we're talking about the structure of the court for the next 30 to 40 years.

My friend, while I know it's tempting to both sides issues, the fact is that Mitch McConnell and the Republican Party have killed President, buried it, and salted the Earth over its grave site. Expanding the court by two members does nothing more than undo the thrashing of President, not re-establish terrible precedent.

And again, let's never forget for a second that if McConnell and Trump were to tomorrow say that they would adhere to what happened in 2016 and wait until after the election results to decide who nominates the next Justice, this discussion of expanding the court would disappear overnight. Precedent is being destroyed before our eyes, so we can't rely on other previously established precedent to realistically deal with the new situation handed to us by the horses destroying it.

I'm not trying to rely upon "both sidesism" to argue that Democratic anger at McConnell's actions is completely unjustified. What I'm trying to highlight is that there is an alarming lack of foresight by many posters on here, and their confidence that Democrats will be able, or willing, to take all of the steps which have been proposed. It's been emphasized numerous times that Republicans aren't going to take a Democratic court-packing scheme lying down and that they will retaliate when the opportunity arises.

What about your lack of foresight of the long term consequences of if the Dems do nothing and a pick gets rammed through before the election resulting in a court making partisan rulings on ACA and Roe that only came about due to two stolen seats?

I don't like this outcome either, and I've said elsewhere that I would prefer they (Republicans) not move forward before the election. This is a situation where there aren't any winners, and losers abound on all sides. And once again, I'll say that the Ginsburg seat is not a "stolen" seat; Gorsuch's seat is not a "stolen" seat. Garland was treated in a wrongful manner, and should have been given a hearing, but there still remains the distinction between what is morally or practically just, and what the legal standard is. Under our Constitution, Scalia's former seat lawfully belongs to Neil Gorsuch, who has been confirmed and appointed, and Ginsburg's former seat will lawfully belong to her confirmed and appointed successor, whoever that may be.

But this is the whole problem right here you’re giving Mitch a borderline pass with a “I don’t like it but it’s legal” argument while saving your righteous indignation for the dems hypothetical threat of expanding the Supreme Court even though like Mitch did with Garland and her that isn’t illegal. So why  are you treating one as “I don’t like it but I’ll allow it” and the other is the opening of the seventh seal?

It's interesting that insinuations are being made about my character merely because I'm expressing my opposition to court-packing, while having made clear, numerous times, that I don't condone what was done to Merrick Garland, and don't appreciate or support what Republicans are doing now. It is not "righteous" indignation. My stance on this is guided by a recognition of the consequences which such schemes would have for the independence and stability of the federal judiciary-concerns widely shared by the Justices themselves, and by many others within the legal sphere.

But at this point, I'm talking to a brick wall. Posters on here are deeply partisan, convinced that this is a war to save democracy, and that anyone who isn't on their side of the war ought not to be considered. Ultimately, I doubt that this whole battle will have a more substantive impact on the direction of the election then the ongoing pandemic, along with its associated civil and economic troubles, has had, to say nothing of voters' deeply ingrained opinions about Trump, his Administration, and his scandals.

But your decision to "express your opposition to court-packing" is based on what?
Keep in mind that you said above that there should be a "distinction between what is morally or practically just, and what the legal standard is." And then you also say the words "under our Constitution."
If Dems move forward with court-packing, is it not "legal" and allowed "under our Constitution"?

If you are saying that court-packing is legal, then you are correct. That does create a contradiction, if you can call it as such, in my argument. So one could say that Democrats can move forward with court-packing, if the Republicans decide to fill this seat-and both actions would be constitutionally permissible. But in the long run, they could also be constitutionally detrimental-in the sense that the judiciary, now deprived of any remaining semblance of impartiality or independence, will become merely a tool of the political branches, subordinate to them and dependent upon their favor. That by itself would be a danger to the stability of our government. This article, https://reason.com/2019/03/20/dangers-of-growing-support-for-court-pac/, published last year, provides a better summarization of the points that I'm trying to make. Scholars both liberal and conservative have expressed their concerns over the dangers of court-packing.

This is why what the Republicans are doing here is crossing a very dangerous line. The Republicans are about to pack the court if they confirm a Justice before the next term. That might be perfectly legal, but it is also perfectly legal for the Democrats to expand the court. Some might say a country as big as ours needs more Supreme Court Justices.

This is what Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution says, in part:

.....and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law....

The President nominating, and the Senate confirming, a Supreme Court Justice does not constitute "packing" the Court, not as the Democrats would propose. And while as I've said, court packing is legal, it isn't a practical or moral tactic, and it's one that will backfire on Democrats in the future, and ultimately pose a greater threat to the independence of the judiciary then just one Supreme Court seat being duly filled in accordance with constitutional procedure.

The legitimacy of the court is on the line here. Merrick Garland should have got a vote. I do believe he would have been confirmed, but of course the Republicans would have had every right to reject him. They did neither because they are cowards. Now these shameless individuals don't want to live by their own idiotic standard. If Trump wins in 2020 and the Republicans retain control of the Senate, of course they should be able to nominate and confirm RBG's replacement.

If the nominee is confirmed before the next term, it will damage the credibility of any controversial decision decided by one vote. Republicans have purposefully obstructed their way into winning Supreme Court seats to fulfill their agenda. Why shouldn't Democrats pack the court with judges that will overturn the Citizens v United decision? That decision is harming this country on a daily basis as we see how the rot of money in politics has corrupted this country.

[7,052,770]

Ultimately, there are two choices:

• Republicans pack the court and Democrats just let it happen
• Republicans pack the court and Democrats counter-pack just to get back to the R+1 margin

Anyone can feel free to prefer #1, but you're not really against packing if you do.

Putting aside the circumstances of what happened to Merrick Garland, how does a President nominating, and the Senate confirming, a nominee at this juncture constitute "packing" the Court. If Garland had been given a hearing and rejected on the flimsiest of grounds, would this argument still be made? Ginsburg's seat, however much one would argue, isn't a seat that belongs to the Democrats; Scalia's seat didn't belong to the Republicans.

I don't know what happens in the "what if..." game. It didn't happen because Republicans were upfront about how no one would be confirmed, no matter what.

Trump is presumably about to fill two vacancies that occurred 55 months apart, despite a 48-month term. That is an unprecedented pack. He can have 1 without packing, obviously, but not both.

Biden, if he wins godwilling, must get us back to the rightful R+1 ratio, preferably by convincing Republicans to do the right thing and not confirm the Trump pick, but if his hand is forced, by appointing 2 additional justices. Anything less than that is allowing Republicans to pack and get away with it.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

OSR must be very happy that he found the reason he’s been looking for to vote for Trump

You're rendering him a great disservice. I don't think it's hypocritical for someone to dislike Trump, and yet to disapprove of court-packing schemes, or anything akin to it. And aside from that, Old School Republican isn't someone who likes to pick fights for their own sake. While I don't agree with much of what he says, and his arguments could certainly use further elaboration, he's far from the worst person here.

It is manifestly hypocritical for anyone to not consider the Republican Senate unprecedentedly freezing or immensely slow tracking Obama's judicial nominees for years, and then immediately railroading Trump's nominees through like an assembly line, plus the even more a historical bait and switch between refusing to give Merrick Garland a hearing, and now trying to cramp through Trump's nominee six weeks before an election, is anything short of "court packing".

Taken in those entirely reasonable definitions, the proposal to expand the Supreme Court to 11 seats is play arguably nothing more than UNDOING court packing. AT WORSE, it is nothing worse than Tit for Tat at best. Unless these Republicans at any point voiced disapproval over such tactics --and osr has made it as clear as any other Republican on this forum that his penultimate goal in the judiciary's to see it stacked with "strict constructionalists" (I.e. reliable votes for a 5-4 hard right majority)-- that even relatively principled conservatives like osr can be rightly accused of being willing to use the excuse of Democrat countermeasures being "Court-packing" as an excuse for their side to win. Which is exactly the opposite of what filling judicial vacancies should be about.

As I've said before, I didn't condone what was done to Garland, and I still don't believe that Kavanaugh should have been confirmed-another, equally qualified conservative nominee should have been put forth by Republicans in his place. But matching wrong with wrong isn't the correct course of action, and establishes a terrible precedent that will be utilized in the future. Nor do I think Supreme Court Justices, whether they are strict constructionists or adherents to the "living Constitution", ought to be cast from the bench for adhering to such judicial philosophies.

There are basic principles under which our country operates, but to say that one cannot apply different approaches for interpreting this principles is wrong, and it's equally wrong to say that one approach is completely correct, to the exclusion of all others. Kelo vs. New London is an example of how liberal philosophies towards constitutional protection can be wrought with flaws that undermine the integrity of our system.

2016 was an invented precedent. We either follow those rules, or other president doesn't matter when we're talking about the structure of the court for the next 30 to 40 years.

My friend, while I know it's tempting to both sides issues, the fact is that Mitch McConnell and the Republican Party have killed President, buried it, and salted the Earth over its grave site. Expanding the court by two members does nothing more than undo the thrashing of President, not re-establish terrible precedent.

And again, let's never forget for a second that if McConnell and Trump were to tomorrow say that they would adhere to what happened in 2016 and wait until after the election results to decide who nominates the next Justice, this discussion of expanding the court would disappear overnight. Precedent is being destroyed before our eyes, so we can't rely on other previously established precedent to realistically deal with the new situation handed to us by the horses destroying it.

I'm not trying to rely upon "both sidesism" to argue that Democratic anger at McConnell's actions is completely unjustified. What I'm trying to highlight is that there is an alarming lack of foresight by many posters on here, and their confidence that Democrats will be able, or willing, to take all of the steps which have been proposed. It's been emphasized numerous times that Republicans aren't going to take a Democratic court-packing scheme lying down and that they will retaliate when the opportunity arises.

From the Democratic perspective, how are theoretical future Republican actions worse than failing to respond to current Republican actions?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

OSR must be very happy that he found the reason he’s been looking for to vote for Trump

You're rendering him a great disservice. I don't think it's hypocritical for someone to dislike Trump, and yet to disapprove of court-packing schemes, or anything akin to it. And aside from that, Old School Republican isn't someone who likes to pick fights for their own sake. While I don't agree with much of what he says, and his arguments could certainly use further elaboration, he's far from the worst person here.

It is manifestly hypocritical for anyone to not consider the Republican Senate unprecedentedly freezing or immensely slow tracking Obama's judicial nominees for years, and then immediately railroading Trump's nominees through like an assembly line, plus the even more a historical bait and switch between refusing to give Merrick Garland a hearing, and now trying to cramp through Trump's nominee six weeks before an election, is anything short of "court packing".

Taken in those entirely reasonable definitions, the proposal to expand the Supreme Court to 11 seats is play arguably nothing more than UNDOING court packing. AT WORSE, it is nothing worse than Tit for Tat at best. Unless these Republicans at any point voiced disapproval over such tactics --and osr has made it as clear as any other Republican on this forum that his penultimate goal in the judiciary's to see it stacked with "strict constructionalists" (I.e. reliable votes for a 5-4 hard right majority)-- that even relatively principled conservatives like osr can be rightly accused of being willing to use the excuse of Democrat countermeasures being "Court-packing" as an excuse for their side to win. Which is exactly the opposite of what filling judicial vacancies should be about.

As I've said before, I didn't condone what was done to Garland, and I still don't believe that Kavanaugh should have been confirmed-another, equally qualified conservative nominee should have been put forth by Republicans in his place. But matching wrong with wrong isn't the correct course of action, and establishes a terrible precedent that will be utilized in the future. Nor do I think Supreme Court Justices, whether they are strict constructionists or adherents to the "living Constitution", ought to be cast from the bench for adhering to such judicial philosophies.

There are basic principles under which our country operates, but to say that one cannot apply different approaches for interpreting this principles is wrong, and it's equally wrong to say that one approach is completely correct, to the exclusion of all others. Kelo vs. New London is an example of how liberal philosophies towards constitutional protection can be wrought with flaws that undermine the integrity of our system.

2016 was an invented precedent. We either follow those rules, or other president doesn't matter when we're talking about the structure of the court for the next 30 to 40 years.

My friend, while I know it's tempting to both sides issues, the fact is that Mitch McConnell and the Republican Party have killed President, buried it, and salted the Earth over its grave site. Expanding the court by two members does nothing more than undo the thrashing of President, not re-establish terrible precedent.

And again, let's never forget for a second that if McConnell and Trump were to tomorrow say that they would adhere to what happened in 2016 and wait until after the election results to decide who nominates the next Justice, this discussion of expanding the court would disappear overnight. Precedent is being destroyed before our eyes, so we can't rely on other previously established precedent to realistically deal with the new situation handed to us by the horses destroying it.

I'm not trying to rely upon "both sidesism" to argue that Democratic anger at McConnell's actions is completely unjustified. What I'm trying to highlight is that there is an alarming lack of foresight by many posters on here, and their confidence that Democrats will be able, or willing, to take all of the steps which have been proposed. It's been emphasized numerous times that Republicans aren't going to take a Democratic court-packing scheme lying down and that they will retaliate when the opportunity arises.

What about your lack of foresight of the long term consequences of if the Dems do nothing and a pick gets rammed through before the election resulting in a court making partisan rulings on ACA and Roe that only came about due to two stolen seats?

I don't like this outcome either, and I've said elsewhere that I would prefer they (Republicans) not move forward before the election. This is a situation where there aren't any winners, and losers abound on all sides. And once again, I'll say that the Ginsburg seat is not a "stolen" seat; Gorsuch's seat is not a "stolen" seat. Garland was treated in a wrongful manner, and should have been given a hearing, but there still remains the distinction between what is morally or practically just, and what the legal standard is. Under our Constitution, Scalia's former seat lawfully belongs to Neil Gorsuch, who has been confirmed and appointed, and Ginsburg's former seat will lawfully belong to her confirmed and appointed successor, whoever that may be.

But this is the whole problem right here you’re giving Mitch a borderline pass with a “I don’t like it but it’s legal” argument while saving your righteous indignation for the dems hypothetical threat of expanding the Supreme Court even though like Mitch did with Garland and her that isn’t illegal. So why  are you treating one as “I don’t like it but I’ll allow it” and the other is the opening of the seventh seal?

It's interesting that insinuations are being made about my character merely because I'm expressing my opposition to court-packing, while having made clear, numerous times, that I don't condone what was done to Merrick Garland, and don't appreciate or support what Republicans are doing now. It is not "righteous" indignation. My stance on this is guided by a recognition of the consequences which such schemes would have for the independence and stability of the federal judiciary-concerns widely shared by the Justices themselves, and by many others within the legal sphere.

But at this point, I'm talking to a brick wall. Posters on here are deeply partisan, convinced that this is a war to save democracy, and that anyone who isn't on their side of the war ought not to be considered. Ultimately, I doubt that this whole battle will have a more substantive impact on the direction of the election then the ongoing pandemic, along with its associated civil and economic troubles, has had, to say nothing of voters' deeply ingrained opinions about Trump, his Administration, and his scandals.

But your decision to "express your opposition to court-packing" is based on what?
Keep in mind that you said above that there should be a "distinction between what is morally or practically just, and what the legal standard is." And then you also say the words "under our Constitution."
If Dems move forward with court-packing, is it not "legal" and allowed "under our Constitution"?

If you are saying that court-packing is legal, then you are correct. That does create a contradiction, if you can call it as such, in my argument. So one could say that Democrats can move forward with court-packing, if the Republicans decide to fill this seat-and both actions would be constitutionally permissible. But in the long run, they could also be constitutionally detrimental-in the sense that the judiciary, now deprived of any remaining semblance of impartiality or independence, will become merely a tool of the political branches, subordinate to them and dependent upon their favor. That by itself would be a danger to the stability of our government. This article, https://reason.com/2019/03/20/dangers-of-growing-support-for-court-pac/, published last year, provides a better summarization of the points that I'm trying to make. Scholars both liberal and conservative have expressed their concerns over the dangers of court-packing.

This is why what the Republicans are doing here is crossing a very dangerous line. The Republicans are about to pack the court if they confirm a Justice before the next term. That might be perfectly legal, but it is also perfectly legal for the Democrats to expand the court. Some might say a country as big as ours needs more Supreme Court Justices.

This is what Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution says, in part:

.....and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law....

The President nominating, and the Senate confirming, a Supreme Court Justice does not constitute "packing" the Court, not as the Democrats would propose. And while as I've said, court packing is legal, it isn't a practical or moral tactic, and it's one that will backfire on Democrats in the future, and ultimately pose a greater threat to the independence of the judiciary then just one Supreme Court seat being duly filled in accordance with constitutional procedure.

Did it backfire on Grant?

For that matter, did altering the courts for political purposes backfire on Jefferson? What he did when he got into the white house was arguably even more destructive to the idea of an independent judiciary than what our current politics are doing.

[Brittain33]

We can probably cut back the quotes to the previous 1-2 posts, guys

[Calthrina950]

I've found it interesting that the primary example of court-packing-FDR's plan of 1937, and its derailment by Congress and by the Court itself-hasn't been noted on here. Instead, now we are going back to the nineteenth century, and the lessons from that time period as well are being misconstrued or misinterpreted, if not dismissed altogether. Going to the FDR example, he acted against the Court out of frustration on its rulings concerning many of his New Deal policies-a clearly partisan, or political consideration.

He tried to justify his packing by saying it would make the Court more "efficient" through promoting turnover among the older Justices. But these reasons were not bought by members of Congress, who recognized it as the effort it truly was-to mold the institution into his liking. And it was not sanctioned. Ultimately, Roosevelt was able to steer the Court his way through the normal confirmation process. If Democrats now try to revive the court-packing plan, they may find that success is transitory, and could very well set themselves down a path that will undermine their future policy goals.

[Abolish ICE]

I've found it interesting that the primary example of court-packing-FDR's plan of 1937, and its derailment by Congress and by the Court itself-hasn't been noted on here. Instead, now we are going back to the nineteenth century, and the lessons from that time period as well are being misconstrued or misinterpreted, if not dismissed altogether. Going to the FDR example, he acted against the Court out of frustration on its rulings concerning many of his New Deal policies-a clearly partisan, or political consideration.

He tried to justify his packing by saying it would make the Court more "efficient" through promoting turnover among the older Justices. But these reasons were not bought by members of Congress, who recognized it as the effort it truly was-to mold the institution into his liking. And it was not sanctioned. Ultimately, Roosevelt was able to steer the Court his way through the normal confirmation process. If Democrats now try to revive the court-packing plan, they may find that success is transitory, and could very well set themselves down a path that will undermine their future policy goals.

Actually, what initially steered the Court Roosevelt’s way was the threat of court packing (hence, the switch in time that saved nine).  Regardless, Republicans are already packing the Court and as far as we’re concerned any hand-wringing about potential retaliation or damage to the institution is beside the point.  Republican Court-packing will have already irreparably destroyed the Court’s legitimacy and reduced it to little more than a blunt instrument of crude political subjugation.  As for policy or threats of retaliation, the consequences of not responding in kind to Republican court packing are worse than anything you guys can threaten us with.  

I believe you’re (unlike most conservatives arguing against court-packing) making your arguments in good-faith, but what you don’t seem to understand is that this isn’t really up for debate at this point.  Tbh, it’s really quite simple.  If Trump fills Ginsberg’s seat without winning re-election and the Senate flips then the Supreme Court will be (un)packed, the filibuster will be abolished outright or severely weakened at the very least (and certainly abolished for some things like admitting new states and adding SCOTUS seats), and D.C./Puerto Rico* will be added as new states.

*and hopefully they throw in American Samoa too

As far as most Democrats are concerned, this is the *minimum* acceptable proportional response to what Republicans have done and are preparing to do.  Frankly, there is nothing you or anyone else can say or do to change our minds on this.  I don’t mean that meanly or dismissively, it’s just a statement of fact.  

[Calthrina950]

I've found it interesting that the primary example of court-packing-FDR's plan of 1937, and its derailment by Congress and by the Court itself-hasn't been noted on here. Instead, now we are going back to the nineteenth century, and the lessons from that time period as well are being misconstrued or misinterpreted, if not dismissed altogether. Going to the FDR example, he acted against the Court out of frustration on its rulings concerning many of his New Deal policies-a clearly partisan, or political consideration.

He tried to justify his packing by saying it would make the Court more "efficient" through promoting turnover among the older Justices. But these reasons were not bought by members of Congress, who recognized it as the effort it truly was-to mold the institution into his liking. And it was not sanctioned. Ultimately, Roosevelt was able to steer the Court his way through the normal confirmation process. If Democrats now try to revive the court-packing plan, they may find that success is transitory, and could very well set themselves down a path that will undermine their future policy goals.

Actually, what initially steered the Court Roosevelt’s way was the threat of court packing (hence, the switch in time that saved nine).  Regardless, Republicans are already packing the Court and as far as we’re concerned any hand-wringing about potential retaliation or damage to the institution is beside the point.  Republican Court-packing will have already irreparably destroyed the Court’s legitimacy and reduced it to little more than a blunt instrument of crude political subjugation.  As for policy or threats of retaliation, the consequences of not responding in kind to Republican court packing are worse than anything you guys can threaten us with.  

I believe you’re (unlike most conservatives arguing against court-packing) making your arguments in good-faith, but what you don’t seem to understand is that this isn’t really up for debate at this point.  Tbh, it’s really quite simple.  If Trump fills Ginsberg’s seat without winning re-election and the Senate flips then the Supreme Court will be (un)packed, the filibuster will be abolished outright or severely weakened at the very least (and certainly abolished for some things like admitting new states and adding SCOTUS seats), and D.C./Puerto Rico* will be added as new states.

*and hopefully they throw in American Samoa too

As far as most Democrats are concerned, this is the *minimum* acceptable proportional response to what Republicans have done and are preparing to do.  Frankly, there is nothing you or anyone else can say or do to change our minds on this.  I don’t mean that meanly or dismissively, it’s just a statement of fact.  

I'm very well aware of Justice Owen Roberts' shift, and I've mentioned that elsewhere. And at this point, I've discovered that your minds (and by "your", I'm meaning Atlas Democrats in general) are fixed on this, and that you're determined to pack the court if a Trump nominee gets confirmed (and even if such a nominee does not get confirmed). Republicans, on their part, have a long trail of grievances: not just the Kavanaugh hearing (which from their perspective was a "witch-hunt" against Kavanaugh), but also what happened to Robert Bork and Miguel Estrada. So they are fixed in their ways. It's impossible for the two sides to see reason on this.