…by?
That’s right. Susan Collins’ statement is a carefully-worded nothingburger.
She has committed to nothing. She is free to vote for Trump’s nominee. Meanwhile, people are lauding her and she’s probably picked up a few votes.
And then there’s…
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/517256-trump-supporters-chant-fill-that-seat-at-north-carolina-rally
The president said his campaign may start selling shirts with the phrase “Fill that seat” and had the crowd vote on whether he should nominate a man or a woman by cheering.
I think at least some of the concern about the Supreme Court suddenly canceling all legislation that even whiffs of progressivism is a bit overblown. I’m probably ignorant, but none of the current justices strike me as the type who wants to create a white Christian ethnostate or is particularly interested in “owning the libs” the way the voters and some congresspeople are. I realize that this is a popular view of justices like Scalia, and he certainly helped defeat important left leaning initiatives, but I’m just not seeing the absolute brick wall that some fear.
Now, I’m not saying that all is well, that the pick shouldn’t be opposed, or that the court packers are wrong. Obviously, the chances of Neanderthal conservative values being enshrined are generally much better the more conservatives there are on the court, and Trump could very well appoint an overt ideologue and start a worrying trend. Certain key cases could definitely be at risk. And, of course, the past behavior of Boehner should not be rewarded. I’m just saying that even if Trump does get this appointment through, there’s still a reason to go on.
On the other hand, Justice Roberts has been the ‘swing vote’ on things like the ACA and 2nd Amendment (there were some articles that came out recently saying the other conservatives on the court didn’t want to grant cert for 2nd Amendment cases because they didn’t know how Roberts would vote).
With someone like Amy Coney Barrett, Justice Kavanaugh becomes the swing vote. And it’s quite likely that the ACA gets struck down as well as substantial parts of Roe v Wade (if that decision is upheld at all). Those are some potentially substantial decisions.
While I agree that ACA and R. v. W. will take major - if not fatal - tolchoks, I’m not seeing how the Kegmeister will become the swing vote if Barrett’s brought in.
One remarkable thing about all this- which gives some much needed dignity and respect - is the absence of conspiracy theories. So far, just about no one in the media or Internet has suggested that Ginsburg’s death was fake news and that she’s actually still alive, or that she was maliciously bumped off instead of dying naturally.
What makes me mad every time there is a seat open is the nuts who seem to think only abortion matters. And there are nuts on both sides of abortion issue. Right now huffpost has a picture of a coat hanger for their lead article. Gee, I wonder what that article is about? BTW I am personally against abortion but I think it should be legal and rare.
Actually, it takes just four justices - a minority even of a fully-staffed court - to grant cert.
Another option the GOP may consider is having ol’ Mitch recess the Senate for a day and allowing POTUS to make a recess appointment. But I doubt it will come to that: Recess appointment - Wikipedia
It doesn’t matter what any Senator says, There is no incentive to not appoint someone during a lame duck period. Also I think Gorsuch is more likely to be a swing vote than Kavanaugh.
Sure there is. The opinion of your colleagues, your legacy in history, etc.
RIP, RBG. 
The wife and I are watching the RBG documentary on CNN. Saw it in the theaters when it first came out.
BTW, I feel compelled to point out, in 2016 they really weren’t that close to the election. In fact it was almost a year away, wasn’t it? Now we’re counting the time in days.
Am I the only person who noticed this? 
People are reporting sightings of RBG in Argentina with Elvis, JFK, and Adolf. Strangely, the lamestream “media” aren’t covering this.
In other news you didn’t see in the lamestream “media”, Trump nominates himself to vacant SCOTUS seat. Republican-majority Senate confirms the same day.
Over in the “Trump’s October Surprise” thread, @Velocity raises a horrifying possibility:
That doesn’t strike me as having the political “oomph” of the current situation, though, since Thomas is already a conservative.
I agree. Not that they have any say in the matter, but the Dems should let the new justice be confirmed ASAP — preferably before the election. Many 2016 Trump voters are tired of the guy and many things he’s done, and were going to vote for Biden, but deep down they’re looking for a morally acceptable excuse to go back to Trump. If the next SC justice is appointed by the winner on Nov. 3, that’s just the excuse they need.
Not just that. What about all those Republican voters who voted for the orangeanus in 2016 just because he could get Conservatives on the Supreme Court, yet don’t really want him reelected? If The Turtle actually waited til after the election would these people take the assured SC nomination and vote for Trump even if they really don’t want him as president? If they force one in, hey they get the conservative on the SC, and then they can vote against Trump. Win win. Maybe the better strategy is say “re-elect Trump so he can nominate the next justice, because if you don’t, Biden will put a Communist on the SC”. Or am I overthinking this. Somehow I think RBGs death only helps Trump.
In other words, if Trump’s pick gets confirmed (preferably before Nov. 3, or else guaranteed before Jan 20), some Trump ‘16 voters will feel “satisfied” — “Hey, he got TWO conservative Supremes to replace liberal ones. The Court will be conservative for the next fifty years! Now I can vote for Biden, or sit this election out.”
It is a hijack, and I’m as guilty as you.
But I’m very, very interested in this issue. Also, I’m not sure that I see the bill ( H.R.8113 - Puerto Rico Self-Determination Act of 2020) introduced by Velasquez (my congressperson) and Ocasio-Cortez as “anti-statehood.” It lays out a procedure for defining the issues to be voted on, then calls for a referendum on those issues.
That said, what I hear from the many, many Puerto Ricans of my acquaintance (although I’m not of Puerto Rican descent myself, I grew up in NYC, in Ocaso-Cortez’s district), is that statehood is indeed an issue on which there are many points of view among Puerto Ricans.