[trs8080]

Ah yes, another attempt to pretend that the single Supreme Court justice nominated by the former (D) president was blocked for anything other than partisan political reasons and that Trump didn't add the most number of SC justices since Reagan, all of whom were put forward by the totally-not-partisan Federalist Society and one of whom actually cried about how much he loves beer while testifying during a job interview, which is definitely normal and the type of behavior we expect from a judge in the highest court.

Totally not court packing. Just business as usual.

[MockObject]

Nope, your recent discovery of partisanship in DC, or the strength of your personal hatred of a justice or two, still does not make their appointment "court packing".

[trs8080]

Packing the court with partisans does, in fact, count as court packing. Here's a helpful article: https://www.rutgers.edu/news/what-court-packing

From the article:

"People often use "court packing" to describe changes to the size of the Supreme Court, but it's better understood as any effort to manipulate the Court's membership for partisan ends. A political party that's engaged in court packing will usually violate norms that govern who is appointed (e.g., only appoint jurists who respect precedent) and how the appointment process works (e.g., no appointments during a presidential election).

"Seen from this perspective, the Barrett appointment is classic court packing. The president nominated a hardline conservative who appears to question major parts of U.S. constitutional law. And the Senate majority changed its procedural rules – invented to deny Merrick Garland a hearing – to ram through the nomination as people were voting."

You siding with the partisan politics of members of a supposedly-neutral court who were put there to make the court partisan, doesn't make it normal.