Just to be charitable to your argument, even if the number of seats on the court was “just a norm” (a huge stretch, but let’s just say)...you have to know that it would do irreversible damage to change such a norm, and is in no way comparable to stonewalling a single nomination. The moment one party does this, any time power changes, the other power will just pack it right back, ad infinitum, turning the Supreme Court into a wholly political body. GP described this as “destroying the rule of law”, which is effectively what happens when you no longer have an independent judiciary that just changes with the political winds.

> Maybe the GQP should win elections next time.

It’s not just the “GQP” (seriously, maybe try talking like a normal person), it’s also key Democrats that oppose this. Until you can replace them too, this is a non-starter. And also...the “GQP” happens to enjoy a fairly robust geographical advantage in the Senate map, so it’s really either now or never.

All that said, there’s nothing wrong with supporting something that’s even more extreme than what the other side did if that’s what you’re really into, but at least have the guts to be honest with yourself about what it is you’re advocating for and own it! That’s the only consistent position. Regardless of what we agree to call these things, “norms”, “laws”, “cupcakes” (I really don’t care), if you’re unable to grasp just how different the two things are, then you might have more in common with the “GQP” than you think, at least is far as critical thinking goes.