You can’t decry those Dems who call to add justices to the court without looking back at what Mitch McConnell set in place when he denied a hearing to Garland. He set a precedent. So, because he could...should he have?
No. Because one, in my opinion, is entirely different than the other. Packing the court is an attempt to silence one side, not give equal voice to it. Blocking a nominee does not fall within those bounds. It is a legitimate act of the Senate like you and Skylar said.
The idea that our court has to interpret our laws based on our political whims is sad. That's not what it was designed for, but both parties are doing exactly that. Impartiality used to be a thing. But from what I see, Coyote, impartiality has become an ineffective tool in a debate. I have watched for years as impartial voices are drowned out by hopeless biases and extremism. I am not reaching anyone by being moderate and impartial.
Where does that leave me, Coyote? I made a concerted effort to be dispassionate, you can easily see that from my previous posts on this board throughout the past few years. It's getting to a point where I have gotten too far involved in this fight and I must engage in tactics that I see are most advantageous to me, tactics that get people's attention. I have essentially given up on impartiality. There is not one impartial soul in this world. Not even mine. Not me, not you, not Skylar, not any of the billions of souls on this earth are capable of being absolutely impartial.
I can't sit this one out as much as I would like to. I didn't want to pick a side, I didn't want to fight, but now I feel as if I must.