Packing the Supreme Court?

[laughing dog]

Appointing Barrett is not "court-packing". If some Democrats wish to change the meaning of the words, it would make no sense to ascribe that new meaning to Republicans speaking in the usual sense.

It make sense at the most fundamental level - insuring the Court has a clear ideological or partisan majority. I happen to disagree with the idea of expanding the number of justices in order to achieve that outcome, because I believe it will serve to delegitimize the SCOTUS over time and lead to an ever-increasing number of justices.

 

[Deepak]

Appointing Barrett is not "court-packing". If some Democrats wish to change the meaning of the words, it would make no sense to ascribe that new meaning to Republicans speaking in the usual sense.

It make sense at the most fundamental level - insuring the Court has a clear ideological or partisan majority

Let's not get into a 30 page semantic argument here, especially on a misreading of the statement from Ocasio-Cortez.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Appointing Barrett is not "court-packing". If some Democrats wish to change the meaning of the words, it would make no sense to ascribe that new meaning to Republicans speaking in the usual sense.

It make sense at the most fundamental level - insuring the Court has a clear ideological or partisan majority. I happen to disagree with the idea of expanding the number of justices in order to achieve that outcome, because I believe it will serve to delegitimize the SCOTUS over time and lead to an ever-increasing number of justices.

Words have meaning, and surely Cruz and the others did not mean that. Moreover, appointing Justices with the ideological bent the POTUS likes, when supported by enough senators, is what Democrats also want to do if they have enough numbers, and they have never called it 'court-packing' (even though of course they want a majority to say that bans on abortion, same-sex marriage, etc., are unconstitutional; that the mandate in the ACA is constitutional, and so on).

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Appointing Barrett is not "court-packing". If some Democrats wish to change the meaning of the words, it would make no sense to ascribe that new meaning to Republicans speaking in the usual sense.

It make sense at the most fundamental level - insuring the Court has a clear ideological or partisan majority

Let's not get into a 30 page semantic argument here, especially on a misreading of the statement from Ocasio-Cortez.

Misreading?

 

[Deepak]

Let's not get into a 30 page semantic argument here, especially on a misreading of the statement from Ocasio-Cortez.

Misreading?

https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...-Supreme-Court&p=839515&viewfull=1#post839515

The statement is that withdrawing the Barrett nomination would be a plan that would prevent court packing, not that the Barrett nomination constitutes court packing in itself.

Your interpretation renders the second (Because if not...) sentence unintelligible.

Cruz: We need a plan to prevent baking cookies
AOC: Does the plan involve not eating the rest of the pie in the fridge? Because if not then I have no sympathy for your position.
You: AOC thinks pies are cookies

 

[ZiprHead]

Appointing Barrett is not "court-packing". If some Democrats wish to change the meaning of the words, it would make no sense to ascribe that new meaning to Republicans speaking in the usual sense.

It's the culmination of many years of right-wing court packing.

Perhaps you can provide a definition that shows this is not court packing?

Certainly.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/19/us/politics/what-is-court-packing.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/09/22/packing-supreme-court/

https://reason.com/2020/08/20/does-the-democratic-platform-endorse-court-packing/

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...re-behind-packing-u-s-supreme-court-quicktake

https://time.com/5702280/court-packing-history/

https://www.fjc.gov/history/timeline/fdrs-court-packing-plan

https://www.vox.com/2018/7/2/175135...dr-roosevelt-new-deal-democrats-supreme-court

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/12721216/packing-the-court-justices-rbg-democrats-republicans-trump/

https://democracyjournal.org/magazine/51/lets-think-about-court-packing-2/

I can provide many more links if you like. Surely, by that definition - using by legal scholars and media outlets and activists ranging from the far left to the moderate right at least, but I probably can find that usage in the far right too -, the Republicans are not doing any court-packing. At any rate, it would make no sense to attribute to Cruz and other Republicans the new meaning AOC is pushing for.

None of your links define what court packing is.

That you believe blocking hundreds of nominations by Obama, including the Supreme Court, then rushing to fill those nominations when the righty gets the presidency is not court packing is astounding. It's not limited to simply raising the number of seats on the court.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

The statement is that withdrawing the Barrett nomination would be a plan that would prevent court packing, not that the Barrett nomination constitutes court packing in itself.

Oh, so you think she means that unless they withdraw the nomination, Democrats would engage in court-packing? But they will not do it if the nomination is withdrawn? That's possible; I just didn't think she'd be so open about it, but it could be.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Certainly.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/19/us/politics/what-is-court-packing.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/09/22/packing-supreme-court/

https://reason.com/2020/08/20/does-the-democratic-platform-endorse-court-packing/

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...re-behind-packing-u-s-supreme-court-quicktake

https://time.com/5702280/court-packing-history/

https://www.fjc.gov/history/timeline/fdrs-court-packing-plan

https://www.vox.com/2018/7/2/175135...dr-roosevelt-new-deal-democrats-supreme-court

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/12721216/packing-the-court-justices-rbg-democrats-republicans-trump/

https://democracyjournal.org/magazine/51/lets-think-about-court-packing-2/

I can provide many more links if you like. Surely, by that definition - using by legal scholars and media outlets and activists ranging from the far left to the moderate right at least, but I probably can find that usage in the far right too -, the Republicans are not doing any court-packing. At any rate, it would make no sense to attribute to Cruz and other Republicans the new meaning AOC is pushing for.

None of your links define what court packing is.

Yes, they do.

That you believe blocking hundred of nominations by Obama, including the Supreme Court, then rushing to fill those nominations when the righty gets the presidency is indeed court packing. It's not limited to simply raising the number of seats on the court.

No, I do not believe that that is court packing at all. Why would you think I do? I explained that very carefully. Or did you misspeak? In any case, that is not court packing.

 

[Deepak]

The statement is that withdrawing the Barrett nomination would be a plan that would prevent court packing, not that the Barrett nomination constitutes court packing in itself.

Oh, so you think she means that unless they withdraw the nomination, Democrats would engage in court-packing? But they will not do it if the nomination is withdrawn? That's possible; I just didn't think she'd be so open about it, but it could be.

It's a Twitter post, you can ask her.

You didn't explain her second sentence in context with your reading.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

The statement is that withdrawing the Barrett nomination would be a plan that would prevent court packing, not that the Barrett nomination constitutes court packing in itself.

Oh, so you think she means that unless they withdraw the nomination, Democrats would engage in court-packing? But they will not do it if the nomination is withdrawn? That's possible; I just didn't think she'd be so open about it, but it could be.

It's a Twitter post, you can ask her.

You didn't explain her second sentence in context with your reading.

Her second sentence? You mean about a violin? What do you think it means? (and no way I would ask her on Twitter, as that would require my actual name).

 

[laughing dog]

Appointing Barrett is not "court-packing". If some Democrats wish to change the meaning of the words, it would make no sense to ascribe that new meaning to Republicans speaking in the usual sense.

It make sense at the most fundamental level - insuring the Court has a clear ideological or partisan majority. I happen to disagree with the idea of expanding the number of justices in order to achieve that outcome, because I believe it will serve to delegitimize the SCOTUS over time and lead to an ever-increasing number of justices.

Words have meaning, and surely Cruz and the others did not mean that.

So? Packing means "to fill". Are you arguing that there is only one legitimate meaning to the term, and that the GOP (or you) get to determine it? If not, your response is truly pointless.

Moreover, appointing Justices with the ideological bent the POTUS likes, when supported by enough senators, is what Democrats also want to do if they have enough numbers, and they have never called it 'court-packing' (even though of course they want a majority to say that bans on abortion, same-sex marriage, etc., are unconstitutional; that the mandate in the ACA is constitutional, and so on).

Do you have a point?

 

[ZiprHead]

Durbin: Republicans have been 'packing the court for the past three and a half years, and they brag about it'

It’s the Republicans who are packing the court

Conservative Court Packing

Republicans Have Already Packed the Courts. It’s Up To Democrats How To Rebalance Them.

Republicans Have Been Packing the Courts Since Trump Took Office

Conservatives are already packing the courts. Democrats must respond to this power grab.

Get it now, Angra?

 

[Deepak]

It's a Twitter post, you can ask her.

You didn't explain her second sentence in context with your reading.

Her second sentence? You mean about a violin? What do you think it means? (and no way I would ask her on Twitter, as that would require my actual name).

I already explained what I think it means. What do you think it means? In what sense would Cruz garner sympathy in your reading? If the act is hypocritical then there’s no contingent response, it would by hypocrisy on its face

https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...-Supreme-Court&p=839534&viewfull=1#post839534

Also, Twitter doesn’t require a real name, unless you think Devin Nunes’ actual cow is posting on Twitter...

 

[Jarhyn]

Words have meaning, and surely Cruz and the others did not mean that.

So? Packing means "to fill". Are you arguing that there is only one legitimate meaning to the term, and that the GOP (or you) get to determine it? If not, your response is truly pointless.

Moreover, appointing Justices with the ideological bent the POTUS likes, when supported by enough senators, is what Democrats also want to do if they have enough numbers, and they have never called it 'court-packing' (even though of course they want a majority to say that bans on abortion, same-sex marriage, etc., are unconstitutional; that the mandate in the ACA is constitutional, and so on).

Do you have a point?

I think the point is that they wish to justify ruling on ideology rather than well founded rational arguments on the merits.

They don't want to think that "liberal" justices who strike down SSM and abortion bans are doing so not on the basis of what they as persons want but rather doing what a document which fairly well describes what rights people ought have seems to indicate that these things run afoul of those rights.

I mean, it's trivially easy to see how bans against SSM (or homosexuality in general) and abortion run afoul of basic protections, among them religious liberty, privacy, equal protection, and a slew of other such enumerated rights. It's just basic logic.

Rather, they are trying to justify some shitty both-sides frankenargument that indicates that because liberal justices rule in ways they don't like that ARE logical and reasonable, making rulings that ignore the constitution and reason and logic to make conservatives happy is all good.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Durbin: Republicans have been 'packing the court for the past three and a half years, and they brag about it'

It’s the Republicans who are packing the court

Conservative Court Packing

Republicans Have Already Packed the Courts. It’s Up To Democrats How To Rebalance Them.

Republicans Have Been Packing the Courts Since Trump Took Office

Conservatives are already packing the courts. Democrats must respond to this power grab.

Get it now, Angra?

As I've been saying, some Democrats (on the left; one could add some other left-wingers) have recently began using the expression 'packing the court' (and 'court packing', etc.) to mean something very different from its ordinary meaning in English. It remains the case that Cruz and others who proposed measures against to prevent packing were using it in the ordinary sense.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

So? Packing means "to fill". Are you arguing that there is only one legitimate meaning to the term, and that the GOP (or you) get to determine it? If not, your response is truly pointless.

What does "legitimate" meaning mean? I do not know. What I do know is that there is a common meaning, which is used in English. I know that Cruz and other Republicans were using the expression in its ordinary sense in English.

Do you have a point?

Yes, of course, the point is that doing that is not packing the court, but rather, it's just appointing justices as usual.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

It's a Twitter post, you can ask her.

You didn't explain her second sentence in context with your reading.

Her second sentence? You mean about a violin? What do you think it means? (and no way I would ask her on Twitter, as that would require my actual name).

I already explained what I think it means. What do you think it means? In what sense would Cruz garner sympathy in your reading? If the act is hypocritical then there’s no contingent response, it would by hypocrisy on its face

https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...-Supreme-Court&p=839534&viewfull=1#post839534

As I understood it, it was of saying she wouldn't listen to any proposal to prevent court packing other than withdrawing Barrett's nomination.

That aside, Cruz would not garner my sympathy. It's a matter of being accurate. But of course, maybe you're right, and she meant to make that threat. Now I'm undecided.

Also, Cruz is a hypocrite of course. But I do not see the hypocrisy here in particular. Was he ever in favor of packing the court? Maybe he was; I just haven't seen him do that.

Also, Twitter doesn’t require a real name, unless you think Devin Nunes’ actual cow is posting on Twitter...

That tells me that some people do not use their real names, which I already knew. The question is whether that is allowed by the rules of Twitter. But maybe you're right; I'll take a look (another question is whether it's a good idea to use the same IP address with the account with my real name and this one, since I don't want to bother with countermeasures).

Your interpretation renders the second (Because if not...) sentence unintelligible.


Cruz: We need a plan to prevent baking cookies
AOC: Does the plan involve not eating the rest of the pie in the fridge? Because if not then I have no sympathy for your position.
You: AOC thinks pies are cookies

That would not be my interpretation. Rather, what I had interpreted is as follows:
Cruz: We need a plan to bar court packing.
AOC: Is the plan to refrain from court packing by withdrawing Barrett's nomination? Because if not, I will not pay attention to your plan.


Granted, given your interpretation, it may well be that mine was mistaken. But it does not render anything meaningless.

 

[ZiprHead]

Durbin: Republicans have been 'packing the court for the past three and a half years, and they brag about it'

It’s the Republicans who are packing the court

Conservative Court Packing

Republicans Have Already Packed the Courts. It’s Up To Democrats How To Rebalance Them.

Republicans Have Been Packing the Courts Since Trump Took Office

Conservatives are already packing the courts. Democrats must respond to this power grab.

Get it now, Angra?

As I've been saying, some Democrats (on the left; one could add some other left-wingers) have recently began using the expression 'packing the court' (and 'court packing', etc.) to mean something very different from its ordinary meaning in English. It remains the case that Cruz and others who proposed measures against to prevent packing were using it in the ordinary sense.

You have yet to provide what its ordinary meaning in english is or proof that its ordinary meaning is only the way you interpret it to be.

BTW, you nailed it, Jarhyn.

 

[Deepak]

Your interpretation renders the second (Because if not...) sentence unintelligible.


Cruz: We need a plan to prevent baking cookies
AOC: Does the plan involve not eating the rest of the pie in the fridge? Because if not then I have no sympathy for your position.
You: AOC thinks pies are cookies

That would not be my interpretation. Rather, what I had interpreted is as follows:
Cruz: We need a plan to bar court packing.
AOC: Is the plan to refrain from court packing by withdrawing Barrett's nomination? Because if not, I will not pay attention to your plan.

Granted, given your interpretation, it may well be that mine was mistaken. But it does not render anything meaningless.

I have never heard that idiomatic phrase used to express that someone will not listen to a complaint or point

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/world's_smallest_violin

Etymology
A version of Hearts and Flowers on violin was used in many melodramatic films in the early 1900s. From this and the use of other violin pieces in melodramatic films derive the term hearts-and-flowers (“extremely sentimental and sweet”), the phrase break out the violins (in a dismissive/sarcastic show of sympathy), and the image of a violin (small, to reflect that the woe complained of is perceived to be small) playing Hearts and Flowers or "the world's saddest song" in response to complaints of woe.

Noun
world's smallest violin

(humorous) A notional violin that plays tragic music for the afflicted; used in dismissive responses to complaints of woe.

Indeed then, the phrase is rendered meaningless - the only way to resolve it's inclusion is to ignore or change the meaning of the phrase. Nothing in the usage indicates she's relying on a non-standard definition, so the only reason for assuming it means something non-standard is to support your interpretation.

Many examples: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WorldsSmallestViolin

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Durbin: Republicans have been 'packing the court for the past three and a half years, and they brag about it'

It’s the Republicans who are packing the court

Conservative Court Packing

Republicans Have Already Packed the Courts. It’s Up To Democrats How To Rebalance Them.

Republicans Have Been Packing the Courts Since Trump Took Office

Conservatives are already packing the courts. Democrats must respond to this power grab.

Get it now, Angra?

As I've been saying, some Democrats (on the left; one could add some other left-wingers) have recently began using the expression 'packing the court' (and 'court packing', etc.) to mean something very different from its ordinary meaning in English. It remains the case that Cruz and others who proposed measures against to prevent packing were using it in the ordinary sense.

You have yet to provide what its ordinary meaning in english is or proof that its ordinary meaning is only the way you interpret it to be.

BTW, you nailed it, Jarhyn.

1. It's done already.
2. You can easily look it up, though it's not necessary because I did it already.