I wish this thread was focused on other things than it has been,
I don't know much about the deceased judge, because she's not like a public figure that's been in our lives in some intimate manner, unlike many other deceased people getting threads like this. I can say R.I.P., but there's nothing I can focus on there.
We can have a separate thread for the subject that is the elephant in the room if people want it, but few people, you included, focused on, or said anything of substance regarding her life.
but can we all please stop pretending to be ignorant? Both sides want their own justices on the bench. Both sides will say whatever they have to get their way and make the other side bad. Yes, Repuplicans tanked Garland and eliminated the filibuster on SC picks.
There's a big difference between wanting, and doing. Democrats have not yet been in a position to pull this stunt that the GOP set a precedence for, and until they do, can we please stop pretending that it's 'both sides' here. This is a lifetime appointment with immense legal and political repercussions for the next half century.
When the Democrats do this twice, then we can talk. But chances are they won't, because they want to uphold the image of having morals.
Sure, let's talk doing. FDR, who had more lifetime impact than any other President in history due to his 3 full terms (and then some months), tried to pack the court to get his way more. This is arguably the most famous Democratic President ever, and absolutely the most influential and powerful, and he could not tolerate a Supreme Court ruling against him to the point that he wanted to cheat under some silly notion that the 9 were overworked or too old to make reasoned decisions (notions the people, Congress, and the Court itself rejected).
Trump has had the SC rule in his favor and against him numerous times since taking office. Obamacare survived, despite what he wanted. Abortion rights were not weakened, let alone wiped out, like he wanted. And what did he do? Tweeted out annoyance. He didn't seriously attempt (like FDR) to convince the Republican controlled Senate to approve of expanding the court to get more of his way.
It seems like the majority of the time Republicans lose at the Supreme Court, they are mad but accept the loss, whereas Democrats, when they lose at the Supreme Court, start calling for the expansion of the court. If both sides could just accept when they lose and hope to one day get the court that they desire, rather than trying to destabilize the whole system, we'd be better off.
If the Democrats were to expand the court, then the next time Republicans take back the Senate they would have full reasoning to balance that out by adding proportional to what was lost by the last expansion. And then the pattern would continue, which would eliminate the SC as a check on government and make it more a reflection of the CURRENT powers that be. I want a SC that is mostly comprised of people that were appointed before current administrations. If FDR had his way, the majority of the court would have been his picks by far. We rejected that idea decades ago and we need to reject it again today or the SC will become just as destabilized as the other two branches.