Given the circumstances, what are the odds that RBG's seat is filled before January 20?

[Ferguson97]

Trump and several GOP Senators, including those on the judiciary committee, have tested positive for COVID after a celebration for Barrett's nomination.

The Senate won't even be meeting until October 19 anymore.

What's the odds that this derails the nomination and RBG's seat is filled by Biden?

[DaleCooper]

Unfortunately, I think that the odds are still in Barrett's favor.

[TrendsareUsuallyReal]

Still 100%

[ProgressiveModerate]

Here are each senators odds according to my model assuming they show up:

[Hammy]

100%. Republican Senators are at the point that they'd crawl over the dead bodies of colleagues with oxygen tanks dragging behind them to get a 6-3 majority.

[7,052,770]

100% unless Senators start dying.

Even if Warnock and Kelly win on 11/3 and are installed later in the month, McConnell could cancel all hearings and just do an immediate up-or-down vote if he needs to.

[Lognog]

Still 100%

[Wakie77]

I suspect the following will happen.

1) Covid will prevent the Senate from voting on the ACB nomination until after Nov 5th.
2) Republicans will lose the Senate and the White House in the elections.
3) Republicans will jam through the ACB nomination in a lame duck session as a giant middle finger to the American voter.

[Mr.Bakari-Sellers]

100% unless Senators start dying.

Even if Warnock and Kelly win on 11/3 and are installed later in the month, McConnell could cancel all hearings and just do an immediate up-or-down vote if he needs to.

Warnock has to reach 50 and no one is winning 50

[Fuzzy Bear]

The odds are real good.

Ram it through, Mr. Majority Leader!"  Do it like Reid did Obamacare (which I was in favor of at the time).

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Maybe circumstances have lowered it a bit before election day, but it's still 100% before Jan. 20.

[Brittain33]

I suspect the following will happen.

1) Covid will prevent the Senate from voting on the ACB nomination until after Nov 5th.
2) Republicans will lose the Senate and the White House in the elections.
3) Republicans will jam through the ACB nomination in a lame duck session as a giant middle finger to the American voter.

This is the most likely outcome. They'll have enough time to get ABC on the court if they have to have Pence break a tie.

[RussFeingoldWasRobbed]

The odds are real good.

Ram it through, Mr. Majority Leader!"  Do it like Reid did Obamacare (which I was in favor of at the time).

Then I guess your ok with two more liberal justices when dems take over the senate. Fine with me

[SevenEleven]

Nothing about the ACA could be considered "rammed through". What a horrible attempt at revisionism.

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix]

100%. She is the legitimate nominee of the legitimate majority.

[Mr.Bakari-Sellers]

The odds are real good.

Ram it through, Mr. Majority Leader!"  Do it like Reid did Obamacare (which I was in favor of at the time).

Then I guess your ok with two more liberal justices when dems take over the senate. Fine with me

Lol the D's can only add 2 more justics and it still will be 6/5 with 11 Justices, instead of 6/3. it's not guaranteed they will get it

Get over it we are stuck with a Conservative majority 6/3 or 6/5 the D's definitely won't get 13 more judges

[woodley park]

I suspect the following will happen.

1) Covid will prevent the Senate from voting on the ACB nomination until after Nov 5th.
2) Republicans will lose the Senate and the White House in the elections.
3) Republicans will jam through the ACB nomination in a lame duck session as a giant middle finger to the American voter.

We've seen these types of tactics employed by Republican state legislatures around the country. It wouldn't surprise me. But there will be long term consequences for the party and the individual Senators involved in doing it.

[Wakie77]

100%. She is the legitimate nominee of the legitimate majority.

LOL … legitimate majority.  Trump did not in fact get a majority of the votes in 2016 he just got enough in the right locations.  The electoral college, 2 Senators per state, thing is a decent idea that is terribly executed.  Sure, give each state 2 Senators … but how is a state defined?  It isn't by population or by geographic size or by diversity of population.  It is just where someone said "yep this feels like where a state line belongs" at the time it became a state.  The only reason there is a North & South Dakota is because in 1880 there was a feeling that North Dakota was a very disreputable area filled with wild folks like cattle ranchers & fur traders.  Weirdly enough the population of areas change over time and now the only way to tell the difference between someone from the Dakota's is by looking at their license plates.  There is dramatically more diversity in the 39 million people in California than the 1.4 million people in the Dakotas.

But we have to stick to the old "well that's how the lines were drawn in the 19th century" logic.  Kinda strange that we don't feel that way when it comes to redistricting within states.

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix]

100%. She is the legitimate nominee of the legitimate majority.

LOL … legitimate majority.  Trump did not in fact get a majority of the votes in 2016 he just got enough in the right locations.  The electoral college, 2 Senators per state, thing is a decent idea that is terribly executed.  Sure, give each state 2 Senators … but how is a state defined?  It isn't by population or by geographic size or by diversity of population.  It is just where someone said "yep this feels like where a state line belongs" at the time it became a state.  The only reason there is a North & South Dakota is because in 1880 there was a feeling that North Dakota was a very disreputable area filled with wild folks like cattle ranchers & fur traders.  Weirdly enough the population of areas change over time and now the only way to tell the difference between someone from the Dakota's is by looking at their license plates.  There is dramatically more diversity in the 39 million people in California than the 1.4 million people in the Dakotas.

But we have to stick to the old "well that's how the lines were drawn in the 19th century" logic.  Kinda strange that we don't feel that way when it comes to redistricting within states.

Yes, that is in fact how our Constitution works.

[Wakie77]

100%. She is the legitimate nominee of the legitimate majority.

LOL … legitimate majority.  Trump did not in fact get a majority of the votes in 2016 he just got enough in the right locations.  The electoral college, 2 Senators per state, thing is a decent idea that is terribly executed.  Sure, give each state 2 Senators … but how is a state defined?  It isn't by population or by geographic size or by diversity of population.  It is just where someone said "yep this feels like where a state line belongs" at the time it became a state.  The only reason there is a North & South Dakota is because in 1880 there was a feeling that North Dakota was a very disreputable area filled with wild folks like cattle ranchers & fur traders.  Weirdly enough the population of areas change over time and now the only way to tell the difference between someone from the Dakota's is by looking at their license plates.  There is dramatically more diversity in the 39 million people in California than the 1.4 million people in the Dakotas.

But we have to stick to the old "well that's how the lines were drawn in the 19th century" logic.  Kinda strange that we don't feel that way when it comes to redistricting within states.

Yes, that is in fact how our Constitution works.

True.  Our and under this system Hispanics get 55% as much representation as White People and African Americans 75% as much.  But hey …. nothing wrong with that system, right?  Everything done by a bunch of rich old guys 250 years ago is perfect.

Don't worry … statehood for Puerto Rico is coming so that will be 2 new blue Senators.  And if that isn't enough we can always split up North & South California.  Or make each of the Hawaiian Islands its own state.  Because that is just how the Constitution works.

[Where's the Epstein Client List?]

The nomination repeatedly getting delayed due to increasingly wacky Death of Stalin-type mishaps would at least be entertaining.

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix]

100%. She is the legitimate nominee of the legitimate majority.

LOL … legitimate majority.  Trump did not in fact get a majority of the votes in 2016 he just got enough in the right locations.  The electoral college, 2 Senators per state, thing is a decent idea that is terribly executed.  Sure, give each state 2 Senators … but how is a state defined?  It isn't by population or by geographic size or by diversity of population.  It is just where someone said "yep this feels like where a state line belongs" at the time it became a state.  The only reason there is a North & South Dakota is because in 1880 there was a feeling that North Dakota was a very disreputable area filled with wild folks like cattle ranchers & fur traders.  Weirdly enough the population of areas change over time and now the only way to tell the difference between someone from the Dakota's is by looking at their license plates.  There is dramatically more diversity in the 39 million people in California than the 1.4 million people in the Dakotas.

But we have to stick to the old "well that's how the lines were drawn in the 19th century" logic.  Kinda strange that we don't feel that way when it comes to redistricting within states.

Yes, that is in fact how our Constitution works.

True.  Our and under this system Hispanics get 55% as much representation as White People and African Americans 75% as much.  But hey …. nothing wrong with that system, right?  Everything done by a bunch of rich old guys 250 years ago is perfect.

Don't worry … statehood for Puerto Rico is coming so that will be 2 new blue Senators.  And if that isn't enough we can always split up North & South California.  Or make each of the Hawaiian Islands its own state.  Because that is just how the Constitution works.

And we can split up Missouri and Kentucky and Tennessee. Tit for tat.

[Storr]

100%. She is the legitimate nominee of the legitimate majority.

LOL … legitimate majority.  Trump did not in fact get a majority of the votes in 2016 he just got enough in the right locations.  The electoral college, 2 Senators per state, thing is a decent idea that is terribly executed.  Sure, give each state 2 Senators … but how is a state defined?  It isn't by population or by geographic size or by diversity of population.  It is just where someone said "yep this feels like where a state line belongs" at the time it became a state.  The only reason there is a North & South Dakota is because in 1880 there was a feeling that North Dakota was a very disreputable area filled with wild folks like cattle ranchers & fur traders.  Weirdly enough the population of areas change over time and now the only way to tell the difference between someone from the Dakota's is by looking at their license plates.  There is dramatically more diversity in the 39 million people in California than the 1.4 million people in the Dakotas.

But we have to stick to the old "well that's how the lines were drawn in the 19th century" logic.  Kinda strange that we don't feel that way when it comes to redistricting within states.

Yes, that is in fact how our Constitution works.

True.  Our and under this system Hispanics get 55% as much representation as White People and African Americans 75% as much.  But hey …. nothing wrong with that system, right?  Everything done by a bunch of rich old guys 250 years ago is perfect.

Don't worry … statehood for Puerto Rico is coming so that will be 2 new blue Senators.  And if that isn't enough we can always split up North & South California.  Or make each of the Hawaiian Islands its own state.  Because that is just how the Constitution works.

Making each of the Hawaiian islands a state? Are you high?

[pbrower2a]

Here are each senators odds according to my model assuming they show up:

The more relevant time is January 3. Lamar Alexander is the surest no-show on such a list whatever way his state goes in the 2020 election because he is retiring. The next Congress (basically the Senate) will compel the process to start anew if it is not completed before January 3. That is before I mention nearly-sure Senate losses for some Senate Republicans. It is common for defeated Senators retiring before the ends of their terms on behalf of their successors. So if it is farewell to Tillis, Gardner, and McSally (Collins does not figure here) then Trump had better have the process locked up by Christmas, or his nomination is moot.

The Republican Party remains an authoritarian cadre party, but it needs its majority.

[Mr.Bakari-Sellers]

Ginsburg was the one that should of retired under Obama, she had Pancreatic cancer and like Colon Cancer, it affects the way you sit. But she thought Hillary was gonna beat Trump and she was gonna be with Garland in a Liberal not Conservative majority. That's why I didn't watch the Ginsburg funeral. She put politics ahead of her health. But, we never know, it's a reason why her kids or relatives never appear on talk shows, they don't want to be political