Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died.

[merithyn]

What about those who are fighting for their jobs? Like McSally, Gardner, and Tillis? Think any of them will flip because of the election?

EDIT: Thanks, Otto. I agree, but wanted another opinion.

[HisMajestyBOB]

Even if there aren't enough Republican senators willing to vote on this before the election, there will certainly be enough during the lame duck period.

[grumbler]

Grassley could vote against referring the nomination to the Senate in committee.  That would set up an interesting scenario in which the majority in the Senate would have to vote to overturn their own committee rules and write new ones that allowed a vote on the nominee before the Judiciary Committee reports out on the nomination.  That, in turn, would be disastrous to the republicans if they lose control of the Senate, because the democrats could apply those same rules on their own and cripple the chance of the minority to affect legislation.

Tyranny of the majority has always been avoided in the Senate, though the Republicans have whittled away at minority powers the whole time they have been in the majority.  That makes this election in the Senate vital for the Democrats, and I think a high-handed approach by Moscow Mitch could sway the outcome of the senatorial races.

This is all so fucked up.  Moscow Mitch has earned his 30 pieces of silver.  If Putin had himself been named Senate Majority Leader, he couldn't have damaged the US more than Mitch McConnell has.

[merithyn]

Grassley could vote against referring the nomination to the Senate in committee.  That would set up an interesting scenario in which the majority in the Senate would have to vote to overturn their own committee rules and write new ones that allowed a vote on the nominee before the Judiciary Committee reports out on the nomination.  That, in turn, would be disastrous to the republicans if they lose control of the Senate, because the democrats could apply those same rules on their own and cripple the chance of the minority to affect legislation.

Tyranny of the majority has always been avoided in the Senate, though the Republicans have whittled away at minority powers the whole time they have been in the majority.  That makes this election in the Senate vital for the Democrats, and I think a high-handed approach by Moscow Mitch could sway the outcome of the senatorial races.

This is all so fucked up.  Moscow Mitch has earned his 30 pieces of silver.  If Putin had himself been named Senate Majority Leader, he couldn't have damaged the US more than Mitch McConnell has.

Hear! Hear!

He is truly the enemy of the people, and still will be re-elected in November.

[merithyn]

Even if there aren't enough Republican senators willing to vote on this before the election, there will certainly be enough during the lame duck period.

I think Grassley, Collins, and Murkowski won't regardless. If Romney doesn't vote to confirm, he won't during the lame-duck session, either.

[HisMajestyBOB]

Even if there aren't enough Republican senators willing to vote on this before the election, there will certainly be enough during the lame duck period.

I think Grassley, Collins, and Murkowski won't regardless. If Romney doesn't vote to confirm, he won't during the lame-duck session, either.

I'm willing to bet that Romney won't vote either before the election or during the lame-duck (unless the GOP retains the Senate and Trump is re-elected). Maybe one of Grassley, Collins, and Murkowski, but not enough to stop the nominee from going through. Collins looks likely to lose and has no reason not to vote for the nominee after her loss.

[derspiess]

Grassley could vote against referring the nomination to the Senate in committee.  That would set up an interesting scenario in which the majority in the Senate would have to vote to overturn their own committee rules and write new ones that allowed a vote on the nominee before the Judiciary Committee reports out on the nomination.  That, in turn, would be disastrous to the republicans if they lose control of the Senate, because the democrats could apply those same rules on their own and cripple the chance of the minority to affect legislation.

Tyranny of the majority has always been avoided in the Senate, though the Republicans have whittled away at minority powers the whole time they have been in the majority.  That makes this election in the Senate vital for the Democrats, and I think a high-handed approach by Moscow Mitch could sway the outcome of the senatorial races.

This is all so fucked up.  Moscow Mitch has earned his 30 pieces of silver.  If Putin had himself been named Senate Majority Leader, he couldn't have damaged the US more than Mitch McConnell has.

Hear! Hear!

He is truly the enemy of the people, and still will be re-elected in November.

Dunno, man. Bloodbath McGrath had been amping up her radio ads.

[Valmy]

Dunno, man. Bloodbath McGrath had been amping up her radio ads.

I like the nicknames present in that race.

[Syt]

So the nightmare scenario is now that they ram through a candidate worse than Kavanaugh, then Trump - losing the election - takes it to "his" Supreme Court and steals the presidency? That's not possible, is it?

[Valmy]

So the nightmare scenario is now that they ram through a candidate worse than Kavanaugh, then Trump - losing the election - takes it to "his" Supreme Court and steals the presidency? That's not possible, is it?

I mean he would only have three members and it is not like Kavanaugh and Gorsuch are quite that beholden to him. I guess it would depend on how the Supreme Court would do that. It is Congress that certifies the results usually, not the Supreme Court.

[viper37]

Grassley could vote against referring the nomination to the Senate in committee.  That would set up an interesting scenario in which the majority in the Senate would have to vote to overturn their own committee rules and write new ones that allowed a vote on the nominee before the Judiciary Committee reports out on the nomination.  That, in turn, would be disastrous to the republicans if they lose control of the Senate, because the democrats could apply those same rules on their own and cripple the chance of the minority to affect legislation.

Tyranny of the majority has always been avoided in the Senate, though the Republicans have whittled away at minority powers the whole time they have been in the majority.  That makes this election in the Senate vital for the Democrats, and I think a high-handed approach by Moscow Mitch could sway the outcome of the senatorial races.

This is all so fucked up.  Moscow Mitch has earned his 30 pieces of silver.  If Putin had himself been named Senate Majority Leader, he couldn't have damaged the US more than Mitch McConnell has.

Hear! Hear!

He is truly the enemy of the people, and still will be re-elected in November.

Dunno, man. Bloodbath McGrath had been amping up her radio ads.

Poll shows Mitch McConnell up double digits on Amy McGrath in Senate race

[viper37]

So the nightmare scenario is now that they ram through a candidate worse than Kavanaugh, then Trump - losing the election - takes it to "his" Supreme Court and steals the presidency? That's not possible, is it?

I mean he would only have three members and it is not like Kavanaugh and Gorsuch are quite that beholden to him. I guess it would depend on how the Supreme Court would do that. It is Congress that certifies the results usually, not the Supreme Court.

keyword being usually.  It all depends on how close it is and how hackables or reliable the voting machines are.  I don't have a lot of faith in these.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Yeah it would come down to what was being litigated, if a fight breaks out over certification of electors and the Congress is divided, the court has limited authority to really forcefully decide the issue.

That's one of the reasons the Hayes-Tilden election was so contentious, there really wasn't any clear authority who could just thump their fist down and say "THIS IS THE DECISION", the Supreme Court doesn't have that power, and whatever ruling it issues Congress isn't bound in its operations by it. Supreme Court decisions can neuter the government's ability to enforce laws that Congress passes if those laws are declared constitutional, but it can't really change how the Senate or House choose to conduct their business, constitutionally basically no one can--other than maybe the President through force of arms (and then we're in a constitutional crisis.) In that election the Republicans also controlled the Senate, with the Democrats controlling the House, and a huge fight broke out over certification. There was no clear cut resolution as a matter of "law", what instead happened is the political leaders of both parties agreed to create a commission, and there was a power sharing arrangement in terms of appointing members to the commission that sought to make it a somewhat neutral/fair body.

The commission ultimately decided on which elector slates from each State that was contested (this election had multiple states with contested electors) would be accepted and the parties in the respective houses of congress agreed on its decisions. So functionally one member of the commission was chosen because he was not a known member of any political party, and the rest of the commission was broken down 50/50. But the neutral member of the commission, during its deliberations, was nominated for the Supreme Court. He accepted, and withdrew from the commission to avoid an appearance of a "conflict of interest." The replacement for him was a partisan Republican--while not widely known by the public at the time, the reason the Democrats accepted this replacement is the Republicans promised that if the Democrats allowed it, the new Republican President (Hayes) would end Congressional reconstruction in the South, and basically let the South "redeem" its governments by passing a bunch of laws to get rid of all the carpetbaggers and blacks who had been elected to State offices throughout the old confederacy.

Now for this sort of scheme to work the first thing you would need is the political leadership of the two parties to even agree to such a thing--there was no external force or de jure rule that required this, it was a compromise the men involved came up with and agreed upon.

[Josquius]

Bad news for the election right?
It'll bring some wavering anti trump Conservatives on side....

Wow.  I am sure of two things, and fairly sure of a third:
1.  I am sure that the republicans will ram through a nomination for someone even worse than Kavanaugh.
2.  I am fairly sure that the democratic response, when they take the Senate, will be to add more justices to the nine in place.  They can ram that through, probably, on a party-line vote.
3.  I am sure that, looking back, we will see this as the point when it irrevocably turned to shit.  The stage will be set for a purely-partisan game of "add the justices" that will have no end.

RBG, you fought the good fight, and it is tragic that your death will be what you are known for in history.

Sounds about right.
On the game of add the justices though.... There's already calls for reform right?
I wonder whether Biden would try that or it'll take a few years of bloating the court to get to the stage someone thinks they can manage it

[Monoriu]

So Ruth Bader Ginsburg was 87 when she died.

My question is, she was well in her 80s during the Obama years.  Why didn't she resign when Obama was president?