Quote (Black XistenZ @ Apr 9 2021 09:36pm)
Obama replacing Scalia with Garland would have swung the balance of power on the SCOTUS to the left. Trump replacing Scalia with Gorsuch did not, it retained the status quo. Rushing through ACB was of course hypocrisy from McConnell, but like I have to keep repeating: this situation would not have existed without RBG's hybris. She is the one to blame for the opening that McConnell took advantage of. Why the fuck did an 81 year old two-time cancer survivor with a cardiac condition not retire while she still had the chance?
The alleged evil power grabs by Republicans that you use as a justification for your stance that a power grab by Democrats is justified consist of 1. using the mandate of the American people (a GOP senate majority) to preserve the existing power balance on the court and 2. exploiting an unforced error by liberals which handed them an opportunity on a silver platter. Compared to these actions by Republicans, creating a blatant partisan power play out of thin air (court packing) and ramming it through on a 50/50 split Senate would indeed constitute an escalation of the norm-breaking.
The reality of the situation is that Democrats got outplayed in the battle for control over the Supreme Court, and now they're pissed off and want to change the rules of the game to undo their loss. On a deeper level, their problem is that the Constitution gives the power of judicial nominations to the Senate, the chamber where they are at a significant structural disadvantage. Long-term, Democrats will thus be at a structural disadvantage when it comes to federal judicial nominations, including the SCOTUS. Court packing is basically an ad hoc fix for this problem since fixing the underlying issue (equal suffrage in the Senate & Senate being the chamber that confirms judges) would require changing the Constitution.
RGB not retiring under Obama is not relevant.
I don't view presidential appointments, whether it be staff or the judiciary, as a normal part of the political game, where if the opposition party controls the Senate, it's normal for them to refuse to confirm the president's people. A president should be able to choose his people, as long as they meet some standard of qualification. So the GOP winning the senate is not a mandate for them to nullify the choice made 2 years prior. Obama was president, he should've gotten his pick, unless there's not enough time to adequately vet the candidate. The criticism of RBG/liberals is victim blaming. They aren't responsible for the blatant hypocrisy and lack of fair play by Republicans.
Boiling all of this down to a game of power politics is part of the problem, but it also reveals how ridiculous you sound when you complain over Democrats flirting with norm breaking and escalatory moves. Again, I want a conservative court, and Democrats packing it would be bad for the country, but part of me wishes they would simply because Republicans deserve it.