vox--2020-09-19--Trump says he will fill Ginsburg’s seat “without delay”

President Donald Trump vowed in a tweet Saturday morning to replace Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg , who died Friday , “ without delay.
” “ We were put in this position of power and importance to make decisions for the people who so proudly elected us , the most important of which has long been considered to be the selection of United States Supreme Court Justices , ” Trump tweeted .
“ We have this obligation , without delay !
” He later told reporters at the White House he expects to nominate a justice next week , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ woman .
“ The choice of a woman I would say would certainly be appropriate , ” he said .
He again suggested he would nominate a woman at a rally in North Carolina Saturday night .
Ginsburg ’ s death gives Trump the opportunity to cement a six-justice conservative majority on the Supreme Court , a legacy that would far outlast one or two terms in office .
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell — who refused to hold a vote on a justice to replace Antonin Scalia after Scalia ’ s death @ @ @ @ @ @ @ given his assurance that Trump ’ s nominee will get a vote .
Ginsburg ’ s dying wish , as told to her granddaughter , was that “ I will not be replaced until a new president is installed.
” But Trump and Senate Republicans are seemingly determined to push ahead .
The question is whether Trump will able to get a justice confirmed if he loses the presidency or control of the Senate on Election Day .
And this question has many Republican lawmakers pressing the president to select a new justice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being confirmed , Senate Democrats would need four Republicans to join them in blocking a nominee .
And it ’ s far from certain they will be able to do that , as Vox ’ s Andrew Prokop writes .
While some Republican senators , including Lisa Murkowski ( R-AK ) and Susan Collins ( R-ME ) , are on record as opposing a vote on a hypothetical Supreme Court nominee just before an election , it ’ s not clear if there are enough of these senators to actually prevent a confirmation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the record saying they would oppose filling a Supreme Court vacancy this year .
( The question has often been posed given McConnell ’ s refusal to hold a vote to replace Justice Antonin Scalia after he died in 2016 , while Barack Obama was still president . )
But , of course , those assurances were given when the question was hypothetical , and it ’ s far from clear whether these senators will stick to them in the face of what ’ s certain to be intense pressure from the right @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for all ?
The United States is in the middle of one of the most consequential presidential elections of our lifetimes .
It ’ s essential that all Americans are able to access clear , concise information on what the potential outcome of the election could mean for their lives , and the lives of their families and communities .
That is our mission at Vox .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone understand this presidential election : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

President Donald Trump vowed in a tweet Saturday morning to replace Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died Friday, “without delay.”
“We were put in this position of power and importance to make decisions for the people who so proudly elected us, the most important of which has long been considered to be the selection of United States Supreme Court Justices,” Trump tweeted. “We have this obligation, without delay!”
.@GOP We were put in this position of power and importance to make decisions for the people who so proudly elected us, the most important of which has long been considered to be the selection of United States Supreme Court Justices. We have this obligation, without delay! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 19, 2020
He later told reporters at the White House he expects to nominate a justice next week, adding that he would likely pick a woman. “The choice of a woman I would say would certainly be appropriate,” he said. He again suggested he would nominate a woman at a rally in North Carolina Saturday night.
Ginsburg’s death gives Trump the opportunity to cement a six-justice conservative majority on the Supreme Court, a legacy that would far outlast one or two terms in office. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell — who refused to hold a vote on a justice to replace Antonin Scalia after Scalia’s death in an election year — has already given his assurance that Trump’s nominee will get a vote.
Ginsburg’s dying wish, as told to her granddaughter, was that “I will not be replaced until a new president is installed.” But Trump and Senate Republicans are seemingly determined to push ahead.
The question is whether Trump will able to get a justice confirmed if he loses the presidency or control of the Senate on Election Day. And this question has many Republican lawmakers pressing the president to select a new justice quickly.
To stop a justice from being confirmed, Senate Democrats would need four Republicans to join them in blocking a nominee. And it’s far from certain they will be able to do that, as Vox’s Andrew Prokop writes. While some Republican senators, including Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Susan Collins (R-ME), are on record as opposing a vote on a hypothetical Supreme Court nominee just before an election, it’s not clear if there are enough of these senators to actually prevent a confirmation:
A few GOP senators are on the record saying they would oppose filling a Supreme Court vacancy this year. (The question has often been posed given McConnell’s refusal to hold a vote to replace Justice Antonin Scalia after he died in 2016, while Barack Obama was still president.) But, of course, those assurances were given when the question was hypothetical, and it’s far from clear whether these senators will stick to them in the face of what’s certain to be intense pressure from the right.
The United States is in the middle of one of the most consequential presidential elections of our lifetimes. It’s essential that all Americans are able to access clear, concise information on what the potential outcome of the election could mean for their lives, and the lives of their families and communities. That is our mission at Vox. But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources. Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers, your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work. If you have already contributed, thank you. If you haven’t, please consider helping everyone understand this presidential election: Contribute today from as little as $3.


vox--2020-09-19--What we know about a possible Senate vote to replace Justice Ginsburg

The question of whether President Donald Trump will get to fill the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg ’ s seat this year — either before the election or even after it , if he should lose — is entirely up to Senate Republicans .
There are 53 Republican senators .
Confirmation of a nominee would take 50 Senate votes , plus a tiebreaker vote from Vice President Mike Pence .
Democrats are likely to remain united in opposition to any Trump effort to fill the seat , but they can ’ t stop the GOP by themselves .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ least four Republican senators join them — to agree to let the winner of the next election fill Ginsburg ’ s seat .
Justice Ginsburg said days before her death that her “ most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed , ” according to NPR .
But Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Friday that President Trump ’ s nominee to replace Ginsburg “ will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate.
” There are two main possibilities for when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — before the election or in the lame-duck period after it stretching from November to January .
Either option would be controversial , but the latter would be particularly so if Biden wins and if Republicans lose their Senate majority ; Republicans would effectively be thumbing their noses at the election results .
As it so happens , a few GOP senators are on the record saying they would oppose filling a Supreme Court vacancy this year .
( The question has often been posed given McConnell ’ s refusal to hold a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he died in 2016 , while Barack Obama was still president . )
But , of course , those assurances were given when the question was hypothetical , and it ’ s far from clear whether these senators will stick to them in the face of what ’ s certain to be intense pressure from the right .
On Friday , before news of Ginsburg ’ s death broke , Sen. Lisa Murkowski ( R-AK ) reportedly told Alaska Public Media that she wouldn ’ t vote to confirm any new justice until @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will be .
Last month , Sen. Susan Collins ( R-ME ) told the New York Times ’ s Jonathan Martin that she would not vote to confirm a new justice in October because that would be “ too close ” to November ’ s election .
She added that , should Trump lose , she wouldn ’ t vote to confirm a new justice in the lame-duck session , either .
And on Saturday , Collins said the confirmation process should go forward , but the Senate shouldn ’ t vote on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ The decision on a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court should be made by the President who is elected on November 3rd , ” she said in a statement .
Both Murkowski and Collins are known for defecting from their party on certain key votes ( though not others , like on impeachment ) — for instance , together with the late Sen. John McCain , they derailed President Trump ’ s effort to repeal Obamacare in 2017 .
Next on the list of possible GOP defections would likely be Sen. Mitt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clashed with President Trump and expressed concern about political norms .
But Romney does not appear to have said what he ’ ll do in this situation .
His office told CNN he wouldn ’ t comment on the timing of a vote Friday .
Even if Collins , Murkowski , and Romney all firmly committed to let the winner of the election pick the nominee ( a scenario that is far from a sure thing ) , that wouldn ’ t be enough — Democrats need a fourth vote , and finding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In 2018 , Sen. Lindsey Graham ( R-SC ) said , “ If an opening comes in the last year of president Trump ’ s term and the primary process has started , we ’ ll wait to the next election.
” But this May , Graham changed his tune , suggesting that a hypothetical vacancy this year would be “ a different situation ” from the Scalia vacancy .
And on Saturday , Graham tweeted that he “ will support ” Trump “ in any effort ” to fill Ginsburg ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Judiciary Committee and will have a major role in determining how this plays out .
Sen. Chuck Grassley ( R-IA ) has said that , if he was still Judiciary Committee chair , he wouldn ’ t hold a hearing on a nominee this year .
But that statement is meaningless , because Graham has succeeded him as the committee chair .
Grassley has not committed to vote against any nominee .
Another possibility would be the retiring Sen. Lamar Alexander ( R-TN ) , but he is a close McConnell ally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — whether to call witnesses at President Trump ’ s impeachment trial — he ended up siding with McConnell .
The possible timeline of a vote to fill Justice Ginsburg ’ s seat There are also a few wrinkles with the timeline for when such a vote would be held .
The simplest possibility would be for McConnell to hold a vote before the November 3 election .
However , in his statement promising a floor vote on Trump ’ s nominee , he did not commit to that timeline .
There ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to keep the seat open to boost Republican turnout in key Senate races , or to avoid putting his endangered senators on the spot .
If Trump wins the election and Republicans hold on to their Senate majority , then , they would be able to vote on Ginsburg ’ s replacement whenever they like .
But if Biden wins , or if Democrats take the Senate , that means the clock would be ticking for Republicans to ram through a nomination in the lame-duck period before those changes take place , amid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public outcry .
The new Senate will be sworn in on January 3 , and the president ’ s inauguration day is on January 20 .
So if Democrats win the Senate , McConnell would have until January 3 to hold his vote .
If the GOP holds on to the Senate but Biden wins , they ’ d have till the 20th .
There are some further complications , though .
One wrinkle is the Arizona Senate contest , which is a special election .
Republican Sen. Martha McSally currently holds the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Mark Kelly , defeats her , he will likely be seated before the other new senators — once the results of the election are certified , which could be in late November or December .
That means Republicans would lose a vote .
However , if McConnell is hell-bent on getting a nominee confirmed anyway , this probably wouldn ’ t be an obstacle — he can just make sure to hold the vote before Kelly is sworn in .
Another complication is a possible runoff for the Georgia Senate contest pitting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jon Ossoff ( D ) .
If no candidate tops 50 percent of the vote on election day , the runoff would be on January 5 , meaning that seat would become vacant at the start of the new Senate on January 3 .
Of course , it ’ s also possible that one or more very close Senate races could be contested — the 2008 Minnesota Senate election wasn ’ t decided until the summer of 2009 , after a recount and court decisions .
So the safest bet for McConnell , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vote before the election , would be to hold the vote in November or December .
Many would be outraged if Republicans are seen as defying the election results , particularly after Republicans stressed the importance of abiding by those results in 2016 .
Some Democratic pundits are already musing about threatening to abolish the legislative filibuster or pack the courts in response , if Republicans push a nominee through .
But practically , even an outgoing Senate Republican majority would be able to do what it wants in the lame-duck period — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ norms on their way out , no one can stop them .
Help keep Vox free for all Millions turn to Vox each month to understand what ’ s happening in the news , from the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to what is , quite possibly , the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

The question of whether President Donald Trump will get to fill the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s seat this year — either before the election or even after it, if he should lose — is entirely up to Senate Republicans.
There are 53 Republican senators. Confirmation of a nominee would take 50 Senate votes, plus a tiebreaker vote from Vice President Mike Pence. Democrats are likely to remain united in opposition to any Trump effort to fill the seat, but they can’t stop the GOP by themselves. They’d need to convince at least four Republican senators to join them — to agree to let the winner of the next election fill Ginsburg’s seat.
Justice Ginsburg said days before her death that her “most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed,” according to NPR. But Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Friday that President Trump’s nominee to replace Ginsburg “will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate.”
There are two main possibilities for when he’d hold such a vote — before the election or in the lame-duck period after it stretching from November to January. Either option would be controversial, but the latter would be particularly so if Biden wins and if Republicans lose their Senate majority; Republicans would effectively be thumbing their noses at the election results.
As it so happens, a few GOP senators are on the record saying they would oppose filling a Supreme Court vacancy this year. (The question has often been posed given McConnell’s refusal to hold a vote to replace Justice Antonin Scalia after he died in 2016, while Barack Obama was still president.) But, of course, those assurances were given when the question was hypothetical, and it’s far from clear whether these senators will stick to them in the face of what’s certain to be intense pressure from the right.
The Senate math
On Friday, before news of Ginsburg’s death broke, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) reportedly told Alaska Public Media that she wouldn’t vote to confirm any new justice until after Americans decide who the next president will be.
Sunday, Murkowski said she stands by her previous statements: “Sadly, what was then a hypothetical is now our reality, but my position has not changed.”
Last month, Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) told the New York Times’s Jonathan Martin that she would not vote to confirm a new justice in October because that would be “too close” to November’s election. She added that, should Trump lose, she wouldn’t vote to confirm a new justice in the lame-duck session, either. And on Saturday, Collins said the confirmation process should go forward, but the Senate shouldn’t vote on a nominee until after the election. “The decision on a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court should be made by the President who is elected on November 3rd,” she said in a statement.
Both Murkowski and Collins are known for defecting from their party on certain key votes (though not others, like on impeachment) — for instance, together with the late Sen. John McCain, they derailed President Trump’s effort to repeal Obamacare in 2017.
Next on the list of possible GOP defections would likely be Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT), who has clashed with President Trump and expressed concern about political norms. But Romney does not appear to have said what he’ll do in this situation. His office told CNN he wouldn’t comment on the timing of a vote Friday.
Even if Collins, Murkowski, and Romney all firmly committed to let the winner of the election pick the nominee (a scenario that is far from a sure thing), that wouldn’t be enough — Democrats need a fourth vote, and finding one could be very difficult indeed.
In 2018, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said, “If an opening comes in the last year of president Trump’s term and the primary process has started, we’ll wait to the next election.” But this May, Graham changed his tune, suggesting that a hypothetical vacancy this year would be “a different situation” from the Scalia vacancy. And on Saturday, Graham tweeted that he “will support” Trump “in any effort” to fill Ginsburg’s seat. Graham is the chair of the Judiciary Committee and will have a major role in determining how this plays out.
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) has said that, if he was still Judiciary Committee chair, he wouldn’t hold a hearing on a nominee this year. But that statement is meaningless, because Graham has succeeded him as the committee chair. Grassley has not committed to vote against any nominee.
Another possibility was the retiring Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN), but he confirmed Sunday he would support the effort to hold a vote this year, saying, “The Constitution gives senators the power to do it.”
The possible timeline of a vote to fill Justice Ginsburg’s seat
There are also a few wrinkles with the timeline for when such a vote would be held.
The simplest possibility would be for McConnell to hold a vote before the November 3 election. However, in his statement promising a floor vote on Trump’s nominee, he did not commit to that timeline. There’s much speculation that McConnell might prefer to keep the seat open to boost Republican turnout in key Senate races, or to avoid putting his endangered senators on the spot.
If Trump wins the election and Republicans hold on to their Senate majority, then, they would be able to vote on Ginsburg’s replacement whenever they like. But if Biden wins, or if Democrats take the Senate, that means the clock would be ticking for Republicans to ram through a nomination in the lame-duck period before those changes take place, amid what’s sure to be enormous public outcry.
The new Senate will be sworn in on January 3, and the president’s inauguration day is on January 20. So if Democrats win the Senate, McConnell would have until January 3 to hold his vote. If the GOP holds on to the Senate but Biden wins, they’d have till the 20th. There are some further complications, though.
One wrinkle is the Arizona Senate contest, which is a special election. Republican Sen. Martha McSally currently holds the seat. But if the Democratic nominee, Mark Kelly, defeats her, he will likely be seated before the other new senators — once the results of the election are certified, which could be in late November or December. That means Republicans would lose a vote. However, if McConnell is hell-bent on getting a nominee confirmed anyway, this probably wouldn’t be an obstacle — he can just make sure to hold the vote before Kelly is sworn in.
Another complication is a possible runoff for the Georgia Senate contest pitting Sen. David Perdue (R) against Jon Ossoff (D). If no candidate tops 50 percent of the vote on election day, the runoff would be on January 5, meaning that seat would become vacant at the start of the new Senate on January 3.
Of course, it’s also possible that one or more very close Senate races could be contested — the 2008 Minnesota Senate election wasn’t decided until the summer of 2009, after a recount and court decisions.
So the safest bet for McConnell, if he doesn’t hold a vote before the election, would be to hold the vote in November or December. Many would be outraged if Republicans are seen as defying the election results, particularly after Republicans stressed the importance of abiding by those results in 2016. Some Democratic pundits are already musing about threatening to abolish the legislative filibuster or pack the courts in response, if Republicans push a nominee through.
But practically, even an outgoing Senate Republican majority would be able to do what it wants in the lame-duck period — if they want to burn down institutional norms on their way out, no one can stop them.


vox--2020-09-19--Susan Collins: No Supreme Court vote before Election Day

Sen. Susan Collins ( R-ME ) has become the first Republican senator to call for the Senate to delay voting on a new Supreme Court justice until after voters choose the winner of the 2020 election .
“ In fairness to the American people ... the decision on a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court should be made by the President who is elected on November 3rd , ” Collins said in a statement Saturday .
However , the senator also said if Trump chooses a nominee , the Senate Judiciary Committee should begin “ the process of reviewing his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the statements following the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Friday .
Earlier in September , the senator said she would not be in favor of replacing a justice in the weeks before an election , saying , “ I think that ’ s too close , I really do.
” Saturday , Collins gave a similar rationale for her approach to growing calls from her Republican colleagues for a quick floor vote on a Trump nominee : “ Given the proximity of the presidential election , however , I do not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the nominee prior to the election.
” Republicans have been criticized by Democrats for their push for a rapid replacement for Ginsburg , following a new rule Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell introduced in 2016 .
Ahead of that year ’ s election , he argued that then-President Barack Obama ’ s pick for a Supreme Court vacancy ought not to get a hearing in the Senate , but that any nomination should wait until after a new president was installed .
This , he argued , would allow voters to have a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sit on the bench .
Friday , however , McConnell said , “ President Trump ’ s nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate , ” arguing the 2016 rule didn ’ t apply , given that Republicans control the Senate and the White House .
That control , he claimed , means that voters have given the GOP a mandate to choose justices as they see fit .
Ahead of her statement , whether Collins would support McConnell ’ s plans was an open question .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of senators who could block a potential Trump nominee .
As Vox ’ s Andrew Prokop has explained , if four or more Republican senators decide the Senate should follow its new tradition and wait until after the election to seat a new justice , Trump ’ s nominee will be rejected — temporarily if he wins the election , and permanently if Democratic nominee Joe Biden were to win .
Collins may represent one vote , but Democrats hoping to block whoever Trump nominates will need three more .
And they will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ indicated he plans to put forward a name “ without delay.
” Will you help keep Vox free for all ?
The United States is in the middle of one of the most consequential presidential elections of our lifetimes .
It ’ s essential that all Americans are able to access clear , concise information on what the outcome of the election could mean for their lives , and the lives of their families and communities .
That is our mission at Vox .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources @ @ @ @ @ @ @ news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone understand this presidential election : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) became the first Republican senator to call for the Senate to delay voting on a new Supreme Court justice until after voters choose the winner of the 2020 election on Saturday. On Sunday, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) became the second.
“In fairness to the American people ... the decision on a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court should be made by the President who is elected on November 3rd,” Collins said in a statement Saturday.
However, the senator also said if Trump chooses a nominee, the Senate Judiciary Committee should begin “the process of reviewing his nominee’s credentials.”
Collins’s statements came one day after the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Earlier in September, the senator said she would not be in favor of replacing a justice in the weeks before an election, saying, “I think that’s too close, I really do.”
Saturday, Collins gave a similar rationale for her approach to growing calls from her Republican colleagues for a quick floor vote on a Trump nominee: “Given the proximity of the presidential election, however, I do not believe that the Senate should vote on the nominee prior to the election.”
My statement on the Supreme Court vacancy: pic.twitter.com/jvYyDN5gG4 — Sen. Susan Collins (@SenatorCollins) September 19, 2020
Hours before Ginsburg’s death, Murkowski gave a similar statement, saying, “I would not vote to confirm a Supreme Court nominee. We are 50 some days away from an election.”
And Sunday, the senator from Alaska said she stands by those remarks: “What was then a hypothetical is now our reality, but my position has not changed,” she said in a statement.
Full @lisamurkowski statement on the RBG vacancy pic.twitter.com/Bn1B7uJ7M9 — Seung Min Kim (@seungminkim) September 20, 2020
Democrats have criticized Republicans for their push for a rapid replacement for Ginsburg, following a new rule Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell introduced in 2016. Ahead of that year’s election, he argued that then-President Barack Obama’s pick for a Supreme Court vacancy ought not to get a hearing in the Senate, but that any nomination should wait until after a new president was installed. This, he argued, would allow voters to have a fresh say in who was chosen to sit on the bench.
On Friday, however, McConnell said, “President Trump’s nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate,” arguing the 2016 rule didn’t apply given that Republicans control the Senate and the White House. That control, he claimed, means that voters have given the GOP a mandate to choose justices as they see fit.
Ahead of their statements, whether Collins and Murkowski would support McConnell’s plans was an open question. Both are part of a small group of moderate senators who could block a potential Trump nominee. As Vox’s Andrew Prokop has explained, if four or more Republican senators decide the Senate should follow its new tradition and wait until after the election to seat a new justice, Trump’s nominee will be rejected — temporarily if he wins the election, and permanently if Democratic nominee Joe Biden were to win.
Collins and Murkowski may represent two votes, but Democrats hoping to block whoever Trump nominates will need two more. And they will need those votes quickly; Trump has indicated he plans to put forward a name “without delay.”


vox--2020-09-19--Senate Republicans promise a quick floor vote on a Trump Supreme Court nominee

The prognosticating over how quickly a replacement justice would be nominated to the US Supreme Court began immediately as news of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg ’ s death broke late Friday evening .
Saturday , Senate Republicans intensified that speculation as they increased calls to rapidly ram a conservative judge through the nominating process ahead of the upcoming election .
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and many of his Senate Republican colleagues have signaled they would work quickly to ensure a Supreme Court nominee receives a floor vote .
Maine Sen. Susan Collins , locked in a tight reelection campaign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Other senators facing tough races announced their support for a vote on President Donald Trump ’ s eventual nominee .
Sen. Thom Tillis ( R-NC ) , who is trailing Democratic challenger Cal Cunningham in North Carolina , went one step further and pledged to vote for the nominee — even though Trump hasn ’ t named one yet .
Tillis , a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee , would be able to help steer any nominee to a full Senate vote .
“ There is a clear choice on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well-qualified and conservative jurist President Trump will nominate and I will support , and the liberal activist Joe Biden will nominate and Cal Cunningham will support , who will legislate radical , left-wing policies from the bench , ” he said Friday evening .
Arizona Republican Sen. Martha McSally also indicated she supports a floor vote for Trump ’ s nominee , tweeting , “ This U.S. Senate should vote on President Trump ’ s next nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court.
” McSally , who was appointed to fill the late Sen. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a difficult race — recent polls show her down significantly against Democratic challenger Mark Kelly .
Questions around how Supreme Court nominations should be handled in an election year were raised four years ago , when Justice Antonin Scalia died nine months before the election .
Following Scalia ’ s death , McConnell refused to hold confirmation hearings for Judge Merrick Garland , who was nominated to the Supreme Court by then-President Barack Obama , arguing that it was unfair to voters to seat a new justice ahead of the election .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Supreme Court nominations in an election year , essentially arguing that the rule only applied when the Senate and presidency are held by opposing parties .
Several other senior Senate Republicans who had previously argued against a vote on Garland ’ s appointment have also reversed their positions , now arguing for a vote on Trump ’ s nominee .
Regardless of past statements , most GOP senators want a new justice as soon as possible Four years ago , Sen. Lindsay Graham ( R-SC ) — who currently chairs the Senate Judiciary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not vote on a Supreme Court nominee in the final year of a Republican president ’ s term .
“ 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 Lindsay Graham said , ‘ Let ’ s let the next president , whoever that might be , make that nomination , ’ ” he said at the time during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing .
Graham tweeted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recently that a vacancy in Trump ’ s final year is different from the Garland situation .
Like McConnell , Graham has argued a delay is only warranted when opposing parties control the Senate and the White House .
( Recent polls suggest Graham is facing an unexpectedly close race in South Carolina against Democratic challenger Jaime Harrison . )
McConnell and company were able to get away with blocking Obama ’ s Supreme Court pick in 2016 because they had the votes to do so — and they hold the majority this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decide to hold a vote on a new justice , there is likely little to stop them .
On Friday , McConnell urged any wavering colleagues to not “ prematurely lock yourselves into a position you may later regret.
” There are , however , a number of Senate Republicans who are on the record with recent statements indicating it would be inappropriate to hold a Senate confirmation vote so close to the election .
Susan Collins said earlier this month that she would not seat a new justice before the election or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ think that ’ s too close , I really do , ” she said .
Collins took heat from her constituents in Maine over her vote to confirm Justice Brett Kavanaugh in 2018 as well as her stance during President Trump ’ s impeachment trial , and , like Tillis , has struggled in recent polls on her reelection campaign .
Collins , who won her last reelection campaign in Maine by 37 percentage points , trailed Democratic challenger Sara Gideon by 5 points in a recent New York Times/Siena poll .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by 12 percentage points .
On Saturday , Collins suggested a middle-of-the-road approach : that the Senate Judiciary Committee begin consideration of a Trump nominee , but that no floor vote be held until after a new Congress is in session .
“ I would have no objection to the Senate Judiciary Committee ’ s beginning the process of reviewing [ Trump ’ s ] nominee ’ s credentials , ” Collins wrote in a statement .
“ In fairness to the American people ... the decision on a lifetime appointment to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ President who is elected on November 3rd.
” Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski didn ’ t address the issue of succession in her statement on Ginsburg ’ s death .
But earlier this year , and just ahead of the justice ’ s death , she said she would not be in favor of appointing a new justice so close to the election .
To prevent a new nominee from being seated before the election — or during the lame-duck session — four Republicans would need to vote against confirmation .
It ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ four willing to buck the party to do so .
As figures like Collins and Graham worked to clarify their positions , some Republicans — like Texas Sen. Ted Cruz , who is on a shortlist of potential new justices Trump released recently — simply pressed ahead in calling for an immediate vote .
In an appearance on Fox News , Cruz argued that seating a new justice is necessary because there will likely be a challenge to November ’ s election results and an eight-person Court would be insufficient to settle such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has consistently stated he would contest a lost or close election has been Trump , who is currently trailing Democratic nominee Joe Biden in most national polls .
And should a new Trump-appointed justice choose to weigh in on a contested election , the president could be at an advantage in any ruling , given a third Trump appointee would give conservatives an expanded majority on the Court .
( A justice appointed ahead of the election would face pressure to recuse themselves , however , leaving the issue to the eight other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Cruz ’ s argument is curious , given that his colleagues were fine with an eight-person court during the 2016 election .
Will you help keep Vox free for all ?
The United States is in the middle of one of the most consequential presidential elections of our lifetimes .
It ’ s essential that all Americans are able to access clear , concise information on what the outcome of the election could mean for their lives , and the lives of their families and communities .
That is our mission at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone understand this presidential election : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

The prognosticating over how quickly a replacement justice would be nominated to the US Supreme Court began immediately as news of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death broke late Friday evening. Saturday, Senate Republicans intensified that speculation as they increased calls to rapidly ram a conservative judge through the nominating process ahead of the upcoming election.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and many of his Senate Republican colleagues have signaled they would work quickly to ensure a Supreme Court nominee receives a floor vote. Maine Sen. Susan Collins, locked in a tight reelection campaign, has urged a more deliberative process, however, and Alaska’s Sen. Lisa Murkowski has advocated for waiting until after the election.
Other senators facing tough races announced their support for a vote on President Donald Trump’s eventual nominee. Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC), who is trailing Democratic challenger Cal Cunningham in North Carolina, went one step further and pledged to vote for the nominee — even though Trump hasn’t named one yet. Tillis, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, would be able to help steer any nominee to a full Senate vote.
“There is a clear choice on the future of the Supreme Court between the well-qualified and conservative jurist President Trump will nominate and I will support, and the liberal activist Joe Biden will nominate and Cal Cunningham will support, who will legislate radical, left-wing policies from the bench,” he said Friday evening.
Arizona Republican Sen. Martha McSally also indicated she supports a floor vote for Trump’s nominee, tweeting, “This U.S. Senate should vote on President Trump’s next nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court.”
McSally, who was appointed to fill the late Sen. John McCain’s seat, faces a difficult race — recent polls show her down significantly against Democratic challenger Mark Kelly.
Questions around how Supreme Court nominations should be handled in an election year were raised four years ago, when Justice Antonin Scalia died nine months before the election. Following Scalia’s death, McConnell refused to hold confirmation hearings for Judge Merrick Garland, who was nominated to the Supreme Court by then-President Barack Obama, arguing that it was unfair to voters to seat a new justice ahead of the election.
But Friday, McConnell reversed his position on Supreme Court nominations in an election year, essentially arguing that the rule only applied when the Senate and presidency are held by opposing parties.
Several other senior Senate Republicans who had previously argued against a vote on Garland’s appointment have also reversed their positions, now arguing for a vote on Trump’s nominee.
Regardless of past statements, most GOP senators want a new justice as soon as possible
Four years ago, Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-SC) — who currently chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee — openly promised that he would not vote on a Supreme Court nominee in the final year of a Republican president’s term.
“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 Lindsay Graham said, ‘Let’s let the next president, whoever that might be, make that nomination,’” he said at the time during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing.
“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."
Deal.pic.twitter.com/RXcCWlOhts — ken olin (@kenolin1) September 19, 2020
Graham tweeted a statement Saturday noting he said more recently that a vacancy in Trump’s final year is different from the Garland situation. Like McConnell, Graham has argued a delay is only warranted when opposing parties control the Senate and the White House. (Recent polls suggest Graham is facing an unexpectedly close race in South Carolina against Democratic challenger Jaime Harrison.)
As to my view of filling a Supreme Court vacancy in 2020, I’d encourage you to review these most recent statements.
NBC Newshttps://t.co/wGnCdcpJjr
The Hillhttps://t.co/cagapf6S9t — Lindsey Graham (@LindseyGrahamSC) September 19, 2020
McConnell and company were able to get away with blocking Obama’s Supreme Court pick in 2016 because they had the votes to do so — and they hold the majority this year as well, meaning if they decide to hold a vote on a new justice, there is likely little to stop them. On Friday, McConnell urged any wavering colleagues to not “prematurely lock yourselves into a position you may later regret.”
There are, however, a number of Senate Republicans who are on the record with recent statements indicating it would be inappropriate to hold a Senate confirmation vote so close to the election.
Susan Collins said earlier this month that she would not seat a new justice before the election or in the lame-duck session. “I think that’s too close, I really do,” she said. Collins took heat from her constituents in Maine over her vote to confirm Justice Brett Kavanaugh in 2018 as well as her stance during President Trump’s impeachment trial, and, like Tillis, has struggled in recent polls on her reelection campaign.
Collins, who won her last reelection campaign in Maine by 37 percentage points, trailed Democratic challenger Sara Gideon by 5 points in a recent New York Times/Siena poll. And a Quinnipiac University poll showed Gideon leading by 12 percentage points.
On Saturday, Collins suggested a middle-of-the-road approach: that the Senate Judiciary Committee begin consideration of a Trump nominee, but that no floor vote be held until after a new Congress is in session.
“I would have no objection to the Senate Judiciary Committee’s beginning the process of reviewing [Trump’s] nominee’s credentials,” Collins wrote in a statement. “In fairness to the American people ... the decision on a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court should be made by the President who is elected on November 3rd.”
Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski didn’t address the issue of succession in her statement on Ginsburg’s death. But earlier this year, and just ahead of the justice’s death, she said she would not be in favor of appointing a new justice so close to the election.
Sunday, she stood by her previous remarks: “What was then a hypothetical is now our reality, but my position has not changed,” she said in a statement.
To prevent a new nominee from being seated before the election — or during the lame-duck session — four Republicans would need to vote against confirmation. It’s unclear at this point if there are four willing to buck the party to do so.
As figures like Collins and Graham worked to clarify their positions, some Republicans — like Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, who is on a shortlist of potential new justices Trump released recently — simply pressed ahead in calling for an immediate vote.
In an appearance on Fox News, Cruz argued that seating a new justice is necessary because there will likely be a challenge to November’s election results and an eight-person Court would be insufficient to settle such a conundrum.
We cannot have Election Day come and go with a 4-4 Court. We risk a constitutional crisis if we do not have a 9-Justice Supreme Court, particularly when there is such a risk of a contested election. — Senator Ted Cruz (@SenTedCruz) September 19, 2020
The only candidate who has consistently stated he would contest a lost or close election has been Trump, who is currently trailing Democratic nominee Joe Biden in most national polls. And should a new Trump-appointed justice choose to weigh in on a contested election, the president could be at an advantage in any ruling, given a third Trump appointee would give conservatives an expanded majority on the Court. (A justice appointed ahead of the election would face pressure to recuse themselves, however, leaving the issue to the eight other justices.)
And, of course, Cruz’s argument is curious, given that his colleagues were fine with an eight-person court during the 2016 election.


vox--2020-09-19--Why the number of people getting tested for Covid-19 has dropped in the US

Through the late spring and summer , it looked like America was , slowly but surely , building up its Covid-19 testing capacity .
But since July and particularly the start of September , that progress has stalled out — and the US ’ s testing numbers have fallen significantly overall .
As of September 17 , average daily tests are about 730,000 , down from an average of 780,000 in early September and 830,000 in late July , according to the Covid Tracking Project .
Meanwhile , the percent of tests coming back positive , which is used to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 5 percent — at times above the threshold of 5 percent that experts generally recommend , and exceeding the 3 percent threshold that some have called for .
Experts say the US should instead continue building up its Covid-19 testing capacities to prepare for potential future outbreaks .
Testing , paired with contact tracing , remains crucial to controlling the coronavirus , letting officials isolate the sick , track others who may have been infected and get them to quarantine , and deploy broader public health measures as necessary .
Aggressive testing and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ countries that got their outbreaks under control , including Germany and South Korea .
So why is testing declining in the US ?
According to experts , there are three major factors : The summer ’ s worst Covid-19 outbreaks in the US have receded — reducing demand for tests .
President Donald Trump ’ s administration recently recommended less testing , before backtracking on the changes this week .
And state governments may not be reporting all the tests within their borders , particularly relatively newer antigen tests that are growing in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ paint a grim picture for the US — one in which the country is still testing too little and flying blind , months into the coronavirus pandemic .
“ Every time we make progress in terms of containing the pandemic , we take our foot off the brakes , ” Thomas Tsai , a health policy expert at Harvard , told me .
“ What we really should be doing is to step on the brakes harder , and truly suppress the pandemic .
As a country we seem content with half measures @ @ @ @ @ @ @ situation where we never really suppress community transmission.
” America has continually struggled with testing .
In the spring , it was slow to build up testing capacity due to a mix of federal screw-ups and bureaucratic hurdles , resulting in what ’ s been called a “ lost month ” for confronting Covid-19 .
In the months after , testing did increase .
But then when cases started to spike nationwide in the summer , there were more testing shortages , as some labs reported delays for results as long as weeks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ yet another potential setback .
It ’ s these testing problems , along with other mistakes by Trump and many state officials , that have led to America suffering a massive , deadly Covid-19 epidemic .
While the US hasn ’ t seen the most coronavirus deaths of wealthy nations , it ’ s in the bottom 20 percent for deaths since the pandemic began , and reports seven times the deaths as the median developed country .
If the US had the same death rate as , say , Canada , 115,000 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Now experts are worried the fall and winter could pose big threats .
Schools are reopening , already leading to outbreaks in universities and K-12 settings .
In colder areas , it will become much harder to gather outside , where the virus has a harder time spreading .
Families are bound to gather for the holidays , from Thanksgiving to New Year ’ s Day .
Another flu season is coming , which could strain health care systems when they might be dealing with a surge in Covid-19 cases .
All @ @ @ @ @ @ @ America , right now , seems to have headed in the opposite direction .
One reason that testing may be declining is rooted in good news : Since July and August , coronavirus cases have dropped in the US following the nationwide “ second wave ” over the summer .
At the recent peak in July , the country as a whole averaged more than 65,000 new Covid-19 cases a day .
As of September 17 , it ’ s above 40,000 .
That ’ s still too high — resulting in more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but it ’ s a huge improvement .
That ’ s likely led to less demand for tests .
To some extent , that makes sense : If fewer people are getting sick , or less likely to see others around them get sick , they ’ re not going to want tests as much .
But experts worry this is short-sighted .
If the US wants to get control of the pandemic , it should be testing people aggressively , leveraging broad surveillance to detect new cases quickly and prevent them from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would involve a lot of testing even in communities that don ’ t appear to have many cases right now — to ensure that there aren ’ t any otherwise undetected outbreaks beginning to take form before it ’ s too late .
“ What we need now is a paradigm shift from a diagnostic view of testing towards a screening role of testing , ” Tsai said .
“ We need to be able to test asymptomatic individuals — nursing homes , teachers , students , first responders — to be able @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not just mitigate , but to suppress the pandemic.
” Under this framework , the US can ’ t ease up just because cases have declined .
Instead , the country should be preparing for — and preventing — future waves by building up its testing capabilities right now .
It ’ s an acknowledgment of the reality that the coronavirus will be with us until a vaccine or similar treatment is widely available , and we need to be prepared for it .
There are warning signs right now of what happens @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are dropping nationwide , there have been recent sizable outbreaks in the Midwest and South , with cases spiking in some states , particularly the Dakotas , to levels seen in others earlier this summer .
It ’ s these kinds of outbreaks that more testing would prepare the US for and potentially help nip in the bud .
Trump and his administration , however , have moved in the opposite direction .
Arguing that more tests make the US look bad by revealing more cases , Trump said he told his people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ please.
” It ’ s a ridiculous idea , given that testing only shows us cases that are already there .
But the Trump administration has seemingly embraced the concept : In August , the White House ’ s coronavirus task force pushed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to change its testing guidelines to no longer recommend that people without symptoms get tested even if they come into close contact with someone known to have Covid-19 .
( After reports of White House pressure on the CDC leaked , the CDC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ change could have been one of several factors leading to a decline in tests .
“ It could be due to reduced demand for testing , perhaps due to drops in cases [ and ] deaths , the de-emphasis on testing by the president , and/or confusion caused by the CDC guidance on asymptomatic testing — all of these could contribute to reduced demand , ” Jen Kates , director of global health and HIV policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation , told me .
The problem , experts said , is the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ best misguided and at worst dangerous .
We know that people who don ’ t display symptoms can still transmit the virus — and the virus might spread more in the days before someone develops symptoms .
That ’ s why it ’ s still important to test people who aren ’ t displaying symptoms : There ’ s really no other way to know they ’ re infected and , given that confirmation , act to stop them from spreading the virus further .
Trump , however , has done everything he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ told journalist Bob Woodward on March 19 , “ I wanted to always play it down.
” Trump has said his goal is to prevent a panic , but there ’ s also a clear political motivation : The more he can make it seem like the country is back to normal before November , the more likely he is to get reelected .
To that end , Trump has resisted anything exposing his failures on the coronavirus .
On top of the testing guideline changes , his staff has pushed the CDC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ might make Trump look bad by contradicting his evidence-less claims about Covid-19 .
He also pushed the CDC out of a public leadership role after an official there made grim , but correct , comments about what to expect under the coronavirus .
Trump has even contradicted his own administration ’ s recommendations to push a rosy image of the country ’ s fight against Covid-19 — demanding that states reopen quickly , before they met his administration ’ s recommendations , and getting parts of the public to think ( wrongly ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as his administration recommends public use of masks .
Of course , the reality can ’ t be hidden when it shows up in America ’ s hospitals and morgues every day .
Antigen tests are taking up more of the share of testing There ’ s a more optimistic reason that testing numbers could be declining : Maybe states aren ’ t picking up a significant amount of tests .
Specifically , the Atlantic and Kaiser Health News found that states aren ’ t reporting antigen tests .
These tests can provide @ @ @ @ @ @ @ PCR tests , partly because , unlike PCR tests , antigen tests don ’ t need to go through a lab or hospital .
But this same advantage makes it less likely that the tests will get reported to officials who catalog tests at the local , state , or federal level .
Hospitals and labs are used to tabulating and reporting all of the tests they ’ ve done , then sending off the reports to a local , state , or federal agency .
A nursing home , school , or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ isn ’ t .
As of last week , only about 215,000 antigen tests were reported in the US .
But as the Atlantic reported , that ’ s almost certainly wrong : Testing may be higher than the official data suggests , but the downside is this leaves the country blind .
It ’ s going to be much harder to detect outbreaks in specific cities , counties , or states if tests and their results aren ’ t reported to officials .
This problem will likely get worse as antigen testing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ test is finally mass-produced and widely used .
As Jeffrey Morris , a biostatistics professor at the University of Pennsylvania , told Kaiser Health News , “ It ’ s going to look like your cases are coming down when they ’ re not.
” It comes back to the same point : Testing is necessary to detect , track , and stop outbreaks before they get worse .
If those tests aren ’ t done , or they aren ’ t reported , that job is going to get harder .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Covid-19 — more illnesses , more deaths — as a result .
Help keep Vox free for all Millions turn to Vox each month to understand what ’ s happening in the news , from the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to what is , quite possibly , the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

Through the late spring and summer, it looked like America was, slowly but surely, building up its Covid-19 testing capacity. But after July and particularly at the start of September, that progress stalled out.
As of September 17, average daily tests were at about 730,000, down from an average of 780,000 in early September and 830,000 in late July, according to the Covid Tracking Project. Meanwhile, the percentage of tests coming back positive, which is used to gauge testing capacity, has remained around 5 percent — at times above the threshold of 5 percent that experts generally recommend, and exceeding the 3 percent threshold that some have called for.
Only in the past few days have test numbers begun climbing up, reaching a new high of 1,061,411 tests on September 19, possibly due to an increase in states’ reporting of antigen tests.
Experts say the US should instead continue building up its Covid-19 testing capacities to prepare for potential future outbreaks. Testing, paired with contact tracing, remains crucial to controlling the coronavirus, letting officials isolate the sick, track others who may have been infected and get them to quarantine, and deploy broader public health measures as necessary. Aggressive testing and tracing have been highly successful in other countries that got their outbreaks under control, including Germany and South Korea.
So why did testing decline for weeks in the US?
According to experts, there are three major factors: The summer’s worst Covid-19 outbreaks in the US have receded — reducing demand for tests. President Donald Trump’s administration recently recommended less testing, before backtracking on the changes this week. And state governments may not be reporting all the tests within their borders, particularly relatively newer antigen tests that are growing in use.
Combined, all these factors paint a grim picture for the US — one in which the country is still testing too little and flying blind, months into the coronavirus pandemic.
“Every time we make progress in terms of containing the pandemic, we take our foot off the brakes,” Thomas Tsai, a health policy expert at Harvard, told me. “What we really should be doing is to step on the brakes harder, and truly suppress the pandemic. As a country we seem content with half measures, so we end up in this situation where we never really suppress community transmission.”
America has continually struggled with testing. In the spring, it was slow to build up testing capacity due to a mix of federal screw-ups and bureaucratic hurdles, resulting in what’s been called a “lost month” for confronting Covid-19. In the months after, testing did increase. But then when cases started to spike nationwide in the summer, there were more testing shortages, as some labs reported delays for results as long as weeks. The recent fall in testing is yet another potential setback.
It’s these testing problems, along with other mistakes by Trump and many state officials, that have led to America suffering a massive, deadly Covid-19 epidemic. While the US hasn’t seen the most coronavirus deaths of wealthy nations, it’s in the bottom 20 percent for deaths since the pandemic began, and reports seven times the deaths as the median developed country. If the US had the same death rate as, say, Canada, 115,000 more Americans would likely be alive today.
Now experts are worried the fall and winter could pose big threats. Schools are reopening, already leading to outbreaks in universities and K-12 settings. In colder areas, it will become much harder to gather outside, where the virus has a harder time spreading. Families are bound to gather for the holidays, from Thanksgiving to New Year’s Day. Another flu season is coming, which could strain health care systems when they might be dealing with a surge in Covid-19 cases.
All of this will require more testing. America, for too long, was headed in the opposite direction.
Covid-19 outbreaks have receded
One possible reason that testing declined is rooted in good news: Since July and August, coronavirus cases have dropped in the US following the nationwide “second wave” over the summer.
At the recent peak in July, the country as a whole averaged more than 65,000 new Covid-19 cases a day. As of September 17, it’s above 40,000. That’s still too high — resulting in more than 800 Covid-19 deaths a day — but it’s a huge improvement.
That’s likely led to less demand for tests. To some extent, that makes sense: If fewer people are getting sick, or less likely to see others around them get sick, they’re not going to want tests as much.
But experts worry this is short-sighted. If the US wants to get control of the pandemic, it should be testing people aggressively, leveraging broad surveillance to detect new cases quickly and prevent them from turning into even more cases. That would involve a lot of testing even in communities that don’t appear to have many cases right now — to ensure that there aren’t any otherwise undetected outbreaks beginning to take form before it’s too late.
“What we need now is a paradigm shift from a diagnostic view of testing towards a screening role of testing,” Tsai said. “We need to be able to test asymptomatic individuals — nursing homes, teachers, students, first responders — to be able to expand testing in the communities to not just mitigate, but to suppress the pandemic.”
Under this framework, the US can’t ease up just because cases have declined. Instead, the country should be preparing for — and preventing — future waves by building up its testing capabilities right now. It’s an acknowledgment of the reality that the coronavirus will be with us until a vaccine or similar treatment is widely available, and we need to be prepared for it.
There are warning signs right now of what happens if we ease up: While cases are dropping nationwide, there have been recent sizable outbreaks in the Midwest and South, with cases spiking in some states, particularly the Dakotas, to levels seen in others earlier this summer. It’s these kinds of outbreaks that more testing would prepare the US for and potentially help nip in the bud.
Trump’s interference has likely played a role
Trump and his administration, however, have moved in the opposite direction. Arguing that more tests make the US look bad by revealing more cases, Trump said he told his people to “slow the testing down, please.”
It’s a ridiculous idea, given that testing only shows us cases that are already there. But the Trump administration has seemingly embraced the concept: In August, the White House’s coronavirus task force pushed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to change its testing guidelines to no longer recommend that people without symptoms get tested even if they come into close contact with someone known to have Covid-19. (After reports of White House pressure on the CDC leaked, the CDC reversed the changes.)
The guidance change could have been one of several factors leading to a decline in tests.
“It could be due to reduced demand for testing, perhaps due to drops in cases [and] deaths, the de-emphasis on testing by the president, and/or confusion caused by the CDC guidance on asymptomatic testing — all of these could contribute to reduced demand,” Jen Kates, director of global health and HIV policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation, told me.
The problem, experts said, is the CDC’s guideline changes were at best misguided and at worst dangerous. We know that people who don’t display symptoms can still transmit the virus — and the virus might spread more in the days before someone develops symptoms. That’s why it’s still important to test people who aren’t displaying symptoms: There’s really no other way to know they’re infected and, given that confirmation, act to stop them from spreading the virus further.
Trump, however, has done everything he can to downplay Covid-19. As he told journalist Bob Woodward on March 19, “I wanted to always play it down.” Trump has said his goal is to prevent a panic, but there’s also a clear political motivation: The more he can make it seem like the country is back to normal before November, the more likely he is to get reelected.
To that end, Trump has resisted anything exposing his failures on the coronavirus. On top of the testing guideline changes, his staff has pushed the CDC to change scientific reports and studies that might make Trump look bad by contradicting his evidence-less claims about Covid-19. He also pushed the CDC out of a public leadership role after an official there made grim, but correct, comments about what to expect under the coronavirus.
Trump has even contradicted his own administration’s recommendations to push a rosy image of the country’s fight against Covid-19 — demanding that states reopen quickly, before they met his administration’s recommendations, and getting parts of the public to think (wrongly) that masking is unhelpful or unnecessary, as his administration recommends public use of masks.
Of course, the reality can’t be hidden when it shows up in America’s hospitals and morgues every day.
Antigen tests are taking up more of the share of testing
There’s a more optimistic reason that testing numbers declined: Maybe states weren’t picking up a significant number of tests.
Specifically, the Atlantic and Kaiser Health News found that states aren’t reporting antigen tests. These tests can provide results more quickly than the more widespread PCR tests, partly because, unlike PCR tests, antigen tests don’t need to go through a lab or hospital.
But this same advantage makes it less likely that the tests will get reported to officials who catalog tests at the local, state, or federal level. Hospitals and labs are used to tabulating and reporting all of the tests they’ve done, then sending off the reports to a local, state, or federal agency. A nursing home, school, or private doctor’s office more likely isn’t.
As of last week, only about 215,000 antigen tests were reported in the US. But as the Atlantic reported, that’s almost certainly wrong:
Millions of antigen tests are now being manufactured every month. Quidel, a $6 billion company that makes one of the most widely used antigen tests, says that it began producing at least 1 million tests a week earlier in the summer. In recent days it has upped that rate to nearly 2 million. “We don’t have any inventory,” Doug Bryant, its chief executive, told us. “We ship every day with what we have.” Becton Dickinson, which makes a competing antigen test, has predicted that it would be manufacturing 2 million tests a week by the end of September.
Testing may be higher than the official data suggests, but the downside is this leaves the country blind. It’s going to be much harder to detect outbreaks in specific cities, counties, or states if tests and their results aren’t reported to officials. This problem will likely get worse as antigen testing expands, especially if a much-coveted at-home test is finally mass-produced and widely used. As Jeffrey Morris, a biostatistics professor at the University of Pennsylvania, told Kaiser Health News, “It’s going to look like your cases are coming down when they’re not.”
It comes back to the same point: Testing is necessary to detect, track, and stop outbreaks before they get worse. If those tests aren’t done, or they aren’t reported, that job is going to get harder. And the US will likely suffer more from Covid-19 — more illnesses, more deaths — as a result.


vox--2020-09-19--Trump’s shortlist of potential Supreme Court nominees, explained

On September 9 — just last week — President Trump unveiled his shortlist of candidates to tap for the Supreme Court should a vacancy open up under his presidency .
With Ruth Bader Ginsburg ’ s death Friday night , he now has that opportunity .
The next Trump Supreme Court pick may well come from a list of 20 names he revealed last week , plus a longer list he had already released .
The Trump White House and his allies in the Senate have spent years preparing for the next Supreme Court vacancy .
Indeed , the judicial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and highly competent operation in this administration .
Trump has filled the bench with fairly young , impressively credentialed ideologues who will reliably cast very conservative votes if appointed to the Supreme Court , and his Supreme Court shortlist reflects that work .
Half of the names that Trump just announced are people he previously appointed to a lower court , and several more are individuals he ’ s appointed to non-judicial roles .
And it doesn ’ t actually matter all that much which specific name Trump chooses from his list — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ off-list .
Though Trump has kept his promise to only name Supreme Court justices from a prereleased list , he frequently adds new names to it .
Neither of Trump ’ s Supreme Court appointees , Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh , was on the original list Trump first released in 2016 , but were added in subsequent iterations .
What all the names on the list have in common — both old and new — is that they were vetted by Trump ’ s team ( and often by the conservative Federalist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reliable conservatives .
That said , there is one important divide among the names on Trump ’ s list .
Some , such as former Solicitor General Paul Clement or Fourth Circuit Judge Allison Jones Rushing , are solid conservatives who aren ’ t known for over-the-top , Trumpy rhetoric .
Others , such as Sens .
Ted Cruz ( R-TX ) , Josh Hawley ( R-MO ) , and Tom Cotton ( R-AR ) are politicians who spent their time in Congress flaunting their conservative bona fides and enraging Democrats .
Still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ James Ho and Kyle Duncan , are sitting judges who take the same trolly approach as Cruz , Hawley , and Cotton , but do so from the bench .
The biggest mystery , in other words , is not what the next potential Trump nominee to the Supreme Court might believe , it ’ s whether Trump would pick someone with a professional demeanor — or choose a professional troll .
Who is on Trump ’ s list ?
The 20-name list Trump released last week augments an existing list of 25 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Most of the names on both lists possess many of the elite credentials one would expect to find in a Supreme Court nominee .
Close to half of the individuals on the new list clerked on the Supreme Court shortly after graduating from law school .
And , though the lists include a few politicians like the three senators mentioned above and Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron , both lists are dominated by sitting judges — including many Trump appointees .
Judge Amy Coney Barrett , of the Seventh Circuit , is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ She was favored by religious conservatives for Trump ’ s previous Court pick , perceived as potentially more likely to allow restrictions on abortions than Brett Kavanaugh .
Because so many Trump appointees make the list , many of these judges have not served long enough to develop substantial records on the bench .
But several of the names on Trump ’ s new list will raise deep concerns among Democrats .
Judge James Ho has spent his not even three years on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by Breitbart .
His very first judicial opinion was a sweeping attack on campaign finance laws — and it included an entirely gratuitous swipe at the Affordable Care Act .
Ho argued that “ if you don ’ t like big money in politics , then you should oppose big government in our lives , ” and he cited the Supreme Court ’ s decision largely upholding Obamacare to drive home his point .
Ho has also railed against the “ moral tragedy of abortion ” in an opinion where he accused a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people of faith for not only believing in the sanctity of life—but also for wanting to do something about it.
” Ho ’ s Fifth Circuit colleague Kyle Duncan , meanwhile , spent much of his pre-judicial career litigating against LGBTQ rights and the right to vote .
As a judge , he ’ s best known for an opinion where he spent more than 10 pages explaining why he insists on referring to a transgender woman using masculine pronouns .
Ninth Circuit Judge Lawrence VanDyke is a particularly surprising addition to Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nomination to the federal bench was panned by the American Bar Association due to concerns that VanDyke is too lazy to do the job .
“ Mr .
VanDyke ’ s accomplishments are offset by the assessments of interviewees that Mr. VanDyke is arrogant , lazy , an ideologue , and lacking in knowledge of the day-to-day practice including procedural rules , ” the ABA explained in a scathing letter deeming him unqualified for the federal bench .
The ABA ’ s investigation found that VanDyke “ lacks humility , has an ‘ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an open mind , and does not always have a commitment to being candid and truthful.
” It ’ s unclear why Trump loyalists would want to see someone appointed to the Supreme Court who may lack the temperament and the work ethic to do the job well .
That said , VanDyke is an outlier on Trump ’ s list .
For the most part , the nearly four dozen names Trump has suggested as possible Supreme Court nominees are diligent and highly talented lawyers .
They just also happen to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law sharply to the right .
The White House ’ s judicial selection process is the most professional operation in the Trump administration To his many critics , “ Donald Trump ” is a name practically synonymous with goonish incompetence .
But Trump ’ s judicial selection operation is nothing like that .
It is both efficient and highly effective in identifying reliable conservative ideologues with sterling legal resumes .
In less than four years as president , Trump has appointed 201 lawyers to lifetime appointments on the federal bench , including 53 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Courts of Appeal .
By contrast , President Obama appointed only 55 appellate judges during his eight years as president .
One reason for this disparity is that Senate Republicans , led by McConnell , imposed a near-total blockade on appeals court confirmations during Obama ’ s final two years in the White House .
That meant that Trump has effectively been able to fill all the appeals court vacancies that arose during his presidency , plus nearly all the vacancies that should have been filled in Obama ’ s last two years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , moreover , are quite young .
“ The average age of circuit judges appointed by President Trump is less than 50 years old , ” the Trump White House bragged in November of 2019 , “ a full 10 years younger than the average age of President Obama ’ s circuit nominees.
” And a large percentage of them have amassed impressive credentials such as Supreme Court clerkships and other government jobs of great influence .
All of this is a reason for liberals to be more afraid of Trump ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if Trump were picking undistinguished hacks to fill the bench .
Judges of great ability are far more likely to find innovative ways to reshape the law than incompetents and mediocrities .
Moreover , Trump is filling the bench with some of the Federalist Society ’ s brightest minds at the very moment when the judiciary is gaining power relative to the other branches .
As I wrote several months ago in a piece laying out Trump ’ s impact on the bench : If Trump gets to replace a liberal justice , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accelerate .
Environmental regulations are likely to be dismantled en masse .
Voting rights will be hollowed out even more .
Obamacare could be struck down .
And , perhaps most significantly , purely partisan Republican arguments will gain even more purchase in the Supreme Court .
Anyone Trump names to the Supreme Court , if Trump ’ s allowed to do so , is likely to push the law relentlessly to the right .
Help keep Vox free for all Millions turn to Vox each month to understand what ’ s happening @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crisis to a racial reckoning to what is , quite possibly , the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work , and helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as $ 3 .

On September 9 — just last week — President Trump unveiled his shortlist of candidates to tap for the Supreme Court should a vacancy open up under his presidency.
With Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death Friday night, he now has that opportunity.
The next Trump Supreme Court pick may well come from a list of 20 names he revealed last week, plus a longer list he had already released.
The Trump White House and his allies in the Senate have spent years preparing for the next Supreme Court vacancy.
Indeed, the judicial selection process may be the one professional and highly competent operation in this administration. Trump has filled the bench with fairly young, impressively credentialed ideologues who will reliably cast very conservative votes if appointed to the Supreme Court, and his Supreme Court shortlist reflects that work. Half of the names that Trump just announced are people he previously appointed to a lower court, and several more are individuals he’s appointed to non-judicial roles.
And it doesn’t actually matter all that much which specific name Trump chooses from his list — or whether he ultimately decides to go off-list. Though Trump has kept his promise to only name Supreme Court justices from a prereleased list, he frequently adds new names to it. Neither of Trump’s Supreme Court appointees, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, was on the original list Trump first released in 2016, but were added in subsequent iterations.
What all the names on the list have in common — both old and new — is that they were vetted by Trump’s team (and often by the conservative Federalist Society) to ensure that they are reliable conservatives.
That said, there is one important divide among the names on Trump’s list.
Some, such as former Solicitor General Paul Clement or Fourth Circuit Judge Allison Jones Rushing, are solid conservatives who aren’t known for over-the-top, Trumpy rhetoric. Others, such as Sens. Ted Cruz (R-TX), Josh Hawley (R-MO), and Tom Cotton (R-AR) are politicians who spent their time in Congress flaunting their conservative bona fides and enraging Democrats. Still others, such as Fifth Circuit Judges James Ho and Kyle Duncan, are sitting judges who take the same trolly approach as Cruz, Hawley, and Cotton, but do so from the bench.
The biggest mystery, in other words, is not what the next potential Trump nominee to the Supreme Court might believe, it’s whether Trump would pick someone with a professional demeanor — or choose a professional troll.
Who is on Trump’s list?
The 20-name list Trump released last week augments an existing list of 25 names that he has released gradually.
Most of the names on both lists possess many of the elite credentials one would expect to find in a Supreme Court nominee. Close to half of the individuals on the new list clerked on the Supreme Court shortly after graduating from law school. And, though the lists include a few politicians like the three senators mentioned above and Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron, both lists are dominated by sitting judges — including many Trump appointees.
Judge Amy Coney Barrett, of the Seventh Circuit, is a prominent Trump appointee on both lists. She was favored by religious conservatives for Trump’s previous Court pick, perceived as potentially more likely to allow restrictions on abortions than Brett Kavanaugh.
Because so many Trump appointees make the list, many of these judges have not served long enough to develop substantial records on the bench. But several of the names on Trump’s new list will raise deep concerns among Democrats.
Judge James Ho has spent his not even three years on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit writing opinions that read like something published by Breitbart. His very first judicial opinion was a sweeping attack on campaign finance laws — and it included an entirely gratuitous swipe at the Affordable Care Act. Ho argued that “if you don’t like big money in politics, then you should oppose big government in our lives,” and he cited the Supreme Court’s decision largely upholding Obamacare to drive home his point.
Ho has also railed against the “moral tragedy of abortion” in an opinion where he accused a fellow federal judge of retaliating “against people of faith for not only believing in the sanctity of life—but also for wanting to do something about it.”
Ho’s Fifth Circuit colleague Kyle Duncan, meanwhile, spent much of his pre-judicial career litigating against LGBTQ rights and the right to vote. As a judge, he’s best known for an opinion where he spent more than 10 pages explaining why he insists on referring to a transgender woman using masculine pronouns.
Ninth Circuit Judge Lawrence VanDyke is a particularly surprising addition to Trump’s list because VanDyke’s nomination to the federal bench was panned by the American Bar Association due to concerns that VanDyke is too lazy to do the job.
“Mr. VanDyke’s accomplishments are offset by the assessments of interviewees that Mr. VanDyke is arrogant, lazy, an ideologue, and lacking in knowledge of the day-to-day practice including procedural rules,” the ABA explained in a scathing letter deeming him unqualified for the federal bench. The ABA’s investigation found that VanDyke “lacks humility, has an ‘entitlement’ temperament, does not have an open mind, and does not always have a commitment to being candid and truthful.”
It’s unclear why Trump loyalists would want to see someone appointed to the Supreme Court who may lack the temperament and the work ethic to do the job well.
That said, VanDyke is an outlier on Trump’s list. For the most part, the nearly four dozen names Trump has suggested as possible Supreme Court nominees are diligent and highly talented lawyers. They just also happen to be lawyers who are eager to move the law sharply to the right.
The White House’s judicial selection process is the most professional operation in the Trump administration
To his many critics, “Donald Trump” is a name practically synonymous with goonish incompetence. But Trump’s judicial selection operation is nothing like that. It is both efficient and highly effective in identifying reliable conservative ideologues with sterling legal resumes.
In less than four years as president, Trump has appointed 201 lawyers to lifetime appointments on the federal bench, including 53 to powerful seats on the United States Courts of Appeal. By contrast, President Obama appointed only 55 appellate judges during his eight years as president.
One reason for this disparity is that Senate Republicans, led by McConnell, imposed a near-total blockade on appeals court confirmations during Obama’s final two years in the White House. That meant that Trump has effectively been able to fill all the appeals court vacancies that arose during his presidency, plus nearly all the vacancies that should have been filled in Obama’s last two years in office.
Trump’s judges, moreover, are quite young. “The average age of circuit judges appointed by President Trump is less than 50 years old,” the Trump White House bragged in November of 2019, “a full 10 years younger than the average age of President Obama’s circuit nominees.” And a large percentage of them have amassed impressive credentials such as Supreme Court clerkships and other government jobs of great influence.
All of this is a reason for liberals to be more afraid of Trump’s judges — and potential justices — than if Trump were picking undistinguished hacks to fill the bench. Judges of great ability are far more likely to find innovative ways to reshape the law than incompetents and mediocrities.
Moreover, Trump is filling the bench with some of the Federalist Society’s brightest minds at the very moment when the judiciary is gaining power relative to the other branches. As I wrote several months ago in a piece laying out Trump’s impact on the bench:
If Trump gets to replace a liberal justice, this practice of judicial policymaking will only accelerate. Environmental regulations are likely to be dismantled en masse. Voting rights will be hollowed out even more. Obamacare could be struck down. And, perhaps most significantly, purely partisan Republican arguments will gain even more purchase in the Supreme Court.
Anyone Trump names to the Supreme Court, if Trump’s allowed to do so, is likely to push the law relentlessly to the right.