The election itself is likely to end up in the courts.

This ****ing year

Then why do you doubt me? You have to keep in mind that these Congressional candidates in the House and Senate aren't always running on party. Graham in South Carolina, Collins in Maine, Gardner in Colorado, and McSally in Arizona aren't in good shape.

Are they going to know shame? No but who cares? The money will pour in, and the video will roll, and they're going to be accused of being hypocrites, and they're going to get flustered and say something dumb - and Trump is going to bus roll them hard, and if the Democrats for once had some balls to twist the blade they'd win.

The problem is, for the people on the fence, this is going to look like one more problem for the GOP brand. They were already behind in the States that mattered. The smartest thing they could do is appoint Mereck Garland, but Trump is a dope.

It's also where the GOP needs to triage money. Becuase someone's going to take a hit for this, and they're going to need to move resources from fights they shouldn't to fights they need to. There's a part of me that things she chose to go now just to spite the bastard.

However it happened, she was a real icon and she did a lot of gender equality in the United States and this is a major loss for the country.

very likely

Anyone who has even a hint of revolutionary ambitions: now is your time to shine ;)

Didn't they cancel that "Siege on the White House" or whatever? Is it back on now?

I mean I know **** all about what it takes to get a SC justice appoimted so I won't be surprised if they don't or don't even try.

But clearly it's not going to be looking like hypocrites that will stop them. You literally cited Lindsay Graham who played a prominent role in arguing for the necessity of the Clinton impeachment and then played dumb for Trump. That was less than a year ago.

The Senate has to approve. Obama could have just seated Garland if he wasn't such a do-gooder because it isn't explicit what "advise and consent" means, and there's some loophole that if Congress is out, the Executive can just appoint without it. But here we are.

The only thing that's going to keep the wolves at bay here is the voter. Nothing and everything is legal if people vote for it. And there's a ton of calculation going on right now in the cloak rooms.

So they could hold a vote next week if they wanted to?

What kind of process goes into choosing a candidate in the first place?

This is true and definitely another way of looking at it. Though I lean towards Trump trying to get the appointment through, depending on their calculations, he may decide to commit to waiting until he's re-elected or defeated for the appointment to proceed in an effort to win over the favorability of independent voters.

I mean to me, if all they have to lose is face, then they would be somewhat foolish not to appoint someone.

Likely most voters aren't tuned in enough to politics to let the appearances of it really sway their vote and even if some are and they lose a few already competitive Congress seats over it .. the SC seat is worth more in the long term than those races are and the GOP is already in a spot where their long term prospects are becoming increasingly slimmer.