Everyone on all sides of this issue agrees that there is nothing in the Constitution to prevent a president of one political party and a Senate controlled by that same party from advancing a nominee, holding confirmation hearings, and voting on RBG’s replacement, whether it’s an election year or not. There just is no law against this. People who are opposed to this happening are arguing procedural precedent, not law. The Senate – indeed, BOTH chambers of Congress - make “new” precedent every day. That’s politics. The real question is not its legality, but whether or not it’s a politically smart thing to do, given the impact that it could have on the upcoming General Election.

Everyone also agrees that confirming – or FAILING to confirm – a nominee prior to the election may very well determine the actual outcome of that election. With a vacant seat on the Supreme Court, if there’s a contested election, a repeat of Bush v Gore 2000, and the Justices are once again called upon to settle the matter, with only 8 seated on the Court, there’s a very good possibility of a 4-4 deadlock. If that happens, the decision then goes to Congress. That’s what the Constitution says.

That Founding Document further says that the House of Representatives elects the president, and that the Senate chooses the VP. In common parlance, it’s called a “Contingent Election.” I wasn’t entirely familiar with the term, so I Googled it, just to make sure. Yup… that’s the way it works. Here’s where it gets tricky, though…

In the House, it’s not a “normal” vote… if it were normal, with a 34-seat majority, the Democrat Party would definitely prevail. But in a Contingent Election, the Constitution specifies that each state delegation gets JUST ONE VOTE. That means California, even though it has 53 members in the House of Representatives, the STATE only gets one vote. Same for New York’s 27 members and Illinois’ 18. One state, one vote.

Now, do the math… there are 50 states. Take a look at the ideological breakdown on a state-by-state basis, and there is very, VERY high probability that a contingent election would simply re-elect President Donald J. Trump, and there’s no question whatsoever that the Senate would choose Vice President Pence.

So, long story short, if the Left insists on holding up RBG’s replacement and contests the outcome of the election, a potentially deadlocked Supreme Court would hand the decision off to Congress who just may very well tell #45 that he’s now, officially, #46.

If they were patriots and not looters they would. I have no confidence that that is the case, term.

arklatex! My home grounds! Haven't heard that term in about 30 years, since I left there....still read the digital edition of the Longview News Journal every day though. It has gotten ridiculously liberal in the past years though, so I read in incognito mode and never pay them a penny. Not gonna support their liberal trash journalism.

If they have any backbone at all they should get it done after a lot of horse trading because they are afraid they won't have the majority after the election. By that same logic the Dems can be depended on to vote against anyone Trump chooses. I expect Pence to cast the deciding vote and that will be his political legacy. (It's his only chance to be remembered, imo.) I agree with your confidence in the (lack of) courage of CINO wimps.
Sure is nice to have something interesting to speculate about. Thanks for the early birthday present, RBG. Enjoy eternity in hell.

Not quite true, but close. If Collins, Murkowski, and Romney could be convinced to vote "present" then the R's only need 48 votes to confirm.

It appears they do have the votes. They need to get-er done NOW.

Which is really odd, since a nominee hasn't been named yet.

I'm not overly concerned with religious background, other than it being the primacy for decision making in a person.
I like Candace in that she was not "cultured" within the powerful or elite circles like Ginsburg was.

I'll steer you in a direction of what I mean with this: https://whorulesamerica.ucsc.edu/powe...
I was 12 hours reading within this arena. Lots of questions raised as I wandered about....

She needs to be in Congress first, then Senate, simply to shake the old bats up, point out their hypocrisy.

You know, I always have to catch myself. ;)

6 Justices? How is that happening?

I don`t know I would call it optimistic, either way, there will be a fight, the question is, how big and how long.

...then watering the Tree of Liberty may be required,

Common knowledge that she was trying to live long enough to see Trump defeated. I think she actually stated it more than once.

What a pitiful way to live, that she would put that before spending her last days with her family.

I'm pretty sure she was doing that all on her own. In her place, I probably would have done my best to hang on.

Exactly!!!!