But they did pledge to pledge to oppose any appointment to replace Scalia, you know, back when they thought it was a foregone conclusion Hillary would win in 2016.
What does this have to do with court packing? As to your off topic statement, Republicans blocked Garland because they won the needed elections to do so and they get to pick this judge because they won the needed elections to do so.
I agree. The way Mitch and Trump have broken all protocols and traditions, I have no problems with the Dems doing the same thing. Fight fire with fire.
Because it’s the opposite of court packing, and yet another example of how the GOP has no actual logic or principles when it comes to this topic. They’ll oppose a Scalia replacement with Hillary in office for 4 years (seemingly leading us with an 8 person court until her replacement), but they’ll 100% pack the court after Trump’s surprising win. And be totally okay with the mental gymnastics required to justify slam dunking of RBG’s replacement a month before the election. Totally defying any semblance of logic they had on the moral grounds of replacing a SCOTUS nominee in an election year.
Not filling vacancies is not the opposite of court packing U also don't know what court packing is apparently. Ill help you. It has nothing to do with filling vacancies.
The US Supreme Court, yes. State Supreme Courts? Republicans have been doing that a ton over the last couple of decades - adding justices when they have full control of government and can appoint conservative justices, and even attempting to shrink the number of justices when they can eliminate a liberal member or two. https://www.governing.com/now/Court-Packing-Its-Already-Happening-at-the-State-Level.html Some Republican legislatures also have added seats to their states' supreme courts to create new conservative majorities that are still in power today. In 2016, for example, Republicans in Georgia added two seats to the state Supreme Court to create a new conservative majority, giving GOP Gov. Nathan Deal two appointments. Republicans in Arizona did the same thing that year, adding two high-court seats to allow GOP Gov. Doug Ducey's appointments to create a new conservative majority. Ducey then manipulated the Arizona Constitution's rules for appointing the state's judicial nominating commission in an effort to push the court further to the right. Around the same time, Republican legislators in North Carolina floated the idea of adding two seats to their state's Supreme Court. The suggestion came during a December 2016 lame-duck session, just weeks after voters had elected a new progressive majority to the high court along with a Democratic governor. This court packing plan led to protests and criticism from across the ideological spectrum, since it would have undone the results of the election. Legislators didn't follow through. ... In addition, a few years earlier the Legislature had voted to "unpack" the North Carolina Court of Appeals, eliminating three soon-to-be-vacant seats before the state's Democratic governor could fill them. The court would have been left with an even number of judges. A Republican judge resigned in protest, and the Legislature recently repealed the change.
Wasn't there an "atomic" option that Republicans took, where they amended the rules so that SCOTUS confirmations could be done with absolute majority instead of a 2/3 majority of the Senate? It was in response to filibustering that democrats did that Republicans used as an excuse? I forget. Anyway, they should enshrine the SCOTUS confirmation rules as a constitutional amendment, so there is no more of this back and forth chicanery. And if Dems win and can get away with adding two more seats on top of it, I'd be all for it. How do I justify it? The power excuse.. The same excuse Republicans used for Garland, Kavanaugh and Barett situations. Let their treacherous behaviour come home to roost.
This has been happening since the time of Jeffersonians, and then Whigs, and then Radical Republicans. It's not new.
Changing the rules when you can't win is destructive towards democracy. The one they claim Trump is against.
Like watching a kid lose monopoly and pull some new rules out of their ass... the right has every right to appoint a justice. Even RBG would agree and has argued this before. We don't live in a direct democracy so your complaint is odd... we have a republic with rules set up to prevent one side from always dominating. The left has had the courts long enough. The penedelum should swing otherwise you get tyranny over time.
trump says he will "pack the court" if he wins... so I guess this issue isn't that much of a partisan issue after all... Trump warns Democrats he might pack Supreme Court if GOP holds White House and Senate https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ly-florida-supreme-court-packing-b584729.html
So basically, your defense of blocking a perfectly qualified USSC nominee had nothing to do with the then expressed justification ("too close to an election, must let the voters decide") and all to do with the partisan makeup of the senate at the time.
I have seen this tweet a number of time. A tweet on history and precedence that forgot history and precedence. It ignored the most recent, the most important and relevant precedent. The one that ignored all past precedences. The precedence of not holding a hearing, a vote and as a bonus, promises by many republicans to exactly do that if a SC vacancy happen in an election year, even specially called out under Trump. What happen to that? Locked in a hidden memory ?
