I don't think it'd be an easy thing to justify at all. It would be really divisive. Justice Ginsburg herself said packing the court would politicise it and destroy it as an institution. It's really not necessary either. The Congress makes the laws and the court defends the constitution. To change that relationship would fundamentally change the constitution and could have some really bad consequences and lots of uncertaintyThey'd have to increase the Supreme Court, just in the interests of fairness - and thanks to what they've done and said (such as Lindsay Graham confirming himself as the toad-faced hypocritical gobshite he is) the Dems can defend the decision easily.
That said, it just means whenever the Presidency changes hands, unless the new President shows restraint, they'd always "pack the court" with their own nominees ad nauseum from now on until you have absurd numbers.
But again, what choice does Biden have - he's simply reacting to disgusting behaviour from the Republicans on this who simply aren't playing the game fairly.
I don't think it'd be an easy thing to justify at all. It would be really divisive. Justice Ginsburg herself said packing the court would politicise it and destroy it as an institution. It's really not necessary either. The Congress makes the laws and the court defends the constitution. To change that relationship would fundamentally change the constitution and could have some really bad consequences and lots of uncertainty
This is someone just taking the piss and enjoying himself before he's put in the bin.
Fear of politicizing the court is no longer a viable impulse now that the court's already politicized. It's coughing up ideologically determined, five-four decisions as a matter of course these days, notwithstanding the odd Roberts tiebreaker that gets so much press because it's the exception to the rule.Justice Ginsburg herself said packing the court would politicise it and destroy it as an institution.
She said that before Trump did what he's doing after her death.
You're right, it'd destroy it - but pushing through his nominee after denying Obama the same privilege is destroying it first. It is ignoring precedent.
And it's definitely necessary. Unfortunately, US politics has become a lot more partisan, particularly from the right, where extremist measures may be pushed through. If the Supreme Court gets left untouched, the Republicans/right wing of politics in the US will have no qualms about using their influence there to stop any and all reforms they don't like.
In a normal time, if the Supreme Court leans one way or the other, it's fair enough, just have to take it. But these aren't normal times, and Trump - through his ego and the lack of checks and balances offered by the pathetically weak Republican party on his excesses - has changed the rules of the game.
I don't think it'd be an easy thing to justify at all. It would be really divisive. Justice Ginsburg herself said packing the court would politicise it and destroy it as an institution. It's really not necessary either. The Congress makes the laws and the court defends the constitution. To change that relationship would fundamentally change the constitution and could have some really bad consequences and lots of uncertainty
Fear of politicizing the court is no longer a viable impulse now that the court's already politicized. It's coughing up ideologically determined, five-four decisions as a matter of course these days, notwithstanding the odd Roberts tiebreaker that gets so much press because it's the exception to the rule.
Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.