Obviously, this is an older article, but I want to use it to highlight for oxmixmudd that the reason many don't trust democrats isn't love of trump, it's distrust of democrats.
(And yes, I'm well aware of the fact that the democrats failure to eliminate the filibuster renders their attempts to pack the court moot)
Let's initially take them at their word, that this is merely to "re-balance" the court, and not to pack it, and a reaction to the norm breaking actions by republicans.
Trump appointed 3 SCOTUS justices.
1. Gorusch. He was the replacement for Scalia, and after the senate pocket vetoed Garland.
2. Kavanaugh. He was the replacement for Kennedy.
3. Barrett. She was the replacement for Ginsburg after her death before the 2020 election.
Currently, we have a 6-3 conservative balance on the court. Prior to these 3 picks, we had a 5-4 conservative balance. (To keep this simple, I'm going to list balances as Conservative - Liberal).
After Scalia passed, Obama was set to appoint Garland, which democrats were ecstatic about because it would lead to a 4-5 balance on the court, which they haven't had for a long time. Republicans refused to hold a hearing on him, citing the "Biden rule" that the president should not appoint a SCOTUS justice until after November elections. After Trump was elected, the balance remained 5-4.
Summary: 4-5 if Obama got to pick, reality remained 5-4.
Kavanaugh's replacement of Kennedy is simple. Kennedy was the swing seat, but importantly was part of the 5-4 majority. Kavanaugh's replacement left the court 5-4. More importantly, even if the smear against Kavanaugh had worked, the next replacement would have still been conservative, and the court would remain unchanged.
Summary: The court balance remained unchanged.
Finally, we come to Justice Barrett. Barret replaced Ginsburg, and would create a shift in the political balance of the court. Ginsburg died in September 2020, and the president wasted no time in nominating her replacement. Republicans approved Barrett with less than a month before the November election. Democrats howled about the hypocrisy after what had happened to Garland, and republicans narrowed their ruling on precedent to make it seem like they were not being hypocrites.
Summary: Court shifted 1 seat to the conservatives. Reality: 6-3, If Obama Nominated Garland: 5-4, If GOP held to it's original rule: 5-4.
So Now we get to the crux of the issue. The hypocrisy of the Republicans. There's really no denying that the republicans (and democrats) were horribly hypocritical when the nomination of Barrett came up. This is not a surprise, Politics is about power, and hypocrisy has never stood in the way of power. But, let's look at the trail that got us here. If Republicans were not hypocrites, the balance of the court is 5-4. If everything followed the normal course of events (Obama got to pick Garland, Trump got Kavanaugh and Barrett) the balance of the court is 5-4. In either scenario, the court remains 5-4.
What did the democrats want to do with "unpacking the court"?
They wanted to add 4 more seats to the court, for Biden to add 4 more liberal justices. This would shift the court from 6-3 to 6-7.
In essence their claim of re-balancing the court would have been, not to undo the effect of republican hard-ball, but to shift the balance in favor of themselves. If they were serious about "re-balancing" the court, they would have added 2 justices. This would have brought the court to 6-5, which in balance terms would be where the court would have landed (+1 conservative) in 2 out of the 3 scenarios presented above.
The thing is though, that democrats are claiming that not one, but two of the justices are illegitimate. Both Gorusch and Barrett are illegitimate. The problem with this argument is that it requires Democrats to hold two conflicting positions at the same time. Essentially, if the democrats demand Gorusch is illegitimate because Garland should have gone through, then they have to admit that Barrett's appointment was legitimate for the same reason. On the other hand, if they claim Barrett's appointment was illegitimate because of it's timing, then they have to admit that Garland's failure to be appointed was legitimate for the same reason. The only thing they have to hang their hat's on is that Republicans were hypocrites. But hypocrisy doesn't make them both illegitimate.
(Note: In all cases, I am assuming that the senate approves the nomination, so this is somewhat over-simplified).
At the end of the day though, Democrats would have ended up 5-4, and attempts to claim they are un-packing the court fall flat when they are trying to create 6-7.
(And yes, I'm well aware of the fact that the democrats failure to eliminate the filibuster renders their attempts to pack the court moot)
Let's initially take them at their word, that this is merely to "re-balance" the court, and not to pack it, and a reaction to the norm breaking actions by republicans.
Trump appointed 3 SCOTUS justices.
1. Gorusch. He was the replacement for Scalia, and after the senate pocket vetoed Garland.
2. Kavanaugh. He was the replacement for Kennedy.
3. Barrett. She was the replacement for Ginsburg after her death before the 2020 election.
Currently, we have a 6-3 conservative balance on the court. Prior to these 3 picks, we had a 5-4 conservative balance. (To keep this simple, I'm going to list balances as Conservative - Liberal).
After Scalia passed, Obama was set to appoint Garland, which democrats were ecstatic about because it would lead to a 4-5 balance on the court, which they haven't had for a long time. Republicans refused to hold a hearing on him, citing the "Biden rule" that the president should not appoint a SCOTUS justice until after November elections. After Trump was elected, the balance remained 5-4.
Summary: 4-5 if Obama got to pick, reality remained 5-4.
Kavanaugh's replacement of Kennedy is simple. Kennedy was the swing seat, but importantly was part of the 5-4 majority. Kavanaugh's replacement left the court 5-4. More importantly, even if the smear against Kavanaugh had worked, the next replacement would have still been conservative, and the court would remain unchanged.
Summary: The court balance remained unchanged.
Finally, we come to Justice Barrett. Barret replaced Ginsburg, and would create a shift in the political balance of the court. Ginsburg died in September 2020, and the president wasted no time in nominating her replacement. Republicans approved Barrett with less than a month before the November election. Democrats howled about the hypocrisy after what had happened to Garland, and republicans narrowed their ruling on precedent to make it seem like they were not being hypocrites.
Summary: Court shifted 1 seat to the conservatives. Reality: 6-3, If Obama Nominated Garland: 5-4, If GOP held to it's original rule: 5-4.
So Now we get to the crux of the issue. The hypocrisy of the Republicans. There's really no denying that the republicans (and democrats) were horribly hypocritical when the nomination of Barrett came up. This is not a surprise, Politics is about power, and hypocrisy has never stood in the way of power. But, let's look at the trail that got us here. If Republicans were not hypocrites, the balance of the court is 5-4. If everything followed the normal course of events (Obama got to pick Garland, Trump got Kavanaugh and Barrett) the balance of the court is 5-4. In either scenario, the court remains 5-4.
What did the democrats want to do with "unpacking the court"?
They wanted to add 4 more seats to the court, for Biden to add 4 more liberal justices. This would shift the court from 6-3 to 6-7.
In essence their claim of re-balancing the court would have been, not to undo the effect of republican hard-ball, but to shift the balance in favor of themselves. If they were serious about "re-balancing" the court, they would have added 2 justices. This would have brought the court to 6-5, which in balance terms would be where the court would have landed (+1 conservative) in 2 out of the 3 scenarios presented above.
The thing is though, that democrats are claiming that not one, but two of the justices are illegitimate. Both Gorusch and Barrett are illegitimate. The problem with this argument is that it requires Democrats to hold two conflicting positions at the same time. Essentially, if the democrats demand Gorusch is illegitimate because Garland should have gone through, then they have to admit that Barrett's appointment was legitimate for the same reason. On the other hand, if they claim Barrett's appointment was illegitimate because of it's timing, then they have to admit that Garland's failure to be appointed was legitimate for the same reason. The only thing they have to hang their hat's on is that Republicans were hypocrites. But hypocrisy doesn't make them both illegitimate.
(Note: In all cases, I am assuming that the senate approves the nomination, so this is somewhat over-simplified).
At the end of the day though, Democrats would have ended up 5-4, and attempts to claim they are un-packing the court fall flat when they are trying to create 6-7.
Comment