It&#x27;s not bad to send thoughts and prayers! It is only considered hypocritical when someone offers those thoughts and prayers despite protecting&#x2F;enshrining&#x2F;supporting&#x2F;etc. the thing which directly resulted in the tragedy. For example, strong supporters of gun rights and those who suffer from gun violence. I also extend my deepest sympathies to her family and those who she was close with. It is hard to lose someone, and I am sure it is even worse when a lot of people will be disgustingly cheering the death.

It&#x27;s only bad if you&#x27;re doing it when you have the option of doing something helpful. Like politicians offering prayers for tragedies that are the result of bad public policy.

I hate that it&#x27;s become bad to send people your thoughts and prayers.  It may not do anything, but to have meant so much to so many people is something worth thinking about.

For as worthless as this comment will ultimately be: my thoughts go to her family.

Probably the most realistic choice. She&#x27;s backed by the Federalist Society, rather than Tom Cotton and Ted Cruz.Plus, she&#x27;s a woman. She&#x27;ll get branded as the &#x27;RBG of the right&#x27;

Amy Barrett, a hard-right ideologue.Edit: sorry to all of you Amy Barrett fans out there.

Holy fucking hell. You&#x27;re in for a ride if this is the short list. As an European I really really hope that y&#x27;all can turn this shit around in November, otherwise it&#x27;s good bye US.

Here are some guesses I&#x27;ve heard from various news sources: Tom Cotton, Ted Cruz, and William Barr.

For anyone interested in a serious analysis: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;reason.com&#x2F;2020&#x2F;09&#x2F;09&#x2F;two-cheers-for-president-trumps-not-so-short-scotus-list&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;reason.com&#x2F;2020&#x2F;09&#x2F;09&#x2F;two-cheers-for-president-trump...</a>

They only need 50 votes and the Republican Senate will 100% confirm somebody, especially since they have the lame duck session too.

The Republicans will absolutely do it.This is their chance to mold our country&#x27;s sociopolitical landscape for decades.

Time? absolutely. It only takes an hour or two.Will they do it? maybe? probably.

How would it be an amazing feat? Trump already has a list of candidates, and all it takes is 50 Senators to say yes (plus Pence breaking a tie if they somehow don&#x27;t get 51). There&#x27;s no requirement to allow any but the most perfunctory of floor debates, and the filibuster has been eliminated for SCOTUS justices.Guaranteed McConnell will ram this through with plenty of time to spare.

The cynic in me says they will leave the seat open through the election, with full intent of filling it in the lame duck sessions, to keep it as a drive for GOP votes. &quot;Don&#x27;t let the Democrats fill the seat!&quot;

Justice Harold Hitz Burton is tied for the record: 0 days. There was less than 24 hours between nomination and confirmation. He was at least the 10th to achieve this feat. McConnell will require exactly as many days as he deems most politically expedient.

Realistically, they have until the last day of the current congress which runs until January 3rd, 2021.  The Senate has 37 working days remaining in 2020.  It would be an amazing feat if they manage to do it, but you bet if only as an animating fight for the party faithful who are historically depressed right now, they&#x27;re going to try.

Does Trump have enough time to get a new justice nominated and confirmed?

Do you recall when the republican party blocked Obama&#x27;s ability to appoint in the run-up to the last election? (parent commenter is referencing this)

I believe the parent comment was mocking the exact stance that Republicans took four years ago, and the fact that they will very certainly not take that stance this time.

cool.where&#x27;s Justice Merrick Garland, then?

Since you clearly don’t get the context, the Republicans made this a giant issue when Obama had an open Supreme Court seat towards the end of his term. Let’s call a spade a spade: the republicans have no regard for the constitution or laws of the land if they benefit from ignoring it. They will now ignore the precedent they set and place a new Supreme Court justice.

Not sure why you are downvoted, this is correct.  What the R&#x27;s did to Merrick Garland was a disgrace.  What kind of wink and a nod agreement is that?  They should codify this into law, not keep perpetuating it forever.  How long until it&#x27;s &#x27;oh, he&#x27;s only got 3 more years left...lame duck!&#x27;

McConnell is pretty transparent about his hypocritical political bullshit:&gt; &quot;Oh, we’d fill it,” McConnell told supporters in Kentucky on Tuesday when asked what he would do if a Supreme Court justice died in 2020 while President Trump was still in office&gt; <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.washingtonpost.com&#x2F;politics&#x2F;2019&#x2F;05&#x2F;29&#x2F;oh-wed-fill-it-how-mcconnell-is-doing-supreme-court-vacancies-an-election-year&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.washingtonpost.com&#x2F;politics&#x2F;2019&#x2F;05&#x2F;29&#x2F;oh-wed-fi...</a>edit: Am I really getting downvoted for pointing out how the current administration already said it would handle this?edit #2: Individual Republicans are declaring they&#x27;re against rushing an appointment before the election (<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;kyledcheney&#x2F;status&#x2F;1307113546136784897" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;kyledcheney&#x2F;status&#x2F;1307113546136784897</a>).

But that was a republican senate that had the power to confirm or not. Now you have a republican president and senate so if they want to ram somebody through they can do that.

&gt; He ideally should be able to, as long as the correct procedures are followed.Part of that procedure is having your party in charge of the Senate at the time of said nomination. Obama did nominate someone, he simply could not get him confirmed. That&#x27;s on Obama (and Democrats more generally).Trump will also nominate someone, and because his party has a majority in the Senate, that nominee will likely be confirmed whether Trump wins the upcoming election or not.I am 100% certain that if Obama had a Democratic Senate majority when he nominated Merrick Garland, his nominee also would have been confirmed. (As a registered Democrat myself, I would have demanded it.)There is no other precedent here: you accomplish in office what you can (procedurally) accomplish. Trump lucked out here; Obama didn&#x27;t.

What’s it worth? Ishtar lose the majority and possibly a couple seats? I think they take that, they have no ground to stand on the social issues alone.It’s sad how many justices will be on the court, appointed by men that didn’t win the popular vote

He ideally should be able to, as long as the correct procedures are followed. Republicans, however, set the precedent by not allowing Obama to appoint one in his last year in office. My money, however, is on them ramming someone through anyways.

Because it&#x27;s not about consistency, it&#x27;s about winning. And McConnell sure is doing a lot of that in terms of his agenda to stuff courts full of conservative justices.

From back in 2019: ‘Oh, we’d fill it’: How McConnell is doing a 180 on Supreme Court vacancies in an election year<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.washingtonpost.com&#x2F;politics&#x2F;2019&#x2F;05&#x2F;29&#x2F;oh-wed-fill-it-how-mcconnell-is-doing-supreme-court-vacancies-an-election-year&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.washingtonpost.com&#x2F;politics&#x2F;2019&#x2F;05&#x2F;29&#x2F;oh-wed-fi...</a>

If the Senate confirms the President&#x27;s nomination then I don&#x27;t see why the President wouldn&#x27;t follow through with the appointment.

And if he loses the election, he still has time to push through a quick nomination before he gets booted out and a new Democratic Senate is sworn in.

Yep. This is what I fully expect to happen. It&#x27;s despicable, but it makes way too much sense. You motivate moderate conservatives, and if you win you get to claim the moral high ground. If you lose, you push a lame duck justice through anyway. This is a gift from a campaign strategy point of view.I feel terrible focusing on the political maelstrom and not RBG&#x27;s legacy, but these are also important conversations to have.

A 4-4 deadlocked vote in a “Bush v Gore” type of situation would be a constitutional nightmare. It’s  absolutely in his interest to fill that seat.

One possible strategy for Trump (which would be very much out of character) would be to wait out of respect for RBG and&#x2F;or the Garland precedent.  Meanwhile, he uses the empty seat as a campaign issue to keep reluctant conservatives from jumping ship.

Trump may try, but it will be interesting to hear the reasoning to rush it before November 4. If Trump is going to win, as he says he is, there is no need to rush.I believe there is no precedent for the Senate confirming a Supreme Court justice in a lame duck session. If Trump loses to Biden and the Senate then confirms a Trump nominee in a lame duck session, that will probably be the end of the Supreme Court. I’d expect Biden and Harris to just stack the Court, and it to devolve from there.Remember, there is no law requiring nine justices. Just a handshake agreement and precedent. FDR threatened the stack the Court unless he got his way. And who would ultimately determine the legality of stacking the Court? You guessed it, the Supreme Court.

Yes, the point is that Republicans violated the principles you are laying out here under the exact same situation. So violating this principle again in the exact same way would be the only non-hypocritical way to handle this situation.

At what point should a President, especially in their first term running for re-election, stop being able to fulfill parts of their duties?Declaring war? Responding to an attack? Talking to other world leaders? Advocating Congress to act on matters? Signing bills into laws? Naming post offices? Being allowed into the Oval Office?Independent of this specific situation, there has to be a line drawn somewhere. And that line is Inauguration Day. (A case could be made that some powers cease on Election Day for a lame duck President.)

If only he had similar plans for healthcare, like he told people. They&#x27;d still be terrible plans, but he obviously has absolutely no plan whatsoever.

Trump most likely has had plans for this for months and knows who he&#x27;s going to pick, expect a choice by the end of next week and confirmation within a month. They don&#x27;t have much time to get a new person in there so they&#x27;ve had a plan for this for months, if not years.

Why? Should I stop writing code if I think I&#x27;m leaving this job in a year? Why should the president stop doing his job?

Of course a president should not appoint a judge on the last few months of his term, should he?

It&#x27;s different when you&#x27;re a member of the US SUPREME COURT

Hmm, I’m ambivalent about people who do this.  I think if you know your time is near, you should take it easy.  Do some mundane things.  Yes, I know “but it’s the only thing I love doing”.  I disagree with that choice.

Clearly the congress at that time was acting in bad faith and would have delayed her successor being appointed, as they did with Merrick Garland.

It&#x27;s also completely orthogonal to her life&#x27;s work. Why would you spend a lifetime dedicating yourself to democratic ideals, when you know that, if you pass, you would be replaced not only by someone who doesn&#x27;t share those ideals, but by an individual whom would change the tilt of the court.

I am not American and I am not familiar with the legacy of justice Ginsburg. Looking at it from a non-American perspective, I would find it very odd for a supreme court judge, who is supposed to be non-partisan and neutral, to favour one party over another, even just in the matter of choosing a successor. Wasn&#x27;t justice Ginsburg of the same mind?

She should have retired before 2016 and let someone step up. Occupying the seat of power until you keel over at the age of 85 is a peculiar expression of ego and selfishness.

Death comes for all, soon or late
And how can one die better, than holding powerful rank
For the envy of your peers, and the bounty of your bank?

&gt; It&#x27;s fairly irresponsible...It shows poor judgement.I think it shows she was as hungry for power as anyone else.&quot;In 1999, she underwent major surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation to treat colon cancer. Ten years later, she was diagnosed with early stage pancreatic cancer, for which she also had surgery. In 2014, she went to the hospital after suffering chest pains during one of her famous workouts and discovered she had a blocked artery. [1]She had been a supreme court justice for almost 20 years by then. Regardless of whether Obama&#x27;s pick would have been watered down by lack of congressional control, her vanity has made things much worse and tarnishes her entire career.Edit: So I don’t regret this entirely, she is deserving of great respect even if she made a possibly grave miscalculation.We do not know the outcome yet, and whether intended or not this could result in something bigger working out in the same way WeWork’s failure could turn out to be a boon to RISC V.[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.motherjones.com&#x2F;politics&#x2F;2018&#x2F;11&#x2F;what-cult-ruth-bader-ginsburg-rbg-got-wrong-obama-trump&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.motherjones.com&#x2F;politics&#x2F;2018&#x2F;11&#x2F;what-cult-ruth-...</a>

I disagree entirely and in fact most of the rest of the world have laws against Supreme Court Justices serving well into old age like this. Her health problems were known during President Obama&#x27;s term and it was nothing more than hubris on her part to continue serving.It&#x27;s fairly irresponsible to work until the day you die if a sudden death can have absolutely devastating and life changing consequences for a significant number of people.

Worked right to the end even with her health challenges. What a role model.

She lived well from conception to a natural death.

And so it ends.I weep for those without, you will not have the recourse those of the last half century had.

I&#x27;m somewhat curious how much deference and respect the administration will grant her. Basically how many days before they start pitching their nominee.Edit: Fwiw, the RBG movie about her is on Hulu now.

Just like Obama&#x27;s nomination was blocked for more than a year to &quot;let the voters decide&quot;?

McConnell says you never replace a Supreme Court Justice in an election year.Let&#x27;s see just how long it takes him to release a public statement going back on that one...

What do you mean &quot;even she&quot;? She literally said it was a wish!

&gt; even she would’ve known it’s at best a wish and nothing else.It&#x27;s specifically her dying wish. IMO she&#x27;s giving Senators who still support democracy something they can say to the press when they decline to vote to fill her seat.

As much as I respected and admired RBG, even she would’ve known it’s at best a wish and nothing else.If things weren’t so polarized, they absolutely should spare no time in replacing the seat, as is their duty. But we know it’ll be yet another cynical and dishonest process as it was last time.

I wouldn&#x27;t count on any politicians in our current government caring one little whit about that…  :(

They&#x27;ve already started. <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.buzzfeednews.com&#x2F;article&#x2F;zoetillman&#x2F;trump-supreme-court-picks-2020-election-biden" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.buzzfeednews.com&#x2F;article&#x2F;zoetillman&#x2F;trump-suprem...</a>

Why would they wait for the things you think are more important that don&#x27;t have anything to do with it?Republicans have a majority of the Senate judiciary committee and the Senate. They have it if they want it without involving stimulus or anything to do with Congress.

[removed] It will be tough, but maybe they could

McConnell has already stated that he will put someone up even though his logic would apply to this year.

In a normal government, precedent would likely be followed.This is not a normal government.

Precedent means nothing. There&#x27;s no law. Mcconnell just abused his power and will do so again with no regard for his past position.

If you think McConnell has a shred of honor or cares one whiff about not being a hypocrite I have a bridge to sell you.

McConnell immediately clarified his position was &quot;the Senate shouldn&#x27;t consider a nomination in an election year if it&#x27;s controlled by my party and the president isn&#x27;t in my party&quot; -- no kidding, this was his actual clarification.

From the article:&gt; Asked what he would do in circumstances like these, McConnell said: &quot;Oh, we&#x27;d fill it.&quot; [the supreme court seat]

Mitch McConnell and Trump will have a replacement confirmed by the end of October.

I know it doesn&#x27;t mean much, but I filled out a plea to both my Republican senators and Mitch McConnell&#x27;s contact forms to respect the McConnell &#x2F; Merrick Garland precedent in 2016. Obviously they&#x27;ve explicitly said they wouldn&#x27;t, but it doesn&#x27;t hurt to try.

That is not the precedent: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nationalreview.com&#x2F;2020&#x2F;08&#x2F;history-is-on-the-side-of-republicans-filling-a-supreme-court-vacancy-in-2020&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nationalreview.com&#x2F;2020&#x2F;08&#x2F;history-is-on-the-sid...</a>&gt; History supports Republicans filling the seat. Doing so would not be in any way inconsistent with Senate Republicans’ holding open the seat vacated by Justice Antonin Scalia in 2016. The reason is simple, and was explained by Mitch McConnell at the time. Historically, throughout American history, when their party controls the Senate, presidents get to fill Supreme Court vacancies at any time — even in a presidential election year, even in a lame-duck session after the election, even after defeat. Historically, when the opposite party controls the Senate, the Senate gets to block Supreme Court nominees sent up in a presidential election year, and hold the seat open for the winner. Both of those precedents are settled by experience as old as the republic.The linked article actually goes on to describe every situation where there was an election year Supreme Court vacancy. Please read.

This is America there is literally nothing stopping anything from happening if you wield power.

The Democrats wanted the nomination to go through, but the Republicans blocked it. There&#x27;s no real precedent unless both parties are for it.

McConnell is on the record saying he would seat a justice during Trump&#x27;s reelection.There are no principles, just power struggles.If HRC was president, McConnell would follow his 2016 policy. With Trump president he&#x27;ll make a new policy.There are no repercussions for bringing home the bacon to your constituents at any cost.

McConnell has already publicly stated that he&#x27;s bringing a nominee to the senate floor. You didn&#x27;t think he&#x27;d have consistency and integrity even with his own precedent did you?

Mcconnell has already said he confirm a nominees without delay. He can even confirm after losing my the election in a lame duck session if he wants.

I&#x27;m curious: does anybody seriously think that if the positions were reversed that the Democrats would honor this?Let&#x27;s say that Biden wins, then Trump runs against him again in 2024. Somebody dies or retires right before the election, do you think the democrats would seriously wait and risk allowing the nomination to be done by Trump?None of these people are in any way signaling their actual virtues. It&#x27;s all just slogans. Also: the Democrats didn&#x27;t grant this to the Republicans over Scalia. The Republicans were in power in the Senate at the time and used this power to their advantage.Yeah, this is all terrible: this is the world you get when our politics seem to be regulated by twitter. If you want this to change, get rid of cable news talk shows, and get rid of twitter. Until then, this is what you&#x27;re going to have.

The Senate wasn&#x27;t setting a precedent, they were simply blocking the nomination from the opposite political party....as is their right.Would have played out the exact same way if political tables were turned.

That does not form a legal precedent. What you refer to was a political move and not a legal action. The Constitution governs this, not how people previously voted or blocked votes.I believe the first time a SC nominee was blocked was Roger Taney in 1835. This is politics and happens, as a general principle, regularly by both parties.

You don&#x27;t have to agree with it but his point was that the WH and Senate shouldn&#x27;t contemplate a SCOTUS nominee in an election year if they are controlled by opposite parties. Not hypocritical as that&#x27;s not the case this time.Also what happens if the election is contested and needs to be decided by the Supreme Court? Can&#x27;t have a Supreme Court without a justice till January 20th.

There would seem to be precedent for this now.Justice Antonin Scalia died in February of 2016, a replacement was nominated in March of 2016, and because Scalia&#x27;s seat had become vacant during an election year, the Senate would not even consider a nomination from the president [0].[0] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Merrick_Garland_Supreme_Court_nomination" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Merrick_Garland_Supreme_Court_...</a>

Note that &quot;until a new president is installed&quot; means until 2024 if Trump is reelected.

Then we would defer to the ruling of the lower court.

Can you imagine a 5-4 Supreme Court ruling, where the breaking vote comes from a judge appointed by the candidate whom the court declared the winner?

In all the reading I’ve done on that case, it really seems like the biggest mistake the SCOTUS made was accepting the case in the first place.

Can you imagine a 4-4 Supreme Court deadlock in a Bush v Gore type situation?

Also reported by NPR in the original post:Just days before her death, as her strength waned, Ginsburg dictated this statement to her granddaughter Clara Spera: “My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed.”

&gt; According to her granddaughter Clara Spera, Ginsburg said, “My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed.”<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;briantylercohen&#x2F;status&#x2F;1307101417522561025" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;briantylercohen&#x2F;status&#x2F;13071014175225610...</a>

Sad day, she was a champion of the people - a fighter for both women&#x27;s rights and civil rights. Her iconic status was earned. Would recommend the 2018 documentary &quot;RBG&quot; for anyone interested in her life and career.

Rest in Peace Justice RBG.
Considering the effect that lawyer hours must have put on her for decades she seemed reasonably okay in the last few years.

Four. Whatever trump got plus one for Garland. Also make DC a state on day 1.

The Senate doesn’t actually have to vote to confirm a Supreme Court justice.&gt; and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme CourtThere is nothing except precedent to say the President can’t just directly appoint justices. And then when the appointments are inevitably challenged, who would ultimately rule on it? The Supreme Court. Tah dah. This is how democracy falls apart.

&gt; It only takes a majority in the senate and house to add a seat to the SCOTUSExactly. If Biden wins and the senate flips, they&#x27;ll just add two justices (for 11 total) to get a majority. The right will scream bloody murder, but won&#x27;t be able to do anything about it.

I&#x27;m not OP, but to me that means:1- Ideas don&#x27;t make people - actions do. If someone is a good neighbor, citizen, friend and father&#x2F;mother, a valuable and contributing member of their community, that their beliefs on abortion&#x2F;politics&#x2F;gay marriage&#x2F;etc carry little weight compared to the years of actions and toil that they put in to make our society better.2- The person who has the ideas you don&#x27;t like shares more ideas that you do like than you don&#x27;t. Most people want to see America grow, they want to see their children live free, avoid unnecessary harm, etc. The sliver of disagreement is small compared to the pie of agreement.3- That we are all inherently flawed and primitive and therefore will be wrong 99% of the time. This means that even if you believe with all your conviction you are right on a point, you can remember you are probably just as wrong on more points than you are right on. It&#x27;s called practicing thoughts of humility, it&#x27;s a virtue we should all strive for.Among others.

&gt; I hope society is about to do a “big blink”.Oh yeah? What does that take the form of? Does it take the form of people who have ideas that you don&#x27;t like not being there when you open your eyes back up again?

I wish the US were thinking bigger than just those.

DC, Puerto Rico statehood please! Guam too?

I mourn her loss. She’s done more for my life and the average americans life than quite a significant many.Extremism in any shape breeds further extremism. I hope society is about to do a “big blink”.It only takes a majority in the senate and house to add a seat to the SCOTUS or a state to the union.

Even if Trump loses, they will seat a Federalist ideologue who is as young as they can possibly find so that the effects will be felt for 30+ years.

I mean, holy sh. This election is going to be insane.

Seems like that sort of thing is becoming rarer every day. RIP Ruth and Antonin.

For all the crap the non-Sorkin episodes get, that episode should be in the Hall of Fame for TV. Both the script and acting are of the highest caliber.

The relationship between RBG and Scalia served as inspiration for one of the most beloved post-Sorkin episodes of The West Wing. The Supremes, 5x17.

I&#x27;ll also link a video of her eulogy to Scalia: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=jb_2GgE564A" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=jb_2GgE564A</a>

Since the parent link is to an NPR piece, here&#x27;s NPR&#x27;s coverage of Ginsburg&#x27;s memorial tribute to Scalia: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.npr.org&#x2F;2016&#x2F;02&#x2F;15&#x2F;466848775&#x2F;scalia-ginsburg-opera-commemorates-sparring-supreme-court-friendship" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.npr.org&#x2F;2016&#x2F;02&#x2F;15&#x2F;466848775&#x2F;scalia-ginsburg-ope...</a>

This is the most insane comment I&#x27;ve read in a long time, no offense to you personally. Being friends is orthogonal, and should be orthogonal to one&#x27;s judgement and their duty as a judge.The entire world would be a better place if they do not follow the argument presented here.

Are you trying to say that you don&#x27;t believe in integrity?

It&#x27;s quite possible to be friends who have strong, contrasting opinions. I&#x27;d argue the oppose that it is a desirable state for highly powerful people making decisions for the whole country because you&#x27;re less likely be blinded by mindless us-vs them and give the benefit of the doubt the arguments and beliefs contrary to yours.The inability to disagree in a mature way is why we have such a mess of identity politics, name calling and all sorts of division in many counties IMO.

I think you are wrong. The mutual respect that grows out of friendship makes it easier to consider the other side of an argumen more seriously. And if there is one thing that is needed now it is more common ground being sought - not less.The idea that one ought not fraternize with those who disagree with one’s opinion is unproductive and leads to unnecessary division and ultimately a weaker system. Ultimately it is a brutish and uncivilized idea.I wish your post wasn’t downvoted. Bad ideas require discussion to be understood. And they can’t be discussed if they are removed from discourse.

No, being friends with contrasting opinions can be a good thing. Once in a while the guard slips off and one can see in the other&#x27;s yard. Whoever&#x27;s story has more flaws is likely to suffer a slight change in perception if not a downright 180 turn.

No, it’s a beautiful thing. The country would be far better off if we treated each other this way. In many other countries, this is the norm. Maybe you can learn something from your elders.

Who hurt you? Why discount their friendship? I&#x27;d say it would make little difference with people of the caliber of RBG or Scalia.

Although the justices being friends is inevitable, it is not desirable. The justices would be more representative of the people - and probably dispense better justice - if there was an uneasy compromise between them based on basic principles of precedent and law.That isn&#x27;t a very fun vision of life on the bench - and any system is imperfect - so I don&#x27;t really advocate that. But the idea that these people are asserting their preferences over 300 million people and then getting all chummy in their spare time isn&#x27;t a good thing. It is unavoidable though.

Lol. Why are you downvoted here? It’s like some people want to constantly paint the world like the end of a Disney movie where it turns out every character was really good deep down inside.

I mean they both seemed to have good sportsmanship. Is life not but a game?

I wonder how friendly they would have been if Scalia had managed to overturn abortion.

But with the internet much more of what you do is visible and more people know about it. What you said could be attacked with &quot;white silence is violence&quot;

I’m probably gonna do it. I’m not sure I could do the other thing... if the world burns, at least I burn in her camp. I’m ok with that. I’m excited you might be there too!

This is a key aspect of the struggle of civilization and not utopian at all. If we hope to change anyone&#x27;s mind and reach a level of social consensus on anything then it&#x27;s imperative we make a safe space for everyone to think and have civil discourse. Knee jerk recriminations for essentially thinking is the recipe for entrenchment of positions and pushing people to the margins where they are more likely to mix with extremists. RBG and Scalia were a great example of how to disagree respectfully and not treat ideas as a personal threat but to engage with them with enthusiasm. I am with you in your quest to listen and give ideas their due and all people respect.

That kind of collaboration can’t exist if there are two sides who believe that most issues are zero sum.

I think this might collapse at the edge cases: If I&#x27;m a black man and the opinion is that I&#x27;m an animal, and the person with the opinion uses this reasoning to abuse me, then I may be ethically correct to not listen or keep myself in their presence.Or, say, I&#x27;m a disabled person and someone tells me they think social services should be cut so people like me can die off for the good of humanity. It may be actively emotionally harmful for marginalized people to be listening to toxic opinions that they are worth nothing.(EDIT: To be clear I think listening to opinions I disagree with in good faith is a good thing that we need more of in society. However, I also believe marginalized voices are, by sake of being marginalized, are forced to engage in a significantly higher volume of significantly more emotionally taxing opinions, and therefore may need to protect themselves, and that isn&#x27;t wrong.)

&quot;Maybe there&#x27;s some sort of new &quot;non-denominational creed&quot; we could all sign up for&quot;That&#x27;s me! I&#x27;m in that creed.People associating their identity with their politics is when trouble starts. That&#x27;s when it becomes really threatening for them to even consider alternate perspectives, because if they change their mind, they will change who they are and who they can be friends with.It&#x27;s possible to separate the two, whereby an idea on how society should be organized is just that: an idea, to be considered, adopted, discussed, and abandoned as new information becomes available.One really poisonous idea I see circulating is &quot;either you are for &lt;some thing&gt; or you are a &lt;bad person&gt;&quot; Either you support riots or you are a fascist Either you punch Nazis or you are one Related, just as terrible, &quot;Time for discussion is over. If you&#x27;re on the fence at this point, you are &lt;bad person&gt;&quot; These kinds of memes increase polarization, and stop discussion. A person who says something like that can no longer have a calm exchange of ideas with their grandma

I think my problem with statements like this, is that while I can totally imagine the liberals I know taking this viewpoint, there are very few conservatives I know that do. The response will be something like:“Why would I listen to these whiners? I already know what I want.”

Good leadership involves the sort of thinking where you are prepared to listen to a diverse set of opinions and be prepared to change your mind - especially if there is data that tells you you are wrong.The political discourse across the globe has taken a sharp turn away from this over the last 40 years in particular. There was a brief window between the end of the Cold War and 9&#x2F;11 where many had hope this was going to be the new normal. I remember feeling that sliver of optimism as I entered adulthood. No more.Vote for people who are called &quot;flip-floppers&quot;, by their opponents. Change your own opinions when the data changes. Be the change you want to see.

Was so lovely after reading the article, that the point that stuck with me, aligned with your comment right at the top.Maybe there&#x27;s some sort of new &quot;non-denominational creed&quot; we could all sign up for.~&quot;
We may not agree but I will always listen to you. 
I will always consider your opinion with respect and will endeavour to understand your reasoning.
My views are not set - my goal is to listen to arguments to come to an informed position, I can honestly take forward
&quot;As I typed that, I could hear the happy-clappy sounds of some mocking-utopia ringing in my ears - but goddamnit, it doesn&#x27;t sound too hard for us to each put it into action.
I&#x27;m as guilty as the next person, but I&#x27;m going to try going forward.

inspirational? it was her greatest weakness, there was not any other single judge working harder against herI&#x27;m not going for the nazi reference, he wasn&#x27;t that evil but Scalia was literally trying to drag the United States back to the 1950s if not even further, decision after decision he never found an expanding right he didn&#x27;t want to slaughter

It&#x27;s so weird to see what inspires centrists.

She also worked well with and has been complementary of Justice Roberts.I thought that was remarkable in a positive sense as well

I think reading about Ruth and Antonin Scalia&#x27;s friendship was the most wholesome political reading I&#x27;ve ever done. Hearing people divided in opinion, but not bitterly so, working together to figure out the best framework to construct American society from was inspirational. I hope the two halves of the political world can become friends in the way they were.Rest in peace Ruth. I hope if there&#x27;s an after you and Antonin are living it up.

Based on what?  A justice dying and a terrible president who will be voted out of office in 7 weeks? Quit with the sensationalist “the world is ending” comments that aren’t based on anything but you’re pessimistic gut feeling.

It really does seem the cosmos has decided that America&#x27;s time of greatness (however broad the meaning of that word is) is at an end. I hope my comment turns out to be another &quot;who needs dropbox&quot;. Edit0:s&#x2F;this&#x2F;my.

You&#x27;re ignoring the kompromat. It&#x27;s presumably why most of these Republican senators have given up all shreds of conservatism and stand by watching Trump turn our country into a dumpster fire.

I think you’re underestimating the independence that justices feel when they’re appointed. The new appointee would owe nothing to Trump. Look at Roberts ruling for Oabamacare and Kavanaughs recent rulings.

Politically charged appointees to the Supreme Court have on occasion surprised naysayers and showed independence or at least made it a point to not be outright impartial.

Read: don’t say “I told you so” until it’s absolutely too late

&gt; Do you honestly think the Supreme Court would allow a President to win a 3rd term?Why wouldn&#x27;t they? They have nothing to gain from opposing it, and much to lose.I mean, do you honestly think the United States Postal Service would dismantle its own machinery and send out misinformation about elections?

What&#x27;s crazy about that rant? Trump already has his reasoning for wanting a third term.Two remaining lines of defense for the American people were (1) Elections and (2) the Supreme Court.2 is now gone. Republicans (Aka trump) are working hard on 1.By the way, what happens when election results are contested? <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Bush_v._Gore" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Bush_v._Gore</a>

Understanding how modern societies fail was my professional field.The United States is following in the footsteps of many countries that transitioned from democracy to authoritarianism. The judiciary was the last remaining bulwark that had been slightly slowing the erosion of democratic rights. With the judicial balance of power now in the hands of a president who has both taken steps to conduct an unfair election and has repeatedly expressed desires for extra-constitutional powers, it is naive in the extreme to imagine that American democracy is not mortally wounded.America is turning itself into a cross between apartheid-era South Africa and Putin&#x27;s Russia. While Trump has accelerated this trend, it is a trend far larger than him and it will not be stopped even if Biden somehow becomes the next president. Even if there is a Biden victory and some solution in the Senate, there must be no doubt that a 6-3 GOP USSC will overturn any pro-democratic, or anti-authoritarian, reforms that might be approved by Congress.I reiterate, the alarm bells are ringing for America as a free society and it is time for anyone who doesn&#x27;t want to live in The Handmaid&#x27;s Tale to get out because things aren&#x27;t going to get any better.

&gt; Do you honestly think the Supreme Court would allow a President to win a 3rd term?Do I think a Supreme Court starting with the current one, with Ginsberg’s empty seat and probably Justice Breyer’s replaced by the kind of people the current Republican Party would appoint and confirm (assuming Trump gets a second term and the Republicans hold the Senate) would allow Trump to serve beyond the end of his second term with a fig leaf of an excuse of emergency preventing normal process, even with the 22nd Amendment in place?Probably not, but I don&#x27;t see it as outside the realm of possibility.&gt; Care to bet $10k on there being a free and fair election in 2028? I get “Yes”, you can have “No”.No one who has publicly expressed concern about an incipient authoritarian regime can expect to be able to collect and enjoy their winnings if the answer is no, so that&#x27;s never going to be a bet they&#x27;ll accept no matter how certain they are of the outcome.

&gt; Care to bet $10k on there being a free and fair election in 2028? I get “Yes”, you can have “No”.Coming back to this because we don&#x27;t have free and fair elections today: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;AnthonyTilghman&#x2F;status&#x2F;1307360544559706113" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;AnthonyTilghman&#x2F;status&#x2F;13073605445597061...</a>And the Electoral Integrity Project gave North Carolina&#x27;s 2016 elections the rating you&#x27;d give if it didn&#x27;t have free and fair elections, and more people were wrongly denied the ability to vote in Georgia&#x27;s gubernatorial election (overseen by the eventual winner) than decided the election, and so forth.So, I&#x27;m interested in potentially taking this bet. Can you define what you mean by &quot;a free and fair election&quot;? (The EIP&#x27;s conclusions were widely contested, so I&#x27;m not saying we should accept them as a standard, but I would like to set an objective standard.)

Stop with these kind of comments. Do you honestly think the Supreme Court would allow a President to win a 3rd term? “We can all be certain” should be translated to “I feel like making a crazy rant here”. “Experiment is over” - the election is in 7 weeks, let’s hold off on the “get out while you can” comments until it’s over.How confident are you in your statement that the “American experiment is over”? Care to bet $10k on there being a free and fair election in 2028? I get “Yes”, you can have “No”.

The constitution means what the Supreme court says it means.  Doesn&#x27;t have to make sense.

&gt; will make sure Trump wins a second (or third, or fourth, or fifth) termHow would a Supreme Court Justice do this? A third and fourth term would require a constitutional amendment, which requires ratification by 3&#x2F;4ths of the states.

Wow the MSM media sure has filled you with propaganda.  Talk about overdoing it jesus.

I think we can all be certain that whoever is appointed by the Federalist Society and approved by Mitch McConnell will make sure Trump wins a second (or third, or fourth, or fifth) term.The American experiment as a free and democratic country is over.Unless you want to live in a real world version of The Handmaid&#x27;s Tale, get the fsck out if you still can.

Barukh atah Adonai Eloheinu melekh ha&#x27;olam, dayan ha-emet.i pray for peace and rest to her and her family, and grace and mercy, wisdom and forebearance for us.

I figure it was already pretty high to begin with.

&gt; this is already proving the caseExcept it doesn&#x27;t seem like the violence and rioting so far has actually helped Trump:<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;fivethirtyeight.com&#x2F;features&#x2F;trumps-law-and-order-message-isnt-resonating-with-most-americans&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;fivethirtyeight.com&#x2F;features&#x2F;trumps-law-and-order-me...</a>

Widespread conflict will get Trump elected, this is already proving the case as people see &#x27;violence&#x27; instead of &#x27;protesting&#x27; Trump is getting momentum. Don Lemon on CNN literally asking for people to calm down due to this fact.Edit: Trump&#x27;s support grew consistently as public support for BLM waned in face of the &#x27;perception of violence&#x27; [1] - which Trump&#x27;s team sees and is why he&#x27;s pushing a &#x27;law and order&#x27; message. The risk of BLM is that &#x27;empathy&#x27; will easily be overwhelmed by &#x27;concern&#x27; if pictures of violence play out on their TV screens every night. People will always chose public order over almost anything else.[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.politico.com&#x2F;news&#x2F;2020&#x2F;09&#x2F;02&#x2F;trump-black-lives-matter-poll-407227" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.politico.com&#x2F;news&#x2F;2020&#x2F;09&#x2F;02&#x2F;trump-black-lives-m...</a>

The potential ramifications of this are chilling. If the Republicans mishandle this, it could drastically increase the chances of widespread conflict around the time of the elections.

Too late. 2016 was the time to vote.Also, why bother? Electoral College means my vote counts for shit and half the Presidents since I’ve been able to vote were elected by losing the popular vote. It’s tyranNy of the minority and it sucks. I still vote, but it feels more and more Sisyphean as time goes on.

Old people lowkey flirting is so wholesome.

I saw her speak at West Point about a year and a half ago. In a room including colonels, generals, and cadets, she riveted the audience with humor, stories, wit, and insight. My favorite insight was her sharing her friendship with Scalia. Their nearly opposite politics didn&#x27;t stop them from things like he would secretly pass her notes while hearing cases to try to make her laugh.Her sharing contributed to my befriending a few people with opposite political views, against this nation&#x27;s tide of increasing polarization and beating opponents without trying to understand (Jonathan Haidt&#x27;s book The Righteous Mind contributed too). Among the results: less anger, more understanding, more self-awareness, though also more confusion among friends and family to why I would talk to someone who voted that way.

No, you have it backwards. He increases his chances by appointing another conservative, pro life judge.

This is Trump&#x27;s chance to score some points. If he defers the appointment he will score some points with people and have a better chance of re-election.  If they ram it through his chances of winning will be worse than they already are. This is at most a 2d chess move. They&#x27;ll probably still screw it up.

Precisely.There is a desire, specifically and especially on the left, to get so caught up in their principles that people believe it is the primary source of change.For example:What should be the first acts and priorities be of a democratic administration?Healthcare? Nope.Climate change? Nope.A federal holiday for election days? Yes.Passing legislation mandating mail-in ballots? Yes.That’s how you think about politics. About power. Lock in any advantage and expand it. Democrats have popular support for their policies but cannot for the life of them think strategically.

I don&#x27;t know about head kicks. I think you just need to be a political realist. The reality is that you need (edit: cooperation of the) Senate and Presidency to get a Justice nominated. Obama didn&#x27;t have the Senate and didn&#x27;t get his pick for Justice. Trump does, and will get his pick.The whole &quot;Republicans are hypocrites&quot; thing is true - but obviously so. Whatever was said about not doing it in election year was simply a political lie they felt they had to say to avoid the &quot;We are doing this because we can&quot; reality.

Democrat senators Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid first introduced a filibuster for judicial nominees, and then ending the filibuster for judicial nominees when it was politically convenient for them.<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.politico.com&#x2F;magazine&#x2F;story&#x2F;2017&#x2F;04&#x2F;mitch-mcconnell-charles-schumer-nuclear-option-judicial-filibuster-214991" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.politico.com&#x2F;magazine&#x2F;story&#x2F;2017&#x2F;04&#x2F;mitch-mcconn...</a>Do you think that might have affected the ability of the current president to successfully appoint a supreme court justice now?

Obama didn&#x27;t assume anything. He was a senator for 12 years (federally for 4) and had plenty of experience by that point to know how partisan legislative bodies are and how members will die for their parties perceived glory. I don&#x27;t believe for a second that in the aftermath of Clinton&#x27;s impeachment &amp; Gore&#x27;s 500 vote loss in the state being governed by his opponents brother with tens of thousands of votes lost or miscounted that any prospective politician anywhere in the US would expect good faith from their opposition.He was a great orator and liked using that come together message as an attempted bait to push popular support in his favor, though. It was also a great excuse for pushing an extremely conservative healthcare bill through congress as if it were some major achievement for his more progressive supporters.

This idea that either the Republicans or Democrats have faith or principles is absurd.  The Democratic brand is one of principles and altruism, but their actions do not reflect this.

Or maybe present a better alternative that gets people to vote for your side?Your party aggressively screwed over a candidate who could have energized the base and still would have captured 99.99% of the center in a trade for a principle-less barely coherent snooze fest of a human being who would toe the old party line and then you claim the only remedy is to play as dirty as the other side?Excuse me for not buying it.I voted for Obama but the democratic party is bordering on as repulsive as the republicans these days and this type of thinking is to blame.

At the same time, from the Republican perspective... They won &quot;fair and square&quot;, and then largely liberal-staffed agencies and other organizations delayed and resisted the implementation of Republican policies as much as possible. The other side wasn&#x27;t playing fair, why should they?

&gt; They do not give a fuckSomething that the Democrats need to realize is that they (especially Obama) assumed too much good faith in the congressional GOP.You can stick to your principles while doing it but, when you are against a party who now considers its last nominee (Romney) a radical BLM leftist, when they go low you need to be ready to kick them in the head.

I can’t see Dems doing that. They don’t have the popular support for something like that, let alone the courage.What they should do is physically barricade the Capitol. I’m not really joking. It will come to that.My first guess of the most action they will take:Staging a walk-out of the vote.

There&#x27;s no reprisal that would intimidate him into not taking every opportunity to claim more power.

So why wouldn’t the Republicans do the same thing next time they win an election? Or would the Democrats somehow guarantee that never happens again?

They don&#x27;t have the support there own party will turn on.

You can expand the number of seats on the Supreme Court via a bill passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the president. So we&#x27;d need the presidency, a majority in the House, and a supermajority in the Senate to invoke cloture to end the inevitable legislative filibuster from the Republicans. So even with a blue wave in November, that&#x27;s not possible because it is extraordinarily unlikely that we gain a supermajority in the Senate.The only other option to pass such a bill in the Senate would be to gain a Senate majority and use that Senate majority to end the legislative filibuster, which is the last filibuster anyways. With the filibuster out of the way, we&#x27;d just need the presidency and majorities in both houses of Congress.

Uhhh, the Senate confirms nominees. Expanding the court would just allow Republicans to name more justices...

Then it&#x27;s time to fight back.Make it absolutely clear to McConnell and Democratic leaders in the Senate that if McConnell fills this seat in an election year, then the Democrats must increase the size of the SCOTUS.McConnell needs to fear the reprisal more than he fears the delay. Because you&#x27;re right, this is about power. Nothing else matters to them. So make them fear this.

&gt; This is about power. In politics, nothing else matters.Sounds about right.&gt; the activities associated with the governance of a country or other area, especially the debate or conflict among individuals or parties having or hoping to achieve power.

Yes, she a wonderful human and a brilliant thinker and writer. He take on Roe is nuanced and thoughtful and no bullshit (she doesn’t love it.)I’m curious if they wait until after the election. Dangle it in front of their base as “we have to save this seat”.Or maybe it’s actually a dis-incentive for republican turnout because RBG dying was a strong selling point for next term.It will be interesting for sure.EDIT:I take that back. They will confirm before Election Day. They need a fifth judge for Trump to contest the election.

They will 100% fill that seat before Jan 20th. The outcome of the election does not matter. Anyone who thinks otherwise really doesn&#x27;t understand McConnell and the gang. They&#x27;ll let Romney dissent, it&#x27;ll be the impeachment vote v2.I saw some interviews with her, pretty amazing lady. Sad to see her go.

65,853,514 to 62,984,828, about 2.1%<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;2016_United_States_presidential_election" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;2016_United_States_presidentia...</a>

Proportionality isn&#x27;t one to one because half of Americans aren&#x27;t republican and half aren&#x27;t democrat. The problem is that polling data is absolutely awful at showing absolute support for the individual parties platforms and membership numbers are largely biased compared to what the electorate actually wants, but there are plenty of articles about GOP tactics to hold power from a minority bloc position.[1]I wish I bookmarked the statistics on this because they were eye opening to me, but 2016 polls were showing about 40% democrat to 35% republican leaning in the country. So if the public at large is 5% more blue than red, but Republicans hold near-even seats in government, thats a bias in their favor. And as this and many other articles show this isn&#x27;t the product of random swings of popular support but structurally orchestrated power grabs meant to keep a minority party in power.[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.theatlantic.com&#x2F;politics&#x2F;archive&#x2F;2018&#x2F;12&#x2F;gop-maneuvers-rule-minority-party&#x2F;577948&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.theatlantic.com&#x2F;politics&#x2F;archive&#x2F;2018&#x2F;12&#x2F;gop-man...</a>Edit: And to be fair the Senate isn&#x27;t a democratic institution whatsoever to begin with. Its going to naturally lean red because there are many states with low urbanization and population that produce permanent seat Republican senators. Because the distribution of states has nothing to do with the distribution of people that lends the senate to be hugely incongruent with the actual ideological makeup of the populace at large.

You look at the core beliefs of the Republican Party:Anti-Abortion: about or above sixty percent of Americans support legal abortionsClimate change: two thirds of Americans view it as a top priority and that the benefits of action outweigh the costsGuns: sixty percent to two-thirds of Americans support stricter gun control. 90–92% support mandatory background checksTaxing Wealthy: again, sixty percent to two thirds support higher taxes on the wealthy.Those are the pillars. Those are the core propositions.Americans do not support them or not by a margin of 1.1%

Hillary won the popular vote by 1.1% and currently the Republicans hold a razor thin Senate majority and have been substantially outpaced by Democrats in the House, so I&#x27;m not really sure where you get the idea that there&#x27;s a &quot;far disproportionate share of power&#x2F;representation&quot;. It seems pretty proportionate to me.

Why is this downvoted? Harry Reid literally eliminated the ability of the minority party to filibuster a presidential nominee.[1]So the Democrats are basically complaining that they can&#x27;t stop a Trump nomination, but only because they changed the rules themselves.[1]<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.theguardian.com&#x2F;world&#x2F;2013&#x2F;nov&#x2F;21&#x2F;harry-reid-senate-rules-republican-filibusters-nominations" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.theguardian.com&#x2F;world&#x2F;2013&#x2F;nov&#x2F;21&#x2F;harry-reid-sen...</a>

That is revisionist history at best Harry Reid (D) <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Harry_Reid" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Harry_Reid</a> changed the rules and Congress have been fucked ever since.

Can you explain what you mean? The nuclear option [1] is used by the majority party in the Senate to end a filibuster by the minority party. Democrats are the minority party in the Senate and hence have no such option available to them.[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Nuclear_option" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Nuclear_option</a>

Democrats need to be ready to use the Nuclear Option.  It&#x27;s still on the table.  They should have someone right now getting in shape for it.

Seems highly unlikely that John Roberts would let any decision on the election be that close.  He&#x27;s too much of an institutionalist to not find some way to bring along most, if not all, of the Justices.  Given that, it&#x27;s really quite preferable that the seat go unfilled, eliminating the possibility of a 5-4 decision with Roberts writing the dissent, a situation that really would spell doom for American democracy.

&gt;The left has been talking about stacking the supreme court since Kavanaugh.Considering the court has had a Republican majority since 1989, I don&#x27;t blame them.

Do not make the mistake of thinking the politicians who represent you are particularly principled people.The left has been talking about stacking the supreme court since Kavanaugh. Democratic senators played games with the filibuster. There are plenty of other examples of weaponizing politics that I could cite (from both sides).I would like to see Senate Republicans show some fair play and wait for after the election, though there is some wisdom in wanting to avoid the possibility of a split decision should this election go to the supreme court.

&gt; They do not give a fuck.Why would they? There are no consequences to bad behavior!Republicans push tax cuts through for the wealthy, leaving the country deeper in debt. So what do Democrats do when they get back in power? Let those cuts stand!Imagine, if, for every Republican shenanigan, their price to pay would be much higher than any potential gains. They would think twice about being assholes then. But as things stand, they suffer no consequences! So why would they ever change??

&gt; disproportionate share of power&#x2F;representation than their support across the electorate.Both the democratic party and the republican party only represent a small fraction of the electorate, for your information.<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.theguardian.com&#x2F;us-news&#x2F;2016&#x2F;oct&#x2F;25&#x2F;american-political-parties-democrats-republicans-representation-survey" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.theguardian.com&#x2F;us-news&#x2F;2016&#x2F;oct&#x2F;25&#x2F;american-pol...</a>&quot;As they go to the polls in a historic presidential election, more than six in 10 Americans say neither major political party represents their views any longer, a survey has found.&quot;

For every one of the coming takes that Republicans will be hypocrites to appoint and confirm a justice (which they will)They do not give a fuck.That’s not how they see power and it is why they have a far disproportionate share of power&#x2F;representation than their support across the electorate.This is about power.
In politics, nothing else matters.

This is really depressing, even for a non-American. The only question is whether they appoint a new justice before election or after.

Eternal rest grant to her, O Lord; and let light perpetual shine upon her. May her soul, and the souls of all the faithful departed, through the mercy of God, rest in peace. Amen.

FDR can absolutely shit on by his own party for the idea.  He ended up backing down.

Consider Maduro (Venezuela). He and his government are enduring all kinds of enormous attacks from all around the (&quot;Western&quot;) world and horrible malicious interference by USA, but the only thing that we know of that Maduro&#x27;s side did wrong (arguably) was packing the Supreme Tribunal of Justice.

A lot of what FDR did was overturned as unconstitutional, though.

This is amusingly silly. Changing the composition of the Court is not unheard of and FDR, not exactly known as the poster child of &quot;destroying the legitimacy of Constitutional government,&quot; nearly did it in 1937 (and likely would have if not for another untimely death.) <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;today.law.harvard.edu&#x2F;if-democrats-win-in-november-should-they-pack-the-supreme-court&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;today.law.harvard.edu&#x2F;if-democrats-win-in-november-s...</a>

They wouldn&#x27;t in a direct democracy, but the US is intentionally not a direct democracy. So, no.

The popular vote means jack shit. They do have a politically legitimate claim to those seats.

Power isn’t decided by popular vote so I’m not sure what you mean?

The Republicans have won the popular vote once since 1988. They have no politically legitimate claim to those seats.

The legitimacy of the court is long-gone--its nothing more than a political body. Don&#x27;t like the precedent? Just overrule it and claim it was &#x27;poorly argued&#x27;.Especially funny, considering that Ginsburg was perhaps the most likely to vote based on how she thought the country should operate, and not on stare decisis or leaving issue to congress.

If Trump and the Republicans confirm a new Justice, Democrats have indicated they will pack the Supreme Court, appointing as many Justices as they feel necessary to get the rulings they want.&quot;If they show that they&#x27;re unwilling to respect precedent, rules and history, then they can&#x27;t feign surprise when others talk about using a statutory option that we have that&#x27;s fully constitutional in our availability,&quot; he said. &quot;I don&#x27;t want to do that. But if they act in such a way, they may push it to an inevitability. So they need to be careful about that.&quot;-- Tim Kaine, D-Va, 
<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nbcnews.com&#x2F;politics&#x2F;supreme-court&#x2F;democrats-warn-gop-don-t-fill-supreme-court-vacancy-2020-n1234885" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nbcnews.com&#x2F;politics&#x2F;supreme-court&#x2F;democrats-war...</a>The Constitution and Bill of Rights are interpreted through the Supreme Court. If you pack the court, you have essentially destroyed the legitimacy of Constitutional government. The consequences of this cannot be overstated.All Constitutional rights will be up for reinterpretation and elimination. This is a very precarious moment in history. Perhaps the end of American history as we have known it. That&#x27;s a grandiose statement, but it&#x27;s not an incorrect one.

I hope that RBG&#x27;s replacement will be selected and sworn after Inauguration Day – but I have a chilling feeling that it will happen before.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died