Thread by @SethAbramson

(THREAD) Following Justice Ginsburg's death, Mitch McConnell has already said he'll try to install a Trump nominee immediately—despite his opposite view under far less egregious circumstances in the Obama era. I hope you'll read on for info on how this plays out—and retweet this.

TIMING 1. Median duration from nomination to confirmation is 2.3 months—but McConnell doesn't have that between now and 11/3. But him ghoulishly announcing his intent *in his condolence statement* and Amy C. Barrett's name already being floated confirms Trump is ready to pounce.

TIMING 2. McConnell would be wary of pre-election confirmation hearings for many reasons: it'd rile up the Democratic base; it'd keep GOP senators from their home states in the critical days pre-election; and it'd distract attention from Trump's rhetoric—which *he* may not want.

TIMING 3. On the other hand, a vote pre-election would *also* energize Trumpists, and would occur while Trump is still president and not (should he lose) a lame duck, which strengthens McConnell's hand (he may believe) in the court of public opinion as the hearings are happening.

TIMING 4. But here's the problem for McConnell—speaking only of logistics here; of course the real problem for McConnell is that he's one of the most vile villains in American history—which is that there's only 45 days until election day. That calendar may perhaps be prohibitive.

TIMING 5. Consider: McConnell won't want his senators away from home in the last week pre-election—which means he really only has 38 days. And Schumer and the Democrats have many dilatory tactics they could use to make a nomination process that fast close to impossible for Trump.

TIMING 6. One thing seems clear, though: Trump will announce his nominee almost *immediately*, perhaps even tomorrow—again, ghoulish—and the GOP will begin the process of pushing the nominee forward *immediately*. We can expect no grace or mourning period whatsoever for Ginsburg.

TIMING 7. One reason Amy Coney Barrett's name is already trending on Twitter is because *of course*—people are talking about this—but another is obviously because Republicans *want* the conversation to be moving this fast, so that Trump could announce Barrett tomorrow if need be.

TIMING 8. Only the Senate parliamentarian knows every dilatory (delay) tactic the Democrats could use to make a nomination process in a blinding-fast 38 days impossible, but one thing is for sure: there is no tactic, in the history of Senate tactics, that Schumer *won't* use now.

TIMING 9. To that end, there's already buzz over whether, under Senate rules, an impeachment process always takes precedent over a SCOTUS confirmation process—raising the possibility that Democrats could retaliate for McConnell's ghoulishness by seeking to impeach (e.g.) AG Barr.

TIMING 10. Then there's the possibility that McConnell could *want* this nomination to go forward during the 75-day transition/lame duck period/session, as it would dampen somewhat the effect of the issue on the Democratic base—though not by much, if we're honest with ourselves.

TIMING 11. Seeking hearings *post-election* runs the risk that Trump loses and Schumer has a major public relations upper-hand for the entirety of the nomination process—putting Republicans in the dangerous spot of confirming a nominee with almost *no* public support (say, <25%).

TIMING 12. But it's also the case—see the THE VOTE section, coming next—that McConnell may not be able to afford a post-election process, because he wouldn't have the votes then that he would now. There's a complicated explanation for why. So he could move on Barrett...this week.

VOTE 1. Right now the Senate is 53-47 in the Republicans' favor—with Mike Pence as a tiebreaker for any 50-50 tie. A majority vote can confirm a SCOTUS nominee, assuming the filibuster rule—requiring a 60-vote majority—remains inoperative, which we certainly can assume right now.

VOTE 2. What this means is that McConnell can lose 3 GOP votes, but not 4. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) said in August she wouldn't support a pre-inauguration confirmation vote. It's widely rumored that Mitt Romney (R-UT) has decided much the same. Eyes are on Susan Collins (R-ME) now.

VOTE 3. Senator Collins has historically been a coward of... well, *historic* proportions. She once voted against the impeachment of a president provably guilty of bribery and obstruction because she said she thought he'd "learned his lesson." I'm old enough to remember that day.

VOTE 4. Collins is up for reelection; undermining Trump would likely end her Senate campaign, which gives McConnell a good reason to want the confirmation hearings to happen *after* the 2020 election so Collins can hedge her bets until then. That might be convincing to McConnell.

VOTE 5. But there's a hitch for McConnell. Right now Democrat Mark Kelly is ahead of placeholder senator Martha McSally in Arizona—indeed, ahead by a lot. If Kelly wins on November 3, there's a chance that—because McSally wasn't elected—Kelly could be seated quicker than January.

VOTE 6. What *should* be a complication, but *isn't*, is that other GOP senators—people with *no scruples or moral/ethical code whatsoever*—publicly went on the record when McConnell stole the Merrick Garland seat and said they wouldn't change their view under a Trump presidency.

VOTE 7. One example is Lindsey Graham, who unambiguously promised voters in October 2018—and keep in mind Graham is up for reelection *right now*—that if Trump had an opening after the 2020 primaries had started, Graham would say "wait until after the election" to confirm anyone.

VOTE 8. No one believes Graham—a Trump golfing buddy—would keep his promise, and if the vote were after the election he might even try some tortured reading of his past promise and say that he only meant "election day," not the inauguration. It'd be insane, but he could try that.

VOTE 9. But Democrats shouldn't kid themselves: there are virtually no principled GOP senators. They will do what Trump and McConnell tell them, even if it means seeking confirmation pre-election—something McConnell would be particularly likely to do if he thinks Trump will lose.

VOTE 10. Ironically, if Trump were to win and the Senate were to stay in GOP hands—but move to 52-48, 51-49, or 50-50—McConnell would have a much easier time convincing GOP fence-sitters to take a vote during the transition, as he could point to a Trump win and GOP Senate "hold."

VOTE 11. In short, McConnell must decide whether to go pre-election or post-election—and unless he has 4 clear no votes on the GOP side (there are only 2 now) he likely feels he would do better to go pre-election. Which means Barrett is likely to be the nominee in under 48 hours.

VOTE 12. Media may not be able to get a clear statement from Collins or any other allegedly "moderate" GOP senator—there are, in effect, no others, just "sticklers" who weren't sticklers during the impeachment—because what they tell McConnell privately may determine what he does.

VOTE 13. IOW, it's better for Collins to make no statement and then have McConnell announce he's pushing for a vote pre-election, as then her role in *causing* him to make that decision might be overlooked. But rest assured, McConnell has or is getting a private head-count *now*.

VOTE 14. More likely is that McConnell *already had the headcount* when he issued his ghoulishly fast statement tonight—meaning that he already knows there are *not* four votes against a pre-inauguration confirmation vote, but (presumably) just three, making Pence the tiebreaker.

THE PICK 1. Republicans couldn't be more literal about demographics: their inclination when a Black justice retires is to put forward a Black justice, when a woman retires a woman, and so on—which isn't to say it always works out that way, but that's the temperament of the party.

THE PICK 2. There is *no reason whatsoever* for Trump or McConnell to choose a moderate, nor much evidence that the Heritage Foundation allowed any real moderates on Trump's entirely political pre-election "acceptable picks list" (my term). Expect a hard right-wing nominee, now.

THE PICK 3. There's no reason to pick a moderate because it wouldn't anger Democrats any less—this process shouldn't be happening at all, and any Trump pick would endanger Roe v. Wade, for starters—but it *would* gut any energizing the pick causes among Trump voters pre-election.

THE PICK 4. Just so, because Trumpism is a cult, and because the GOP "moderates" in the Senate who vote "no" are doing so because of timing more than anything else, McConnell basically knows that *everyone* who doesn't oppose the timing will vote "yes" for *anyone* Trump picks.

THE PICK 5. More broadly there's just no evidence that either McConnell or Trump do anything but in the most brazen, audacious, conflict-oriented, sociopathic, norm-destroying way—there's no precedent in their careers or characters for them doing anything but the most vile thing.

THE PICK 6. A far-right pick will energize the right, "keep Trump's promise on judges" and demoralize Democrats. McConnell probably has the Senate votes anyway (as the more conservatives love the pick, the more fence-sitters up for reelection like Collins will have to go for it).

THE PICK 7. Taking all this into account, the most likely scenario—though anything is, of course, possible—is that Amy Coney Barrett is announced as the nominee this weekend or Monday, with Senate hearings starting immediately, and only 3 votes (max) against her from "moderates."

THE PICK 8. If McConnell determines that he's only going to lose three senators, he could "release" Collins to *pretend* that she opposes the process going forward but privately *promise* not to use that against her in her reelection campaign (calling it a matter of "principle").

CONCLUSION 1. What should Democrats do? Anything. Everything. This is evil incarnate: such a profound hypocrisy and abuse of power that America has never seen its like (on this subject) before, and it could *profoundly* change the rule of law in America for *decades and decades*.

CONCLUSION 2. If Democrats must announce impeachment proceedings, they should do so. If they must shut down government, they should do so. If they must flee Washington to make certain processes impossible, they should do so. But none of those things will happen. None. Here's why.

CONCLUSION 3. The other reason McConnell will start the process now is that it makes *everything* maximally political—meaning, *Democrats* must gauge every single action they take based on public polling, and keep in mind that's public polling *during a public health emergency*.

CONCLUSION 4. Democrats can't flee D.C.—they'd be killed in the polls. They can't shut down government when government needs to be mailing pandemic checks. If they start an impeachment obviously responsive to a Barrett pick, they'll get excoriated by the press for abuse of power.

CONCLUSION 5. Trump and McConnell so successfully moved the Overton Window—the window of what's deemed plausible and possible in America—that many Americans aren't even surprised by what these two men are doing, and so will let them do it with little pushback in national polling.

CONCLUSION 6. Because the GOP *stands for nothing but winning even at the cost of burning America to the ground*, nothing is expected of the GOP. But the Democrats say they have morals and ethics, so voters hold them to that and won't let them play realpolitik without punishment.

CONCLUSION 7. The situation is the impeachment trial—specifically the "evidentiary votes"—all over again: the only hope for decency is "moderate" GOP senators, and there aren't enough of them. McConnell is taking the actions he is because he's gamed this out and has already won.

CONCLUSION 8. None of this means Democrats shouldn't fight—but it probably means that anything they could do that would be so extraordinary and startling that it would give them a chance to *win* on the SCOTUS issue would so startle independents they would *lose* the White House.

CONCLUSION 9. But I'm a metamodernist—I won't end on a solution-free note. The metamodern solution is clear: fight the pick within the bounds that don't hurt Biden, but have Biden announce within one hour of the Barrett pick that he plans to expand the size of the Supreme Court.

CONCLUSION 10. If we're going to battle in the election over the Court—which we are—give Democrats something to fight *for* rather than just trying to get a 6-3 court back to 5-4 and maybe (in 15 years) 5-4 in the other direction. Tell us that A BLUE WAVE SAVES THE SUPREME COURT.

CONCLUSION 11. The only way for Biden to make that claim is to give a historic, lengthy, Obama-in-Philadelphia speech in which he declares that the Republican Party has *broken faith with the American people in a way the Democratic Party will not stand for*. Then announce a plan.

CONCLUSION 12. That plan would include *both* an expansion of the Court *and* safeguards to stop what happened here happening again. Make the plan comprehensive, detailed, methodical. But *also* position the GOP as the party of *lawlessness*.

That's right—steal Trump's rhetoric.

CONCLUSION 13. It's the *Democrats* who have a case for being the party of rule of law. Bad cops are lawbreakers—the GOP abets them. Trump is a rapist—the GOP harbors him. McConnell has torched 250 years of Senate history—he attacks tradition.

Democrats will restore rule of law.

CONCLUSION 14. When you get hit hard, in metamodernism, you *make your bruise your banner*. You never accept a defeat as anything but a victory. Trump and the GOP are handing Biden something bigger than a candidacy for president: they've given him a *cause*. Now he must seize it.

Every American should RETWEET this tweet and give to Mitch McConnell's opponent AMY McGRATH right now. Link below: secure.actblue.com/donate/am-webs…

And every American should find competitive Senate races and donate to the Democrat—if, that is, you believe in rule of law.

KY: @AmyMcGrathKY
CO: @Hickenlooper
NC: @CalforNC
ME: @SaraGideon
AZ: @CaptMarkKelly
KS: @BarbaraBollier
GA: @ossoff
SC: @harrisonjaime
MT: @stevebullockmt