LOL at this rationale. Were you concerned about a short bench in November 2016?

No, but the circumstances were not like they are today with both sides already claiming illegitimacy before any votes have been cast. But I'm also not supportive of the GOP doing what they did.

It has absolutely nothing to do with whether the Republicans like the candidate. Every Republican in the Senate will like the candidate just fine. The candidate will be a properly credentialed woman. Trump is not going to nominate a justice who is outside the standard GOP playbook for SCOTUS appointments.

It's a question of optics and political survival, not substance. A few GOP senators have recently and publicly poured cold water on the idea of rushing a nominee through in the weeks before the election. I'm not naive enough to believe that people like Lisa Murkowski have a principled objection to cramming a nominee. She made that statement because she thought it would be harmful to her political brand and to her chances for reelection to embrace the opposite view. Maybe McConnell will convince her to change her mind. But I am cynical enough to believe that Lisa Murkowski's main concern is her own reelection.

I am more concerned about a nominee getting crammed during the lame duck period if Trump loses.

Fair enough. But if a short bench didn't bother you in 2016, I don't see how you can offer it as a compelling rationale now. That's Mitch McConnell level hypocrisy.

Thinking about it more and I think this might be wrong.

Trump is going to want to run on “I gave you THREE Supreme Court Justices, many people are saying that’s the most ever, and there’s even more to come if you re-elect me!”

He’s not going to be self-aware enough to realize patience might be more strategic at GOTV. He wants to book the W now.

The GOP Senators will feel like they have no choice but to confirm. Do their duty.

The electoral mandate in the former case is much less clear of course.

I really don’t get people saying she should have retired in 2013, or that it would have been smart for her to do so/she made a selfish mistake. Hearing this both from lib and conservative people I know.

When exactly was that supposed to have been the smart move? Like immediately after the midterms that November and before the new year? She lived another 7 years, and outlasted two younger colleagues, and had no way of forecasting just how nasty and insane the nomination process would get. She had cancer before that, sure, but it does not appear to have been something that was immediately life threatening until recently, and she evidently tried very hard to stay in good health.

Like, no one on the right was calling for Scalia to retire and that guy was a walking bowling ball who literally croaked after a wild game and scotch night.

Democrats are definitely going to trot out some MeToo bois to delay ACB’s nom

If this is the justification, would you object at all to a lame duck session confirmation? Or be shocked if they tried it? Seems like a decent chance of that, just given how tight the timeline is.

NO elections have consequences and all the blame can go on Hilary whom ran a crappy campaign against an easily beatable Trump.
Well at least the democrats learned their lesson and put up a great candidate. Oh wait.....

RBG should have taken a closer look at her actuarial tables, and realized that her “most fervent wish” was never getting granted. But shitlib gonna shitlib.

That would be PEAK HYPOCRISY, but of course they would still do it.

That would have been a smart move but a move I couldn't see happening.

It doesn't matter how nasty and insane the nomination process became. She knew a Republican president would appoint a conservative justice. And it apparently was important to her not to be replaced by someone who would move the court to the right. There is no rule that says you have to stay on the Court until you die. She was gambling that either a Democrat would win in 2016, or that she would live to see a Democrat elected in 2020 or 2024. It seemed like a risky bet at the time. And it certainly seems now like it was a risky bet.

I'm not overly critical, because we all have lives to lead, and leaving a job you love is never easy. But I understand the criticism.

This is complete horseshit. It was advantageous to the GOP in both cases to exercise the power that comes with having a Senate majority. There is no distinction.

Do you seriously believe that McConnell would be taking the same line about electoral mandate if HRC was trying to ram a replacement through with e Democratic majority in the Senate? Of course not.

It’s not that surprising that a Yas Queen Law Gurl icon would (A) have unwarranted faith in institutions, and (B) have the kind of faith in Republicans befitting a friend of Antonin Scalia that would lead her to believe that people that literally live off liberal tears would feel compunction at acting in the wake of those over her death.

What McConnell would do and whether there’s a difference in electoral mandate are two different things of course. Try to keep up.

I highly doubt that her decision had anything to do with faith in Republican senators. It was a gamble, plain and simple. I'm sure she knew that at the time. And as it turns out, it was a gamble that did not pay off.

You’re ignoring “my most fervent wish” conveniently.

McConnell is offering a rationale that neither he, nor you, actually cares about. In light of that fact, it's a little tough to take the rationale seriously.

She should have said, simply, “I’m sorry.”

Of course. Like many legal arguments it is insufferably pointless, but, and here’s the rub, it’s technically correct.

Between 2016 and 2018, minutes 2/3 of the Senate has been up for re-election and Dems actually lost a seat in the Senate and obviously the White House.

Trump is just running stupidly good with SCOTUS vacancies and having a Senate majority.

LOL @ the people ITT claiming there have to be hearings and a process and vetting and a debate and ****, and any opportunity at all for Dem Senators to make a case against Barrett or whatever ghoulish zealot Trump nominates. None of that has to happen if Mitch doesn't want it to happen. The only question is if the GOP is confident enough in the status quo of the court and their own electoral prospects that they can win any and all election challenges without the extra vote. If not, they get someone on before the election. If they are, then they can wait to the lame duck, or even after the election if Trump wins.