Before we entirely give up hope ... think about Trump's ego ...

[mr_lebowski]

BTW

Pass Gently RBG. We love you

Now ... I wouldn't entirely count out the possibility that Trump decides it's in his interest to gamble in this situation.

He doesn't REALLY care about his supposed 'agenda', he cares about winning, and money, and Donald Trump.

He COULD, IMHO, decide that it's in his interest, election-wise, to NOT name a nominee yet, and to instead 'campaign on' the idea that 'if you re-elect me, you'll have me to pick the next SCOTUS member'. Assuming that this will really get the vote out for him him him, the only thing that matters.

Not out of the question, IMHO.

[Statistical]

1. His office announced he will have a nominee named within a few days.

Republicans play for the immediate win. It is sadly why they win so much. Preventing a vote on Garland was a risk but it was the immediate short term win. That is how they play. That is how they always play.

[pat_k]

2. While he continues his rally in MN. Oblivious.

[Drunken Irishman]

3. The WH has already announced Trump will nominate someone in the coming days.

I get what you're saying. Trump could actually come off as reasonable by announcing, out of respect of process and what McConnell set in 2016, that he will appoint a new justice only if reelected.

But he won't do that.

1) he likes to stick it to the liberals and I bet he's frothing at the mouth to be the one to replace RBG.

2) he knows, even if he loses, and he gets his pick on the Supreme Court, he'll go down as the most consequential one-term president in reshaping the judiciary at every level in American history.

Three Supreme Court picks. That's pretty remarkable for any president. Obama only got two in two terms. Bush only got two. Clinton only got two.

He'll have his fingerprints on history for a generation. His ego won't let him pass that up.

[muntrv]

4. Reagan had 4 SCOTUS appointments:. Sandra Day O'Connor, William Renquist, Antonin Scalia, and

Anthony Kennedy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_judges_appointed_by_Ronald_Reagan#:~:text=In%20total%20Reagan%20appointed%3A%20four%20justices%20to%20the,to%20the%20United%20States%20Court%20of%20International%20Trade.

[Drunken Irishman]

5. My bad. But it's funny that's literally the only thing you took away from my post.

Not to be rude, but it's annoying when you type out something substantive and the only reply is someone pointing out where you're wrong (on a minor point of the post), even when it doesn't change the point (that Trump, as a one-termer in this scenario, will have appointed more justices to the Supreme Court than the last three two-term presidents).

[rgbecker]

7. Both you and Lebowski have good points.

But mainly the point of agreement is that Trump is such a loose cannon either alternative is absolutely possible. He will take into account only his own skin and the question is "What should he do to save it?" Maybe he'll envision more respect from the GOP establishment if he holds off, hoping to get some "Loyalty" from the group that is running from his campaign like mad.

[Brother Buzz]

6. Trump will nominate someone before he announces his new and improved health care plan

Bank on it.

[rgbecker]

8. LOL! My money is on the Judge rather anybody's health. n/t

[lame54]

9. This could help him keep his throne...

No - he does not have the votes but

He could put up any weak-ass legal argument that will lose in every court until it gets to the Supreme

[mr_lebowski]

10. Yeah, there is that ... in the end the advantage it would give him in a Florida 2000 situation

is likely to weight heavier than any other advantage he might think he could gain by holding off.