Perhaps a direct appeal to whomever a prospective nominee is to refuse a nomination until the winner of the 2020 election has been sworn in, as their reaffirmation of the seemingly shifting principle as outlined by McConnell in 2016, that in an election year, a SC apppointment should be decided by the people. That is if you believe in our democratic process you won't be party to this sham.
Never happen.
Republicans believe in power, and voter suppression to maintain that power, not shame, nor democracy.
Its a shame
Part of the question is how many "defectors" McConnell needs to deal with. If he only had 1 or 2, then he can do it whenever he wants before the inauguration. But if he has 3 GOP senators saying no to the nomination, then he'll have to act by November 30th or risk losing because Kelly could be sworn in then or shortly thereafter, if he wins. And with McSally promising to support McConnell/Trump in this, she seems resigned to losing.
I have to say, I hate needing to rely on the likes of Susan Collins, but she's one. “I think that's too close, I really do,” She added that she would oppose seating a justice in the lame-duck session if Democratic nominee Joe Biden defeats Trump. That's important.
Graham was clear in 2018: “This may make you feel better, but I really don’t care,” Graham said. “If an opening comes in the last year of President Trump’s term, and the primary process has started, we’ll wait until the next election.” And he's the (comparatively) new chairman of the Judiciary Committee. In 2016, he was even stronger: Graham was even more explicit in 2016, saying, “I want you to use my words against me: If there’s a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say Lindsey Graham said, ‘Let’s let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination.’ And you could use my words against me, and you’d be absolutely right.”
But his more recent comments have been fuzzier - and he's been known to reverse course. More recently, he followed McConnell's "reasoning" (or excuse-making): "Merrick Garland was a different situation. You had the president of one party nominating, and you had the Senate in the hands of the other party. A situation where you've got them both would be different. I don't want to speculate, but I think appointing judges is a high priority for me in 2020."
Grassley said this summer, that "I'm just following what was established by the Biden Rule in 1986 and then emphasized by him in 1992... They set the pattern. I didn't set the pattern. But it was very legitimate that you can't have one rule for Democratic presidents and another rule for Republican presidents."
It's hard to believe that Lisa Murkowski is the most reliable of the four, but I think she just is: “When Republicans held off Merrick Garland it was because nine months prior to the election was too close, we needed to let people decide. And I agreed to do that. If we now say that months prior to the election is OK when nine months was not, that is a double standard and I don’t believe we should do it,” she said. “So I would not support it.”
Romney hasn't been heard from, contrary to some reports. But I have to tell you, I sure would feel more comfortable if 5 GOP senators came out against a nomination approved before election or if there is a lame duck presidency. It protects against Manchin.
Poll
5 (45.5%)