I stand corrected. My feeling is if the court had tilted left, the GOP would've been within its rights to add justices. I didn't pay all that much attention to the Garland hearings because I knew McConnell was going to spike it. But you could probably do a content analysis of my posts over the years and see I'm pretty consistent in my critiques of our Constitutional system, which have always included a desire for term limited SCOTUS and term limited Congress members. Someone on the OG once convinced me term limiting Congress would create more problems than it would solve, but I'm still open to persuasion on that. End of the day, I think America's governmental system was a beautiful model for the seventeenth and eighteenth century, but has shown its limits in the twentieth and twenty first. I'd personally prefer a parliamentary system, though that's not without its own problems and weaknesses. It's only traditions that keep us from a fundamental rethink. One of the useful things about the Trump presidency is his total willingness to flout any traditions that typically restrain the Executive, exposing how crucial it is to more formally codify those limitations in law. The other useful thing is that by appointing Barrett, he's going to force Dems to finally abandon their strategy of trying to litigate social change rather than legislating it. The reason they've abandoned a real grass roots 50 state strategy is because it's cheaper to win over elites and try to capture executive power or rely on judicial strategies. Now they'll be forced to either wield power or lose it and they'll be forced into a more meaningful nationwide agenda. It serves me and my comrades purposes, which are of course to see this country become at minimum New Zealand, but even better Denmark, or maybe even Bolivia or Costa Rica if I'm allowed to dream.