eau de sauvage
|
@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.
|