Supreme Court: Quid pro quo could prevent ‘packing’

Re: “Nothing sacred about nine-member Supreme Court,” (TNT, 10/14).

Thanks to columnist John M. Crisp for sharing his knowledge of “packing the court.” He points out, correctly, that it’s an “unsavory” option, but “not illegal or necessarily unscrupulous.”

What was unscrupulous was Mitch McConnell refusing to allow the Merrick Garland nomination go forward in 2016.

Democrats have the right and duty to try to nullify that stolen seat, and the best way is to prevent the current nominee from being approved, or by packing the court.

Instead of refusing to comment on that option, Joe Biden, Kamala Harris or another credible and articulate Democratic leader should address the nation and Senate.

Assertively and without apologies, they should promise that if Amy Coney Barrett is seated and the election goes well for the Democrats, that we will – not might – add seats to rebalance the Supreme Court.

But if the vote to approve her is postponed until Inauguration Day, the number of justices will remain the same.

Don’t like “packing”? The ball is in your court. No equivocating!

This story was originally published October 22, 2020 at 8:03 AM with the headline "Supreme Court: Quid pro quo could prevent ‘packing’."