I get that this is The Cover Story™, but does any actually believe this? That there is some world in which McConnell says "well I'd sure love to fill this Supreme Court seat, but doing so would require violating procedure, therefore I can't"? You might as well claim that if Harry Reid hadn't done what he did, Trump would be an empathetic and genteel President.
It’s not the “cover story,” it is the story, regardless of whether or not McConnell may have done it or violated rules otherwise. Schumer has warned against it because he was concerned about the GOP ramming through judicial appointments when they got power back. And gee whiz, that’s exactly what happened.
But it was a response to the GOP working to pack the judiciary. The plan was already underway. If Reid hadn't done what he did, the only difference would be that the GOP would have rammed through more judges to more open seats by now. This idea that Reid's actions allowed, induced, or gave permission to the GOP, and that, in its absence, the GOP wouldn't have rammed through judicial appointments, is complete nonsense.
But it’s still what happened, no matter what you think McConnell woulda/coulda done. And it was to override to GOP filibustering who were creating a backlog of pending Obama judicial confirmations. Comparing what happened to a speculative, alternate reality is fun, but not exactly useful in deciding what the best course is for this one. I’m sure destroying the Supreme Court through actual court-packing will have zero blowback.
So... what's the argument here? Yes, it happened. So did Clinton getting a hummer in the Oval. Unless you're arguing that either caused the recent actions of the Senate GOP, then they're both equally irrelevant to the current topic.
The point is court-packing is a stupid idea, as I say that as someone who will probably be voting for Biden.
Dumb question; but if the Dems do pack the court, what is stopping the Reps from adding seats the next time they have the power?
In theory, nothing. In practice, the fact that the demographics of the country indicate the Democrats will hold the House for a good long while.
And FDR is dead, therefore the Democrats expanding the size of the court isn't technically court packing either. Or we could accept that "court packing" was coined by a journalist and isn't a legal term with a precise definition, that in a colloquial sense means "abusing procedure to ensure a favorable judicial composition at odds with what one would naturally expect."
But the court is already packed (one side has a larger majority). And are you seriously still undecided on who to vote for?
Now now, the esteemed Boston Herald just endorsed Trump, so their learned and considered opinion must be weighed before any decision can be made.
In terms of Joe Biden vs 3rd Party, yeah. That okay with you? I’m not fully sold on the wisdom of replacing one mentally deficient septuagenarian with another.
It's a two party system, you live in a state that's Biden +35, and your ballot is going to be set on fire outside the BPL anyway. Let's not overthink this.
It’s not so much over-thinking as much as not really giving a shit at this point. I’ll think about it during the 30 seconds I’m standing in the voting booth. I care more about the ballot questions for my state more than anything. Right-to-repair and ranked-choice voting are serious business.
So if the Democrats win a full majority, and decide to add five justices to the SC, it will also be considered packed?
Fun fact; the original intent of the Supreme Court was to include one judge from each of the federal circuit courts to equally represent all parts of the nation. So, based on THAT logic, we should actually expand the court to 13 justices. Seems fine to me.