[ETH_start]

The whole point of winning presidencies is to appoint justices when one retires or passes away.

Packing the court, i.e. expanding the court to obviate the need to wait for a justice to retire or die in order to appoint a new one, on the other hand, effectively eliminates the independence of the judiciary, by nullifying the independence that Supreme Court justices obtain as a result of their lifetime tenure.

[adamc]

The rulings overturned will be sound, by your own rubric.

And that has not, historically, been "the whole point of winning presidencies".

[ETH_start]

Later rulings are more likely to be sound, by judicial logic. The entire system of judicial law rests on that assumption.

And one of the rewards of winning presidential elections is being able to replace the justices that retire or die..