We expected candidates of this quality

There has been a lot of talk that if the nasty guy and Moscow Mitch nominate and confirm a replacement for Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s seat on the Supreme Court that the Democrats (assuming they gain power in January) should expand the Court to counter the conservative majority. NPR Host Mary Louise Kelly talked to Judge Glock, who wrote for Politico about the previous attempt to add justices. Franklin Roosevelt proposed that in 1937. It didn’t happen. Glock and Kelly talked about some of the reasons why this would be a bad idea. * It would turn the Supreme Court into a partisan body. I add it is becoming that already. * If President Biden adds more seats to the court, whenever the next time the GOP comes into power they could also add seats, a “potentially bottomless exercise.” Even RBG didn’t like this idea. * Public opinion could turn against the idea. That’s what happened in 1937. So, yeah, it’s possible. The Constitution doesn’t define the number of seats. Though I like the idea it may not be a good one. Noah Bookbinder, Executive Director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, tweeted a thread about the process to confirm a Supreme Court nominee. It is a rigorous process, and should be. It includes an FBI check with time for senators to look at issues raised, such as conflicts of interest. It includes discussion and debate.

Giving the Senate the opportunity to do a genuine, thorough review of the President's nominee for a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land is a key part of our system of checks and balances. It is important, and it takes time. If there is not time to do it right, in a way that preserves democratic checks and balances, before an election recasts the wishes of the American people -- and there most certainly is not -- it should not be done. Period.

Those who replied to this thread said such things as Moscow Mitch doesn’t believe in checks and balances and that such a careful scrutiny wasn’t done for Brett Kavanaugh. Joan McCarter of Daily Kos reviews a couple of the women on the nasty guy’s short list of replacements for RGB. Amy Coney Barrett, who is reportedly on the top of the list, is a member of the People of Praise, a sect within the Catholic Church, who inspired The Handmaid’s Tale by Margaret Atwood. The picture at the top of McCarter’s post is of women protesting while wearing the costume of the TV version of the novel. Spoiler alert: The novel is about women whose rights have been taken away. And Barrett agrees with that. She says the court should not be bound by prior precedents, such as Roe v. Wade. The other candidate McCarter mentioned is Barbara Lagoa. She’s the daughter of Cuban immigrants. She’s been ruling on cases in favor of GOP causes, such as agreeing that in Florida former felons need to pay off debts before being allowed to vote again. This is a modern poll tax. Since the nasty guy is nominating these people and GOP think tanks have done the vetting we expected candidates of this quality. Still, it is dispiriting. McCarter concluded:

These are dumpster fire candidates, neither worthy of Ruth Badger Ginsburg's seat. They're not worthy of their current seats, Barrett by virtue of her lived rejection of the establishment clause and Lagoa over a proven disregard for ethics.

Elie Mystal, referring to the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, tweeted:

I just realized the ACA is toast. The case is in front of the court the week after the election. The lower court ruling (5th circuit) kills the ACA. With RBG gone, even if Roberts votes to uphold it, it's 4-4. In the event of a tie, the lower court ruling stands.

Leah McElrath responded:

Yes. We are going to lose the ACA as soon as the week after the election, given the cases coming before the Court and the current make up of the Court. (We will also lose the ACA if Trump is allowed to fill the seat vacated in the event of RBG’s death.) I’m sorry. I know this is a lot to take in. The only thing we don’t know yet is the timeline in terms of how the Trump administration will dismantle the ACA.

Yup, during a pandemic. There has been lots of talk, but no actual movement on what would replace the ACA. He and the GOP are trying to increase the death count. A correction – the case will be heard in November. It might be several months after that before the court rules, and the dismantling might begin. That could very well still be during a pandemic. Kerry Eleveld of Kos reported that there is nothing to suggest the coming confirmation battle will help the GOP in this election. The makeup of the Court used to animate conservatives more than progressives, so it was an issue more helpful to the GOP. Not this year. And some have argued that it stopped being true when Kavanaugh was nominated and confirmed. Eleveld looks at the signs that the court is animating progressives as much or more than conservatives. * Donations to Democratic candidates has soared. I’ve mentioned it a couple times. Donations have even gone to races in Alaska. * Polling shows 62% of Americans think the next president should choose the next justice. That includes half the Republicans. * The open seat gives Democrats a message advantage. Now they can say the ACA is in danger and the GOP put it in danger.