Why is #MerrickGarland trending? It looks like the left decided to change the meaning of court packing. The mental gymnastics knows no bounds.

Court Packing means you are expanding the court’s judicial seats to fill them with your ideological allies.

It doesn’t mean that..

.. The court’s open seats were filled with your ideological allies.

There’s a massive difference between the two, although I’m sure anyone incapable of reason and logic will be able to see it.

This is of course in response to the Harris/Biden ticket refusing to answer the question about packing the courts.

Magically, they flipped it into “Republicans are the ones that pack the courts!” It’s amazing that trick still plays in politics.

This is frustrating to hear, because they are assuming their own side’s ignorance. They are depending on most ppl not knowing what it means.

We’ll go to the papers for some references:

10/7 @washingtonpost - “Court packing is adding more judges to a court than there are now, something that can be done on the federal level simply by passing a law.”

9/25 @nytimes - “Expanding the court — or court packing — is an idea commonly associated with President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who pushed legislation in 1937 that could have broadened the Supreme Court from nine to as many as 15 justices.”

What happened with Merrick Garland was obviously not court packing. The Supreme Court still has the same amount of seats.

If you’re upset that you didn’t get your way, maybe you should unpack why that happened.

Garland wasn’t voted in because the vote would not have passed with a Republican majority senate. Just like a vote on Kavanaugh (if we had a Dem majority senate) would have been pointless.

If you do not agree with a judge’s principles, you are not obligated to vote for them.

Court packing is the process of adding additional seats. Filling existing seats that are open in not court packing.

I don’t know why, but when I see people try to change definitions of words it drives me