ACB Hearings

[Alan]

I guess I don't understand... how is not court packing by putting Barrett in during the election right now? How was it not court packing when Merrick Garland was not allowed to be part of the SCOTUS because it was too close the election (what 8 months later)? I am not trying to snark but don't understand the difference.

It's simple, the Republicans used the power of the majority to prevent Garland from being confirmed, they also used the power of the majority to confirm Barrett. That's not packing, that's an example of advise and consent, no Republican administration has ever attempted to pack the court. It's not a collegial way to operate but it is effective and there's no doubt the Democrats would do the same.
Court packing is increasing the number of Justices in order to achieve an ideological majority. FDR tried to do it a few generations ago and Biden is considering the same as President, or at least he has refused to say he won't make the attempt.

[LDAHL]

It's simple, the Republicans used the power of the majority to prevent Garland from being confirmed, they also used the power of the majority to confirm Barrett. That's not packing, that's an example of advise and consent, no Republican administration has ever attempted to pack the court. It's not a collegial way to operate but it is effective and there's no doubt the Democrats would do the same.
Court packing is increasing the number of Justices in order to achieve an ideological majority. FDR tried to do it a few generations ago and Biden is considering the same as President, or at least he has refused to say he won't make the attempt.

Webster’s is going to need to get busy.

[jp1]

Since the republicans used the power of their majority to change the ideology of the court and now democrats are contemplating doing the same thing I don’t really see a difference.

[Alan]

Since the republicans used the power of their majority to change the ideology of the court and now democrats are contemplating doing the same thing I don’t really see a difference.

Is there a requirement somewhere I'm not aware of that says the court requires an ideological balance? I think the justices would be repulsed by any suggestion they approach their duties in an ideological manner.

[jp1]

Is there a requirement somewhere I'm not aware of that says the court requires an ideological balance?

Mitch turned the courts into an ideological entity over the past 12 years so it only seems reasonable that the Dems act likewise.

[Alan]

Mitch turned the courts into an ideological entity over the past 12 years so it only seems reasonable that the Dems act likewise.

Really? Wasn't it Harry Reid who abolished the filibuster in order to make it easier to put Democrat approved federal judges into the courts? I believe they called that the 'Nuclear Option' didn't they?

[bae]

Mitch turned the courts into an ideological entity over the past 12 years so it only seems reasonable that the Dems act likewise.

That seems foolish. The Court isn't supposed to be "ideological", at least in the left/right, Republican/Democrat, Catholic/Protestant/Jewish/Muslim/..., Harvard/Yale/Princeton sense.

[jp1]

Really? Wasn't it Harry Reid who abolished the filibuster in order to make it easier to put Democrat approved federal judges into the courts? I believe they called that the 'Nuclear Option' didn't they?

And why was the republican senate not confirming well qualified justices?

[jp1]

That seems foolish. The Court isn't supposed to be "ideological", at least in the left/right, Republican/Democrat, Catholic/Protestant/Jewish/Muslim/..., Harvard/Yale/Princeton sense.

I agree 1000%. But the reality is that we have to deal with the republicans we have, not the republicans we wish we had. Personally I’d be fine with something other than adding justices, such as term limits for justices.

[Alan]

And why was the republican senate not confirming well qualified justices?

I don't know, that was a Democratic majority Senate.