LogFAQs > #945921985

it's a semantic argument that people have instead of arguing with the fundamental points people are trying to make. "Packing the Court" originally referring to a situation that involved the goal of modifying a supreme court's composition (and likelihood to rule a certain way) in a 'nonstandard manner', introducing partisan justices by means of expanding the supreme court size and nominating judges that fit that agenda.

The important part being the goal here. If a bill was introduced to expand the court size while providing some fair distribution of justices that retained the same ideological balance, would that still be seen as packing the court? No, because the objectionable part is the changing of the court's political composition to be in favor with the party in power. Thus, packing the court can be seen as the goal of a political power grab regardless of the means in which it's achieved, i.e. packing the courts via expansion or packing the courts via holding seats empty until your party comes back into power.

---

Take me for what I am -- who I was meant to be.
And if you give a damn, take me baby, or leave me.