So if Trump (or anyone else like Rubio, Kasich, etc.) won the presidency and put 3 new conservatives on the SC to replace RBG, Breyer, and Scalia, would you still call it "rigging" the SC?
I guess you dont know much about SC history?
Republican presidents have proven historically incapable of performing this seemingly simple task.
Ford gave us Stevens (no wonder so many people tried to assassinate him).
Reagan gave us Sandy Baby who was good for awhile but then began to waffle like Kennedy. And, of course, King Waffler himself, Anthony Kennedy (the author of Obergefell).
Then, in one of the crimes of the century, GHBush (and purported "genius" John Sununu) gave us Souter (Bush was afraid to use up his limited "political capital" on this pick -- what a horrible decision).
Then W. gave us Roberts, who will never be forgiven for the individual mandate.
So, you could argue that the Rs have already packed the Court - except the idiots did it for your side!
In any event, to your point, conservative or "originalist" justices acknowledge the supreme power of the Constitution, even when they do not like it. Liberal or "living Constitution" proponents do not like the Constitution because it limits their ability to invoke the changes they want and the speed with which they can make that change. So, they are out to alter the Constitution. No matter what else you might read or they might say, this is the bottom like, they want to change or weaken the US Constitution. If allowed, they will keep chipping away at that supreme power until it eventually means little. At that point, the Court itself will become a sort of Super Legislature, circumventing Separation of Powers and rendering Congress itself largely irrelevant (what can they ever do about it? they have no executive power of their own). And it wouldnt matter if the people sent 90% Rs into the Congress.
This will not happen in a couple years (but you can bet Heller and Citizens United are gone or significantly altered in a couple years - they are already planning that - we know this much from leaks). It may even take a couple decades, but that's the deal with SC justices -- they outlive, outlast and have a bigger impact than their actual nominating presidents do. Not everyone gets that. And this is the eventual future if HRC wins now (even if she never lives to see it, which seems a certainty as of this moment). This time is not like other times and other presidents.
It really is different this time. Because the balance itself is at stake. Plus, they know exactly what they are doing now and exactly what they want. That is the most dangerous part - it took awhile but now idea is crystallized. They now know precisely what they want (hint - and its nothing close to what the Founders envisioned). The change this time will be professional, expedient and ruthlessly efficient. They have been planning this for a long time -- this is not hyperbole. Simple Translation = Hillary will get to put 2, maybe 3 Ruth Baders on the Court in one term. With 8 years, she might get 3 or 4 or even 5 Ruth Baders (to join Kagan and Sotomayor). If so, that's it. The Constitution is done and with it, us too.
And finally, back to your original rhetoric.
-- If R-Presidents were able to rig or stack the Court, it would only mean the Constitution remains the supreme law of the land. Is that so bad to you? Is that so conservative that it threatens your sense of being?
-- However, if D-Presidents were able to rig or stack, then, by todays rules and standards, it means the Constitution does not survive. It's going to be altered and changed, but mainly it will be weakened. Why? Because they want to be able to do whatever the hell they want, without arbitrary restrictions, like those imposed on them by that document. It is just a document, right? Written along time ago. By white guys. That just doesn't cut it anymore.
