For now.

This is a classic tactic - The absurd thing is passed off as a normal thing while they “debate” over an outrageously absurd thing.

She supports the commission that will eventually pack the court, not the bill to pack the court immediately.

So when we go to argue with leftists about it they’re going to repeat lines and articles “proving” that Dems don’t intend to pack the court while simultaneously supporting the actual effort to pack the court because “it’s not court packing it’s just a commission to improve the court.”

And if you want to get this through to a leftist you’ll have to convince them that the commission is actually a cover for court packing - Which they’ll never believe because Dems “rejected” court packing. So as far as they’re concerned there’s never going to be “court packing” even if there is court packing because by the time the courts are packed Dems will refer to it as “justice.”

It’s all misdirection and word games. The fucked up part is that it’s impossible to point this out to a leftist because to them the misdirection and word games are reality itself. You could get them to agree that “court packing = bad” but you’ll never get them to call court packing “court packing.”