This is not court packing and it has never been defined as court packing. Redefining words and terms is standard practice by leftist which is akin to slowly raising the temperature of the water pot our lobster is taking a leisurely bath in.

If victorious, in a few months when President Harris nominates multiple Supreme Court justices the media will offer plenty of cover by saying the same thing, that the Republicans were doing this for years. Not only is that a lie, it’s part of a long-term strategy.

No, that’s not true. It doesn’t matter how many times you repeat it. The understood definition of court packing has always meant adding justices (in this case to the Supreme Court) as a way to achieve goals not achievable through the legislative body. PERIOD.

Argue the diversity of Trump’s picks separately but it is dishonest to lump it under court packing as a means to avoid effectively pleading guilty to committing the act.

I Googled it,... you're right.

Court packing, simply put, is when more justices are added to the Supreme Court than currently are seated—and has been discussed as a way Democrats might counteract an enduring conservative majority on the court if they win back the Senate and White House in 2020. The term court packing is historically associated with President Franklin Delano Roosevelt in the late 1930s.

Specifically,... adding more not replacing with partizans...

@Serobot,

If your definition of court packing as adding justices, then it a completely innocuous term.

The premise of my post though is obviously bald faced racism. So let's forget 'court packing' for the moment and address this egregious racism. 53 Judges, appellate court judges, the ones who when overturning lower courts set precedent, which all lower courts have to then follow. These are very powerful judges, most of their cases are not kicked up to the Supreme Court, for further review, most of their judgements become the law of the land.

Of the 53 judges, not a single judge, not one, none at all, as in zero, were b
Black. That is insane. It's the very definition of institutional racism because they set law.

That's the main point that got skirted around by trying to redefine 'court packing'.

Back to the definition of 'adding judges'. The Supreme Court has had anywhere from 5 to 10 judges, there is no specified number in the constitution. Remember the Republicans reduced the number of Judges for nearly one year, in other words, they've already been monkeying around with the numbers.

Court Packing, has an obvious meaning that does not require recourse to a dictionary. For example if Biden added two more Judges and he selected two Judges nominated by the Federalist society. Would the Republicans object. No they would not obviously, would they scream 'court packing' and cry 'foul' No they would not.

Therefore it's obvious that what is meant by 'court packing' or 'branch stacking' is centred on specifically adding partisan persons, by using the constitution to expand the court with people that you choose.

In other words it's simply putting people you choose on the court, which is er how all judges get on the supreme court, one party chooses. However that wasn't deemed a problem with either Ginsburg or Scalia, both had virtually total bipartisan support, 96-3, 98-0

So really court packing which is actually not really a thing, is simply putting your own partisan people in, in a way that is not considered right, or fair, or just because if it was right or fair or just, then it would just be what normally happens.

This is why if Merrick Garland was not unconstitutionally blocked from a Senate hearing, then the Democrats would not now be complaining about Amy Coney Barrett.

Amy Coney Barretts nomination is court packing, if you will or not court packing depending on if it's right just or fair, that Garland was denied.

The question after the election if Biden wins the Senate, which is not that certain, is, should he undo the obvious court packing of the Republicans.

Or maybe simply the threat of doing that will be enough to rein in the Supreme Court from making decisions that the vast majority of Americans do not want.

The understood definition of court packing...

That is specious reasoning. When we discuss or debate things it's proper to define any terms more precisely if those terms have different meanings. The dictionary does not dictate the terms, it's just a general reference.

For example, if we want to debate a topic, 'does god exist', then there is no debate without defining god, as that word means to the people debating it. That is why the recent presidential 'debate' was not a debate, it was just people talking over each other.

So I am defining court packing to mean adding extreme partisan judges by unconstitutional means or even by raw power. Which is what the republicans did, by keeping 200 of Obama's Federal Court appointments vacant for Trump. And notice the word 'extreme' partisan. Garland for example was not considered 'extreme' he was an acceptable choice, but McConnell wanted people like Barrett who have extreme views.

That's how I define it, and if you wish to argue against it you know what I mean. You cannot go to a dictionary of your choice and then tell me, you understand what I mean differently because I just explain what I mean.

justin_o_guy2 wrote on 10/19/20 at 14:44:40:


when confronted with the facts, the goalposts are quickly moved.

No. Doesn’t work that way. A child can argue that milkshakes in the morning  fulfill the requirement for dairy but that’s a child talking and is dismissed for what it is.