# Court Packing: An Idea Whose Time Has Come Around Again? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 4, 2017, 4:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/court-packing-an-idea-whose-time-has-come-around-again/797916 "2017-10-04T04:19:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Lance\_Turbo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lance_turbo/32/6156_2.png) [@Lance\_Turbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lance_Turbo)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2017, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/court-packing-an-idea-whose-time-has-come-around-again/797916/141 "2017-10-05T22:17:58Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > In both cases, the nominee is rejected. Accountability happens at the ballot box, also in both cases. Not even close. Look at Mark Kirk for example. He could meet with Garland, encourage other Republicans to meet with him as well, and generally pretend like it wasn’t his fault that the Garland nomination wasn’t moving forward. He couldn’t have done any of that if it had come to a vote and I don’t think he would have voted ‘No’ on a Chicago boy. Of course we’ll never know and that’s my point. There’s a bunch of other senators that won’t face the electorate until 2018 or 2020. They won’t be on record as voting ‘No’ on Garland. If it’s politically convenient they can claim that would would have given Garland thoughtful consideration had there been hearings, but can’t say one way or the other how they would have voted since no hearings were held. They would not have this option had there been a vote. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2017, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/court-packing-an-idea-whose-time-has-come-around-again/797916/142 "2017-10-05T22:18:46Z")
> [@Iggy](#): > > Now _that_ is true. > > If someone qualifies the claim enough then something unprecedented is always happening. So you should have no trouble finding substantially similar instance to this (not exact). Let me know when you find something. I’ll be over there holding my breath. ---
**Author:** ![Iggy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iggy/32/3364_2.png) [@Iggy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iggy)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2017, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/court-packing-an-idea-whose-time-has-come-around-again/797916/143 "2017-10-05T22:23:50Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > But it is unprecedented. > … Repeating the claim does not make it any more true. We have done this to death in multiple threads on the Garland matter. The simple fact is the Senate has previously completely ignored a president’s nomination (President Tyler), not even bothering to take a vote on a motion to table the matter. Yes, it was a LONG time ago. And it was his own party that refused to take up his submitted nomination. But it has happened before that a nominee did not even get a vote. What had never happened before prior to the Garland nomination is a president not withdrawing such a stonewalled nomination and presenting another name. Now I seriously doubt that things would have played out any differently had Obama switched nominees, assuming he would not have nominated a conservative dream candidate. So perhaps it was best left alone and sticking with Garland at least had a chance, pending the outcome of the election. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2017, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/court-packing-an-idea-whose-time-has-come-around-again/797916/144 "2017-10-05T22:25:57Z")
> [@Lance\_Turbo](#): > > Not even close. > > Look at Mark Kirk for example. He could meet with Garland, encourage other Republicans to meet with him as well, and generally pretend like it wasn’t his fault that the Garland nomination wasn’t moving forward. > > He couldn’t have done any of that if it had come to a vote and I don’t think he would have voted ‘No’ on a Chicago boy. Of course we’ll never know and that’s my point. > > There’s a bunch of other senators that won’t face the electorate until 2018 or 2020. They won’t be on record as voting ‘No’ on Garland. If it’s politically convenient they can claim that would would have given Garland thoughtful consideration had there been hearings, but can’t say one way or the other how they would have voted since no hearings were held. They would not have this option had there been a vote. Boo-hoo-hoo; things did not play our precisely the way I wanted them to!! Politicians are held accountable for actions by their party all the time. If voters choose to not care about this, then that’s the way the cookie crumbles. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2017, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/court-packing-an-idea-whose-time-has-come-around-again/797916/145 "2017-10-05T22:31:56Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Boo-hoo-hoo; things did not play our precisely the way I wanted them to!! > > Politicians are held accountable for actions by their party all the time. If voters choose to not care about this, then that’s the way the cookie crumbles. I do hope you’re not attempting to imply that the republican party will punish its members for stonewalling Obama. And it’s pretty clear that the bulk of republican voters have little interest in the government functioning correctly, or at all. I mean, they elected _Trump_. ---
**Author:** ![Iggy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iggy/32/3364_2.png) [@Iggy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iggy)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2017, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/court-packing-an-idea-whose-time-has-come-around-again/797916/146 "2017-10-05T22:35:13Z")
President John Tyler’s nominated Reuben Walworth to the Supreme Court. And the nomination was tabled, so there was a vote there. But as the Senate treated other Tyler nominees the same Tyler again nominated Walworth a second time. That second nomination was ignored by the Senate and no vote was taken as there was an objection to even taking a vote on the matter. Ultimately the nomination was withdrawn by Tyler. President Millard Fillmore nominated three candidates to fill a SCOTUS vacancy and the Senate refused to act on any of them. So please can we stop with this crap claim that the Senate refusing to vote on Garland’s nomination was unprecedented? It has happened before. It was the default means of rejecting a nominee in early American history. The practice was adopted first by the Massachusetts Bay Colony which was the source of the whole Advise and Consent procedure which was later adopted in the Constitution. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2017, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/court-packing-an-idea-whose-time-has-come-around-again/797916/147 "2017-10-05T22:35:40Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > I do hope you’re not attempting to imply that the republican party will punish its members for stonewalling Obama. > > And it’s pretty clear that the bulk of republican voters have little interest in the government functioning correctly, or at all. I mean, they elected _Trump_. Like I said: “If voters choose to not care about this, then that’s the way the cookie crumbles.” ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2017, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/court-packing-an-idea-whose-time-has-come-around-again/797916/148 "2017-10-05T22:42:41Z")
> [@Iggy](#): > > So please can we stop with this crap claim that the Senate refusing to vote on Garland’s nomination was unprecedented? It has happened before. It was the default means of rejecting a nominee in early American history. The practice was adopted first by the Massachusetts Bay Colony which was the source of the whole Advise and Consent procedure which was later adopted in the Constitution. Fair enough. It is not unprecedented. Just the next closest thing and saying it happened once 160+ years ago in no way minimizes it being done today. It was not normal. The nomination was stolen. Then and now. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2017, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/court-packing-an-idea-whose-time-has-come-around-again/797916/149 "2017-10-05T22:52:50Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Like I said: > > “If voters choose to not care about this, then that’s the way the cookie crumbles.” It’s highly discouraging to me that a person is proudly announcing that it’s totally awesome that a political party and its electorate have achieved symbiosis via the party being completely corrupt and the electorate being complete idiots. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2017, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/court-packing-an-idea-whose-time-has-come-around-again/797916/150 "2017-10-05T22:58:20Z")
Repost ---
**Author:** ![Iggy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iggy/32/3364_2.png) [@Iggy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iggy)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2017, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/court-packing-an-idea-whose-time-has-come-around-again/797916/151 "2017-10-05T23:08:46Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Fair enough. It is not unprecedented. Just the next closest thing and saying it happened once 160+ years ago in no way minimizes it being done today. > > It was not normal. The nomination was stolen. Then and now. Four times… and those were just SCOTUS nominations I cited. There were more for other nominations which were shot down in a variety of ways that never resulted in a Senate vote. It is just the way things used to be done. While I agree that the Senate should have (as in it would have been the right, honorable, and decent thing to do) held a vote, pinching their noses if they had to, they were not obligated to do so. Obama got to make his nomination. But he did not get to make the appointment due to lace of the Senate’s Advise and Consent. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2017, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/court-packing-an-idea-whose-time-has-come-around-again/797916/152 "2017-10-05T23:35:03Z")
> [@Iggy](#): > > Four times… and those were just SCOTUS nominations I cited. There were more for other nominations which were shot down in a variety of ways that never resulted in a Senate vote. It is just the way things used to be done. > . I count that as one event. As I have said before it is not the candidate but the nomination that is stolen. Had Obama put forward ten candidates I have no doubt all ten would have been ignored. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2017, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/court-packing-an-idea-whose-time-has-come-around-again/797916/153 "2017-10-05T23:39:21Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > I count that as one event. As I have said before it is not the candidate but the nomination that is stolen. Yep, stolen. In the same sense that a runner steals a base in baseball. That is, perfect within the rules. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2017, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/court-packing-an-idea-whose-time-has-come-around-again/797916/154 "2017-10-05T23:48:29Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Yep, stolen. In the same sense that a runner steals a base in baseball. That is, perfect within the rules. And yet pointlessly provocative and hostile. The republican way! ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2017, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/court-packing-an-idea-whose-time-has-come-around-again/797916/155 "2017-10-06T00:38:30Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Yep, stolen. In the same sense that a runner steals a base in baseball. That is, perfect within the rules. Personally, I think the more apt sports metaphor is from hockey; bodychecking the other team’s goalie. Yes, it’s quasi-legal (if he’s not in the crease at the time), but all it really does is encourage the other team to do the same to _your_ goalie, to the detriment of the game. Of course, in this case the fans/voters didn’t register enough opposition, so the tactic works, at least in the short run. ---
**Author:** ![Lance\_Turbo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lance_turbo/32/6156_2.png) [@Lance\_Turbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lance_Turbo)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2017, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/court-packing-an-idea-whose-time-has-come-around-again/797916/156 "2017-10-06T01:33:14Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Boo-hoo-hoo; things did not play our precisely the way I wanted them to!! > > Politicians are held accountable for actions by their party all the time. If voters choose to not care about this, then that’s the way the cookie crumbles. WTF? What I wanted is not really what I was posting about. I was posting about the absurd idea that there is no substantive difference between how the Bork and Garland nominations were handled. With Bork there was a vote and senators could be held accountable for how they voted. With Garland there is no way to hold a senator accountable for a vote that never took place. Except for Mitch of course but he’s from a red state. Swing state senators can just act like it was something beyond their control because it largely was. This actually happened and it is a substantive difference. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2017, 6:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/court-packing-an-idea-whose-time-has-come-around-again/797916/157 "2017-10-06T06:22:44Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Yep, stolen. In the same sense that a runner steals a base in baseball. That is, perfect within the rules. I’m curious what you think the FFs would feel about this (pretend they understand baseball)? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2017, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/court-packing-an-idea-whose-time-has-come-around-again/797916/158 "2017-10-06T14:25:06Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > No I do not understand because: > > That looks like an explicit claim, by you, that Bork’s seat was stolen. It is not ambiguous and it was not qualified that “if” Garland’s seat was stolen than so was Bork’s. You made a flat statement of fact (that is wrong). > > I also noted that Garland’s seat was not stolen. Obama’s nomination was stolen. You quoted my words in post#92… but not the portion of post 92 that contains the quoted text I was responding to. Add that in. Does it still look like an explicit claim, or does it now seem clear I was responding to an earlier “stolen,” claim? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2017, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/court-packing-an-idea-whose-time-has-come-around-again/797916/159 "2017-10-06T14:33:03Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > Bullshit. What the fuck is wrong with you? I guess acting as the Republican Party’s unofficial defense attorney is eating you up inside, because you’ve turned into a shriveled prune of a man. You know it’s wrong, yet you can’t help but to defend the indefensible, and that makes you miserable. > > The thing is, you’re not the Republican party’s defense attorney. You do not have a professional obligation to zealously defend them. You’re free! You don’t have to keep doing this! Think how much better you’ll feel when you’re able to opine on current events and politics and you’re able to just say what you really think! > > Robert Bork the unqualified Watergate stooge didn’t get confirmed to the Supreme Court. Anthony Kennedy the qualified judge got confirmed, get this, unanimously. And it was in February 1988, an election year. Think of that! > > So please stop peddling falsehoods that even you don’t believe. Trust me, the relief once you release yourself from your self-imposed obligation will improve your life immeasurably. This would be an example of “rented mule,” in action. You have offered up the assertion I don’t believe what I’ve said as a reason to discount it, but I certainly believe it. So that’s gone. You also claim that Bork was “unqualified,” yet he was a Yale graduate with a career that included a seat on the federal bench for the DC Circuit Court of Appeals and as the Solicitor General, a position in which he represented the United States in front of the Supreme Court. By any objective measure, he was qualified. What he lacked were political positions palatable to Kennedy and Biden. Mule. Bray for me, mule. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2017, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/court-packing-an-idea-whose-time-has-come-around-again/797916/160 "2017-10-06T15:39:31Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > You quoted my words in post#92… but not the portion of post 92 that contains the quoted text I was responding to. > > Add that in. Does it still look like an explicit claim, or does it now seem clear I was responding to an earlier “stolen,” claim? No, it does not seem clear. Follow the quote from your post #92 with: > [@Bricker](#): > > But fine: I _will_ simply call it: the 1960 election was stolen, as was Bork’s seat. Done. Then: > [@](#): > > > [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > > > Who stole Bork’s seat? > > > [@Bricker](#): > > > > Biden and Kennedy. Too late to back pedal now. Your statements were unqualified and quite direct and clear. Never were you suggesting Bork’s seat was stolen only if you think Garland’s seat was stolen. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/court-packing-an-idea-whose-time-has-come-around-again/797916.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/court-packing-an-idea-whose-time-has-come-around-again/797916.md?page=9)