Will Trump be able to get a justice to replace RBG before the next inaguaration?

[clean]

President Obama was unable to get a justice approved during the election year.

Will the same hold true for Trump?  Will he be able to submit a name and have it approved before the next inauguration (whether he is re elected or not?)

Trump's party has a majority in the Senate, something that Obama did not.  However, with less than 60 days before the election and just over 3 months before the next inauguration day (regardless of who is elected president).

With this election poised to be contentious, will an even number of justices cause even more problems for either side (claiming that the election is being stolen)?

[ciao_yall]

The vetting could get interesting.

[Parasaurolophus]

Didn't he release a list of names the other day?

He will absolutely replace her ASAP. The process might drag out past the election, but there's no doubt in my mind that he's squeezing another nominee in there before leaving office.

I expect a huge push for court packing. It may or may not work on Biden, who may or may not win anyway, but it's coming in the not-too-distant future.

[RatGuy]

My friends who work in Washington say it's gonna be Cruz.

[Diogenes]

Unless it's Merrick Garland, it'll cause riots.

[Sun_Worshiper]

I think he will get someone through before the next inauguration. I doubt that someone will be Cruz, for several reasons, not least of which is that Cruz is widely hated by Senate colleagues.

I also think this is not actually good news for Trump electorally. While a right wing judge keen on overturning Roe may juice up Republicans, it doesn't do much to bring independents towards Trump, and it will energize Democrats and Democrat leaning independents, especially women and young people, many of whom are not enthusiastic about Biden.

[Aster]

Who's Cruz?

[mamselle]

She tried so hard and held on for so long.

It might be more seemly to let the carrion crowing wait a bit, but I suppose that's not going to happen.

M.

[Parasaurolophus]

My money is on Rao.

[clean]

Who's Cruz?

"lyin Ted Cruz"

one time presidential candidate (whose father helped assassinate President Kennedy - according to Trump)
Born in Canada, so not a legal presidential candidate (according to Trump's second Birther movement).

Currently a Senator from Texas.

[dismalist]

Amy Barrett?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy_Coney_Barrett

[Aster]

I thought that you had to be a judge to even qualify for being a Supreme Court Justice.

[jimbogumbo]

To the contrary, the Constitution doesn't list ANY qualifications. Not even citizenship.

[writingprof]

To the contrary, the Constitution doesn't list ANY qualifications. Not even citizenship.

Obama, then?  (Just kidding.)

If anyone's interested, here's what conservatives are thinking right now:

1) It would be amazing if Trump rammed someone through.

2) But that would assure a Biden victory and a Democratic Senate.

3) And Democrats would get their revenge by packing the Court.

4) But since numbers three and four are probably going to happen anyway, let's go for it.

5) But Collins, Murkowski, Romney, and _______ will conspire to screw us.

6) So the whole thing is a pipe dream.

7) Still, it would have been nice to find out whom Trump's new nominee supposedly raped, decades ago.

[dismalist]

If anyone's interested, here's what conservatives are thinking right now:

1) It would be amazing if Trump rammed someone through.

2) But that would assure a Biden victory and a Democratic Senate.

3) And Democrats would get their revenge by packing the Court.

4) But since numbers three and four are probably going to happen anyway, let's go for it.

5) But Collins, Murkowski, Romney, and _______ will conspire to screw us.

6) So the whole thing is a pipe dream.

7) Still, it would have been nice to find out whom Trump's new nominee supposedly raped, decades ago.

Trump nominates. According to the above, he's damned if he does. But he's also damned if he doesn't! It's a choice between two procedures one of which may have high cost [Nominate and lose the Senate and/or the general], and one of which has a much higher cost if it goes awry [Don't nominate and lose the election.] Clear choice: Nominate!

This analysis relieves me, for I, too, am most interested in a repeat performance of the Kavanaugh hearings, for pure entertainment value, of course.