https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/09/18/supreme-court-accustomed-working-only-eight-justices/5528909002/

When a justice dies suddenly, any of his or her work left undone must be transferred to a colleague. Even a majority opinion penned by that justice is not official until it has been formally filed.
That was made clear by the Supreme Court in 2019 when it vacated a federal appeals court decision that was filed after the judge who wrote it had died. A California county had asked the high court to reconsider the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruling written by Judge Stephen Reinhardt, who died March 29, 2018. The ruling was filed 11 days later, on April 9.

“Federal judges are appointed for life, not for eternity,” the justices wrote in an unsigned, five-page opinion.

So, despite Ginsburg’s dying wish, that applies to her as well.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-vacancy-process-nomination-senate-confirmation/

Of the 38 Senate seats that are on the ballot this year, 25 are currently held by Republicans. Several Republicans are facing significant challenges by Democrats, and are in danger of losing their seats.

McConnell may choose to hold the confirmation vote after the election so that the vulnerable senators could campaign on the issue by arguing that if reelected, they would vote to confirm the nominee.

However, there’s another twist that could further compress a post-election confirmation vote. Republican Senator Martha McSally of Arizona was appointed to her seat and began serving last year after the death of Senator John McCain. The Arizona Senate election this year is a special election. McSally is locked in a tight race with Democrat Mark Kelly. If Kelly wins the election, he could be seated as a senator as soon as late November, meaning that the Republican majority would be narrowed to 52 to 48. If McConnell holds the confirmation vote after the election and after Kelly is seated, he would only be able to lose two Republican senators.

huxley on September 21, 2020 at 4:28 pm said:
…
Lewis had his moment when he was attacked at Selma in 1965, but as far as I’m concerned he became just another black race hustler and we have had enough of those.

Making the appropriate substitutions for Republicans and John McCain is left as an exercise for the reader.

https://www.thenewneo.com/2020/09/19/romney-murkowski-and-collins-what-about-those-rinos-in-2020/#comment-2515908

Otiose on September 20, 2020 at 10:38 am said:
Romney, Murkowski and Collins each have their own reasons for waffling on voting before the election for a conservative Trump nominee, but Trump could box them in by following his nomination this week with a demand that Biden also ‘nominate’ a specific person for the position so the people (and those three senators) would know what’s at stake. If Biden refuses it’s to Trump’s advantage. If Biden does then either he names a moderate which might help him this November 3rd, OR he names a judge to the left to appease the ‘progressives’ which I suspect would boost Trump’s vote. Naming a leftist judge will also make it more likely that Romney and other wobblers will vote for Trump’s choice either before the election, or after if Trump loses, but before January when Biden would formalize his nomination of the leftist.

* See this very interesting analysis: when the Democrats place a progressive judge, they always get a progressive (or leftist) judge; when the Republicans place a conservative judge, they sometimes get a progressive judge.
https://www.thenewneo.com/2020/09/19/the-death-of-ginsburg-chaos/#comment-2516031
R.C. on September 21, 2020 at 9:19 am said:
Re: the “balance” of the court:

** Everybody’s talkin’ ’bout that new way of walkin’, but Scott raises some essential counter-points.
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2020/09/questions-on-the-table.php

POSTED ON SEPTEMBER 20, 2020 BY SCOTT JOHNSON

There is an obvious follow-up question or two to the widely quoted statement made by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer during a Democratic Caucus conference call Saturday afternoon. Schumer is quoted saying “everything Americans value is at stake” and warned of possible payback if Republicans fill Justice Ginsburg’s vacant Supreme Court seat before January. “Let me be clear: if Leader McConnell and Senate Republicans move forward with this, then nothing is off the table for next year,” Schumer declared. “Nothing is off the table.”

The first question that occurs to me is: what is “on the table” if Republicans “move forward with this”?

Follow-up question: what is “off the table” if Republicans fail to “move forward with this”?

I wonder if we can achieve clarity on Schumer’s response to these obvious questions some time soon.

Supreme Court nominations have aroused much media speculation about whether the judge leans to the left, middle, or right.[24] One indication of the politicized selection process is how much time each nominee spends being questioned under the glare of media coverage; before 1925, nominees were never questioned;[25] since 1955, every nominee has been required to appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee and answer questions. Also, the hours spent being grilled have lengthened from single digits before 1980 to double digits today.[26]
Following is a table of the approximate number of hours that media sources estimate were spent on the questioning of Supreme Court nominees since 1925:

The table won’t “copy-paste” legibly, but the huge increase in time spent on hearings is mind-boggling.

From 1925 (Harlan F. Stone) to 1975 (John Paul Stevens) there were 0-10 hours of hearings, and no questions until 1975, then only 5 for JPS.

From 1981 (Sandra Day O’Connor) to 1994 (Stephen Breyer) 8-25 hours, 5-20 questions with two notable outliers:
1987 Robert Bork(NC) 30 hours, 15 questions (not confirmed)
1987 Anthony Kennedy 11 hours, 47 questions

But look what happens in the next round of nominations:
2005 John Roberts(CJ) 20 hours, 231 questions;
2017 Neil Gorsuch 20 hours, 324 questions;
2018 Brett Kavanaugh 48 hours, 1,278 questions

*Also ran: 2016 Merrick Garland(NC) 0 0

With the records that are available ahead of the nomination on almost every possible nominee (you KNOW the Democrats have been doing oppo-research since 2016, and started on the new names before the ink on the announcement was dry), and the hard-line positions of the two parties, I say it’s time to go back to the original custom of NO hearings, or at most a prepared statement, including responses to at most 20 previously submitted questions from each party.

That would impose some discipline on the fishing expeditions and totally close out the surprise accusations (which were a complete and total disgrace, but you all know that, including Montage).

Lewis had his moment when he was attacked at Selma in 1965, but as far as I’m concerned he became just another black race hustler and we have had enough of those.

The celebration of Lewis was somewhat de trop. He was a back bench member of no special distinction who was about a dozen years past his sell-by date. For a modest run of years (1960-66) he was involved in some exciting extraparliamentary politics, in a leadership position for about half that time. Louise Slaughter’s funeral and memorial service were notably briefer and less flamboyant, even though she was more accomplished.

The celebration of Floyd was plain bizarre. He was a private citizen who happened to die shortly after police had placed him under arrest. He did nothing of consequence outside his circle of acquaintances and his life is a cautionary tale of how not to live.

As for the Floyd funeral, I didn’t see any of it directly, but what I did see or hear of after the fact put it on a whole different level of “what the….”

Was anyone else creeped out by the near-Soviet celebration of John Lewis’s and George Floyd’s remains? Apparently they are Heroes of the Great Patriotic War against Racism or something.

OK, Lewis and Floyd aren’t my brand of vodka, but they weren’t presidents or anywhere near the stature of MLK either.